Sitting of 25 April 2001

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

  EU Aid Programmes
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on EU aid programmes. [157642]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): European Community aid programmes have underperformed badly for many years. They have been poorly focused, with unclear objectives. Unfortunately, the previous Government increased the proportion of British aid going through the European Union from 12 to 30 per cent. and took no action to improve effectiveness. We have, in contrast, worked to get agreement on a radical, poverty focused reform agenda. That is now in place and implementation has begun. We will maintain the pressure for more rapid progress.
  Mr. Paterson: The Blak report published by the European Parliament on 28 March, made a devastating critique of the delivery of aid by the EU. If the reforms are not working, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that member states can spend more aid more effectively themselves?
  Clare Short: I do not believe that anyone has made a more devastating critique than I have. The difference between Conservative and Labour Members—especially myself—is that we are doing something about the problem. The record of the hon. Gentleman's Government was to increase the spend and do nothing about effectiveness. Disgraceful!
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the European Union is giving sufficient importance to delivering primary education to all school children throughout the world, which is one of the main objectives of the British Government?
  Clare Short: In the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement, now the Cotonou agreement, we obtained a commitment to the international development targets which includes the objective of achieving universal primary education. We have been involved with the EC in reforming its delivery mechanisms so that it can put its
  288
  money behind such objectives. Progress is being made, but much more is needed much faster. However, I am pleased that the EU is moving on its objectives.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Secretary of State for her response on Myanmar. Is it the case that the United Kingdom is co-operating in and leading the work there? Is France involved in work in Thailand to create employment opportunities to rescue youngsters and others from prostitution?
  Clare Short: My ministerial colleagues with responsibility for European Union development work would say that the UK has been leading the pressure and the effort that is put into such work. We published a reform agenda, much of which has been delivered. It is agreed and has to be rolled out across the world. No one should give up on their efforts. The situation is bad and reforming something that is malfunctioning takes time and effort. However, that is moving forward with, of course, the agreement of member states.
  On French co-operation in Thailand, I do not know whether they are involved in rescuing young people involved in the sex industry. However, I shall find out and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 28 April is workers memorial day. This year's theme is the worldwide tragedy caused by the use of asbestos. Will she use her office to press to ensure that EU aid is not used to fund capital projects that use asbestos? Will she also press for the sensible implementation over time of a worldwide ban on asbestos?
  Clare Short: I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I do not know whether the EU has rules about the use of asbestos in capital projects. I hope that it does, but I shall check and we will do all we can to deliver on a worldwide agreement not to use asbestos. I was in Sverdlovsk in Russia fairly recently. It produces asbestos and people there boasted about the large amounts that it could produce. I firmly pointed out the danger of that material. I shall look into the issues that he raises and get back to him.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In the Secretary of State's first year of office, she said that she was taking action on the EU aid budget and that she was
  "determined to ensure that this is spent more effectively."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 91W.]
  In her second year of office, she told us that the good thing about something as dreadful as the EU aid budget is that it is quite easy to improve and that things can only get better. However, the report on her third year of office reveals the truth that things have got worse.
  The Ruhle report from the European Parliament shows that in 1999, for the first time ever, more than half the EU aid budget went to countries that are not low income or the least developed. Out of the top 10 countries that get EU aid, only one was poor. Instead of making cheap jibes and blaming the Tories, will she have the courage to

  289
  admit that she has failed to keep her promises on EU aid, or is she just like the rest of her party—all spin and no delivery?
  Clare Short: The hon. Lady gets worse, which is sad because one would think that in four years she would have learned something. I can tell her that 1999 was the second year, and anyone working in the field throughout the world who receives EU aid knows that major reform is in place. The situation has started to get better but it is very bad, and rather like her dreadful party it will take a long time to get better.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: What outcomes she will aim to achieve from the special General Assembly of the United Nations on HIV/AIDS. [157643]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our aim at the United Nations General Assembly special session on HIV/AIDS is for a short, tightly focused and action-oriented political declaration that implements across the world effective programmes for prevention and care, building on the successful reduction of infection levels in countries such as Uganda and Thailand. As my hon. Friend knows, we have invited a representative of the British voluntary sector to join the UK delegation at UNGASS, and I would like to now invite my hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party AIDS group, to join the delegation on behalf of parliamentarians.
  Mr. Gerrard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she join me in welcoming the withdrawal by pharmaceutical companies of their court action in South Africa? Does she agree that it creates an opportunity for the UN to reaffirm the right of developing countries compulsorily to license patents where there is a national emergency so that they can have improved access to drugs, particularly to deal with opportunistic infections? However, that should be done in the context of dealing with the social and economic consequences of HIV, and not just providing medical care.
  Clare Short: I certainly welcome the withdrawal of that court action, which was always ill advised, but it does not mean that we suddenly have an answer to the problem. Even at cost price, anti-retroviral drugs are more expensive than most African countries can afford. They might cost only $1 a day, but most countries in sub-Saharan Africa spend less than $5 a head per year on health care and most poor, infected people are not in touch with any health care system, as my hon. Friend knows. We need international co-operation between the pharmaceutical companies, the Governments of developing countries and the international community to put in place basic health care systems and deliver treatment for opportunistic infections, such as TB, which is killing more people than many other illnesses. I hope now that the court case is out of the way, we can make progress, but I hope also that no one will pretend that anti-retrovirals are the answer, because they are not.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said. There is indeed a great danger that drugs could be seen as the answer to the AIDS pandemic, but they could make it worse if they are not
  290
  used properly. Does the right hon. Lady agree that while education and condom use are the only real answer in the short term, a vaccine against AIDS is the only long-term solution? The international AIDS vaccine initiative needs $1 billion to further its trials and continue research, so when she goes to the United Nations in June, will she persuade other Governments and our own to increase their contributions to ensure that the vaccine becomes a reality?
  Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady. One thing that everyone should know is that infection rates are dropping in many countries. Uganda has led the way with public education and prevention work. Infection rates among young people in Uganda have gone down, and the same is happening in Kenya and Zambia. Things can be done if countries get organised, inform their people, supply condoms and so on. We have been supporting a lot of that work, and there is hope. We should implement all the lessons of success.
  I agree that there can be a vaccine, and that is the view of the scientists. The hon. Lady knows that the UK Government were the first to contribute to the international AIDS vaccine initiative. I understand that there have been many other contributions since, and a shortage of funds is not currently the problem, but I shall check that and do all that I can to ensure that there are sufficient funds to find a vaccine as quickly as possible.
  Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week 50 African heads of state and ex-President Bill Clinton are meeting in Nigeria to set the scene for the UN conference in June. She will be aware also of the remarks of the Minister of Health in Nigeria, who said that no one will escape the devastation in Africa, not least the 50 million who will die in the next decade as a result of HIV and AIDS. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights voted yesterday to support a Brazilian resolution for universal help for everyone with HIV and AIDS, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British Government give practical expression to that resolution?
  Clare Short: I am not familiar with the Brazilian resolution. However, I repeat that most poor and infected people in Africa are not in touch with any health care system; if drugs were free, they would not get them. Since 1997, we have committed £1 billion to help support the building of primary health care systems across the world. That is what we need, along with prevention, care for those who are infected and treatment of opportunistic infections. We must then take up pharmaceutical companies' offer of cheap, anti-retroviral drugs, when that can be done responsibly. We are working on that strongly in the international community. I am glad that there is now a much bigger commitment from African heads of state than previously, so I hope that we can make faster progress.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much private conversation in the Chamber.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on International Development on HIV/AIDS? Hon. Members may not be aware that 2.8 million people died of HIV/AIDS last year, three

  291
  times the number of people who died as a result of murder, violence and war; we are therefore dealing with an important question.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will be increasing the Department's expenditure on HIV/AIDS which, at the moment, amounts to only £1 million per annum? Will she reverse the decline in expenditure on HIV/AIDS in southern Africa? Has she concluded the programme that she was seeking to devise on a new compact or strategy within the Department to tackle the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa and throughout the world?
  Clare Short: I have read a summary of the report, and I am afraid that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted are, unusually, wrong. My Department spent £100 million last year, not £1 million. We shall respond in the normal way; there is obviously some confusion. However, I am happy to confirm that those figures are wrong. We are a leading player in the international system, spend considerably and the budget has been growing. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding.
  On the written strategy, we already have strategies on improving the health of the poorest people, as the hon. Gentleman knows, including our work on HIV/AIDS. A departmental strategy just on HIV/AIDS is about to be published; to be honest, I threw back the previous one, because it was written in impenetrable jargon which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a problem in this area of work, if not all others.
  May I end with a genuine expression of respect for the hon. Gentleman's fantastic contribution to this area of work and his fine chairmanship of the Select Committee? We shall miss him greatly; I admire and respect enormously the work that he has done.
  Barbara Follett: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of calls from some of the large pharmaceutical companies for a Marshall plan to combat HIV/AIDS?
  Clare Short: I have had considerable talks with the pharmaceutical companies and their embarrassment about the court case may have been helpful. Those who call for an end to all intellectual property rules are not being helpful, as we need a global agreement to provide drugs and basic health care systems in the poorest countries. We can then provide drugs cheaply at cost or even less, but that has to be in return for a deal involving higher prices in developed countries so that pharmaceutical companies can get some return on their investment, particularly their massive research budgets. Otherwise, we will not get new cures for things like malaria and other diseases of poverty.
  I am therefore hopeful that we can get a global agreement—if that is what my hon. Friend means by a Marshall plan—involving Governments, international financial institutions, purchasing funds, agreements on intellectual property and agreements that drugs that are provided. cheaply to the poorest countries will not be exported to the richest, otherwise we will dry up the funding of research. I am hopeful that we will get there.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: May I strongly agree with the Secretary of State in her tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has chaired the Select Committee
  292
  magnificently for the past four years? On that point, will she reconsider her response to the report, of which she has read the summary, but not the main body? Whether the figures are, or are not, correct, does she not accept that the carefully considered report shows that there has been a dramatic decline in the United Kingdom's bilateral aid spend on HIV/AIDS in Africa over the past three years? Given the importance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to people in many African countries, will she reconsider and make sure that that decline in spending is reversed in the next few years?
  Clare Short: No. My respect for the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is second to none. There will be the proper and normal response to the Select Committee's report. The Committee has produced many high-quality reports. However, the figures are false, as are the claims that are based on them. We shall provide full details so that the hon. Gentleman and others who read them will be persuaded that the figures are wrong.
  Mr. Streeter: I shall make one further point before the Secretary of State goes to the United Nations to discuss HIV/AIDS in Africa. Does the right hon. Lady agree that partly the success in Uganda is because donor Governments have worked closely with the Government of Uganda in agreeing a strategy for that country? There has been more success in Uganda because of the acceptance of that strategy by the Ugandan Government, who are working with bilateral donors? Does the right hon. Lady accept that, as is so often the case, our bilateral spend is much more effective than much of the money that is spent through multilateral agencies? Will she not take the route of giving more to the UN and spending less bilaterally, and ensure that we are at the forefront of the attack on HIV/AIDS in Africa? We are looking forward to seeing the strategy document, which I hope will put the UK at the forefront in tackling a dreadful disease that is killing so many people in Africa.
  Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman discusses these matters with those who are working on them in the international community, I am happy to say that I think he will find that the UK is seen to be at the forefront. I agree that when Governments give the lead, from president through to every village in public education, there is behaviour change, of the sort that we have seen among young people in Uganda. When Governments give the lead—more are doing so in Africa now—we can be more effective.
  I do not agree that we should be divisive and say that bilateral is always best. We should work bilaterally where we have our historical obligations, and we should learn our lessons. We should be working also to make contributions to the multilateral system so as to make it more efficient. We should aim for an efficient and competent international development system that is working throughout the world. If we confine ourselves to the UK effort, there will be many countries where we do not make a contribution. Working as we have been, our influence spreads, as does the improvement in effectiveness throughout the world. That is the right approach.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: When my right hon. Friend goes to the UN General Assembly, will she say that when the target of

  293
  0.7 per cent. of gross national product was set for aid, that was pre-AIDS? We now need much more than a contribution of 0.7 per cent to tackle the problems in southern Africa. If we are to put in the basic services, every country that is in a position to do so will have massively to increase its aid.
  Clare Short: As my hon. Friend will know, the world is going in the opposite direction. We have recently had the new preliminary figures from the Development Assistance committee in Paris, which monitors the world's performance. I am pleased to say that the UK is contributing 0.31 per cent. and is the world's fourth largest donor. That is a record for our country. However, overall international contributions are declining. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is terrible, especially in the face of the scourge of HIV/AIDS. We must do more to mobilise international public opinion. Public opinion is changing in the UK, and so we must make our contribution to the international effort. I agree with my hon. Friend.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Andrew George: What recent assessment she has made of the transport infrastructure needs of the island of St. Helena. [157645]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are currently awaiting the results of a comparative study of air and sea access which will identify the least-cost solution to the island's future international passenger and cargo transport needs. The final report is expected shortly and its recommendations will then need to be discussed with the St. Helena Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed, subject to the outcome of the study, that the Department for International Development would provide funding equal to the least capital cost option—that is either the cost of replacing RMS St. Helena or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure.
  Mr. George: In the Secretary of State's written reply to me on 27 March, I was told that the Department would be responding to the report that was available then within a week. The governor of St. Helena, David Hollamby, is in London this week. Surely there is an opportunity to make more rapid progress. What timetable can the Minister produce so that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible?
  Mr. Mullin: In the written reply, the hon. Gentleman was told that we would comment on a draft of the report within a week. I understand that that happened. We expect the report to be delivered shortly. The matter will then need to be discussed with the Government of St. Helena. When we have done that, we will reach a conclusion.
  Jean Corston: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1999, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference was held in Trinidad and Tobago? Most delegates were able to get home quite quickly, even those who lived in some of the Pacific archipelagos, whereas the St. Helena delegate said that it
  294
  would take him three and a half weeks to get home. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not assist the viability of St. Helena?
  Mr. Mullin: The problem is under careful consideration. We must take full account of the costs involved. St. Helena is second among the overseas territories in terms of the amount of aid that we already give. There must, of course, be limits, which is why we say that we will fund the least cost option. The matter is being carefully thought about. Watch this space.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the Minister recognise that hon. Members from all parts of the House who have met St. Helena delegates at Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences over the years consider it outrageous that people should have to travel three and a half weeks by sea from a Commonwealth country to Cardiff to exercise their democratic rights? At the beginning of a new century, is it not right that the Government should recognise their responsibilities to democratic representatives in Commonwealth countries, by ensuring proper air connections?
  Mr. Mullin: St. Helena is a very remote island. That is a fact with which we all have to cope. The time taken to get there is the same under this Government as it was under the previous Government. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The disruption is unfair.
  Mr. Mullin: We are carefully considering the options. We are doing that along with the Government of St. Helena, but there is no magic solution to the problem. It is a matter of geographical location, which not even the Government whom the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) supported were able to resolve.

  World Bank Business Partnership
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: When she will next meet the Development Committee of the European Parliament to discuss the World Bank's business partnership for development. [157646]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have met on a number of occasions with the European Parliament development committee to try to encourage stronger support for the reform of EC development efforts. In particular, we need to change EC financial regulations so that the Commission is able to collaborate with other international development institutions without first undertaking an audit. It seems fairly shocking that the EC of all bodies audits all other international organisations, whose performance is probably rather better, before it gives any money through them.
  Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is aware of the excellent support given by her Department to the World Bank's new business partnership for development, and the great success that many such projects are having, including the one that I will chair from June this year. As my right hon. Friend knows, by 2010 6 million people in the developing world will die not of AIDS, but because

  295
  of traffic accidents, and 60 million will be seriously injured. I hope that she will speak straightforwardly to the European Parliament and the European Commission so that they can play an active part in supporting those innovations to stop such unnecessary loss of life and serious injury, and do that in partnership with business.
  Clare Short: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being selected as chair of the global road safety partnership. He is right: 10 million people a year throughout the world are badly injured in road accidents, 70 per cent. of them in developing countries. In developing countries, that does not mean just disability; it often throws families into poverty. It is an issue that we need to take more seriously. Numbers will rise and we must all co-operate with the important World Bank work. I wish my hon. Friend well with his efforts.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Lady nevertheless agree that the World Bank partnerships are extremely valuable, and that they deserve support, commitment and, above all, time to be made to work?
  Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. All such partnerships are about working with the private sector to promote development—for example, water, sanitation and better transport systems. The public sector cannot afford what the developing world needs in all those areas, but with collaboration, proper regulation and help with feasibility studies, we can get much greater investment into developing countries and improve people's lives. Such ways of working are helping to produce results.

  Somalia
  Mr. David Lammy: If she will make a statement on Government aid to Somalia. [157647]
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Somalia has had no Government since 1991 and is therefore suffering great poverty and instability. There is a growing demand among the people for the re-establishment of government. We support the recent establishment of the transitional Government and hope that they will secure order and development. We are providing assistance in Somalia through NGOs and stand ready to support UN peace-building programmes.
  Mr. Lammy: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response. The transitional Government are making some progress, but as there has been no direct British aid since 1993–94, does she now believe that there is a greater case for support of the transitional Government and of the Somali people?
  Clare Short: I am afraid that the transitional Government are based on an agreement to bring order and government, but that has not yet been achieved. We need to support this effort. David Stevens, the United Nations Secretary General's special representative in Somalia, is hopeful about the new arrangements. Through the UN, we need to support the transitional Government in creating order, and then some co-operation with Puntland, to move
  296
  forward development in Somalia. I agree with my hon. Friend's objective, but we need a bit more progress before we can have full-blooded development.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 April.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
  Mr. Robertson: I have given notice of this question.
  The Prime Minister will be aware of the explosion that took place last year at the Cleansing Services group, a chemical works in my constituency. The explosion occurred even though we had given the Environment Agency plenty of notice that the site was not safe. Given the company's total disregard for the environment and its neighbours, to the extent that even the fire and rescue service cannot guarantee that it would turn up at another incident on the site, does he agree that closure is the only safe option? Will he order a public inquiry into the Environment Agency's abilities to monitor such a site? Will he please action those things today?
  The Prime Minister: The issue of closure is a matter for the Environment Agency. It has suspended the waste management licence, and it will remain suspended until the agency is satisfied that it no longer needs to be. If I can turn to the issue of a public inquiry—I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his question—this was, of course, a private company. We asked the chairman of the Environment Agency to take personal responsibility for producing the initial report, and he did so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was a very hard-hitting report on the lessons to be learned. We understand the concerns and calls for a public inquiry. A further agency report is due shortly. As soon as we receive that report, we will then make a determination as to whether there should be a full public inquiry.
  Ms Linda Perham: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great concern in my constituency about street crime and youth vandalism, especially on local buses? Will he give the highest priority to continuing the drive to improve police recruitment and retention?
  The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that the number of recruits is up by some 77 per cent. There is the largest increase in police numbers for more than a decade. As I gather that some Opposition Members have been criticising the Government for spending money on advertising campaigns, I point out that this money is being used to get more teachers, nurses and police in our public

  297
  services. That is the difference between a party that is investing in our public services and a party that is committed to cutting them.
  Mr. William Hague: Given that the Government have now spent more than £62 million of taxpayers' money on advertising themselves and their schemes in the first three months of this year—more in three months than ever before in history—how much have they allocated to the British Tourist Authority to promote tourism overseas in the light of the foot and mouth crisis?
  The Prime Minister: We have already allocated, as was described the other day, some £6 million to the tourist councils. There is, however, more money that will be allocated to them, which we will be announcing in the next few days. As for the money that is being spent on Government advertising, let me repeat again that the vast bulk of this is for campaigns that either ensure that we recruit the people we need for our public services, or that we are making sure that, for example, people entitled to the children's tax credit get it. I might just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, a few months ago, the Conservatives were complaining about recruitment in the public sector and saying that we had to do something about it.
  Mr. Hague: The Government spent £3.5 million on the anti-benefit fraud campaign, which, according to their evaluation, led to no increase in reporting benefit fraud. The Government's report stated:
  "the result of the campaign was that respondents … perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit"
  than they had previously thought. That report is available in the Library.
  The sum of £3 million has been spent on promoting take-up of the minimum income guarantee. Again, the evaluation states that it has
  "missed … 500,000 pensioners who are entitled to MIG but do not claim it."
  It is therefore ludicrous for the Prime Minister to claim that such things are indispensable.
  There are 1.75 million people working in the tourist industry. Bookings have decreased massively, and the BTA says that it needs £7 million now to stop bookings being cancelled. Is not it time that the Government stopped spending record sums on advertising themselves and spent some of it on advertising Britain?
  The Prime Minister: Although it is true that some people have yet to take up the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—which, of course, Conservatives oppose—hundreds of thousands of pensioners throughout the country have that guarantee for the first time, thanks to the Government.
  I agree that we need to do everything that we can for the tourist industry. Some £200 million of benefit to business is out there as a result of Government expenditure. The best thing that we can do for the tourist industry is help bring trade back to tourist areas. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members to help us
  298
  by showing a responsible attitude to the countryside that allows it to be open where it should be and enables tourism to return to it.
  Mr. Hague: It is no good agreeing with what we say but doing nothing about it. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand the urgency of the problem. Five weeks ago, I proposed to him an emergency interest-free loan scheme—an emergency loan scheme to help rural businesses—yet the Government have responded with an interest-charging scheme that would plunge more into difficulty. After five weeks of dithering, will he introduce an interest-free loan scheme and realise that there is a difference between spinning and delivering?
  The Prime Minister: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is better to build on existing schemes rather than introducing an entirely new scheme, which costs £500 million according to his figures. Doubtless the shadow Chancellor has told him where he will get the money—Or perhaps not. So far, more than £32 million has been allocated in rate relief and extending the small firms loan guarantee scheme has meant another £22 million and there is additional support for regional development agencies. There is £90 million of direct Government support and, as I have said, up to £200 million of benefit to businesses.
  I have spoken to many people in the tourist industry—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has, too—and they say that they mostly need people to return to their areas. The position is not helped by people such as the shadow tourism Minister, who, when the case of the slaughterman with symptoms of foot and mouth disease—it remains unconfirmed—was announced, said that it was a massive setback for the tourism industry and would not help it. People in the tourism industry need less of that and more helpful talk from the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jeff Ennis: Does the Prime Minister know about the new millennium clinic in Montagu hospital in Mexborough? Its waiting time for hernia and other minor operations is only four to eight weeks. Will he join me in congratulating all the staff, who have recently been awarded beacon status? Does not that underline what can be achieved under a Government who are firmly committed to the future of the NHS, unlike the Conservative party? [Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: Opposition Members are being a trifle hopeful vis-à-vis my hon. Friend.
  As it happens, I know about the millennium clinic at the Montagu hospital in Mexborough, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the waiting times are down to four to eight weeks. This is part of a programme throughout the country that is putting money into accident and emergency departments, building new clinics, hiring more nurses and doctors, and making sure that, year on year, we get the investment into the health service that it needs. It will take time to do that, but that money is now coming in and the investment stands in sharp contrast to

  299
  the commitment of the Conservatives to cut that money. As we know from the shadow Chancellor this morning, they are still opposed to the Government's spending plans.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given one of today's reports, will the Prime Minister clarify the situation in respect of the future of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Does he intend to scrap it, reform it, restructure it or change it in due course? What is he going to do?
  The Prime Minister: The report in this morning's newspaper was nonsense.
  Mr. Kennedy: May I, therefore, say to the Prime Minister that one of the lessons of the present foot and mouth difficulties that the country has been confronting is that a rural affairs ministry in the Scottish context has proved to give a more co-ordinated and integrated approach than the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Whitehall level? May I recommend to him that, if he is looking at the future of MAFF, he should look at that model?
  The Prime Minister: Although I am pleased at the progress that has been made in Scotland, it has to be pointed out that in Scotland the disease is effectively only in one part of the country. In England, the disease has been in many different parts of the country, and has therefore involved a far bigger logistical and practical exercise.
  I would also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the policy that has been pursued, the average number of cases per day now is about one third of what it was a few weeks ago. We are therefore slaughtering tens of thousands fewer animals every day. In relation to the normal food production chain, we are now back up to about 90 per cent. of pigmeat production, about 80 per cent. of cattle and almost 50 per cent. of lambs. There is still a long way to go, but we are making enormous progress. I remind Opposition Members that there were predictions that we would be up to 80 cases a day by about this point; in fact, we are nowhere near that, and the numbers are coming down.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: This morning, 3,100 skilled and productive Motorola workers and their families woke to the grim reality of redundancy. What immediate Government support is proposed for them? Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that they are not to be sacrificed because it is cheaper and easier to sack Scottish workers than their continental European equivalents? As Motorola will continue to be a very important manufacturer in Scotland, even after the Bathgate plant is closed, what commitment has it given to a continued presence in Scotland and to future investment?
  The Prime Minister: First, I totally understand the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency and in many others at the loss of jobs at Motorola. In relation to the response of the Government, we are obviously working now with the Scottish Executive to see what we can do to
  300
  help the workers affected. I would also like to quote William Dunn of West Lothian council, who said last night:
  "However, in the last 12 months, we have created over 7,000 jobs within West Lothian and we see that we can at least take some of these people into our economy … straight away."
  We shall obviously have to work to make sure that that happens.
  On consultation, we conformed fully with all the European Union requirements on this, including those on consulting about collective redundancies in European works councils. I do not think that that is the issue. Just in the past 10 weeks, in this sphere of industry, there have been 100,000 job losses worldwide. In many countries round the world, there have been job losses as a result of the downturn in that market. What we have to do is work very closely with the Scottish Executive and with the work force to make sure that those who are made redundant are found new jobs.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great surprise outside in the country at his reported proposal to supply free CDs to habitual young offenders? He is used to turning the meaning of the English language on its head. Does he not agree that this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "He's got a record"?
  The Prime Minister: I can only guess that it took the hon. Gentleman a very long time to think that one up.
  There is only one problem with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that it is completely false. There is no question of giving any incentives to young offenders. What I announced in respect of proposals to reward young people engaged in voluntary work is not for young offenders; it is for those young people who are undertaking voluntary work in their local communities. As ever, the Conservative party got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
  Mr. Clive Efford: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to figures published this month by the employment unit on the new deal for under-25s? They show that 380,000 people passing through the new deal have found jobs, rather than the 250,000 figure that we said that we would achieve at the last general election. Moreover, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment in my constituency.
  Does that not contrast with the "On your bike" policies of the last Government—"On your bike" being, of course, what the Tories are itching to say to their leader after the next election? Does it not also demonstrate—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister can answer the hon. Gentleman.
  The Prime Minister: We have not yet extended the new deal to Leaders of the Opposition, but I note my hon. Friend's representation.
  Long-term youth unemployment is down by some 80 per cent. There has been a huge reduction over the past few years, but it has been achieved not merely through the strength of the economy but through the new deal

  301
  itself. However much Opposition Members may oppose it, tens of thousands—indeed, hundreds of thousands—of young people and others have had, for the first time in their lives, some real hope and real opportunity, and a chance to make something of themselves. In a decent civic society, if we want responsibility from people we should also give them opportunity.
  Mr. John Redwood: When, after the thousands of job losses that took place yesterday—not just at Motorola—the Prime Minister says, "No more boom or bust", how does he define an economic bust?
  The Prime Minister: If that was a leadership bid, it was unfortunate. I can define a bust: it happened when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Conservative Government. It happened not when debt was under control, unemployment was falling and interest rates were low, as is the case under this Government, but in the early 1990s when interest rates were at 15 per cent., debt was soaring, taxes were going up and public spending was being cut.
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: Is the Prime Minister aware of a project in my constituency, where the area police team has established a mobile unit that it calls "the pod"? It is funded by the local authority and the Guinness Trust housing association. The pod can be moved rapidly from problem area to problem area. It provides a focal point for the community, raises the profile of the police and is working well. Will the Prime Minister consider using the same initiative in other areas? Will he also confirm that 13 additional police officers are on the way to Rochdale's Heywood and Middleton division this year?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the extra police officers are well worth it.
  The pod scheme has been an immense success in my hon. Friend's area, and we are considering how it could be extended to other parts of the country. Ultimately it is a decision for local police and local authorities on the ground, but there is increasing evidence from around the country that youth offending can indeed be reduced provided that the right measures are in place—investment, and also the local strategic partnership that brings together police, local authorities, schools and others. That is one reason why overall crime is down by some 10 per cent. since the last election.
  Mr. William Hague: Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to increase taxes at all. Will he now repeat his promise?
  The Prime Minister: What I promised before the last election was that we would not increase the basic or the top rate of tax. We have not done that. As for any commitments we give at the next election, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the manifesto.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows that he did not just promise no increase in tax rates. On 21 September 1995, he said:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all".
  302
  On 2 August 1996, he said:
  "Our proposals do not involve raising taxes."
  On 8 January 1997, he said that the Labour party's programme
  "does not imply any tax increases at all."
  The reason that he cannot repeat those promises is that he knows that he has introduced 45 new taxes in this Parliament—the largest increase in any peacetime parliament—and if he really believed that he had cut taxes, there would be no reason not to repeat those promises. Let us test whether even he believes the things that he has said. Will he repeat his promise of no tax increases at all?
  The Prime Minister: I have already said what promises we gave at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman says that we said that nothing would change at all, but he forgets that we promised a utility tax to fund the new deal, and we implemented it. In fact, the tax burden rose in the period in which he was a member of the Cabinet. In the first part of this Parliament, it is true that tax revenues rose, because we had to deal with the huge deficit and doubled national debt that we inherited, but the other reason why the overall amount of revenue is higher now is that vastly more people are now in work than in the Tory years.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister will not repeat his promise because the truth is that he broke it and he knows that he broke it. He said that there would be no tax increases at all, but he has levied higher taxes on marriages, mortgages, petrol, pensions, savings, charities, insurance policies, house buying, cars, small businesses, large businesses and self-employment. Is not it the case that whether he makes yet another bogus pledge on income tax rates or not, the British people know that taxes have gone up under Labour and will always go up under Labour?
  The Prime Minister: That would be slightly more credible were it not for the fact that the actual tax burden is lower than in six out of the 10 years under Mrs. Thatcher—if I can mention that person to the right hon. Gentleman. I have just explained to him how the tax burden went up in the last two years of the Government of whom he was a member. If the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit, the cut in the basic rate of income tax, and the lower national insurance charges—especially for those at the lower end of the income scale—are taken into account, many people have had substantial reductions in income tax.
  More important than anything else is the fact that we have an economy in which, as a result of the prudent measures that have been taken, mortgages are running at half the level they were in the Conservative years. That is why the average mortgage holder is saving around £1,500 a year. The issue is not simply the amount of tax taken, which—as I said—is often a function of the number of people in work: it is also the strength of the economy and the number of jobs. In all those areas, we are in an infinitely stronger position as a result of the measures that we have taken. As I said to the right hon. Member for

  303
  Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) earlier, if we were ever to follow the path that he suggests, we would be back to Tory boom and bust and everyone's taxes would go up.
  Mr. Phil Sawford: Will my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the observations of the shadow Health Secretary who, after his visit to Kettering general hospital earlier this week, said that it seemed that hospitals in the area were not doing badly? In the past four years we have had massive investment, including a new endoscope suite, a new orthopaedic theatre, a new ophthalmic unit and a new CAT scanner. I could go on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we carry on at the present rate, the Conservatives might some day recognise that we are doing very well in Kettering?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that the local people will recognise that. The investment in the health service is matched by the record investment in schools. I am sure that my hon. Friend could have read out a list of schools receiving capital investment, and I know that Kettering will receive extra police as a result of our investment.
  Before Conservative Members get too confident about their chances in relation to my hon. Friend, I remind them that we will go into the next election promising to carry on that investment in schools, hospitals, police and pensions. I shall remind them what they will fight the next election on because it was set out by the shadow Chancellor in a letter to The Times this morning, in which he repeated the fact that he will reduce the 3.3 per cent. increase in public spending, to which we are committed, to below 2 per cent. So that means—[Interruption.] "Yes", they are all saying. That amounts to the £16 billion in cuts to which we know that the Opposition are committed. The choice for my hon. Friend's constituents will be very simple. It will be between investments under us and cuts under them.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the Prime Minister recall my asking him at Prime Minister's Question Time on 2 December 1998 whether he stood by his party's commitment before the last election to legislate on age discrimination? His answer was:
  "Yes, we stand by it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 879.]
  Does he still stand by it? Does he still intend to legislate on age discrimination in this Parliament, or will that be just one more broken Labour promise?
  The Prime Minister: I take it that that is a commitment from the Opposition to introduce such legislation—not that they did anything about it during their 18 years in office. In a series of agreements with employers, we have set out codes of practice to be followed by them in relation to age discrimination. We have not ruled out age discrimination legislation, but we thought it right to try the voluntary approach first, because that is what large parts of business wished us to do. I have no doubt that, had we introduced age discrimination legislation, he would have accused us of over-regulating industry.
  Ms Julie Morgan: What measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind for continuing the drop in unemployment, which has already
  304
  resulted in the lowest unemployment rates in Wales for 25 years? In my constituency, it has resulted in a decline in youth unemployment of 70 per cent., and a drop of 90 per cent. in long-term unemployment.
  The Prime Minister: What we will do, of course, is continue with the new deal, which helps into work those who are especially vulnerable in the labour market, such as long-term unemployed young people, lone parents, and so on. However, the single most important thing for the Government to do is to carry on running a strong and well-disciplined economy. The difficulty with the Conservative party's plans is that, because they mean that we would go back to the policies pursued in the early 1990s, very many fewer people would be in work and mortgages would be far higher. The only way that we are going to make sure that we keep the number of jobs in the economy that we have at present is by running a strong economy, with low inflation and low interest rates, with the national debt under control and with big investment in the public services that guarantees jobs in the future.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: This week, the Government granted a permit for an incinerator in Guildford that is 10 years out of date. Until Ministers get to grips with the health risks of such incinerators—and the strategic need for them—should not we have a moratorium on them?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that this is a problem that Governments of all political colours have had to deal with for years. It is a difficult matter, but there is a need for such facilities, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. Of course such decisions are difficult, because people never want such facilities in their local patch. However, any Government in power would have to decide that such incinerators have to go somewhere. I am sure that we will listen to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the truth is that, irrespective of which party is in government, this is something that has to be done.
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cammell Laird shipyard in my Jarrow constituency is the last working yard on the south bank of the Tyne? May I urge him to make every effort to ensure that the successful bidder for the yard continues the Tyneside tradition of shipbuilding and ship repair? Will he make extra efforts to ensure that the City spivs now circulating do not get their hands on the yard, which they will flog off and strip of its assets so that they can build yuppie houses for their friends?
  The Prime Minister: I will deal with the Cammell Laird aspect of that question. Of course, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. Given Cammell Laird's continuing interest in Ministry of Defence work, it is important that we do everything that we can to help the company. In that connection, I know that my hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a huge boost in the number of apprentices at the yard, and elsewhere in the shipbuilding industry. However, it is obviously important that the yard competes for work on the same basis as other yards.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Following the Government's humiliating defeat in another place last night, will the Prime Minister finally agree with the views of medical charities, the British Medical Association and the Opposition and withdraw his mad plans to abolish community health councils?
  The Prime Minister: No, we will not, because the replacement of community health councils by patient forums and patient councils is, we believe, and as the College of Health made clear earlier, a better way to make sure that patients' interests are represented. There has been a debate about community health councils for many years, but patient forums and patient councils will bring patients better into the machinery of decision making in the health service than anything before, which is why this move has been welcomed by the NHS Federation and the College of Health.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Prime Minister is experienced in the terrible consequences that follow when foot and mouth occurs in a locality. Will he translate that experience to Northern Ireland, a small geographical area which is totally dependent on
  306
  agriculture? Some 75 per cent. of its livestock has to be exported, and the tourist industry is devastated. We will not be able to afford to pay consequential loss compensation out of our block grant, which is insufficient for those purposes. Given the £37 billion surplus in the Treasury, will he give an assurance that extra funding will be made available to Northern Ireland for the financial fallout of foot and mouth?
  The Prime Minister: We are looking to see what we can do to help businesses that are suffering as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, I go back to the point that I made a short time ago. The only way to help tourist businesses is by bringing tourism to them. In respect of the overall situation, we have to ensure that the disease is eradicated. The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks, difficult and ghastly though they have been, with the number of animals that have had to be slaughtered, are the only way that we are able, and have been able, to bring the disease under control. Unless we can eradicate the disease quickly, there will be no swift return to normality for the areas affected. We will look at the help that we can give and some measures will be announced in the next few days, but the single best thing that we can do is to eradicate the disease as swiftly as possible so that life gets back to normal.

Motorola, Bathgate
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: Private notice question. Mr. Dalyell.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your thoughtful and considerate words, in answer to a point of order yesterday, to those who have lost their jobs at Bathgate, and for allowing me to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, of which I have given him private notice—namely, if he will make a statement on the Government's actions in relation to Motorola in Bathgate?
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will share with me and, I think, most Members of the House, the feelings of regret and disappointment caused by Motorola's decision to close its plant at Easter Inch in Bathgate. This is a bitter blow for hard-working people and their families. In considering our response to this an announcement, we need to be aware of the reasons for Motorola's decision and the steps that will need to be taken to help those individuals affected and the communities in which they live.
There is no doubt that Motorola is facing a difficult position with the sharp downturn in the market for mobile telephones. That was the reason given for yesterday's decision. As a consequence of this global decline, Motorola announced trading losses of £140 million for the first quarter of this year.
The closure of the Easter Inch factory is part of the wider rationalisation of global production capacity by Motorola personal communications sector—its mobile phones division. Since December, Motorola has announced plans to cut 12,000 jobs worldwide in this sector alone. It is closing two plants in the United States and cutting its work force in Brazil. In Europe, Motorola has sold its Dublin facility, with a major loss of jobs.
The Scottish Executive have bean in constant contact over the past few weeks with Motorola both in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The Government have backed the Scottish Executive's efforts. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made representations to Motorola.
In the end, Motorola took a decision that it believes to be in the long-term commercial interests of the company. However, there is no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. It will be a devastating blow for individuals, the families and the communities in which they live.
The first priority must be to pursue with Motorola future options for the Bathgate site. We need to explore every possible future use of that excellent facility. There are a wide variety of options to explore with the company—ranging from sale as a going concern to, possibly, sale to a contract manufacturer or to another related business. The other alternatives include new employment for a new employer purchasing the site. Invest UK stands ready to assist the Scottish Executive in that task.
In order to assist the individuals affected, the Scottish Executive are setting up a taskforce, made up of Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, the Employment
308
Service, West Lothian council, the careers service, the Benefits Agency and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The taskforce will draw up an action plan to meet the needs of the Motorola workers. Subject to the agreement of Motorola, that is likely to include an on-site jobshop, business start-up workshops and other support to assist people to find jobs—[Interruption.] The Conservatives may joke at the measures that we are putting in place to help those affected by the decision, but Labour Members and people in Scotland know only too well what the Conservatives did in the 1980s: they did nothing for the people of Scotland—that is the reality of the situation.
Because those individuals need assistance, the taskforce has been set up and has already begun its work to help them. The action plan will meet the needs of those individuals. The Scottish Executive are setting aside up to £10 million to help fund the action plan. It has been made clear to Motorola that it will have to pay back the £16.75 million in regional selective assistance that it has received for the plant during the past six years. That will be the largest clawback of RSA grant in the history of Scotland.
Although the Bathgate decision is a real body blow, we must not forget that Motorola will remain a major employer—and the largest electronic manufacturer—in Scotland. The company has given assurances that its semiconductor operations at East Kilbride and South Queensferry are unaffected by yesterday's decision; we welcome that. The company remains committed to a software development centre at Livingston and to the planned next generation of semiconductor technology in Dunfermline. Despite the decision, towards the end of last year, to reconsider the timing of the Dunfermline plan, Motorola has emphasised its underlying commitment to that project.
We would expect that workers from Bathgate, affected by yesterday's decision, will have the opportunity to retrain and to apply for those new jobs being created by Motorola in Scotland. The company has confirmed that it looks forward to building on its 32 years' association with Scotland, and that it sees Dunfermline as the cornerstone of its future investment.
It is clear that, at a time of globalisation, many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring, and that there are bound to be implications for us in the United Kingdom owing to the slowdown in the world economy, especially in the United States. However, we should not overstate our difficulties. Most forecasters expect manufacturing output to grow this year. The medium-term prospects appear good with productivity having grown at 6 per cent. Exports are also growing, with manufacturing export volumes up by more than 10 per cent. in the last year.
No country can ever insulate itself from world economic events, but it is because of the decisive action that we have taken—introducing tough fiscal rules, reducing the national debt, making the Bank of England independent and delivering the lowest inflation for 30 years—that British economic policy is much better placed than it has ever been in the past.
We are on course to continue to deliver stability and sustained growth, but it is an extremely difficult time for individuals and communities when jobs are lost as industries restructure in the face of change. It is even more frustrating when, as in this case, those losses arise because

309
of global managerial decisions based on financial problems in one sector, despite the success and the profits coming from the plant that has been earmarked for closure.
This will be a difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. The Bathgate work force are productive and highly skilled. I know that, working with local and national agencies and the Scottish Executive, the United Kingdom Government will do all we can to assist them to find new jobs.
The closure of the Easter Inch plant will take place over six to 12 months. Motorola, the Scottish Executive, the Employment Service and the Government will work together to ensure that employees are found new employment before redundancy takes effect.
Bathgate has suffered from job losses before. In the 1980s, unemployment reached 17 per cent. but, through hard work and commitment, the situation has been turned around. As a result, the current rate of unemployment in West Lothian stands at 3.8 per cent.—a great success story. However, I am the first to acknowledge that those figures will be of little comfort to the workers affected by the announcement. Many hon. Members will understand the anger and frustration that they will feel. We must do all we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together with the Scottish Executive, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead and, as a result, offer real hope to those individuals, their families and the communities affected by Motorola's decision.
Mr. Dalyell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the tone and content of his statement? Does he sympathise—I do not doubt for a moment that he does—with those who are having to face redundancy, not for the first, not for the second, but in some cases for the third, fourth or even fifth time in their lives? Does he recognise that the majority of the 3,200 people losing their jobs are youngish people, who—thanks, in part, to Motorola's first-class and caring training policies and, in part, to excellent schoolteachers and further education lecturers in central Scotland—are eminently employable?
Looking to the future, should we not co-operate with Motorola in getting the best possible redundancy terms for those who are losing their jobs? Is not the company's offer of four weeks' pay for every year of service four times the statutory requirement, and confirmation of the company's decency towards its employees?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that Motorola has a 32-year commitment to Scotland at East Kilbride and continues to work closely and constructively with many organisations and, in particular, with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who endorses my favourable attitude towards Motorola?
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Motorola has provided 20,000-odd person years of quality employment at Bathgate, which will always be appreciated throughout the central Scotland community? Will he do everything in his power to encourage Motorola to develop and expand research and software facilities in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's constituency of Livingston and to go ahead with the proposed semiconductor development
310
at Hyundai in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's constituency of Dunfermline, East? Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agree with Bill Speirs of the STUC that the Government must do everything to keep Motorola in Scotland?
Albeit that there are legally obligatory repayments under regional selective assistance, when my right hon. Friend considers such matters, will he take into account the point that Motorola should in no way be scapegoated? Is not the truth that West Lothian has been resilient since the days of James "Paraffin" Young in the industrial revolution and that it is a vibrant industrial community, which has the potential to absorb many of the 3,100 skilled work force? Incidentally, is it not a fact that, according to Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, although 800 redundancies were declared by Continental Tyres at Newbridge in late 1999, only 31 people of those people remain unemployed? I know from my first-hand knowledge that there are explanations for some of the cases that are included in that figure of 31.
Do we have the assurance that my right hon. Friend—along with the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who is sitting beside him and whose constituency is affected, and the constructive and efficient members and officials of West Lothian district council and the Scottish Executive—will make sure that the full resources of Government are brought to bear to ensure that customised training will help to place these skilled workers as quickly as possible into alternative employment? I cannot sufficiently emphasise the importance of customised training, especially against the backdrop of a continuing skills shortage in our area.
Does my right hon. Friend share a certain unease that part of the trouble has been brought about by young analysts, operating in Wall Street and in the City of London? They have no great knowledge of industry and they are concerned about getting a quick buck. They know very little about the lives of the people affected and on whom they have such a great effect.
Does my right hon. Friend share my unease about the culture of blame that has developed in relation to redundancies in high-tech industries? Hindsight is a marvellous thing, and we might all be better if we possessed perfect foresight. Is it not true that, until Christmas 2000 when every primary school pupil in the playground seemed to have asked for a mobile phone, demand boomed? In six short weeks, the mobile phone has become a product that we replace only when we lose or bust it.
Can we count—I am sure that we can—on the sustained and intense co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised at 3.15 pm in answer to the pertinent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate on this issue. For some time, he has been concerned about Bathgate's prospects and the possible decision by Motorola. He has set the right tone for the House. We need to be conscious of the needs of the individuals affected by the decision. They will be very uncertain about their prospects and need to know that their Government in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament and Executive want to put in place measures to assist

311
them. Motorola will remain a major employer in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not a fly-by-night company; it has been in Scotland for 32 years.
We understand Motorola's difficulties. Some 21,000 jobs are being lost worldwide because of the downturn in the mobile phone market and Bathgate is paying a heavy price because of the industry's commercial decisions. We need to engage with Motorola and find a new owner for an excellent facility at Easter Inch. My hon. Friend mentioned the repayment of regional selective assistance. Motorola has been clear on that. It received the assistance subject to certain conditions and has been open in stating that if it does not meet them, it is only right and proper to repay the money. It said that in the last 24 hours.
I agree with the comments made by Bill Speirs of the STUC. This is an opportunity to work in a real partnership. My hon. Friend made an important point about the strengths of the work force in Bathgate. Many of the employees are young and have been through excellent training as a result of Motorola's efforts. It is true to say that education and training are probably the best economic policy that any community or country can have. Motorola's employees will be in a strong position to take advantage of the new opportunities that it is to be hoped will be available to them in the next six to 12 months. We have a breathing space to ensure that those opportunities exist for the people affected by Motorola's decision.
The Conservatives sneer when we talk about establishing a taskforce to help those people, but in the north-east, when Siemens closed its plant in my constituency and Fujitsu closed its plant at Newton Aycliffe further south, taskforces were set up and within 12 months the majority of people who were affected were in work. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives' approach. They would simply say, "This is about market forces. Government should not intervene." We are following an active policy in which we make representations. However, if a decision is taken, of which we do not approve—as in this case—but which is in response to commercial realities, we want to work with the people and community affected so that we can be far stronger in addressing their needs and concerns. That is exactly what we will do in Bathgate. We will work with the Scottish Executive and Motorola to ensure that people affected by the decision will have new opportunities.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The job losses at Motorola are disastrous for the staff and work force, especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). However, the effect will be felt more widely, both in Scotland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the losses follow more than 350,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the last general election. That compares with 69,000 extra manufacturing jobs created by the most recent Conservative Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm those figures and that contrast? Will he also comment on today's CBI industrial trends survey, which shows that orders, output and business confidence are sharply down? The terrible job losses may be the latest but not the last in the sector.
Most importantly, will the disaster at Motorola finally shake the Government out of their complacency on employment? Last-minute emergency telephone calls from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry do not repair the damage caused by four
312
years of endless increases in business taxes and the piling on to British industry of more and more red tape and regulations, all of which has undermined our competitiveness. That will be particularly important if there is a worldwide economic downturn, which I notice the right hon. Gentleman is starting to blame for everything.
Will the Secretary of State today start to listen to what companies and industry have been telling the Government for four years about the need to retain competitiveness and the damage that will be caused to future jobs if that is not done? Will he start to stand up for the interests of British industry? Will he resist the endless Treasury demands for more and more revenue from business and industry which have reduced the Department of Trade and Industry to the role of a spectator as the job losses mount, month after month?
Finally, is it the case that Motorola was hit by the slow take-up and orders for its new GPRS handset, caused in turn by the £22.5 billion paid by the industry to the Treasury last year as the licence fee for the next mobile phone spectrum auction? That was a transfer of debt from the public to the private sector which weakened the telecom sector and threatened to put this country further behind in the whole technology sector.
Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman got his last point totally wrong. He was talking about a second-generation capability mobile phone, and of course the auction related to third-generation capability. Perhaps that is the sort of detail that he does not want to go into.
Most importantly, we should look at the reasons that Motorola has given for its decision. Let us listen not to the right hon. Gentleman or me, but to Motorola, which has made it very clear that the decision was made because of a downturn in the global mobile phone market. That is why 12,000 jobs are being lost worldwide—not only in Scotland, but in America, Brazil and Dublin. We are in a global economy and we feel the consequences of that.
The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with the loss of manufacturing jobs. He was very selective in the period from which he quoted figures. He said that some 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past four years under this Government, but he failed to look at the record on manufacturing of 18 years of Conservative Government. Let us consider that period—1979 to 1997. The right hon. Gentleman does not like it because he knows that 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost in that time. That is an average loss of 150,000 manufacturing jobs every year for 18 years, not just one or two years. That is why Labour Members will take no lessons from the Conservatives about our commitment to manufacturing. In Scotland, there are now 100,000 more people in work than when we came into office. In the United Kingdom, there are now 1.2 million more people in work than in May 1997. Those are the true figures, which the right hon. Gentleman will not allow to get in the way of his prejudice.
It was interesting that there was nothing in the Conservative spokesman's remarks, not even a sentence, about the steps to help the individuals affected by the decision, because the Conservatives simply do not care. We know that because we have been here; we know their attitude to the loss of manufacturing jobs. In Scotland, hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing were lost

313
in the 1980s. We all know what the Conservatives did; they walked away and did not discharge their responsibilities. We will discharge our responsibilities to the workers of Bathgate and the people of Scotland. We are an active Government working in partnership, ensuring that people have a far better future.
Mr. Joe Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the collapse of the mobile phone industry is affecting not just Motorola in Scotland but 950 jobs at Ericsson in my constituency? Is it not time that there was an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading into that industry's marketing? It costs £100 to make each mobile phone, yet the networks—Orange, Vodafone, BT and so on—are putting them on sale at £15 to £20, hoping to make their money from the cost of calls. They have expanded the market into a fashion industry, as phones are given as children's presents at Christmas. Kids are given phones only to find out that they cannot afford the £5 or £10 vouchers to keep using them. Suddenly, virtually overnight, a major worldwide industry has collapsed.
There should be some inquiry, even if it is conducted by a television company, into how a high-tech industry can pull that sort of stunt and put hundreds of people—indeed, thousands across Europe—out of jobs while being irresponsible about marketing. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Office of Fair Trading to conduct an inquiry into how the collapse came about?
Mr. Byers: I do not think establishing an OFT inquiry would serve the purposes about which my hon. Friend feels strongly. If there is any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, clearly that should be referred to the OFT. However, there are wider issues. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about Ericsson's decision in relation to his constituency. We are working closely with Ericsson to try to identify a new owner for that facility and its other facility just outside Scunthorpe. There has been a lot of interest from people wishing to acquire those plants. I hope that there might be some good news concerning those individuals. There are therefore issues that need to be addressed, but starting an OFT inquiry now will not serve the objectives that my hon. Friend wishes to achieve.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. In granting this private notice question, I realised that we have an Opposition day and are eating into Opposition time, so I appeal to the House for brief questions.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add my sympathy to that expressed for members of the work force and their families, and welcome the taskforce? May I ask specifically whether the £16.5 million repayment will be available to the taskforce to help retraining and assist the work force?
In the Secretary of State's discussions with the company, how did it explain the fact that it is closing its Scottish installation, but not its installation in Flensburg in Germany? Is that because the company judged that the German manufacturing environment is more competitive
314
than ours for exchange rate or other reasons, or is it because the German plant is an R and D unit? Is not one of the lessons of the exercise the fact that our selective industrial policy has channelled large sums of money—a cumulative total of £6.5 billion in Scotland, I think—to subsidise jobs, rather than provide the added value and permanence of more developed approaches to regional policy?
Finally, since the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have been speaking to company executives about that commercial decision, what was the basis of their representation? Did the Secretary of State resist the pressures from the industry to change retrospectively the terms of their auction licences and allow anti-competitive mergers in the industry?
Mr. Byers: In the conversations that I had with the company, the cost of the third-generation auction was not an issue that it raised. The debate was always about the relative costs of the plant in Germany compared with those at the Bathgate facility. Those were not employment costs. The company was examining the totality of provision. In that context, it felt that there were reasons—partly because of the different nature of the facility in Germany—why on balance it made greater commercial sense for the Bathgate facility to be the one that should suffer from this decision.
As for the repayment of regional selective assistance, the Scottish Executive have already indicated that up to £10 million will be available to support the work of the taskforce. I am sure that when the money is repaid, it will be examining how it can use the regional selective assistance in a way that will support economic regeneration and job creation.
Ms Rachel Squire: As someone who lived in Bathgate during the late 1980s and early 1990s, I saw for myself the devastation of communities under the previous Conservative Government. May I express my deep regret to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to the communities that are so affected by the decision on redundancies?
My constituency suffered 10,000 job losses under the previous Government but has seen successful regeneration under the policies of the present Government. I welcome the announcement of the taskforce, and I welcome Motorola's commitment to the Dunfermline facility, which is within my constituency. That creates much confusion. Does my right hon. Friend agree, as I am sure my constituents in Dunfermline and West Fife would agree, that it is to be hoped that when Motorola opens its new facility in Dunfermline, some of the new job opportunities will be available to people who are now working at Easter Inch as well as to the people of Dunfermline and West Fife?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth reminding ourselves, as my hon. Friend has reminded us, of the number of jobs that have been lost in the not too distant past, including 10,000 in her constituency, and the change that we are seeing in the employment scene in Scotland. Although such figures represent the total picture, an individual on the production facility at Easter Inch will not derive great comfort from them if he is threatened with the loss of his job within the

315
next few months. That is why it is important that Motorola recommits itself to its Livingston facility as well as the one at Dunfermline, and provides, with the Scottish Executive and the Employment Service, customised training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow requested, so that the vacancies that become available at these facilities can be taken up by people from Bathgate. They will be able to do so if they have the necessary training and skills.
That is how we must look forward. I know that it is especially difficult to do so within 24 hours of such a decision. We need to work together to provide new opportunities and skills and training for the individuals who are affected by Motorola's decision.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The worry for the families of those who have lost their jobs is evident. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to say that Motorola has been an extremely important inward investor into this country, and has tried to treat its employees well. There is no doubt that such inward investment showed merits under the Conservative Government as well as under the present Government. I hope that the Secretary of State will draw the right conclusion, which is that inward investment creates jobs, but there can be risks to those jobs in an open world market.
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to follow the reactionary policies being introduced in France, which are more likely to deter inward investment into France? Also, the Australian Government blocked Shell's acquisition of Woodside Oil only this week.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that one of the reasons why Motorola decided to continue in Germany rather than in Scotland is that there are significant tax advantages to the company through rolled-up losses in Germany, which shows that within a single market it is important to consider how one tax in one country relates to tax treatment in another country? Will the Secretary of State please put it on the record again that Sir David Brown, the chairman of Motorola, is not alone in British industry in understanding that the competitive problem of the United Kingdom is associated with the fact that we are not part of the eurozone?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the views of Sir David Brown, the UK chairman of Motorola, regarding the UK's membership of the single European currency. He has gone on record as saying that in his view, it would be beneficial to companies such as Motorola if that were the case. With regard to the particular announcement, UK membership of the single European currency was not an issue that affected the decision. Some 12,000 jobs worldwide are being lost as a result of the decision.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the nature of inward investment. We are an extremely favoured location within Europe for a number of reasons: one is the economic stability, another is our labour market regulation, and a third is the fact that we can attract companies to come to the UK as a bridge into the rest of Europe. It is important that we maintain that position and do nothing that would act as a disincentive.
The hon. Gentleman is right to flag up the difficulties that can arise. That is an issue to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred yesterday. At a time when world
316
economies are beginning to slow down, there is always a danger that national Governments will move to protectionism, close off markets and adopt policies that may be popular in their own countries in the short term, but which in the medium and long term create real difficulties for economic growth and prosperity. History teaches us the dangers of that. We must make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes—and we certainly will not.
Mr. Frank Roy: Unfortunately, Motorola is well known for using employment agency workers, who are paid less and given fewer rights than others who work beside them. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those agency workers will be given the same employment assistance as people employed by the company?
Mr. Byers: I will certainly do that. I am informed that all those affected are full-time employees, but we need to check that and make sure that some of the workers affected are not discriminated against because of their employment status.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the creation of a taskforce for an area that I know extremely well. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the figure of £10 million, which has been announced by the Scottish Government, is a ceiling figure, or will the financial commitment behind the taskforce be as much as it takes to deal with an economic catastrophe on a substantial scale? The right hon. Gentleman sounded very confident about the future of inward investment. Can he tell the House anything more about the reasons for that confidence?
Finally, 32,000 fewer people are employed in manufacturing in Scotland now than in 1997. Many of the job losses have been related to the exchange rate, and many have been associated with non-membership of the eurozone. Why, then, is the Secretary of State so confident that no aspect of the decision was related to the eurozone, despite the fact that the decision was made to retain a similar plant in Germany?
Mr. Byers: On the latter point, that was because of conversations that we had with Motorola, and its public statements since the announcement about the reasons for its decision. The hon. Gentleman should consider the company's decision to close its facility in Dublin, which was clearly within the eurozone but still felt the effect of the global downturn. Those are the reasons that have been given by Motorola.
As for the work of the taskforce, the Scottish Executive said today that £10 million would be available. That is not a capped figure. More will be made available if necessary to meet the needs of the individuals affected. It is important that they should be aware that there will be support and training, and that the necessary steps will be taken to put them in a strong position to get the jobs that will be created in a strong Scotland in the future.
With regard to the Dunfermline facility, since the announcement yesterday Motorola has made it clear that although it announced a slowing down in the timetable

317
last year, it is still committed to developing the facility at Dunfermline as a cornerstone of the new technology that it wants to develop for the future.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, and say that I missed the first two minutes of my right hon. Friend's statement. I was delayed in coming to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but in that case, he is unable to ask a question.
Mr. John McFall: I welcome the establishment of the taskforce. I have some practical experience, as I chair a taskforce in Dumbarton in relation to the J&B Whisky bottling plant, which closed three years ago with the loss of 500 jobs. With a partnership approach, fewer than 60 people out of the original 500 have not secured employment, and there are reasons why some of those who remain unemployed have not secured work. In the light of the experience of myself and others, does my right hon. Friend accept the fact that the private employer is the key to the taskforce? The private employer has to be committed, just as Diageo was in my constituency. I pay tribute to Diageo for its involvement. Motorola has to be centrally involved, so that it leaves the community an economic and social legacy as a result of its many years in Bathgate.
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend, drawing on his personal experience, makes an important point about the role of the private sector. Given Motorola's 32 years of involvement in Scotland, and given also the nature of the company, I am sure that it will want to be involved in the work of the taskforce. I know from my experience in north-east England that, as my hon. Friend said, taskforces will be successful when the private sector is actively involved with the public sector. We welcome the fact that the STUC is a member of the taskforce. Partnership will often be the most successful approach.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State welcome the fact that the European Information Society Group, or EURIM—the all-party group that deals with Information Society issues—decided almost a month ago to set up a mobile working party? There is a meeting on Monday to deal with the issues. Will he consider carefully the fact that the payment of £22.5 billion by the networks has meant that they have not invested in current roll-out of the GPRS system? Motorola is the first company in the world to have made handsets available, but there is no network for them. That is a significant issue, as Motorola would have been manufacturing the handsets now if the networks could afford to make the investment and had not given £22.5 billion to the Chancellor.
Mr. Byers: I hope that the working party will deal with that point, as I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The working party might be able to illuminate him about the exact consequences. I know that the Conservative Opposition have been trying to turn the proceeds of the auction—the £22.5 billion received by the Government for the third generation—into an issue.
318
Companies took commercial decisions at the time. We took the view that it was far better to let the commercial decisions determine how much people were prepared to pay for the licences. Opposition Members now seem to be suggesting that some of the money should be paid back because the companies got a commercial judgment wrong. That is the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but the proceeds of the auction are a red herring in terms of Bathgate and Motorola. I want us to use this opportunity to discuss the needs of the individuals and the reality of the position in Scotland.
Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall only yesterday on job losses in the electronics industry in Northern Ireland? I think that those losses are, in total, of the same magnitude per capita for Northern Ireland as the loss announced today is for Scotland. Is he also aware that I was somewhat surprised not only to secure that debate, but to learn that he was to speak on the subject today, as we have devolution in the two affected areas of the United Kingdom? I am gratified that the Government are indicating through him a measure of responsibility for resolving the difficulties caused by such job losses. Will he assure me that whatever is done with regard to Motorola and Scotland will be done in every other region of the United Kingdom where such job losses occur?
Mr. Byers: As you know, Mr. Speaker, because we have communicated about the matter, some aspects are reserved. For example, we have direct responsibility for social security benefits and employment legislation, whereas industrial assistance issues are devolved to the Scottish Executive.
However, I have always believed that devolution is about maintaining a partnership approach, and that we achieve far more together. Some people do not agree, but we achieve more together than by claiming that matters are not our responsibility. I was therefore more than happy to talk to Motorola, and the Prime Minister believed that it was also his responsibility to do that. We cannot instruct a commercial company, but we can make representations. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not, and we regret it. However, it is far better to make the effort on behalf of workers wherever they are in the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland—than to stand to one side and do nothing.
Mr. Michael Moore: Motorola has a huge presence in Scotland and the closure of the plant will be a massive blow to the whole country as well as the immediate Bathgate area. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a warning of a wider problem in the telecoms sector? Signum Circuits in my constituency in Selkirk has laid off a significant part of its work force, and although the company had begun to repair the damage that Viasystems did to the borders region, it is now on short-term working.
Will the Secretary of State make available, not only to the Scottish Executive but to whoever needs it, money to assist companies that are having difficulty because of the

319
world downturn in the telecoms sector and the consequences of some of the bids that were made for third generation licences?
Mr. Byers: I am acutely aware of the difficulties, especially in the borders, that were caused by Viasystems' decision. We held a meeting some time ago to discuss what we could do about it.
Some sectors—telecommunications is only one—are experiencing global difficulties for some of the reasons that we discussed this afternoon. The best thing that the Government can do is to ensure a climate of economic stability. We operate in a global economy and multinational companies can go anywhere in the world. It is therefore clear that they will go to countries where there is some economic stability.
Clearly, there is market pressure on the telecommunications sector, especially because of the dramatic downturn in the American economy. We must do all we can to support companies, through R and D and further assistance of that nature. We are more than willing to work with the relevant industries, sector by sector, to identify the steps that need to be taken to ensure that they are in a strong position to meet the challenges ahead.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise the falsification of a letter that was written by one of the most senior Officers of the House. A member of the public falsified the letter to support his wrongful allegations of misconduct and impropriety against me.
The Serjeant at Arms recently considered a complaint about letters that I had written on Commons notepaper to young people in my constituency. On 26 March, the hon. Member who had complained received a reply from the Assistant Serjeant at Arms. He passed it on to my political opponent, the prospective parliamentary Conservative candidate for Gravesham, Mr. Jacques Arnold, who was the original source of the complaint.
The reply exonerated me, but Mr. Arnold has now admitted to having removed a section of the letter from the Assistant Serjeant at Arms before circulating to the press a now fraudulent document, which still carried the letterhead and signature of the Assistant Serjeant at Arms. The passage that he removed stated:
"I do not see anything there inappropriate to House stationery."
Mr. Arnold circulated the falsified letter to the press in a press release, the first line of which reads:
"The Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons has found Chris Pond, M.P. for Gravesham, guilty of inappropriate use of House of Commons stationery."
That incident raises serious questions about which I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. First, Mr. Arnold tried to compromise and use the office of the Serjeant at Arms to undermine the integrity of an hon. Member. What protection exists for Officers of the House, when one of the most senior parliamentary officials is misrepresented in this way? Secondly, does not it show contempt, especially by someone who hopes to become a Member of the House, to falsify for his own purposes letters issued on the Serjeant at Arms' notepaper?
Some may consider this a rather ham-fisted, if dishonest and deceitful, attempt at forgery by a Tory prospective parliamentary candidate. However, forgery for personal gain is generally considered a criminal offence. How does the House consider incidents of forgery for political gain, and what can Parliament do to make sure that this sort of practice does not continue elsewhere?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. There is no action that I can take in relation to the particular occurrence that has caused him concern. I can, however, make it clear that I strongly deprecate the manipulation of correspondence from Officers of the House in a way that misrepresents its contents.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I appreciate what you have said, as I am sure the whole House—Certainly hon. Members on this side—Will have done. Cannot this matter be pursued any further? If the person concerned has—as he clearly has—done what my hon. Friend said he had, surely further action is required. At one time, if I may remind you, Sir, those who showed such contempt

321
for the House were brought before the Bar of the House. My view is that this particular rather obnoxious person should be brought before the Bar of the House at your instructions.
Mr. Speaker: As I stated, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) gave me notice of his point of order. I have given him what I consider to be a proper reply and I have nothing to add.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could answer a simple question. Has this gentleman personally apologised to the Serjeant at Arms' Office in the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter that I have any information on. [HON. MEMBERS: "He should."] Order.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If this person were brought to the Bar of the House, would not that be the nearest that he got to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILL PRESENTED
  EXTENSION OF SUMMER TIME
  Mr. Nigel Beard, supported by Mr. Adrian Bailey, Liz Blackman, Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, Mr. Howard Flight, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Syd Rapson, Sir Michael Spicer and Mr. Andrew Tyrie, presented a Bill to amend the Summer Time Act 1972 so as to provide for the maintenance of British Summer Time throughout the year: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Age Equality Commission
4.28 pm
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people.
Almost a year ago, on 12 July, the House gave permission for the first time for Parliament to establish an age equality commission. As we had a shared background in engineering before we entered the Palace of Westminster, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will appreciate why this civil engineering MP believes that all problems can be solved with the application of endeavour and resolution. An engineer will always relish the challenge of problem solving, and takes delight in selecting the correct tool for the job from his toolbox.
The hundreds of constituents who encounter the daily barriers of age discrimination face persistent and recurring problems that are a blight on their everyday lives. Across the country, thousands of ordinary British people hoped that they had every right to expect a fair deal as they got older. Far too often, the reality is quite different from those hopes and aspirations.
Working in Scarborough and Whitby with the local Age Concern group and the Association of Retired Persons over 50—commonly known as ARPO50—I have tried to set up challenges to the individual cases that have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. However, this engineer feels that the lack of appropriate parliamentary tools for the job has made the whole procedure of trying to solve those problems far more complicated than it needs to be. That is why I hope that the House will join me in calling for an end, by law, to the discrimination against older people in work, health, public services and the consumer market. We need to have action in law as soon as possible.
I believe that the House should be doing all in its power to create new opportunities for older people to work, volunteer, learn and retrain where necessary, so that they can play the fullest possible part in our society. My constituency is well known as containing a large number of people aged over 50, and my constituency experiences tell me that we in the House should fulfil their hopes and give them a significant and vibrant role in the society in which they want to play a part. In health, housing and the care systems, we need to provide the opportunity of independence and security for all, particularly my elderly constituents. Let us be honest: many of us who are present now will eventually find ourselves over the age of 50. It would therefore be inappropriate for me not to declare a personal interest in that regard.
One year on, what has actually happened? I believe that there has been some progress, but it is modest progress. I commend the Government for tackling ageist attitudes and practices in our national health service, many examples of which have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. A good start has been made, but, owing to the lack of the readily available parliamentary toolbox that I mentioned earlier, the battle against age discrimination is far from won. The issue needs a comprehensive focus: we need a comprehensive campaign to tackle it head on. I hope that my proposals for the establishment of an age equality commission will lead to a national crusade

323
against age discrimination, thereby changing attitudes in our public services to ensure that older people are given equal treatment.
I also commend the excellent work done at national level by Age Concern and its partners during the "debate of the age" programme last year. My Bill seeks to build on the successes of that programme, and the evidence that was gathered during the national consultation. It seeks to encourage and support the Government in the fight against age discrimination in which they need to engage.
Earlier this month, the employers forum on age, chaired by Howard Davies, produced an important yet simple manifesto entitled "End Ageism in Employment". I hope that the newly formed commission would see it as an early priority to consult and involve employers throughout business in order to develop effective, practical, workable age legislation before the deadline of 2006. The commission must focus on the implementation of flexible options at the end of people's working lives, and it must include a review of the age bars that exist in current employment law. Given that age discrimination in employment costs the country more than £26 billion every year, promoting age diversity in the workplace will be crucial to ensuring the United Kingdom's future competitive and economic success. That key part of the toolbox for our economic future is built into my Bill.
The simple fact is that people continue to live longer and healthier lives than ever before, many having left paid employment in their early 50s. Birth rates continue to fall, and far fewer people are coming into the labour market. Recent surveys across business have established that 91 per cent. of firms are affected by skill shortages, but many employers continue to base employment decisions on grounds of age. I deplore that.
I believe that the employers forum on age offers a promising start. The forum, set up by 170 of the major public and private sector employers, representing nearly 10 per cent. of the UK's work force, is correct to place
324
ageism at the top of the political agenda. Ageism in employment just does not tie in with the country's economic prospects.
I hope that the House will send a clear signal to Government by supporting the Bill. I hope that that will encourage Ministers to review, as a matter of urgency, current employment practices not only in wider industry but, in particular, in the civil service, thereby promoting age diversity and increasing participation in that service by all individuals, irrespective of age. I hope that the Government will then share that practice with wider industry, so that proper legislative propositions may emerge from that test-bed.
I express a simple engineer's view that this debate is of prime importance to our nation's future, as well as very timely. Next week, the House will have further opportunities to consider similar issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). That cross-party approach to the issue of ageism will be appreciated by all hon. Members, and I am encouraged by the support that my proposals have received from members of all political parties in the House. I hope that my proposal finds favour with the House, and that the progress of the Age Equality Commission Bill will offer dignity, security and opportunity to many of our fellow citizens over the age of 50.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Ann Keen, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Ms Dan Taylor, Mr. Alan Campbell, Angela Smith, Mr. Richard Allan, Ms Rosie Winterton, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Bob Blizzard.

AGE EQUALITY COMMISSION
Mr. Lawrie Quinn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 88].
Opposition Day
[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Rural Economy
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): We now come to the main business today. The Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting almost every aspect of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside already in decline as a result of years of neglect under successive Governments; urges Her Majesty's Government to provide realistic emergency support to the whole range of businesses affected to enable them to withstand this crisis; and calls on the Government to put in place long-term policies to regenerate British agriculture and to revitalise the rural economy as a whole.
  What started as an agricultural crisis has quickly developed into a rural crisis, and now foot and mouth disease is affecting almost every region in the country, with tourism most badly hit. If nothing else, the present epidemic has emphasised the interdependence of so many businesses, especially those located in rural Britain. However, not even large cities have been immune from the effects of that terrible animal disease.
  With the stench of burning cattle, the spectre of huge burial mounds and the disgusting sight of slaughtered animals lying for weeks on farms before disposal—and still more new cases each day—it is difficult to accept that the crisis is under control. That is even more true when so many farmers and businesses are facing a wipeout and everyone fears for their future.
  Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents should not have to bear the brunt of digging the Government out of the appalling mess that they have made of dealing with the foot and mouth crisis? Does he also agree that the burden should be shared and that unburied carcases should be disposed of in the numerous landfill sites up and down the country, not in pyres and huge burial grounds?
  Mr. Breed: We all recognise the considerable problems faced by people in Devon. They bear a huge burden, given the enormous numbers of animals that have to be buried or burned. An enormous backlog remains. I suspect that Devon could not take all the animals involved. There must be different and quicker ways in which dispose of them: I do not believe that we can wait three or four weeks to deal with perhaps 100,000 animals.
  Dealing with the crisis still appears to be more of an administrative and bureaucratic exercise run from Whitehall than a management job on the ground. Too often, confused and delayed instructions come out of London, and they sometimes contradict decisions made close to outbreaks of the disease. Comparisons with the way in which Scotland and Wales, under devolved Administrations, have handled the problem are pertinent.
  326
  They reinforce calls from Liberal Democrat Members for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be absorbed into a new department of rural affairs. That would give focus, co-ordination and speed to the decision-making processes, and enable co-ordinated policy making for our rural areas in the future.
  However, it is still annoying that so many issues remain unresolved that should have been finalised weeks ago. What is to be done for farmers whose cattle have gone over the 30-month limit during the period of restrictions? What about other animals that have passed their prime and lost their value? What about the cows that are drying off because artificial insemination men are not being allowed access to the farms?
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another question to be asked? Would not it be appropriate to consider easing the movement of animals in areas that are free from foot and mouth disease, but not unaffected by it? I am referring particularly to the movement of cattle from winter quarters to summer pastures, which at present is not possible. Does my hon. Friend also accept that cattle are being moved from my constituency for slaughter in places as far away as Somerset and Essex? Would not opening up local abattoirs make it easier to deal with those animals, and minimise the risk of spreading the disease?
  Mr. Breed: There is clearly a case for lifting some of the restrictions, and for redrawing some of the maps to allow some animals to be moved. That would relieve the pressure on the welfare disposal scheme, although there must be no compromise when it comes to ensuring that the disease is not spread. I hope that the Minister for the Environment will deal with that when he responds to the debate, as many farmers find themselves in the situation that my hon. Friend has described.
  Farmers who do not have foot and mouth on their farms are also still suffering. In fairness to the Minister, it has to be said that he has acknowledged that and has acted to assure them that they will be assisted. However, if farmers had known what compensation and support they would receive they would not have spent so many weeks feeling so desperate
  However, not only farmers have suffered. Other businesses are suffering too, and for help for them we find ourselves turning to a plethora of Government Departments, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and of course the Treasury.
  The financial measures so far announced by the Government are inadequate, given the depth of the crisis facing thousands of businesses up and down the country. The vast majority of businesses affected have nothing to do with agriculture directly, but foot and mouth has brought much collateral damage that is uninsurable.
  The massive loss of business has been concentrated in areas of the country that not only are recovering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy but which are in any case among the poorest areas. The loss of income, jobs and business will devastate the rural economy and have a significant effect on urban communities.
  It is therefore especially disappointing that the Government have failed to explain some of the details of their support package. For instance, will any tax deferrals

  327
  be subject to interest? I believe that the applicable rate could be as high as 8½ per cent. Will the Government provide any assistance for businesses deeply affected by the crisis which, despite being in or near a rural area, are not located in one of the parishes identified for support?
  What about value added tax? The Government have said that the Treasury and Customs and Excise will be "sympathetic", but what does that mean? Sympathy was not what was experienced by one of my constituents who called the Inland Revenue and was told that if he did not pay up the bailiffs would be sent.
  At any time of calamity it is right to try and learn lessons and seek new ways forward. However, in many respects, the country and the countryside are now at a crossroads.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £200 million support package announced by the Government, reinforced two days ago by the Minister for the Environment, seems rather disproportionate given that we expect losses of billions of pounds in trade for tourism and small businesses?
  Mr. Breed: The Government have said that that package is a start, and we hope that there will be further proposals, with perhaps some announcements today. The amount of money currently spent will be dwarfed by the cost of the problem: businesses that fail will lead to unemployment, resulting in more unemployment and social security benefits to be paid. If money is paid out to enable those businesses to continue, the Government will not have to find the money to pay for those benefits.
  The countryside is at a crossroads. Many commentators recognise the need for a national debate on how to manage food production in the future and ensure that the important rural economy is supported and enhanced, not decimated by this disease outbreak. There will be little future for many farmers and rural businesses if they do not receive adequate emergency financial aid immediately. The Government's modest attempts at emergency support have failed to recognise both the depth and breadth of the problem.
  The Liberal Democrats have already published proposals for a combination of rate and tax deferrals, interest-free loans of up to £20,000, repayable over two years, as well as proper compensation for farmers whose business has been affected by foot and mouth but who do not qualify under present compensation rules because their animals have not been slaughtered. Such farmers include those with cattle now more than 30 months old, those who have lost out on agreed sales because they cannot move their animals and those whose cows are now drying off because they have not had access to AI men.
  The businesses affected are widespread in their respective activity, geographical location and size, but collectively they are vital to the local economy and must have access to proper packages of financial assistance. The Government's proposals create an artificial divide. It is simply not fair that some are able to receive financial aid and others are not. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the problems that have emerged since the Government's announcements.
  Let us take a few moments to consider the crossroads at which our country stands and look back down the road whence we have come to our present situation. Over
  328
  40 years of recent history, the word "markets" has kept cropping up. First, there was the Common Market; it introduced the common agricultural policy which was designed to address the future needs of food production in post-war Europe. Its intentions were honourable, but no one now believes anything other than that it has failed and that the continued failure of politicians to carry out meaningful reform over many years has contributed to today's crisis.
  The global markets and the growth of international trading, with the freeing up of trade barriers, have produced many benefits but also substantial risks and have played an important part in today's problem. It is obvious that over the years we have become complacent and lowered our guard against this disease because we had not seen it for several decades.
  Supermarkets have produced considerable benefits for consumers but their current trading practices have greatly disadvantaged many primary producers. They have contributed to the trend of local cattle market closures up and down the country.
  All those factors have combined to bring our agricultural industry and the rural economy to the point of collapse. We cannot turn back the clock to some nostalgic era of Old MacDonald and his farm. The chocolate-box image of country life is not realistic. Foot and mouth disease has created a hiatus in production and we must take this opportunity to consider whether we really believe that we can continue in the same direction with no further thought. Is this a road to national prosperity or is it the road to ruin?
  Many people now believe that to continue in the same direction, which would bring about further farm amalgamation and reduction in employment with greater pressure on land and animals to produce more and more for less and less, is a recipe for disaster—both for the rural economy and for the country at large. That is unsustainable. The simplistic attitude that one cannot buck the market and that the lowest unit cost delivers the best consumer benefit would wipe out small family farms and change the fabric of the countryside and its environment, as well as destroying rural communities. Yet that is what we shall sleepwalk into unless we make a radical reassessment of our priorities and unless Government policies across all Departments are attuned to those new priorities.
  For many years, the Liberal Democrats have argued that greater prominence should be given to the environmental and social considerations of agriculture. Economies of scale can be created through building farmers' co-operatives and sharing expertise and technology. Money can be recycled within communities by reviving local markets; from farm gate to processor, to retailer to plate—all in the same locality.
  Liberal Democrat plans for agriculture include more money for rural development and a single countryside management contract for farm support. We would cut red tape and introduce an early retirement scheme for tenant farmers, linked to a new entrants' scheme, to reinvigorate the industry and bring in new, fresh ideas. We have constantly argued for balance in the UK economy—recognising the value of small business and the interdependence of rural businesses with agriculture at the heart—as well as paying attention to competitiveness and profitability. We need to reinvigorate the countryside and

  329
  not see it become dormitory accommodation for city workers, with more intensive methods of production and the loss of a genuinely rural population.
  The rural economy is certainly under threat; it has become the victim of a thousand cuts over many years and is quite simply bleeding to death. This latest blow could be terminal, but I believe it is not yet too late—although we may not have much more time. Emergency measures in the wake of foot and mouth will merely stem the bleeding. Only radical policy changes will ultimately restore the countryside to full health. Inevitably, it will take time to achieve that.
  What is needed first is a determined effort radically to reform the common agricultural policy; recent—almost cosmetic—changes are not good enough.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy. He knows as well as everyone in the House that to reform the CAP in any meaningful way requires unanimity among the 15 nations. How is he going to get that?
  Mr. Breed: I was just about to suggest why we may get that co-operation.
  The European Union must recognise the risks for everyone's economy in current trading conditions; any state—any European country—could be the next to suffer the same crisis as us. That reality will force more Ministers throughout the EU to realise that the CAP needs early reform.
  Money in the CAP should be diverted from paying for production to paying for stewardship. Farm businesses must ultimately be self-supporting in their commercial activity, with Government providing only a safety net to weather storms. However, farmers are asked to do so much more—beyond such economic activity—and for that they must be rewarded.
  Secondly, we need to recognise the risks of global trading and ensure that there are vigorous inspection procedures at all ports of entry to identify illegal and possibly contaminated food products, carried both commercially and by travellers, with prosecutions where necessary. We need to acknowledge that the rundown in so many sectors—such as port health authorities, Customs, farm inspections and state veterinary services—was a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy, and that greater resources must now be devoted to those important protections and that they must be maintained.
  Thirdly, we need a proper labelling scheme to identify country of origin and to bring an end to misleading labels and practices. That, too, can be considered only on a pan-European basis because food has become such an international commodity. However, it can be achieved through firm negotiation.
  Fourthly, we must use the existing options open to us to promote sustainable, safe and ethically produced food. That should include a more imaginative use of modulated funds for rural development to support the structure of family farms; an increase in the number of small, local abattoirs; and the creation of new local markets for their produce, recognising the important social, environmental and human health benefits that each can, in turn, provide.
  330
  The larger agribusinesses will, of course, continue, and their trading practices and scale of production will continue to make them best suited to supply the larger food processors and supermarkets. However, by supporting local markets, we will ensure greater consumer choice—not just a choice between Asda and Tesco, but the choice to purchase locally grown food from a range of local shops and markets or to patronise the supermarkets.
  Our aim must be to ensure that in this country we grow safe, sustainable and ethically produced food that gives primary producers a fair return on their investment and a proper reward for their labour, after which competition should ensure that the consumer pays the lowest price. However, to achieve both those aims, the balance between supplier and retailer will need to be redressed, and there must be an end to the complex monopolies that were identified in the recent Competition Commission report on the supermarkets.
  We need a retail regulator to be appointed, as part of the Office of Fair Trading, to ensure the dominance of one sector cannot be abused, with the consequences that we have seen in recent years.
  A cheap food policy, which, every few years, entails massive compensation payments, business failures and the desecration of our environment, is in fact extremely expensive for the taxpayer and consumers, and makes life a misery for many small suppliers. It is, of course, very profitable for supermarket shareholders.
  It is also time to review completely the uniform business rate, which now is subject to so many dispensations and anomalies and is so disproportionately unfair to small businesses that only a complete reappraisal of how we raise local business tax will do. The rural economy is made up almost entirely of small businesses, and they have been very hard hit by the UBR.
  When this terrible crisis is indeed under control, it will not be enough to learn lessons about its administration and management. To write another report, such as that of 1967, the recommendations of which were observed for a few years and then forgotten, will not be enough. The end of the crisis will present an opportunity to build on a real vision of what the future of agriculture and the rural economy should hold. According to that, through a combination of sensible regulation, deployment of resources and a recognition of the vital part played by a balanced agricultural sector, we can deliver what the consumer wants, in a countryside that is attractive and sustainable, while ensuring that we do not again threaten the lives and livelihoods of those who rely upon this green and pleasant land.
  4.57 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting many aspects of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside that has suffered from lack of investment under previous governments; agrees that the first priority must be the isolation, control and eradication of foot and mouth disease; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; welcomes the extra financial help the Government has made available to farmers and rural businesses affected by foot and mouth,

  331
  including agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; welcomes the work of the Rural Task Force including its work to open up the countryside and business relief, deferral of tax and national insurance contributions, extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme and new grants to Regional Development Agencies and tourism authorities; and calls on the Government to continue putting in place the long-term policies needed to regenerate British agriculture and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.'.
  I am sure that today's debate, which is entitled "The Rural Economy", will focus largely on the impact of foot and mouth disease on the rural economy. Indeed, that is reflected in the motion and the amendments that have been tabled. Foot and mouth disease has been an enormous blow to the farming community and the wider rural community.
  All hon. Members feel huge sympathy for those farmers who have lost their animals and for all those who are suffering in rural areas and, in some cases, even beyond. Indeed, looking around the Chamber, I can see on both sides Members who represent constituencies that have been devastated by the disease. They have been greatly affected and have maintained regular contact with their constituents and, therefore, know at first hand the difficulties involved.
  Mr. Steve Webb: As the right hon. Lady looks around the Chamber, she sees Members with urban and rural constituencies, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) made the very good point that the businesses that have suffered are not necessarily in what the Government call rural constituencies. Will she extend the rate relief scheme to all the businesses that are suffering, regardless of the arbitrary authority in which they happen to be?
  Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce, will respond to the debate. He made a statement in answer to a private notice question earlier in the week, and he will pick up the points made in this debate. However, the rural taskforce is doing a good job not only in the measures that it has already announced, but because it is taking stock of the situation as it develops. One point that has come home to us strongly is that, although some of the earlier predictions have come true, some of them were unfounded. Some attractions have done better than expected while others have done worse. For that reason, it is important continually to monitor the position and to be prepared to take measures as and when appropriate.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On that point, will the right hon. Lady clarify the position in Scotland and in England? Is she aware that in Scotland the insane policy of slaughtering the hefted Cheviot flock will result, if it continues at the present rate, in the destruction of the entire flock? It is an irreplaceable asset in the Scottish economy. However, I understand that a different method is being used in, for example, Northumberland. Will she clarify the position and explain whether it is the same north and south of the border?
  Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman said, "On that point", but his intervention raised an entirely different one. None the less, it is an important issue. As a Northumbrian, I am keen to ensure that the flocks of Cheviots on both sides
  332
  of the border have the best possible chance of survival. That is why I support the measures that the Government have taken. He overstates the differences between north and south of the border. Discussions are taking place between the Administrations to try to ensure that we approach the problem in as co-ordinated a fashion as possible. However, we are conscious of the important issue that he has raised.
  There are welcome signs that our efforts to bear down on the disease are achieving results. The continuing downward trend in the daily number of cases is particularly encouraging. It has gone down from an average of 43 per day in the week ending Sunday 1 April to 16 per day in the week ending Sunday 22 April. There were 13 more cases on Monday of this week and 13 yesterday. The House will be aware of some of the more encouraging statements about the course of the disease that were made last week by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor King. Following rigorous serological testing of all farms in the relevant areas, we have been able to lift infected area status from nine areas entirely. Others will follow in the days and weeks ahead.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister explain—perhaps later in her speech—the criteria for lifting the restrictions in certain areas? I have been told that restrictions have been lifted in certain counties that have had outbreaks but not in others. There seems to be inconsistency in the way in which the Government are lifting movement restrictions.
  Ms Quin: I am not aware of an inconsistency in approach. Guidance is available, and information is available on the MAFF website. Information has also been published about how restricted area status can be lifted. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I would be grateful if he would draw them to my attention or that of another Minister so that we can respond to him. An overall framework is in place—it is partly a European as well as a UK framework—and I have seen the clear advice that farmers have received.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no cause for complacency and that we still face a crisis. In that context, when will the Government come to a decision on vaccination? Does she accept that the president of the National Farmers Union does not speak for all farmers and that the view that he advances is hotly contested by many in rural communities? The Government are there to lead; when will we have some leadership?
  Ms Quin: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must not be complacent in dealing with the disease. Indeed, one of the lessons of the 1967 outbreak of which we are very conscious is the fact that, during that outbreak, there was a lull and guard was relaxed. The disease broke out again, so we must be careful that that does not happen in this case.
  I have discussed vaccination with farmers around the country and many are not in favour of it, so the president of the NFU is reflecting their opinions. However, farmers and other groups are divided on the issue, sometimes within the same region. Even people in the hot-spot areas are divided. That makes the decision difficult. Despite

  333
  criticisms from other parties, I notice that they have not made a clear policy statement on vaccination. That has been apparent in their media interviews.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the Department seriously consider the vaccination of specialist breed sheep, in particular the herdwick sheep that will secure the survival of the breed? Many people in the Lakeland whom I respect have told me that that is possible without compromising our position on vaccination.
  Ms Quin: That is an important aspect of the debate. However, other measures and guidance are being made available on rare and specialist breeds. In particular, we want to provide adequate bio-security measures so that the animals are kept separate from possible infectivity.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not hefted sheep.
  Ms Quin: That could include hefted sheep if they are kept on their territory and separate from infectivity.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Minister will be aware that Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, is worried about the apparent inconsistency in the Government's policy on vaccination. That causes great stress in the countryside, especially among farmers. Will she seriously consider ensuring that a clear statement is sent to all farmers to explain the Government's position and the rationale behind it? I am sure that farmers would be grateful for that because the uncertainty is posing a considerable challenge to mental well-being in the countryside.
  Ms Quin: That is either being done or about to be done. We are conscious of the need to communicate with individual farmers directly on this important issue.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I believe that no matter what the Government say, they will not persuade the NFU to accept vaccination. As an MP from one of the hot spots, I favour vaccination. Obviously we will try to keep cattle in sheds for as long as possible, but are the Government still considering a fodder policy?
  Ms Quin: We are certainly considering the problems of fodder supply to some farmers in areas where they are being encouraged to keep animals housed for longer than usual.
  Mr. John Bercow: I acknowledge that there are different opinions on vaccination, but does the Minister accept that many farmers, such as Graham Gulliver, a prominent farmer in Preston Bissett in my constituency, are worried that their motives are being unfairly misrepresented? Will she acknowledge that many of those farmers who are hesitant, to put it mildly, about vaccination are not being awkward or cussed; rather they are concerned about the future saleability of their stock and the importance of ensuring compensation for consequential loss?
  Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's comments bear out my contact with farmers in different parts of the country.
  334
  We have not been imputing particular motives to farmers. A genuine debate about vaccination is taking place. Many of the market-related concerns are, without question, important. They have been a factor in our consideration of the problem and our unwillingness to impose a policy about which there are so many severe doubts.
  Government policy has been based at all times on the best scientific advice. That advice was that we needed to pursue vigorously the cull on infected premises within 24 hours and on neighbouring farms within 48 hours, which we have been achieving in many areas. Those policies have clearly been effective, as shown by the falling number of cases.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I was close to the Northumberland outbreak in 1967. Does the Minister agree that in that outbreak, immediate on-farm burial within 24 hours, rather than the use of mass burial sites, contained the disease? I have a huge problem on the uplands in my constituency, where 2,000 carcases were to be buried. That caused alarm, and there was a build-up of carcases when the spread of the disease could have been stopped.
  Ms Quin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns expressed by his constituents. None the less, we cannot make a straightforward comparison with 1967, when there were many outbreaks over a long period. When farms were smaller and we did not have the current environmental regulations, on-farm burial was a different option. We would be severely criticised if we allowed on-farm burial contrary to the environmental regulations that the House has adopted and which in many cases are part of European Union directives that we have freely and willingly entered into. For that reason, disposal routes are complex and giver rise to problems in many areas.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: May I draw the Minister's attention to communities, which she knows, around Widdringon, Chevington and Cresswell in Northumberland that have seen thousands of animals burned in a beauty spot at Druridge bay and 100,000 carcases buried at Widdrington? Does she recognise that they need a break because they have been dealing with the problems of the whole region? There could also be some compensation, such as a council tax reduction for a year. There must be a mechanism by which we can recognise that those people have borne the brunt of the sacrifice.
  Ms Quin: I know the area well and I understand people's concerns, but I must say that the conditions under which animals were disposed of there were not unilaterally thought up by the Ministry of Agriculture but agreed by all the parties concerned, including the Environment Agency. Various requirements for siting were met, including those on wind conditions. Wind does change direction, but it is easier now than in 1967 to predict it, and we have used that knowledge very effectively.
  We have made good progress in the last week or two towards clearing slaughter and disposal backlogs. It was clear that we were not keeping up with the numbers

  335
  reported, but now there is a serious backlog only in Devon and that is being reduced by the day. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas.
  Mr. Burnett: As the Minister knows, there is a problem in my constituency and in Devon more widely. She said that we should not be complacent. It is reported today that her Ministry's director of operations for the south-west has moved. Who is the new south-west director of operations?
  Ms Quin: I have not seen that report, but the directors of operations, who have been working very hard, are entitled to a break in their activities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the operations directorate in Devon is a crucial part of the fight against foot and mouth disease. The arrangements in Devon to co-ordinate the efforts of the Ministry, the Army and the veterinary service will be fully effective and his constituents will not lose out from any temporary changes in the occupancy of the regional director's office.
  Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Lady will agree that it is important to try to keep rural businesses going in the crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned rural abattoirs. Is she aware of the extent to which the welfare slaughter scheme is dislocating the market for slaughter of animals for human consumption? There are abattoirs in the north of England that cannot obtain stock for slaughter even under the Government's rules because the prices under the welfare slaughter scheme, in which animals are bulked up and priced deadweight, are much more advantageous than those offered for live weight in the marketplace. Small businesses will not be helped if they cannot get hold of the animals, even when encouraged to do so.
  Ms Quin: Thanks to the television in my office in the Ministry of Agriculture, I followed the interesting exchange on that subject earlier this week between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who explained our approach to the welfare scheme, and particularly the reason why we introduced a new complementary scheme to allow meat to go into the food chain from infected areas. My right hon. Friend outlined various ways in which he wanted to proceed with the welfare scheme, and I know that he may well have more to say about that in the next few days.
  On disposal, I should like to repeat the assurance that public safety must be our first priority. The Department of Health is leading work on the safe disposal of carcases; it is providing advice for those involved in disposal and, of course, additional guidance for the public. Last week, we announced further measures to ease farm welfare problems. I have just responded to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) regarding the movement of healthy animals from surveillance zones; those animals can now be slaughtered for human consumption. Farmers will be able to move animals in a wider range of circumstances than previously. Although the movements require licences, local veterinary inspectors can now issue those.
  We are aware that the livestock welfare disposal scheme made a slow start, but we are now getting on top of the backlog and expect to clear it in the next few weeks. I believe that approximately 53,000 animals were
  336
  disposed of under the scheme in the first week of April, but the figure rose to 150,000 last week, which is a considerable improvement, and I acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved.
  Dr. Peter Brand: The Minister will realise that my island constituency has been free of foot and mouth so far, and we hope to keep it that way through rigid barrier controls at our ferry ports. However, there is a problem, as it costs at least £300 to take animals from farm to abattoir, irrespective of the number taken. A collection point proposal has been put to her office but. apparently, the response was that, so far, there has been no time to consider such a proposal. Will she look at the proposal because the issue is becoming a serious problem for my farmers?
  Ms Quin: I will look at that issue again and write to the hon. Gentleman. However, our earlier reservations about collection points were based largely on veterinary advice on disease control. I will check whether that advice has changed, but I am not aware that it has.
  A minute ago, I said that I would like to pay tribute to those who, in many cases, are working round the clock in disease control centres. I should very much like to stress that point, partly because of the many dispiriting and negative stories that affect people on the ground. I know that bad news is news and that good news is not news but, none the less, many things have been handled well, correctly and sensitively. Often, the people who carry out that work do not get the recognition that they deserve. In a previous incarnation I had ministerial responsibility for prisons, and I remember that people who often work in difficult circumstances on rehabilitating prisoners day in, day out get little public thanks, but the minute that something goes wrong, they find themselves all over the media, which can be distressing. There are parallels with the problem that we now face.
  It was good to see in one of my local newspapers recently a notice inserted by a family whose animals had been lost as a result of foot and mouth thanking Ministry staff for the way in which they had dealt with that. I was rather amused to note on a visit to the Intervention Board that someone had faxed an ode to the staff to thank them for the way that they had dealt with his application under the livestock welfare scheme.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there have been great difficulties with the Intervention Board? I represent a Welsh area, and it is difficult to find an official who deals with Wales. I have had problems that involve one of my constituents, Mr. Barry Lewis. After two weeks, he found that his application form had been lost. Eventually he had his stock slaughtered, only to be told the next day that it would be slaughtered this coming week. There have been serious problems, so will my right hon. Friend undertake a serious review of the board's workings?
  Ms Quin: What I said was said sincerely. I was not trying to disguise the fact that there have been difficulties and problems. Problems have been referred to me and to other Ministers. I am prepared to consider lessons of organisation. None the less, Ministry and Intervention Board staff have had to operate many different schemes at short notice—for example, the short-term movement

  337
  scheme, the long-distance movement scheme and the livestock welfare disposal scheme. They have had to deal also with the slaughtering and disposal of infected animals and the problems related to contiguous farms and premises. It has been difficult to deal with those issues.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I agree with the right hon. Lady when she pays tribute to those who are working so hard and who have answered our calls with great courtesy. However, on organisation, will she clarify the exact relationship between the Prime Minister, COBR—Cobra—the Ministry of Defence, MAFF and, above all, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which controls the Environment Agency? There seem to be conflicting claims and differences of opinion on who takes decisions.
  Ms Quin: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not find this difficult. Many Departments are involved when there is such an outbreak. He referred, for example, to health, environment, agriculture and Army issues. Given the Army's involvement, the co-ordination that COBR provides is important. Given the scale of the problem that we face, it would be astonishing if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not personally fully engaged.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Quin: I am conscious of the need to make some progress. I will give way for the last time. If I continued to give way, I would be denying Members the chance to speak.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Lady has been extremely generous in giving way and I am grateful to her.
  The right hon. Lady knows that the Ministry has made draft proposals, which I support, for banning the feeding of swill to pigs. However, the draft orders appear to include whey feeding, which is crucial to the pig industry and the cheese-making industry. There seems to be no evidential basis for banning the feeding of whey to pigs. Can she assure me that the Ministry does not intend to crucify those industries for no good reason?
  Ms Quin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not out to crucify the cheese-making industry. Knowing the excellence and variety of British cheeses, I am keen to see the industry expand. The consultation period on pig swill has expired, and we are considering the results. The issue that he mentioned has been raised, along with others, and an announcement will be made shortly about the results of the consultation and how we intend to proceed.
  I conclude by referring to the part of the motion that concerns the need to consider long-term policies for agriculture and the rural sector. Both the motion and the Government's amendment mention long-term policies, although the official Opposition's amendment, which simply refers to immediate measures, does not. The long-term perspective is important. The Government are already active in that respect, both within the United Kingdom in terms of developing agriculture and rural policies, and in the European Union, where we are building specific alliances.
  338
  Despite the reservations expressed in an earlier intervention, agricultural reform is gaining momentum in the European Union, partly because of changes in attitude among certain Governments in Europe, partly because of the pressure from the World Trade Organisation, partly because of the expansion of the EU to take in countries of central and eastern Europe, and partly because of the concerns of the consumer and environmental considerations.
  The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) rightly mentioned the various aspects of agriculture. Agriculture is about food production, and we are keen to ensure that our producers identify markets and opportunities for the future. At the same time, agriculture is about stewardship of the countryside, and we believe that the countryside and environmental aspects need to be factored even more fully into policy, particularly European policy.
  I am optimistic about that. We have a better chance of agricultural reform in that direction now than at any time that those of us who have been dealing in various ways with the common agricultural policy can remember. That is encouraging. I can assure the House that we will be extremely active in pursuing that debate.
  I welcome today's debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make a statement on foot and mouth disease tomorrow. I believe that we are tackling the disease, as the figures now show. I believe that we are supporting the wider rural economy and taking forward the debate on the future of agricultural and rural policies in our country. For all those reasons, I strongly commend the Government's amendment.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on holding this afternoon's debate. It is the first chance that the House has had to consider foot and mouth disease after a two and a half week gap, part of which was the Easter recess. It is disappointing that in the nine weeks since the crisis started, there has not yet been a single debate in the House in Government time. There have been two full days of debate provided by the Conservative Opposition, and now half a day provided by the Liberal Democrats. Whether, contrary to what the Minister of State said, that reflects some reluctance on the Government's part to deal with the issues in Parliament and to be accountable to Parliament, others will judge.
  I warmly welcome the more hopeful signs that have emerged in the past few days in relation to the scale of the crisis. Any progress that is being made towards getting control of the outbreak is very good news. I shall examine in a moment the extent of that progress and the reasons why it may have taken place.
  In the two and a half weeks since the House last debated foot and mouth disease, there have continued to be a great many heart-rending stories of its tragic effects. I am sure that the entire House will want to join me in sending a clear message of sympathy and support to every family in the land who have suffered as a result of the disease or who may still face a threat from foot and mouth disease as it approaches their farm. That support must also extend, as the right hon. Lady said, to those who are working to contain the outbreak and clear up the terrible backlog of animals awaiting slaughter and of carcases awaiting disposal.

  339
  That backlog results directly from the Government's failure to act more promptly and effectively in the early stages of the crisis. It results from their refusal to bring in the Army at the time when we suggested it, and their refusal then to give the Army full control of operations on the ground, which seems to be happening belatedly and by stealth. The efforts made by service personnel, as well as by vets, slaughtermen and many others at the sharp end, are very much appreciated.
  This week's news that a human case of foot and mouth disease may have occurred is, however, a worrying new development. The risks to personnel who are dealing with carcase disposal, and in particular with carcases that may explode, cannot be ignored. I hope that the Government will review the procedures that are being followed in order to minimise the risk of further human cases of foot and mouth disease.
  I need hardly say that the confirmation that foot and mouth disease can affect humans, which contrasts with some earlier official statements and assurances, risks undermining some of the efforts that have been made in the past couple of weeks to boost the fortunes of our flagging tourism industry.
  Ms Quin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comment is justified. He will know that there is on record a case of foot and mouth that occurred in a human in the 1967 outbreak. Thus, although such an occurrence is extremely rare, it is not impossible, and I do not think that anyone has said otherwise.
  Mr. Yeo: I am afraid that one of the mistakes that the Government have made almost throughout the crisis is to sound too optimistic and complacent about what is happening. Those of us who genuinely have the long-term interests of the tourism industry and rural businesses at heart know that nothing causes more damage than raising false expectations, which especially affect the tourism market, whether in north America or elsewhere. It was claimed frequently that the disease was under control when the number of cases was a tiny fraction of that which was reached at the end of March, but the fact that those claims were so patently unfounded at the time when they were made has reduced the effectiveness of the efforts of Ministers and other officials to try to rebuild confidence. Ignoring problems that are occurring, such as the one to which I have just referred, does nothing whatever to stimulate demand for visits to this country in places such as north America.
  At the start of April, I set out the four criteria that should be used to judge whether the crisis has been resolved. First, the number of confirmed cases that arise daily should he on a clear downward trend. Secondly, the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target time for infected animals should be met. Thirdly, the geographical spread of the disease should be reversed. Fourthly, the movement restrictions on healthy animals should be lifted. When all four criteria have been achieved, farming can be said to have returned to normal. [Interruption.] I hear someone on the Labour Benches saying that all those conditions have been met. I can only say that that is an extraordinarily ignorant comment, and exactly the sort of remark about which I complained earlier. Anyone who has travelled in the countryside, especially in the west country, will know such a view is very far from correct.
  340
  Let us examine each criterion. First, as the Minister of State pointed out, progress has now been made on the number of cases that are confirmed daily. That is good news. However, will she or the Minister for the Environment tell us whether the presentation of today's figures is consistent with that of earlier ones? On Monday, Baroness Hayman wrote to my noble Friend Baroness Byford. Her letter stated that, although there had been 1,435 confirmed cases, there were 5,385 affected farms, so the number of farmers whose animals are being slaughtered is obviously substantially greater than the number of confirmed cases. On the same day, the chief veterinary officer was giving different figures to the Agriculture Committee. In view of that discrepancy, will the Minister of State confirm that no change has been made to the basis on which the figures are calculated?
  On the second of my four criteria—the 24-hour report-to-slaughter target for infected animals—progress has again clearly been made, but it is hard to judge precisely how much, as the daily data for the past few days do not appear entirely credible. After several weeks when the daily reports suggested that approximately 30,000 to 40,000 animals a day were being slaughtered, Government figures appeared to claim that 700,000 animals were slaughtered in four days. That is approximately five times the rate that had been achieved previously.
  After weeks of carcase disposals at a maximum rate of 40,000 a day, Government figures suggested that more than 1 million carcases were disposed of in five days. I assume that the figures involved some catching up, and that under-recording in the earlier period has led to bunching. However, that reduces the value of the figures, at least for the time being. It would be helpful if the Minister of State could confirm that the basis for the calculations has not been changed. I hope that that is case. If so, perhaps the Government could publish backdated daily figures that incorporate the revisions so that we can judge the trend. We cannot do that at the moment because of the bunching. If the data have been revised, it should be possible to produce more accurate daily figures. That would enable us to judge the trend more confidently.
  The daily figures are relevant to assessing whether the target of 24 hours from report to slaughter is being met. I hope that information will continue to be given to hon. Members. On three occasions during the last three days before the Easter recess, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for an assurance that daily statistics would be published throughout the recess. We received no answer to those requests, and the daily figures were discontinued in the first week. After several days of widely reported protests from the Conservative party and others who were worried about the matter, the Government relented and began publishing the daily totals again. Discontinuing the information makes it hard to judge what the current pattern shows. Figures should be published on the same basis as in the early period.
  It would also be helpful if the Government broke down the confirmed cases by constituency. I appreciate that individual Members of Parliament are notified, but if we are approaching a general election campaign, it is important to provide public information about the constituencies where cases are confirmed. Thus all the candidates can be informed in the same way as Members of Parliament are currently notified.

  341
  The third criterion is the reversal of the geographical spread. Again, I acknowledge that some progress has been made and that the Government have published a list of areas that can be declared free of infection. However, some setbacks have occurred, for example, in Glamorgan, which was previously free of infection. The overall picture is therefore mixed. Matters are improving, but the trend is not all one way.
  The fourth criterion covers the movement restrictions on healthy animals. Again, I welcome the steps that have been taken to reduce them, but the Minister of State knows that curbs remain in place in many areas. They are needed and it is right to maintain them. I agree that there is a risk of premature relaxation, for understandable reasons, and that there is much pressure to lift the restrictions. No one wants to make the mistake that was made in the previous outbreak, when restrictions were relaxed too quickly in some places. The disease might begin to spread again as a consequence. We therefore support the retention of controls until it is clearly safe to lift them.
  However, until the restrictions are lifted, it cannot be said that farming has returned to normal. Many farmers are finding it difficult to run their businesses as they would like, taking account of the seasonal factors.
  Mr. David Borrow: Does the hon. Gentleman now believe that the outbreak is under control? He talks about lifting movement restrictions. If he were Minister, under what circumstances would he lift restrictions completely? Would he wait until there were no further incidences, or for a period after the final outbreak? Under what circumstances would he deem that movement restrictions could be lifted and therefore that the outbreak was under control according to his definition?
  Mr. Yeo: I believe that most members of the public would judge whether the crisis had been resolved according to the criteria that I have set out. I share the Minister of State's view that it is impossible to lift all movement restrictions as quickly as some people would like because we rightly do not want to run any risk of a renewed spread of infection. However, it is impossible to say that the crisis has been resolved while those restrictions remain. A significant number of farmers are unable to operate their businesses as they normally would while such restrictions exist, and to claim that everything is back to normal when restrictions of that sort are still in place seems quite unreasonable.
  Taking account of all those criteria, I do not believe that it is possible to say, as of today, that the crisis has been resolved or even that foot and mouth disease is fully under control. It is certainly not under control in Devon, to which I paid a visit last week. There, in particular, the problem of carcase disposal is still enormous. That is a symbol of the Government's failure to take control of this problem quickly. In Devon, there is still a huge backlog of carcases awaiting disposal, and it cannot be ignored. To ignore it would be environmentally damaging.
  The rendering option, which was initially the Government's preferred solution, sometimes involves taking infected carcases through uninfected areas, running
  342
  a risk of spreading the infection. In any case, the rendering capacity is clearly unable to deal with the scale of problem that now exists. Incineration, which appears to be the Government's other preferred option, is also environmentally hazardous, as people now increasingly recognise. Mass burial also carries its own health and environmental difficulties, and raises important questions about local consent and the acceptability of some of the proposals that are now under consideration.
  We have said several times—and I remain of this view—that the better option. right from the start, is on-farm burial. That was the clear message of the 1967 report. The Minister of State quite reasonably made the point that environmental concerns have evolved since then. Nevertheless, what should have happened at the earliest stage of the outbreak was immediate consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Environment Agency. The agency should have been asked to identify areas where it would not be possible to have on-farm burial because of a high water table or other factors. On-farm burial should have been the preferred option everywhere else.
  On-farm burial allows the problem to be dealt with in manageable proportions. Instead of hundreds of thousands of carcases being transported to one particular site, a number of much smaller-scale sites could be used. Indeed, there could be more than one site on one farm if necessary.
  Mr. Peter Luff rose—
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Yeo: I shall give way in a moment.
  On-farm burial would have been the right option. That was the conclusion in 1967, and it was the recommendation that we gave. Unfortunately, our advice was ignored.
  Mr. Luff: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about on-farm burial. The failure of the Government to implement that policy has landed my constituents near Throckmorton airfield with a mass burial site that will have to take upwards of a quarter of a million carcases, and possibly many more if the absolutely abhorrent proposal to bring carcases from Devon to Worcestershire is pursued by the Government. The Government are not making their task any easier by failing to answer my parliamentary questions on the subject. Before the recess, I tabled about 30 questions and I have had no substantial answers to any of them. My constituents adjacent to that site are extremely anxious.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are meant to be brief.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend raises a most important point on parliamentary questions. I have checked, and I have 15 questions to the Minister outstanding, nearly all of which were tabled before the end of March. After the recess, it was quite reasonable for Members on both sides of the House to expect that the questions that they had tabled some time earlier would have been answered on Monday this week.

  343
  The other point of which my hon. Friend reminds me is that if there are concerns about on-farm burial, it would be interesting to know whether the Environment Agency has carried out any studies to find out what the long-term effects were of the on-farm burial that was successfully carried out in 1967, and to see whether any damaging effects have occurred.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there have been huge changes since 1967? Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the Environment Agency scoured the countryside in the infected areas in Wales to find suitable burial points, and failed to do so. The hon. Gentleman has underlined just how difficult it is to deal with the problem, and he should admit that the Government have done a damned good job in very difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Yeo: I do not think that anyone looking at the piles of carcases in Devon could agree with that last sentiment. I understand that the chief executive of the Environment Agency has said that a number of sites that could be used are not being used at present.
  Mr. Paterson: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) may be interested to know that I held a meeting with vets who had worked during 1967 and vets working currently. When large numbers of cattle were buried on-farm in Cheshire and north Shropshire, no detrimental effects on human health were recorded. My hon. Friend is right to ask for an investigation of whether any records were kept for those sites, and what the environmental consequences were. That was the clear recommendation of the 1967 report, and of the vets in Wem four weeks ago.
  Mr. Yeo: I entirely agree. I certainly do not consider it adequate, nine weeks into the current outbreak, simply to parrot the objection that on-farm burials involve environmental difficulties, unless it is backed up by proper studies and assessments that reveal risks of which we were not previously aware.
  Let me now turn to measures taken to curb the spread of the disease. It appears that, belatedly, slaughter on suspicion—for which, again, we called at an early stage—is now being employed, and that it has been crucial to better progress.
  Ms Quin: Slaughter on clinical signs—in other words, slaughter on suspicion—was taking place before the hon. Gentleman suggested it.
  Mr. Yeo: That statement will, I think, be disputed by a great many farmers.
  Will the Minister of State explain some things to me? A case that may have appeared to be a confirmed case of foot and mouth disease may not have been recorded as such, because slaughter has taken place before confirmation of the infection has been obtained. If, in such circumstances, there has been a slaughter on suspicion, is there then a cull on contiguous farms, even if the infection has not been confirmed? When a case is confirmed and a cull on contiguous farms takes place, are the animals culled on those contiguous premises tested? If those animals are burned, is it the case that evidence that could show whether foot and mouth is under control or is still spreading may sometimes be destroyed by incineration?
  344
  The abiding impression gained by those who visit problem areas such as Devon—this is not just my experience, but the experience of every visitor to whom I have spoken—is that, even now, no one is really in charge. The Ministry is saying one thing, the vets are saying another, and the Environment Agency is saying something else. Unfortunately, when I was in Devon last week the Minister blocked my request to talk to Ministry vets. Two days before my visit I checked with the Minister's private office, and was told that I would not be allowed to enter the regional office in Exeter. I was not seeking any confidential information; if I had been, I would of course have approached the Minister himself. I simply wanted to hear the assessment of vets on the ground in an area where matters are clearly not under control.
  Foot and mouth disease is not just a problem for farmers with infected animals; others are threatened too, and I am afraid that the Government's dither over vaccination has not helped. I accept that this is not an easy decision to make—opinion is divided among farmers, among vets and among scientists—but it is the job of Ministers to make such difficult decisions.
  Some weeks ago, I set out three tests on which to assess whether vaccination should take place. Will vaccination eradicate foot and mouth disease more quickly than the present policies? Will vaccination reduce the number of animals that eventually have to be slaughtered? Will vaccination bring forward the date on which Britain regains disease-free status? I said then, and I say again now, that if the answer to at least two of those questions is yes, vaccination is clearly the right policy. If the answer to two or more of those questions is no, vaccination is not the right answer. If the Minister accepts that those are the right tests, what scientific advice has been given about them? If the Minister does not accept that those are the right tests, what tests are the Government applying to determine the policy?
  It is now nearly four weeks since Downing street said that a decision on vaccination would be made in 48 hours. We are still waiting and the delay suggests confusion at the highest level in Government. Last week, the Government appeared to be edging towards a policy of vaccinating dairy cattle in Cumbria and Devon, without explaining how that would help or how it would work. Now they are backing away from that, in the face of a seeming veto exercised by the NFU. Who is making the policy? Is it the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence—who apparently now chairs the Cobra meetings—or is it the president of the NFU?
  Mr. Borrow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Professor David King, the chief scientific adviser who is advising the Prime Minister on vaccination, made it clear that he would only support vaccination were it to be supported by the vast majority of farmers? In his scientific advice, the consent of the farming community is crucial. Is it also crucial to the hon. Gentleman's decision making?
  Mr. Yeo: I find that an extraordinary way to make policy. A policy is either right or wrong. I have set out three straightforward tests by which the policy should be judged. If the Government think that those are the right tests, let them tell us what the advice is. If the tests are wrong, the Government should tell us what tests they are

  345
  applying, but they should not have a policy that they are afraid to introduce if some people disagree with it. That sums up new Labour Government.
  Many uninfected animals are suffering as a direct result of the foot and mouth crisis. Healthy animals cannot be moved because of the movement restrictions. Lambs are in the wrong places, pigs suffer overcrowding and much distress is caused. The Minister of State will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) proposed a welfare scheme in the first debate we had on this subject, on 28 February. The Government's scheme, when it emerged some weeks later, was welcome, but the evidence is that it is not working very quickly.
  I heard this week from a farmer whom I visited in November, long before the foot and mouth crisis began. That farmer is within 3 km of an infected premises and, therefore, could not move any of her pigs. In a letter she faxed to me on Monday, she described the horrifying consequences of the overcrowding among her pigs, including tail biting and fighting. She was running out of money and feed, she could not borrow any more money and she had already extended her feed credit. She had written twice to her Member of Parliament, who had not replied. She contacted me because she had entered her pigs on the welfare disposal scheme three weeks ago and, as of Monday morning when she faxed me the letter, she had not received a response. I telephoned her, because her experience is by no means an isolated one. I am glad to say that matters have been resolved, because she has had a form D imposed and her pigs will be slaughtered on the farm.
  Mr. Bercow: Who is the guilty Member?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall not say. I wish to proceed courteously, so when I have had the chance to inform the Member concerned I may consider advising my hon. Friend.
  One way in which to help to unblock the logjam of welfare cases would be to give local vets a greater role in authorising movements, and I believe that the Government have now adopted that suggestion. I am concerned that the Government have still not offered compensation to farmers who are prevented from selling their cattle as they approach the age of 30 months. Through no fault of their own, those farmers suffer an irrecoverable drop in the value of their stock when cattle pass that age and they deserve to be compensated for that loss. I hope that the Minister will address that issue quickly.
  The Minister for the Environment is to wind up the debate, and it was he who announced some weeks ago that an inquiry would be held into the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I hope that he will be able to tell the House this evening about the nature and form of the inquiry that he has in mind.
  It is now nine weeks into the crisis. Foot and mouth disease has inflicted hideous damage on farmers, tourism and the rest of the rural economy. The taxpayer is left with a huge bill. Our environment has been disfigured. Millions of animals, many of them healthy, have been slaughtered. Many other animals have suffered.
  346
  The public have understandably been angered by the waste and distress involved. In due course, it will be possible to judge whether much of that suffering and damage could have been avoided. It is noticeable that in Ireland a swift, effective and co-ordinated response to the disease prevented a large-scale national catastrophe of the kind that we have experienced in Britain. I fear that it is already clear that if the Government had examined the lessons of the 1967 outbreak, taken the steps that I and others suggested at each stage in the crisis and reacted quickly on the scale and with the urgency that was needed, the disease would never have been spread so far, the cost would not have been so great and the damage would not have been so devastating. The time will come when those events are analysed and those responsible are called to account.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If those hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate make their contributions brief, more will be able to catch my eye.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The House, and the country, will have noted that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) did not tell us whether he was for or against vaccination.
  The foot and mouth outbreak has been the most difficult issue that I have faced in 22 years as a Member of Parliament. I have more than 50 cases in my constituency, and the local tourism industry faces a crisis. Some 47,000 people in the county of Cumbria are directly or indirectly dependent on tourism. The trade is worth nearly £1 billion a year to our county. Some 20 per cent. of the total work force in Cumbria is involved in activity related to tourism. I believe that in terms of the effect on tourism, I have probably the worst affected constituency in Britain.
  There has been no post-Easter recovery in my constituency. We have had a couple of good days, but we still have a real crisis. The figures that are reported to my office daily vary between a 60 per cent. and a 90 per cent. reduction in turnover, and the laundries and catering establishments in my constituency, which give me important information about the situation, report a substantial downturn in trade.
  Cumbria has reacted positively. We have given evidence to the national taskforce through our own taskforce and we have called for a rural action zone. The meetings held in Kendal by the Cumbria taskforce are extremely important to Members of Parliament, and we are pressing its case for support for infrastructure costs in the future.
  Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I can tell him that the circumstances that he is adumbrating are mirrored on Dartmoor, which is at a standstill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in a similar position. The answer is the restoration of trade, but we could introduce interim measures. Cumbria Crisis Alliance, a grassroots organisation that has sprung up in my constituency,

  347
  and the local chambers of trade have produced some innovative thinking, some of which has already been reported to Ministers. We are thankful for the first stage measures introduced by Ministers on rate relief and tax concessions, and I have several recommendations for second stage measures that I hope the Treasury will seriously consider.
  First, there should be an extension of the hardship relief from business rates scheme, especially in the Lake district national park. The period is currently three months; that needs to be extended, and soon.
  I should like the £12,000 rateable value limit on property to be lifted. Tax assessments should average profits for the tax years ending in 2000 and 2001. That would allow current losses to be reflected as early as possible in tax payments.
  I do not accept the Conservative proposition that a new borrowing scheme should be set up. However, I accept the principle behind that proposal, which is that there should be subsidised interest rates. The Treasury should seriously consider setting a borrowing ceiling of £10,000. Under certain conditions that I shall describe later, subsidy should be made available to help offset interest rate costs on borrowings made through established institutions.
  I should like a job retention subsidy to be introduced to help keep people in employment in the tourism industry and related sectors. Such a subsidy would apply especially to live-in staff in restaurants and hotels in the Lake district. That would make a major contribution towards helping existing businesses retain the staff who work for them, or who have done so until recent weeks. A worrying advert appeared in my local newspaper only about two weeks ago. A firm in Edinburgh was advertising in Keswick for chefs. The implications will be readily identified by the House.
  I should like free—if possible—or concessionary public transport arrangements to be established throughout the Lake district national park. Dealing with the crisis calls for real measures, but not necessarily a great deal of money. I should like all car parks in the Lake district that are open at present to be free of charge. I should like there to be free access—or, failing that, access at concessionary prices—to all environmental attractions, and even to lake cruises. That would be a major help in attracting tourists back to the area.
  I should like help to be made available with the insurance premiums paid by businesses in my constituency. Such help would be of great assistance to guest houses, which, as commercial premises, pay substantially higher premiums than private houses.
  I should like subsidies to be introduced to cover the advertising and promotion budgets of many businesses in the Lake district national park. Such subsidies should be based on the expenditure in those businesses' last two years' accounts, which means that vast amounts of money would not be involved.
  I should also like the membership subscriptions to tourist associations and the Cumbria tourist board to be paid for many of the business in difficulty in my area. We should also consider underwriting the budgets of those local associations completely, if it is felt that that would be a better way to provide support.
  348
  How can we select the people to help? We have imposed on local authorities a requirement to asses the level of hardship where it occurs. I hope that the relevant criteria will be applied to the additional arrangements that I am calling for today.
  My proposals apply to the Lake district, but they would also be valid in parts of Devon and central Wales. They would not be expensive. They are highly targeted, and do not amount to compensation. Someone should put a price on the package of measures that I have set out, as my resources are too limited for such a task.
  I shall be leaving the House at the next election, but another hon. Member may well make the same speech in a couple of months, because the crisis will not go away. Everyone—people in Cumbria, hon. Members, and Ministers too—is trying valiantly to overcome the difficulties, but we face a major crisis. It must be dealt with, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, will accept a proposition that I made the other day. That was that the organisations in my constituency that are wrestling with the problems every day should be allowed to give evidence directly to the national taskforce. I attended a taskforce meeting two weeks ago, and I was very impressed. The taskforce, with all its multi-ministerial representation, has a vital role to play.
  Finally, I want to say something about vaccination. Peter Greenhill, chairman of the Mitchell's auction company in my constituency, has given me valuable advice about herdwicks, a variety of sheep. I advise Ministers to keep in contact with him, as he has a lot to say, especially about special breeds.
  I do not know what the row over vaccination is about, especially with regard to meat consumption. Most cattle are vaccinated, and there is nothing new about that. If it is suggested that there should be special labelling of vaccinated animals, does that mean that all meat should be similarly labelled if the animal that it came from has been vaccinated? If so, almost every chop and other piece of meat in this country's butchers' shops would carry a label saying that the animal had been vaccinated.
  As I understand it, some 40 vaccinations are already in use, and they apply right across the board. What is the difference between the foot and mouth vaccine and any other? The argument about vaccination and the need for compensation in connection with milk is nonsense. Vaccination is already an established practice, and vaccinating for foot and mouth would not amount to any change.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I shall begin by pretending for a moment that there has been no outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and sketching the situation in agriculture and the rural economy that obtained before the outbreak began.
  It is worth remembering that agriculture was already experiencing the worst economic crisis for a generation, and 24,000 jobs had been lost in the sector. The total income from farming in 2000 was at its lowest for 25 years. According to Countryside Agency figures, per capita income declined from £10,600 in 1998 to £7,800 in 2000. Significantly, agriculture's contribution to the national economy is now below 1 per cent. That puts the cost of dealing with the crisis in context.

  349
  The value of tourism to the English countryside is estimated at £12 billion, £9 billion of which derives from day trippers. Tourism supports 380,000 jobs, and in Yorkshire alone, 135,000 people—7 per cent. of the work force—earn their livelihood from tourism. The total revenue generated from tourism is £3.34 billion, and rural tourism generates £1.7 billion. Those figures also put the matter in perspective.
  Before the foot and mouth crisis began, the tourist industry was already suffering from the high pound and poor weather. In addition, the fuel crisis and flooding problems had already made this a very difficult year for the industry.
  One third of all England's businesses—just under 600,000 enterprises—are in rural areas. They are often very small, offering part-time or casual employment on a seasonal basis. Such businesses are now subject to a new set of impositions that have nothing to do with foot and mouth disease. In my constituency, for example, the aggregates tax will hit the quarrying industry, and the climate change levy will also have an effect.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) set out the circumstances encountered by people in his constituency, and the situation in my area is similar. Employers who must pay additional fuel costs will not get them rebated through national insurance contributions because they do not pay such contributions in respect of a significant number of their part-time work force. In addition, local employers are having to deal with the red tape of administering tax credit, and there is a new threat that fuel prices will rise again. The cost of car use to rural households is estimated to be 25 per cent. higher than it is to urban households.
  In addition, access to technological infrastructure is often difficult in rural areas. A constituent of mine in Malhamdale wanted to have an integrated services data network line installed to help him pursue his business, but he has been told that the cost would be in excess of £300,000.
  In many rural areas, the quality of secondary education is extremely high—that is especially true in North Yorkshire—but the further education structure is often less good and requires real work.
  There are also the particular problems of what I call the countryside's great hidden industry—the residential home and nursing home sector. Those problems arise from the inadequacy of funding for local authorities, which determine the level of fees payable to such homes. In North Yorkshire last year, 500 beds were lost. There has been an 11 per cent. increase in the national minimum wage. One can argue that such an increase is justified, but it cannot be passed on by a sector that greatly depends on fees paid by a public authority.
  That sector is crucial in offering employment. It often buttresses employment in agriculture. The farmer's wife, for example, might work part-time in a care home, because care homes are the largest employers in some of the villages in my constituency. This is a crucial sector upon which the health service depends enormously to provide "seamless" treatment for people from hospital back in the community, and it is seriously under threat.
  All that happened before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. There is not a single case of foot and mouth in my constituency, but it is under siege because
  350
  until very recently, every square inch of it was a restricted area, so no normal activity could take place. I have spent a lot of time recently going to Wharfedale, Grassington and Ingleton—the villages that depend on tourism. With due respect to the Prime Minister, York is not the gateway to the countryside. My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Workington, is much more dependent on rural pursuits such as walking and access to the countryside.
  The level of cancellation is over 80 per cent., and the results of that spin down to the local pub and the local restaurant. The patterns of delivery for the Theakston and Black Sheep breweries show that there is the opposite of an accelerator right through the rural economy. This is the deceleration effect that comes from the crisis in the tourist industry.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will that not persist right through the summer? The agricultural shows will have been cancelled in my right hon. Friend's constituency, as they have been in mine. People who depend on those for revival will not have them this year.
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The royal show is being cancelled, as are all my little shows in individual dales. They are a great focus of local activity.
  It is important that the Minister for the Environment realises that the summer has already been shot to pieces for many of those businesses. The clients who would have booked for their summer holidays have already booked elsewhere. Businesses may be able to hang on over the summer, but come the back end of the summer and next winter, many will be in serious difficulties. Any help may almost be more relevant six or nine months from now than it is at the moment.
  As for the Government's help, the suggestions on my list are very close to those made by the hon. Member for Workington. Although my constituency was a zone excluded from the list of benefits that he hopes to see introduced, our economic circumstances must be very similar. The £12,000 ceiling on the rateable value for businesses does not make sense. Indeed, it excludes some properties such as the larger pubs, which employ more people. They are having to lay off staff, but they want to hold on to their work force.
  Many businesses are paying council tax and not business rates, and that needs equivalent relief. The Government aid to local authorities in respect of business rate relief for businesses with a rateable value of more than £12,000 is 75 per cent; for values below £12,000, it is 95 per cent. As for the wonderful principle that because businesses must pay 5 per cent. when the relief is 95 per cent., that means ownership of the scheme, my businesses would happily dispense with that particular proprietorial notion.
  Craven is a tiny local authority, one of the smallest in the country, with a budget of between £5 million and £6 million. Without advertising the rate relief scheme yet, it has had 388 applications, 65 of which relate to properties with a rateable value of more than £12,000. If it were to grant them all, that would cost the authority £52,500. That may seem small beer, but against a total budget of less than £6 million, it is a significant sum. The resentment caused by the levels of relief offered in Wales and Scotland is intense—and I say that as someone who,

  351
  as the hon. Member for Workington knows, is not inclined to play a particularly English nationalistic card in this matter.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend has raised an important point. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment a fortnight ago on behalf of Stroud district council, which is very similar to the authority that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. A fortnight ago, Stroud council reckoned that it would be unable to reclaim £250,000 from the non-district rating pool. This is a very serious problem, and if the Government do not remedy it, the council tax payers in those small rural areas will have yet another year or two of council tax increases way in excess of inflation.
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have the identical situation in my constituency.
  The Government must realise that devolution is not just about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but about England as well. There is real concern at their apparent unwillingness to match the English interest with what is being offered elsewhere.
  The eleemosynary instincts of the Inland Revenue are extremely welcome and very rare. However, for many of my businesses, going to the Inland Revenue and being charged for the privilege is not particularly relevant to their circumstances.
  The Bellwin relief scheme ought to apply to local authorities, because this is an emergency. It cuts in when more than 2 per cent. of the budget has been spent. In North Yorkshire, in view of the money needed for flood relief and the effects of the Selby rail disaster, local authority expenditure is extensive. However, a local authority's normal expenditure depends largely on the number of teachers that it employs. It is curious that the Government's aid in connection with foot and mouth disease depends on the number of teachers on a local authority's books.
  The climate change levy should be deferred. It is a pure imposition on small businesses in the tourist sector, because the national insurance rebate does not affect them. I agree with the hon. Member for Workington about support for payroll costs. Businesses want to keep their staff in work and keep them available. Those people often greatly need the extra income that those jobs provide. That would be the single most crucial piece of help that I could identify in my constituency, where businesses are under terrible pressure.
  Providing investment grants towards the capital investment required to rebuild businesses would be a helpful contribution. If there are to be loans they will have to be interest-free or subsidised, because there is not the cash flow to service loans raised at the normal rate of interest.
  Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend touches on cash flow, which is surely the most pressing issue facing those businesses. In the equestrian sector, a large riding school in my constituency, with 70 horses, has no cash flow at all. The arrangements for rates will be helpful down the road, but such businesses need a cash injection fast.
  Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen well publicised stories of riding establishments having to
  352
  slaughter their horses because they cannot afford to maintain them. That is particularly telling in an epidemic in which the images of lambs in the mud, and calves, have featured so prominently.
  Above all, we need the restoration of normality as fast as possible. However, we need to look beyond that, at the exit strategies from the crisis. There will have to be a recovery strategy. In agriculture, the costs of stock replacement may exceed the levels of compensation paid for stock. There will be a period before farms can be restocked, in which farmers must have a livelihood.
  A great deal of nonsense has been and will be spoken about the impact of all this on the common agricultural policy. The Liberal Democrats' Ruritanian naivety—cliché-ridden naivety at that—was a singular non-contribution to this debate.
  Diseases such as BSE and foot and mouth will push agriculture further in the direction in which it already knows that it must go. It must move into the environmental market, it must move into the recreational market, and it must move upstream and produce more quality food. In other words, the task of public policy makers is to define what those public goods are and how we pay for them, so that we are not dependent upon contradictory policies that promote production while also seeking to promote and support policies that militate against production.
  When we come to that debate, I hope that people will show some sense and realism about the directions in which agriculture must go, and will not chase some new form of Elysian dream that will not have the faintest bearing on reality. In the meantime, very many businesses are suffering acutely. They will continue to do so for the rest of this year and beyond, and the aid must stretch to them while the crisis lasts.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who as usual spoke a great deal of sense—if he does not mind my saying so. I was also pleased that he broadened the debate a little beyond the immediate impact of foot and mouth. The debate is on the rural economy, and if we were not holding it against the backdrop of that disease it might be rather different. For example, in my part of the world—Devon and Cornwall—unemployment is at a record low, whether in urban or rural areas. There is still big migration from urban to rural areas—those people are not moving to rural areas because life there is intolerable, but it is understandable that we are holding this sad debate against the backdrop of the current crisis; I shall restrict my remarks to that.
  I was pleased with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said about the trends of the outbreak. However, I am slightly puzzled by the approach of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who constantly lectures the Government that they need to learn the lessons of 1967. I fear that he may have to eat his words. According to the current epidemiological projections, if the present trend continues, this outbreak will have been far more successfully and quickly contained and eradicated than the 1967 outbreak, which went on for eight months with far more cases. The hon. Gentleman should be more careful when he draws parallels with 1967.

  353
  There seems to be some general confusion in the House about the meaning of the term "under control". My understanding is that the scientific definition of a disease being "under control" is when one outbreak generates fewer than one further outbreak. Under that definition, the disease has been under control for at least two weeks—even in somewhere like Devon—contrary to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
  That is not to say that we do not have enormous problems. My right hon. Friends the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister for the Environment will be aware of the particular problem in Devon of carcase disposal. However, although the hon. Member for South Suffolk says that he has visited Devon, he does not seem to have learned very much. He displayed the most extraordinary ignorance of our geology and of the fact that, after the wettest year for 300 years, our water table is at a record high. In the constituencies that are most badly affected, such as that of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), there is the highest proportion of people with private water supplies. All the experts and the Environment Agency say that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk for on-farm burial is the worst possible environmental solution to the problem. I do not know where he gets his ideas.
  During this crisis, most Members have learned that often there are no simple solutions and no easy answers. I know that, in Devon, the Army and MAFF have been working around the clock to try to find appropriate disposal sites. It has been incredibly difficult. We have not had the luxury of the large disposal sites in Cumbria. Sites have now been found, but as the Government and authorities have—rightly—listened to the concerns of local people, there has been a delay in the sites coming on-stream.
  I associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon that the Government should consider the possibility of taking away some of our carcases. I realise that Ministers would tell me, "You would say that, wouldn't you?", but there is now spare capacity in other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, sadly, is no longer in the Chamber, seemed rather reluctant to receive any of our carcases. I point out that, during a large part of the outbreak, we in Devon were taking carcases from his area into our rendering capacity, so there could be a generous quid pro quo. I urge the Government to consider that proposal. The situation is terrible. Human health problems could arise—as they have already done in some cases—with all those undisposed carcases left in the Devon countryside.
  The crisis has been devastating and distressing for the farming community. It has also been hugely devastating for other industries—especially tourism, as has already been said. I am especially sorry for the small tourism industries in the areas most immediately affected and on Dartmoor, which do not automatically receive compensation. They face going out of business during the next few weeks unless more is done.
  We were fearful about the Easter holiday. However, I am glad to say that we had a far better Easter than we had originally expected—partly thanks to some of the
  354
  initiatives taken by the Government before Easter to encourage people to visit Devon and Cornwall and return to the countryside. In fact, takings in Devon were between 80 and 90 per cent. of those for the previous Easter. That is phenomenal achievement, given the terrible backdrop—[Interruption.]—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) points out, the good weather helped.
  That relative success masks a huge disparity. In cities like mine, Exeter, takings were up on the previous Easter; indeed, during the Easter weekend, one of the hotels had to send away 30 couples because it was full. The coastal resorts did extremely well. I spent much of the recess walking around the coastal path, where there were crowds. However, on Dartmoor and in the rural areas immediately affected by the disease businesses had a terrible time.
  I associate myself 100 per cent. with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who, as usual, made a wholly constructive speech. It was full of practical, constructive suggestions, which I hope the Government will take on board. If they do not do so, some excellent tourism businesses on Dartmoor and in the rural areas of Devon will go to the wall. We have built up a high quality tourism industry during recent years; it brings enormous benefit not only to people from outside the region, but to people who live in cities such as Exeter, who like to go out and enjoy the countryside.
  Those businesses will go to the wall unless they are offered some short-term help. More than anything, businesses want their customers back; they must get their customers back. We need a vigorous and well-funded marketing campaign for the rest of the year. Easter may have been better than we anticipated, but another bank holiday is coming soon, with another one after that. One swallow does not a summer make.
  We need a vigorous marketing campaign—we also need access. I spent some time during the Easter recess trying to walk in Devon. I say "trying" because far too many footpaths and public rights of way are still unnecessarily closed—as is too much of our woodland. I implore the Government to step up pressure on local authorities, the National Trust and the Forestry Commission—or Forestry Enterprise, as it has been renamed—to open much more land to public access. That must happen in time for the May day bank holiday weekend in 10 days time. The limited reopening of footpaths just before Easter was crucial. If that had not happened in Devon, we would have experienced a far worse Easter and everyone would have gone to Cornwall or Dorset instead. I am sure people in those counties would have been pleased, but we would not have been.
  I implore my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to keep up the pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry for at least one extra bank holiday—preferably in the autumn. I know that it is not on the Government's agenda—as he repeats each time I ask him—but will he tell the DTI that we in Britain have fewer bank holidays than people in any country in the European Union except the Netherlands? Furthermore, our workers take less holiday—by an average of about a week. It is a complete myth to suggest that giving people more holidays makes them less productive; the opposite is the case. All the research shows that productivity is associated far more with investment in technology and training than with holidays. A work force who are not

  355
  well rested and who are stressed perform far worse. As well as a much-needed fillip to our tourism industry, an extra bank holiday would go down extremely well with the public at large. That should be in our manifesto, as the Fabian Society suggests.
  The medium and long-term situation also needs to be addressed. At present, I think it is too soon to put a price tag on how much the crisis will affect us. Two conflicting reports have been produced by universities in Devon. The first was issued by the university of Exeter early in the outbreak—when we all thought that it would be far worse than it probably will be—and suggested that it would cost the county 10,000 jobs. Since then, research has been carried out by the university of Plymouth, which is much less pessimistic. However, I urge the Government to make a close study of what they think the impact will be, and to listen to the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.
  I am sure that on both sides of the House we all hope that the medium and long-term impact of the disease will not be as bad as we feared at the beginning. It is very good that the disease has been brought under control and eradicated more quickly than many of us—even the most optimistic expected two or three weeks ago, but we are certainly not yet out of the woods.
  May I make a plea for a couple of things? The first may not be popular in the countryside, but we need to hold such debates openly during times of crisis such as this: we need planning in rural areas. It is extraordinary that 75 per cent. of our land is in agricultural use, but accounts for only 1 per cent. of our gross domestic product—as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out. Yet there is a housing shortage. It is not a popular thing to say, but we need more homes. Ministers may be aware of the storyline on the BBC Radio 4 programme, "The Archers", in which there is a big debate about a new housing development in Ambridge. I am with Roy and Hayley on this one. They are a young couple who are about to get married and desperately need a home, but the NIMBYs in Ambridge are trying to stop them getting one.
  Our rural economy would be helped if we could have more homes. Farmers would also be helped if they were allowed to build two or three homes on their land. They would not then need taxpayers to compensate them for some of the losses that they have incurred. I hope that Ministers will take that on board. I know that it is a controversial suggestion, but we should debate such things; we should not be shut up by organisations such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
  We need to restructure the Departments. That is not a slight on the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, nor on that done by the Ministry. She is absolutely right—her staff have been working absolutely tirelessly in incredibly difficult conditions. They have worked miracles and, with hindsight, they will be judged much more fairly and favourably than they are currently being judged in the media.
  It seems to be nonsense that a Department is dedicated to an industry that is responsible for just 1 per cent. of our gross domestic product, whereas tourism, which is far more important economically, is the responsibility of a small part of another Department, with no budget and very little clout. I hope that the Government will grasp that
  356
  nettle after the next election. I am not sure what the answer is, nor whether I agree with the Liberal Democrat party's recommendations, but we need to consider that matter extremely seriously.
  Finally, on the reform of the CAP, all power to my right hon. Friend's elbow. I agree with her that the change of Minister in Germany is hugely important. I know Renate Künast from my time as the BBC correspondent in Berlin. She is a very sensible woman, and I am sure that the Minister can do business with her. If we can get the Germans on board for a radical reform of the CAP, despite all the clouds and the gloom of this crisis, there could be a very bright silver lining.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Never before has the importance of tourism to the rural economy of the United Kingdom been more apparent; never before has the industry been so much in the forefront of the news; and never before has the future, the core and the infrastructure of tourism been so thoroughly under threat.
  Britain's tourism industry, as we have heard, is the fifth biggest industry and comprises 120,000 businesses, more than 80 per cent. of which employ fewer than 10 people. The tourism industry makes £64 billion a year, of which rural tourism provides £12 billion. In rural England, tourism supports 380,000 jobs. A quarter of all holidays taken by British people in England alone are in the countryside, and those rural areas contain 39 per cent. of the known accommodation capacity in England, provided by 25,000 establishments.
  Because of the crisis, British tourists have withdrawn into their own home territory, or they are booking holidays abroad, encouraged by other European countries, which have ploughed into our markets, advertising walking and rambling holidays. There is no need to withdraw from our own holiday pattern—beaches, rural areas, country bordering rural areas and, indeed, most holiday spots inland are accessible.
  Much in evidence have been scenes in newspapers and on TV, both here and abroad, showing Britain on fire and the Army moving in, none of which has helped to stem any fears that tourists might have. In the USA, "Come to Britain" holidays have taken a nose dive. A wrong strategy was taken by the Government, who simply failed to realise that tourism would be hit far more than farming in the long term.
  The lack of information supplied to tourism businesses in the first weeks of the crisis was absolutely appalling. The information is still inadequate and red tape surrounds many aspects of business. Why not ease the pressure by requesting the regulatory impact unit to carry out a snapshot study, with the Government acting quickly on the findings?
  The British Tourist Authority now estimates that, in 2001, inbound tourism will be between 10 to 20 per cent. short of its original forecast. That will involve a likely drop in revenue of between £1.5 billion and £2.5 billion. In Cumbria, the trade is facing 350 redundancies, with many more in the pipeline, and 193 tourism businesses and attractions have reported losses to the Cumbria tourist board. Not only hotels and shops, but food suppliers, petrol stations and restaurants are beginning to see no light at the end of the tunnel.

  357
  The Youth Hostels Association, with which I am closely associated, faces losses of almost £6 million after being forced to close almost half its hostels. In Cumbria, 17 out of 24 youth hostels have shut down, yet I visited the area just after Easter and found the lakes and many countryside beauty spots thronging with visitors, acting very responsibly and enjoying themselves, too. I met hoteliers to discuss the future of tourism. They, and those in other businesses throughout Britain, have suffered a collapse in bookings and a drastic drop in cash income. That is exemplified by statistics that show that the inquiry rate from 19 February to date is about a third of that in the same period last year.
  The statistics certainly show a drastic drop in bookings for September, October and into early next year. That was also highlighted on my visits to Torbay, Bath, Welshpool, Eastbourne, Weston-super-Mare and my own constituency—Southport. Tourist boards in all those areas are fighting back with positive moves, but they need more Government help. In Devon, the county council estimated that 1,200 jobs would be lost in agriculture and ancillary rural industries, while 8,700 jobs could be lost from its tourism sector and allied businesses. The reduction in income in the tourism sector was estimated at £196 million.
  Nationally, the Liberal Democrats called immediately for a grip to be taken when we saw how easily businesses could head towards bankruptcy. We asked for a moratorium on VAT, or for it to be reduced, which would not only help the tourism industry, but bring us more in line with other European countries, especially Ireland, where an immediate upsurge in tourism occurred when VAT was lowered. We asked for a moratorium on business rates and suggested that repayment of arrears could take place over a long period.
  We contacted the banks and an immediate response came, stating that full consideration would be given to those whose cashflow was in difficulty. The possibility of help with the payments for specific essential services, such as gas, water and electricity, was taken up and an agreement was sought for the banks to provide loans or grants, with lower interest rates than the Government's loan guarantee scheme.
  Liberal Democrats have also urged that the recently published Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill should be implemented soon, instead of waiting until April 2002. An alarming aspect of the 50 per cent. mandatory relief is that it will not initially apply to pubs and garages. That needs to be amended urgently to protect those in rural areas who could go out of business very soon.
  The British Tourist Authority has put a lot on its website, detailing a visitors' charter on which 1,100 attractions have already been entered. The BTA targets overseas visitors coming to the United Kingdom and has received a commitment from the Government for £2.2 million in additional funding towards its planned recovery activity. However, the BTA has made it clear to the Government that that is only the first part of further substantial investment. The second instalment of money, totalling £8 million, is already required to undertake tactical advertising and further PR activity. That £8 million is needed now, so why do the Government not release it?
  358
  The English Tourism Council has also prepared a recovery plan for tourism in the United Kingdom. It has been submitted to the Government in support of a bid for £35.5 million—the sum estimated to be needed to carry out the recommendations contained in the plan. Delivery will take place nationally and regionally. Together with the regional tourist hoards, the ETC has received £3.8 million to implement the short-term measures identified in the plan, of which it has passed on £1.4 million to regional tourist boards—but where is the Government's total commitment to the sum of £35.5 million?
  In Devon, the county council has sought to compensate for the loss of visitors from within the United Kingdom by diversifying into the overseas visitors markets, the objective of which is to increase the number of visitors, and visitor spends, from the overseas markets to the rural sub-region. That will sustain employment opportunities and raise the quality of Devon and Cornwall's tourism sector. We applaud that, but much more needs to be done. Better communication is needed between the Government and the regional tourist boards so that contact is easily maintained and the situation is monitored directly. An additional bank holiday would assist small businesses to recuperate some of their financial losses, and that would be best timed in the autumn towards the end of September.
  The impact of foot and mouth on rural tourism businesses, as defined by the North West tourist board, will affect the ability of regional boards to raise money for marketing this year. The industry will not have the funds to partake in marketing activities. Attractions also will not have the resources to take part in the national quality assessment scheme and accommodation will withdraw from the accommodation inspection scheme. The long-term effects of that will be a reduction in the quality offered and a downward spiral in our competitiveness. Subsidies already announced must extend throughout all those sectors. Tourist boards need to develop the case for compensation for tourism businesses, highlighting the scale and extent of foot and mouth's disastrous impact on visitor expenditure, local economies and special circumstances.
  I particularly take on board the suggestions made by the Cumbrian representative, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). All such remedies will help rural tourism, which must and will survive.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: This has been an important debate. It has given the House a chance, after the Easter break, to discuss the biggest issue to have hit the countryside in possibly a generation. It has highlighted the real crisis in the countryside and Members—such as the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), as well as the Minister of State, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—have understandably focused on that. I suspect that it will be my hon. Friend's last speech in the House as he is retiring when the election is called. As ever, he fought hard for the tourism industry.
  It is not simply foot and mouth that is at the heart of the economic problems facing the countryside. The problems have been built on top of a crisis that is of longer making.

  359
  Between autumn 1996 and autumn 2000, agricultural employment fell by 85,000. It fell by almost 20 per cent. even before foot and mouth hit home. In 2000, farm incomes fell to as low as £7,800 per capita—the lowest figure for 25 years, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture rightly pointed out.
  The crisis is not merely confined to farming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport pointed out, it has hit hard at tourism. The whole rural economy has been affected, as I and all hon. Members, whatever their party, will know from their constituents who face serious difficulties as a result of the impact of the disease. For example, there has been a huge impact on the St. Austell brewery because of the loss of trade in its pubs in Devon. Teagles, the agricultural machinery manufacturers, has had to lay off workers near Blackwater in my constituency. The problems have spread throughout the rural economy, so I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Exeter who said that, without foot and mouth, the debate would have been about how well the rural economy is doing. People in rural areas would not recognise that picture.
  Ms Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I shall make a bit of progress and then give way to the hon. Lady.
  Rural post office closures have continued at the rate of 200 a year since the 1997 general election; rural pubs and shops are in decline; 70 per cent. of parishes are now without a general store; and 43 per cent. have no post office. Outside the commuter belt, rural Britain is characterised by lower incomes, more part-time work rather than bread-winning full-time jobs, a huge gap in areas such as my own between house prices and incomes and lower access to public provision for transport, hospital services or whatever. The hon. Lady may recognise that picture.
  Ms Atherton: We all accept that foot and mouth has caused particular problems, but would he be kind enough to tell the House what has happened to unemployment in his constituency since 1997?
  Mr. Taylor: Unemployment has fallen, as it has in the rest of the country. However, as the hon. Lady knows, unemployment remains higher in our part of the country than in many others. Incomes remain 20 per cent. lower than the rest of the country and the gap in funding between our area and others has widened.
  I do not want to suggest to the House that the problems started in 1997. The worst feature of this debate has been the amnesia of Conservative Members. They suggested that only a Labour Government have faced problems in rural communities. The truth is that the recession in farming started six years ago on the back of the BSE crisis that was so appallingly mishandled by the Conservatives when they were in office. Their bare-faced cheek in criticising this Government for their handling of foot and mouth is extraordinary.
  Conservatives started the rundown of rural services, cutting schools, hospitals and bus services. They started not hundreds but thousands of post office closures. Worst of all, they established, although Labour has failed to
  360
  reform it, the funding of public services formulae that mean that remoter rural areas—precisely those that have been hit hard by the foot and mouth crisis—receive lower levels of Government funding for education, health and local government than the national average let alone that received by the more privileged commuter areas that Conservative Members represent. In education Cornwall receives £100 less per pupil, and £100 per person less for the NHS than the average. Formulae introduced by the Conservatives have yet to be reformed by the Government.
  Although it may be true that many Labour Members often show too little understanding of rural areas—Conservative Members make that allegation and they are not always wrong—the fact is that Conservative Members, who claim now to defend the countryside, first let it down because they took it for granted. As a result, it is no wonder that more Liberal Democrats represent the poorest rural constituencies than Members in any other political party.
  Foot and mouth should now be the moment for change. The good news from the debate is that people in all parties have argued that case; the question is whether we shall see action. First, there must be a change in the Government's approach to helping businesses hit by foot and mouth. During the crisis in the countryside, I have not engaged in petty politics as to whether the Government did something a day or two late or a day or two early. The truth is that any Government faced by this crisis would have struggled, so we have sought to make constructive suggestions on how they could do better. It is always easy, when looking in from the outside, to find such suggestions, but the measure of a Government is whether they respond to them. In many cases they have but, in too many others, they have yet to do so.
  I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement tomorrow and it is a shame that we did not hear it before this debate. The House should have the chance to debate—and not simply question—that statement. We provided the opportunity for that to happen and, if the Government choose to make the statement after the debate, they should find their own time to allow for debate and for proper questioning of whatever measures they introduce. I hope that their policies will go along the lines of those that we have suggested.
  The message that we read one day from the Prime Minister in the Western Morning News and that we hear in the statements that other Ministers make to the House is that more is yet to come, but that message is wearing rather thin. That is why the Western Morning News launched its "SOS SouthWest" campaign. People are frustrated to be told that help is on its way when they do not see it in place. They need to know whether they will have a job or a business in the future.
  Like the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Workington outlined a perfectly reasonable set of proposals. However, the Government have not yet shown that they have taken full measure of the economic crisis, although they have demonstrated that they appreciate the scope of the foot and mouth epidemic. I hope that the number of cases will continue to drop off so that we know that the epidemic is coming under control. The devastating knock-on economic impact on farms that continue to suffer consequential losses is not under

  361
  control. We called for those businesses to be supported when the crisis started in February, but there is still nothing from the Government.
  The Government do not understand the scale of the crisis that is affecting businesses, especially those that are not in the earmarked, designated rural areas. It hits as much in south Somerset, south Gloucestershire and Torbay as it does in the most rural parts of Cornwall and Devon. The impact is especially notable on tourism. That is why we argue for 100 per cent. rate relief for all affected businesses. Uniquely, we have drawn up plans for detailed interest-free loans of £20,000 to be provided over two years, similar to the model recommended by the hon. Member for Workington. There is no need for the Government to find the capital sums, as the Conservatives suggest. They must, however, help with interest payments, for which they could use existing models, such as career development loans. There is no reason why they should not do that for the businesses affected by foot and mouth.
  The crisis is severe and the need for long-term reform is the issue on which hon. Members have been brought closest together. Even BSE did not achieve that. For the first time, there is general agreement that we need a model of farming that supports people in their jobs and family businesses and protects the countryside. We do not want a system that simply pays out for production, money which ends up in the pockets of supermarket chains, which make billion pound profits, and in those of the big agricultural businesses, but never in the pockets of those who most need it—the small farmers in the most difficult rural areas.
  The Conservatives ask how we would achieve common agricultural policy reform, but how would they? Their policy is not to leave the European Union, although one Conservative hon. Member who complained about our approach seemed to suggest that it was. I agree that while it is necessary to have unanimity in the Council of Ministers, we are unlikely to achieve the far-reaching reforms that we need—there is always a vested interest that blocks them. We need to change the processes in Europe to undo those difficulties so that a single country with a single vested interest cannot block reforms that are in our best interests and those of many other European countries, on which we can find a great deal of common resolve.
  It is not possible to maintain for ever the unfair funding formulae that discriminate against rural areas. Although they are not the Government's fault and they say that they want to reform them, Labour is four years into its term in office. There is no excuse for the fact that the Government's formulae assume that children, patients and businesses are worth less in far-flung rural areas. I hope that the Minister will respond to that problem, because long-term reform is needed.
  6.53 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their choice of debate and the discussion has been useful. Although the Government should be held to account for what might be the most difficult crisis of the past 20 or 30 years—perhaps the worst within the lifetime of most hon. Members—the hon. Member for Truro and
  362
  St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was right to remind the House that it has occurred against the background of BSE. He also reminded us about the rundown of services in rural areas, which is not a recent event, but one which has been going on for a long time. Indeed, services deteriorated markedly under the previous Government.
  The hon. Gentleman and others said that there has been no Government debate on the subject. I do not know how many statements my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made, but I have delivered two and they allow for extensive and detailed questioning. Having been on the receiving end, I can confirm that that is a more effective way to hold Ministers to account than a more general debate.
  I pay tribute to what the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said. I assure him that VAT deferrals are not subject to an interest charge—that is a canard. The same applies to income tax that is deferred because of foot and mouth. It does, however, have to be demonstrable that that outbreak was the cause of the problem.
  I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments on reform of the CAP, which was also mentioned by other hon. Members. The appointment of Renate Künast will undoubtedly change the centre of gravity in the Agriculture Council.
  Tighter inspection at ports and identification of the country of origin of food products is largely covered by EU rules.
  Hon. Members talked about returning to normality, but what do we mean by that? What is sustainable agriculture? Those issues will be discussed when the foot and mouth crisis is over and the Government intend to take a lead in those debates. Discussions have already begun on the regeneration package for the rural economy that we intend to introduce. Indeed, it was discussed by the rural taskforce this morning and will certainly be discussed again. However, we have deliberately held off because it is right to emphasise the importance of the eradication of the disease. We cannot get sidetracked.
  Circumstances today are different from what they were before Easter, but we are not complacent and accept that we are not totally in control of the disease. That will not be the case until there are zero new cases. Considerable progress has been made, however, with 13 new cases in the past three days, 13 the day before and nine the day before that, which compares with the reported 40, 50 or even more cases that were occurring only three or four weeks ago. Although the takings in the rural economy over Easter were not as great as last year, they were at a much higher level than many people had feared. There have been losses, some of which are grievous, but this Easter most rural businesses took between 70 to 80 per cent. of their takings last year.
  We have repeatedly said that the best way to assist rural businesses in trouble is to get the customers and visitors back. I hope that I carry every hon. Member with me in that sentiment. We have been trying extremely hard to achieve that goal. All or most rights of way are open in a fifth of local highway authorities. Even Cumbria, one of the hardest hit areas which has experienced great difficulties, opened 100 footpaths before Easter. Surrey and Norfolk have opened half or more of their paths. Some 1,000 miles of towpaths along the canals have been opened; East Sussex has opened Ashdown forest; the royal parks have reopened;

  363
  and the National Trust has opened many of its most popular properties. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), today announced that the Government are providing an additional £4 million to local authorities to assist in opening footpaths and to provide fences, publicity and temporary staff where needed.
  Disposal was mentioned throughout the debate. On-site farm burial was of particular concern. The Government's priority is clear. We are absolutely in favour, first, of rendering; secondly, of incineration at industrial plants where that is available and, thirdly, of burial on registered landfill sites. The problem with Devon is that none of those options is immediately available because full capacity has been achieved in each case in the county and adjacent areas. The only other alternatives are pyres or burning in open fields.
  Burial on site is not possible for the reason given in the debate, namely the extremely high water table. We are considering moving carcases to landfill sites within a reasonable range, although we have to take account of the environmental impact of doing so. If there are 175,000 carcases—recent statistics indicate that the figure is probably lower, as most people believe, but it is still substantial—we cannot leave them lying in fields leaching disease into the ground, so we have to find a method of immediate disposal. If we cannot safely take carcases to alternative landfill sites, the only way to dispose of them is to burn them. I believe that we will complete that process fairly quickly, as we have done in Cumbria. The Government are doing everything possible to remove that backlog.
  Mr. Breed: Has any consideration been given to burial at sea?
  Mr. Meacher: As far as I know, we have not considered burial at sea, but I doubt that it would be environmentally acceptable.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) misunderstood on several counts. It is true that the series of figures on the website was discontinued for a short time in the first half of April. It was reintroduced on Good Friday and has continued ever since. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the reduction in the number of animals awaiting disposal represented a catching-up exercise by the regional centres in recording the numbers that had been disposed of. That has allowed more accurate figures to be published. I am sure that he has a suspicious mind and is assuming, although he did not say so, that we are fiddling the figures. Perhaps that was such a common occurrence under the previous Government that he assumes that we are doing the same, but we are not.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned contiguous farms. In a slaughter-on-suspicion case, all susceptible livestock on the premises are slaughtered, but we do not cull on contiguous premises until we get the lab results. If the results are negative, a form B is served and restrictions are lifted, but of course no livestock are left on the farm. If the results are positive, we convert the slaughter-on-suspicion status to a confirmed close and then cull on the contiguous premises.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I am running into extra time and I do not want to get to a penalty shoot-out, but since the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, I will give way.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister help the House and my constituents by stating how many carcases remain to be disposed of in Devon and how many the Ministry stated were awaiting disposal yesterday?
  Mr. Meacher: I cannot provide those figures now, but we will provide more accurate and up-to-date figures. The latest figures available indicate that the number is substantially below 175,000. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will deal with that point tomorrow.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I am sorry, but I really cannot because I still have a few remarks to make and we are running into the time for the next debate.
  The lifting of restrictions in surveillance zones is covered by EU rules, and the procedures that we are following to lift infected area status reflect veterinary advice based on draft EU directives on foot and mouth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave a constructive, fair and reasonable speech such as we have come to expect from him. He spoke of the financial assistance that he wants the Government to provide. I shall not detain the House now by giving the details of our £220 million package, but I will say more about two or three of the specific measures that he mentioned. We are prepared favourably to consider the averaging of profits to reduce tax, provided that it is understood that it may well turn out to be less helpful than many people expect. The same goes for the job retention proposal. We would need to seek agreement from the Department of Social Security that rather than paying benefits to people who are made redundant, the money should be used to keep people in work if possible. We are considering whether that is possible and consistent with the general social security framework.
  I want to pay a compliment to the Cumbria taskforce. When I visited the county, I was very impressed by its work and by the practicality and range of its proposals. I hope that there will be further such proposals. I am always very glad to see my hon. Friend at those meetings.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred to the £12,000 rateable value threshold, but if I cannot have his attention. I will not go on. [Interruption.] I do not have time now, but later I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I was going to say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) asked about taking the carcases in Devon elsewhere. We are considering that because it is a better alternative than pyres if we can find a method of doing so that is environmentally acceptable. We are giving short-term help to businesses to get back customers. We are stepping up the pressure on local authorities to open their footpaths and facilities. I made that point again to the Local Government Association at the rural taskforce meeting this morning.

  365
  Unhappily, the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made his valedictory speech to the House on tourism. The Government have just extended mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to pubs, garages and village shops. On Monday, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill to extend it further. On extra tourist grants, I can say that the Government have already made available £6 million to the English Tourism Council for the tourist boards. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have given £2 million to the British Tourist Authority, and we are taking its advice about what more is needed. Last week, we had a very successful visit from travel operators from the United States and other key markets. That cost about £100,000, and the BTA said this morning that it thinks that its benefits already run into tens of millions of pounds.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell painted a picture of decline, but I must point out that many villages and small settlements depend on rural post offices. The hon. Gentleman neglected to say that the Government have made available £270 million to prevent all avoidable rural post office closures. That is an important commitment. I agree with him that the foot and mouth disaster is an opportunity for change, and that is why we will be introducing a new package not only to kick-start the rural economy but to tackle the whole question of the future of agriculture.
  I apologise for the length of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government will take on board all the points that have been made. I have no doubt that there will be further discussions about the issue. We are determined not only to eradicate the disease in this country as soon as possible but to regenerate and revivify the rural economy in a manner that we have not seen for many decades.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 305.

  Division No. 195]

  [7.9 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

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

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  McCrea, Dr William

  Brake, Tom

  Michie Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Burnett, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Chidgey, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Webb, Steve

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis Phil

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Bob Russell and

  Keetch, Paul

  Sir Robert Smith.

  366

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Darvill, Keith

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ashton, Joe

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Austin, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bailey, Adrian

  Doran, Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Barron, Kevin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Edwards, Huw

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Efford, Clive

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beggs, Roy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Flynn, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Follett, Barbara

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Best, Harold

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Betts, Clive

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Borrow, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Goggins, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caton, Martin

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  367

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Olner, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pearson, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Lammy, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rapson, Syd

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCabe, Steve

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McDonnell, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Roy, Frank

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruane, Chris

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McWiiliam, John

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Maxton, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soley, Clive

  368

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tynan, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stevenson, George

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winnick, David

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thompson, William

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting many aspects of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside that has suffered from lack of investment under previous governments; agrees that the first priority must be the isolation, control and eradication of foot and mouth disease; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; welcomes the extra financial help the Government has made available to farmers and rural businesses affected by foot and mouth, including agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; welcomes the work of the Rural Task Force including its work to open up the countryside and business relief, deferral of tax and national insurance contributions, extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme and new grants to Regional Development Agencies and tourism authorities; and calls on the Government to continue putting in place the long-term policies needed to regenerate British agriculture and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on Road Traffic, the Ayes were 176 and the Noes were 282, so the motion was disagreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should announce that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.23 pm
  Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that in environmental, foreign affairs and security policies only a collective and multilateral approach will now succeed; regrets the unilateral decision of the United States to refuse to adopt the Kyoto Protocol and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to use every effort to persuade the United States government to reverse that decision; asserts the universality of human rights and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that respect for human rights should be at the centre of a foreign policy with an ethical dimension; and reaffirms its support for a reformed, fully-funded United Nations equipped to respond swiftly to oppression and the systematic abuse of human rights.
  To be frank, I move the motion with a little sadness. That is not, of course, because there is any deficiency in the motion, which was drafted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and is therefore perfect in every detail. It is because I suspect that this is the last time that I shall have the privilege of moving a motion on behalf of my party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I agree with that, but it was not said before today.
  Nearly 100 years ago, Lord Curzon was speaking on foreign affairs. He was Viceroy of India then, and said:
  "Frontiers are the razor's edge on which hang suspended the issue of war or peace and the life of nations."
  He was speaking, what was, for his time, no more than the truth. He was speaking at the end of a century that took the rather new idea of the nation state and raised it to sophistication and at the beginning of a century when it became the engine of two of the most destructive wars in human history. The nation state that he was talking about was the arbiter of all things. There was nothing in international affairs except nation states. If a country was not a nation state, it was nothing. Nation states and their sovereign institutions were sovereign and not subject to interference from anywhere else. Their governments proposed and disposed; their parliaments were sovereign and did not have to acknowledge anybody else. Such parliaments were the means by which we governed ourselves, by which we ensured our common wealth and by which we established our identity. Nation states meeting in solemn conclave with other nation states drew up treaties, established borders and disposed the order of the world.
  So it was, but so it no longer is. Things have changed fundamentally in our world in ways that I believe that we in the House and people in other nation state parliaments are reluctant to acknowledge. Nevertheless, such changes are facts of our lives. It was no more than 80 years after Lord Curzon uttered those words when, in 1992 or 1993, the United Nations calculated that there were about 87 conflicts throughout the world, of which only two were between nation states and about borders. All the rest were within the borders of nation states or across them, and concerned conflicts among tribes, ethnicities, religions and communities. Lest it be thought that I am talking about some far-flung corner of the world more primitive than our own, let us remember that one of those 87 conflicts was in Northern Ireland.
  370
  Things have changed fundamentally. The position of the nation state as the single monopoly that proposes and disposes all and whose institutions are all-governing and entirely sovereign is no more. That monopolistic position has been eroded by two of what I think, internationally, are the greatest events of our age. They are the migration of power from the nation state up to global institutions and into the hands of the global players, and the atomisation of its power down to the communities that make it up and into the hands of individual citizens.
  I shall give the House a small illustration. In September 1998, I was in the little villages of Suva Reka, near Pristina, when they were being bombarded, shelled, looted and burned by the main battle units of the Yugoslav army. I will not bore the House with the details, which are probably reasonably well known. However, two little things caught my eye. It was a sort of paradigm that illuminated a much larger event. Every Albanian village had a graveyard—there were too many of them—with freshly dug graves, and every Albanian house, be it extremely poor, had a satellite dish.
  I noticed amidst the mayhem and misery that while all the graveyards pointed, according to Muslim tradition, towards Mecca, all the satellite dishes pointed towards Murdoch. I fell to wondering which of those two facts would more greatly influence the lives of the people round whom the war was raging. The answer was that Murdoch would affect their lives more than Mecca. I was seeing the globalisation of influence. Power was being handed up to the global players, to whose operations frontiers and borders are irrelevant. They are unconstrained by any of the institutions that we have created and beyond any code of practice. They operate at least amorally if not immorally. I do not say that they operate immorally but they operate outside any moral code. If that is the case, in due course some of them will, if they have not already, operate amorally.
  Power is in the hands of satellite broadcasters, transnational corporations, commodity traders and currency speculators who can influence economies and destabilise regimes even as powerful as our own, as remember with pain from black Wednesday. International problems accompany the globalisation of international power. That includes good things and bad things. We cannot tackle drugs or international crime unless we are prepared to do it internationally. Power has migrated from the institutions of nation states into the hands of global players. Problems have migrated there, too. More and more in the world today, it is not the power of this nation or that but the interrelationship between them that matters. It is our interdependence that is the most important factor. The institutions that we create to manage global events will determine whether we live in peace and prosperity. We must work together, across borders, because we can no longer resolve inside borders the problems from which our citizens suffer. In short, we must learn to pool our sovereignty.
  That is something that we in the House, especially those on the Conservative Benches, fail to understand. The Conservatives believe that pooled sovereignty is somehow diminished sovereignty. That is astonishing. Have not the Conservatives been telling us for 50 years how important NATO is? That was the first revelation of the need to pool our sovereignty. What more fundamental sovereignty does a nation have than the sovereignty to defend itself? Straight after the last war, we realised that

  371
  unless we pooled our sovereignty in defence, we could not assure the defence of our own country and the security of its citizens.
  I fancy that that is happening elsewhere, too. We cannot create a secure economy unless we are prepared to operate in a global marketplace on a larger scale than we currently do. We cannot secure a safe environment—pollution is no respecter of borders—unless we learn to work with our neighbours. I expect that that will be true of the pound, as well.
  There is an argument according to which we will lose our sovereignty if we enter the euro. The opposite is the case. If the British pound, relatively small, is positioned mentally somewhere in mid-Atlantic between the most powerful currency in the world, the dollar, and the second most powerful currency in the world, the euro, we will have all the sovereignty of a cork bobbing along in the wake of two ocean liners.
  We will have to work with others, even on defence. We have discovered—a revelation of the 1980s and 1990s—that even collective security is not sufficient. We must have common security. In the era of weapons of mass destruction, our destiny rests with not going to war, for winning a war by using mass destruction would destroy ourselves. The great statement of John Donne:
  "No man is an Island … any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind"
  has been elevated from a poet's vision to an imperative of international affairs. It is the only means by which we can survive.
  One such means is the creation not just of global institutions, but of regional institutions—supranational institutions at a regional level. It was not the intention of the founding fathers of the European Union, but by chance we have created in Europe what is effectively the world's first operating international test-bed for supranational institutions. It is not insignificant that the rest of the world is following our lead, nor that the rest of the world is regionalising, too. We have seen it in the summit of the Americas recently in Quebec, we have seen it in the North American Free Trade Area and inevitably we will see it in the Pacific region.
  Europe is our region, and we must be part of that. Why? Not because one must believe in some transcendental vision of European unity, or because one is impressed by the great mechanisms that we have created to govern Europe, but for the simple and practical reason that it is only by working with our colleagues in the European Union that we can deliver for our citizens in this country the things that we want them to have: security, a safe and clean environment, a context in which to operate our industry, and a framework for a stable currency, which is a pressing need. That is not to excuse in any way the failures of democracy or the excessive bureaucratisation of the European Union. Of course it is a flawed institution. This place is a flawed institution, God knows. That is not a reason for abolishing it, but for reforming it. That is what we must do.
  Let me be clear. We are living in a rather febrile period before a general election, so I am aware that my words might be taken out of context. Heavens above, that such a thing should happen! I am absolutely not saying that the nation state will disappear. It will remain the most important context for our identity and for our governance. I am merely saying that we must consider a re-assembly—a redistribution—of power.
  372
  Some of the power that we used to hold uniquely to ourselves must be distributed upwards to global institutions, because that delivers what we want for our citizens, and some must be distributed downwards to devolved institutions. The latter point is as true for Britain as it is for Macedonia. The devolution of power to local communities will be the most important matter.
  I come to the second point—not globalisation, but atomisation. We have seen power passed down to individual citizens in our society, who trade in the global marketplace, oblivious of borders, who use the internet, and who are capable, sometimes frighteningly, of suddenly coagulating together in ways that are not recommended by Governments and frighten them to death. We saw that in the fuel protests. We saw it, probably, at Diana's funeral. We saw it in the Danish referendum.
  One of the things that we have discovered, and of which we should be aware, as it has a profound implication for foreign affairs, is that the old idea of a singular identity springing out of the unitary nation state has gone. The last time that we heard it expressed was in Norman Tebbit' s cricket test. [Interruption.] The foreign land speech is another example, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) says.
  People are discovering other identities for themselves, apart from that of the nation state. They are finding common cause with their community, their religious group, their ethnic group. When that happens, the motivations that are unleashed are not always good. Incidentally, that applies not just to other nations or to Albanians living in Macedonia. It applies to me, too.
  Almost two decades ago, when I first entered the House, if I had been asked who I was, I would probably have said that I was British, and that would have been sufficient. If I am asked today who I am, I have to give a rather different answer. I am Irish by extraction, and proud of that fact. I am west country by love and choice. That is where my constituency is. I am British, of course, but I am also European. Unless I can express my identity in that more complex way, I cannot describe the space in which I want to live and, above all, in which I want my children to live.
  Here is the point. If we force upon people the unitary identities of their nation states, the result is blood, almost always. If we force the Catholic to say in Belfast that he cannot have an attachment to the island of Ireland and be Catholic and British at the same time, we will have blood on our streets, and we have. If we force the Muslim in Sarajevo to choose between his Yugoslavian and his Muslim identity, there will be shells in his city and in Srebrenica in his neighbouring communities.
  The world is no longer as Curzon saw it. In the 18th century, the apogee of the nation state, there were only two conditions: nation statehood or nothingness. The world today is much more complex. I sat down in the margins of a Balkan conference recently with our ex-ambassador in Belgrade and for fun, doodling, we came up with the new institutions that we had to deal with. Of course, there were states, but there were also what we called non-internationally recognised state-like entities, or NIRSLES. There are lots of them about. Kosovo is state-like, but it is not internationally recognised, and we have to deal with it. The Palestinians and the Albanian community in the Balkans are further examples.

  373
  Then there are partially internationally recognised state-like entities, or PIRSLES. Taiwan is partially internationally recognised and clearly a state. There are also internationally recognised non-state-like entities. Bosnia is internationally recognised and we declare it a state. but it is manifestly not: it is two states. I make the point not just for levity, but to show the complexity of the matters with which we must deal. Using the language of the 18th century and speaking of states or non-states, as we still do, and not altering our way of thinking means that we cannot resolve some of the problems that confront us.
  I apologise to the House, but at this stage I am extremely pessimistic. The theory is that at the end of the cold war, having avoided global destruction, we live in safer and more secure times. I do not believe that to be the case. I think that we live in times of almost terrifying dissolution and change. The old institutions are breaking down. The old structures no longer apply. I fear that for the next two or three decades, the world will be very unstable, full of conflict and very frightening.
  The words that echo in my head are those in A. E. Housman's great prophetic poem, written before the first world war, in which he said:
  "On the idle hill of summer,
  Lazy with the flow of streams,
  Far I hear the steady drummer
  Drumming like a sound in dreams.
  Far and near and low and louder
  On the roads of earth go by,
  Dear to friends and food for powder,
  Soldiers marching, all to die.
  I am very worried about an era that may be characterised by the death of creeds—what great creeds are there today? I fear that it may be characterised also by the dissolution, incapacity and disconnection of institutions that do not seem to work any longer.
  So, what do we have to do? Fundamentally, we have to change our way of thinking. We must break ourselves out of the language and conventional thinking of the old nation state. We must start thinking in more different ways. That is not new. Many times in our history, power has broken out of the institutions that we created to ensure accountability. It happened in Magna Carta, in Cromwell's time and when the Reform Act of 1832 took effect. We, too, are in a period in which we must create new institutions capable of dealing with power in the places to which it has migrated. That means one thing: accepting the globalisation of power and creating the instruments for global Governments of one sort or another.
  I ask hon. Members to note that I do not refer to a global government, or to some parliament of the United Nations, although it has a part to play. We need to create all sorts of multilateral and international institutions to begin to cope with the problems that confront us. For example, it is unreasonable that we should ask the World Trade Organisation, which was created and formed to deal with trade, to deal also with environmental problems. We need to create a parallel institution that is capable of thinking about how it preserves the world's environment.
  374
  My next conclusion is that the power of individual, unilateral action by states will diminish, however powerful they are. Increasingly, what matters will be the effectiveness and powers of the multilateral institutions that we create, which should be capable of dealing with the world's problems.
  I think also that regional organisations will increasingly develop. Incidentally, I think that one of the effects will be the counteraction of the move towards free trade. As regional organisations grow, there will be a strong tendency towards the re-erection of tariff barriers. That must be resisted. The point is, however, that in terms of supranational regional organisations, ours is Europe. It is essential that we play our part in that.
  If someone asked me what Europe must do in the next two decades to keep secure, I would answer that it had two primary foreign policy aims. The first is to maintain the Atlantic relationship through a period of great change and enormous tension, and the second is to assure the survival and ascendancy of democracy and the free-market system in the Russian Federation. We in Europe can do neither of those things unless we get our act together and work in a more co-ordinated fashion.
  I believe that the Atlantic relationship will come under very severe pressure as the areas of interest, in terms of the euro on the one hand and of the dollar on the other, inevitably come into competition. As we get our act together, the handling of that relationship will require great skill and subtlety. I believe that the reform of NATO is crucial, as is the creation of what we were talking about as long ago as Kennedy and Kissinger—a twin-pillar NATO in which Europe and the United States work as equal partners. For instance, that is why it is our essential that we get our act together in a European common defence force.
  Of course, all that is difficult and we will not necessarily have a smooth path, but it is, to my mind, more certain that the Atlantic relationship will be threatened if we in Europe do not begin to bear the burden of our own defence and cope with our own problems in our backyard. If we continue to call in the United States every time we have a problem and ask it to risk its treasure and the blood of its young citizens to solve Europe's problems on its borders in places such as the Balkans, we may be sure that the Atlantic relationship will sunder, and it will deserve to do so.
  I believe that there will be an opportunity at some future time for us to think even more widely. One of the most significant problems in our world today is the instability that is created by currency speculation. We cannot recreate the Bretton Woods agreement, but is it impossible for us to consider establishing at a future stage some relationship between the euro and the dollar? Such a relationship could not only copper-fasten the political relationship that remains the axis of assuring effective preservation of western values in the world; it could also provide some stability against speculation, thus creating twin currencies that might act as the most effective trading currencies in the world and dampen the instabilities that are created by currency speculation. However, that is probably something for a long time in the future.
  I have two other points, the first of which is about Europe itself. I think that we cannot go on living in a never-never land and having a free ride; we pretend that we can be an economic giant, as we are with respect to

  375
  the euro, but remain a political pygmy that is incapable of getting its act together. That is an impossible position. The euro gives us an area of influence, things to protect and views to proselytise and propose. We will have to invest. Europe's current problem is that it has created a very tight economic institution—the euro—that is set within a very weak political institution. We will have to strengthen the political institutions of Europe. For instance, we will have to protect power around our borders to be able to secure them.
  We will also have to adopt what we have failed to adopt in the Balkans so far: a co-ordinated regional European approach. We cannot go on dealing with Balkan nations piecemeal. When we dealt with Croatia, we thought that we had solved the problem, but in so doing, we blew up Bosnia. We solved Bosnia in Dayton, but forgot Kosovo. When we finished in Kosovo, we forgot to set it within a regional framework in the southern Balkans, and—lo and behold—Macedonia is now at the edge of war. We in Europe must have a co-ordinated Balkans policy that applies to the region and recognises that it is not the individual nations that matter in the Balkans, but the interconnection between them.
  My last point is that I think that we will discover in the very near future that the security of nations—even medium-sized ones such as ours—cannot be secured except within a framework of international law that is clear and understandable, and which is policed and enforced. Let us not get too worried about our pace in assembling that framework. Frankly, we have not done terribly well, but no body of law springs from a single pen or technical textbook. Law is created by practice and precedent. We have slowly and untidily invented new rules for international intervention. We saw them in Kurdistan and Kosovo. We have invented new ways of going about things.
  I can tell the House that when I returned from my trip of September 1998, which I mentioned earlier, I went to see the Prime Minister. I said that I thought that we must use air power immediately, and that if we did not do so, Milosevic would seek to clear out Kosovo completely. Of course, that was the terrifying Operation Horseshoe that we saw later. The Prime Minister said that in the absence of a Security Council resolution, which we would not get, we had not yet assembled a case under articles 1 and 5 of the UN charter to proceed legally with such a proposal. I think that he was right. We had to wait until the humanitarian situation got worse, which it did in due course, before we intervened. However, the
  fact that we did it legally under articles 1 and 5 makes it easier to do in future. We have created a precedent for international law. Part of that has to be an international court that is capable of dealing with war crimes tribunals. It is essential that we establish such an institution.
  The day after I had been shelled by the Serb units, I went up to the Dulje heights and spoke to some of the Serb artillery commanders. At that stage, they were more frightened of an indictment from The Hague than of bombs from NATO aircraft. If we had used such means then, it might have been the only way in which we could have constrained their actions. That same day, when I went to see President Milosevic, I gave him a bag of the cherries that I had collected from his citizens who were living in the forest and who had lived on nothing else for six weeks. However, I also took him a copy of the Geneva convention with marks against the paragraphs in respect
  376
  of which I believed that his forces—and him, as he had now been informed of it—had specifically contravened international law, for which he would subsequently be indictable, as indeed he was. That is an essential component of the international institutions that we must create not only to ensure justice after crimes have been committed but to act as a means of restraining the worst activities of those who, in due course, would probably fear the international court in The Hague more than the use of arms.
  All has changed except our way of thinking and the language that we use to try to resolve our problems. At a time of huge instability, great tension and strong dissolution, the only way in which to create a secure, peaceful and prosperous world for the future is to establish multilateral instruments that are capable of achieving it.
  Curzon's days are gone, and I prefer to use a text by Gladstone. I suppose that I can say that he was my great predecessor as party leader, although that is slightly self-aggrandising. During the second Midlothian campaign, when he was seeking to be Prime Minister, at a time when British forces were invading Afghanistan, he spoke the following remarkable words:
  "Do not forget that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan, amongst the winter snows, is no less inviolate in the eye of Almighty God than can be your own. Do not forget that he who made you brothers in the same flesh and blood, bound you by the laws of universal love and that love is not limited to the shores of this island, but passes across the whole surface of the earth, encompassing the greatest along with the meanest in its unmeasured scope."—
  a statement of moral principle for his time, and, I suspect, a code of survival for ours.
  7.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the United Kingdom's national interests are best served by addressing the challenges of the modem world in constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations; further believes that human rights and protection of the environment are important global issues which are central to Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy; and welcomes the Government's full support for the work of the United Nations and initiatives to improve UN peacekeeping and the effectiveness of the Security Council."
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) made a fine, extremely thoughtful speech. However, it is worth placing on record as a comment on the state of modern British politics the fact that not one Tory Back Bencher was present before the welcome arrival one minute ago of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). At 7 pm, that is no accident. If the boycott was meant as an insult, the right hon. Member for Yeovil is entitled to take it as a compliment. If it was intended to demonstrate the modern Tory party's discipline, it showed only its puerility.
  Excellent co-operation on foreign policy has been established between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and it can be established on many other subjects. I refer in particular to the close working relationship, which the right hon. Gentleman was involved in establishing, and which has continued between my right

  377
  hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). The work of the Cabinet joint consultative committee on the United Nations and on Europe attests to the success of the relationship.
  There will always be differences between parties; that is the point of political debate, but there can be agreement and co-operation and values can be held in common, especially on the great international issues to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If, to some extent, we have broken a mould of sniping and one-upmanship, we have contributed to a new path built on consensus. That is good for politics in this country and for Britain's place in Europe and the world. When we speak with one voice on international issues, our message is heard louder and clearer. The key to that success has been readiness to listen and to pool ideas and expertise. I commend that approach, at least to the saner spirits in the Tory party.
  I am pleased to acknowledge the contribution to that process of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. His knowledge of the Balkans, which was reflected in his speech, and his commitment to the cause of peace and democracy have been and will continue to be a national asset. He was one of the first in this country to speak out on the horrors of ethnic cleansing and to argue for a more robust United Kingdom policy.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Kosovo. Today, he was in Montenegro. I know he would wish to join me in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, who has visited both places so many times and to such good effect in the last troubled decade.
  We have now got the consensus out of the way. I stress that speaking with one voice on international issues does not mean that we can neglect differences when they occur. However slight they may be, they lead to disagreements that are expressed through the normal procedures of the House. In any debate it is therefore important to be clear about the terms that we use and to capture the full complexity of the issues. We do not agree that
  "only a collective and multilateral approach will now succeed",
  as the Liberal Democrat motion states. Sometimes, a country may need to argue its case in the face of collective opposition. The important point on such occasions is that the issues are approached in the spirit of constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations. That is the true hallmark of the Government's approach to the important global issues of our time.
  Before I consider some of the subjects that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I want to update hon. Members about developments in Zimbabwe. We have received reports tonight from our high commission in Harare of serious disturbances that are aimed at foreign business interests. Several European-owned firms have been invaded by so-called war veterans who claim that they are acting on behalf of the ruling ZANU-PF party. Money has been extorted from the businesses, and staff have been detained and beaten by the veterans. The police have not intervened, and that is a worrying development in circumstances that we all find deeply disturbing.
  Our high commissioner in Harare expressed his strong concern to the Zimbabwe authorities this afternoon and is liaising closely with the local British community. I stress
  378
  that we have received no reports of serious injuries to UK nationals. We shall continue to monitor events closely and we will advise UK nationals to contact the high commission if they need further guidance. I shall consider the further action that we should take tomorrow morning as circumstances become clearer. I believed that it was my responsibility to advise the House of those developments as early as possible.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. A direct consequence of the events that he described may be that people who live in Zimbabwe feel compelled to try to come to the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will adopt a generous attitude towards anyone who seeks asylum from Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments will be noted in many quarters. I do not want to raise the temperature or inflame difficult circumstances. The advice that I gave British nationals to contact the high commission if they require further information and guidance is appropriate at this stage.
  Let me revert to the Balkans, one of the major themes of the speech of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. He knows, as we do, the scale of the challenges that face the people of south-east Europe. He also knows how much has been achieved by them and by the international community in reconstructing their society since NATO intervention, which was justified by the need to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, stopped ethnic cleansing in its tracks two years ago.
  Milosevic thought that he could get away with wiping the Kosovar Albanians off the map; he was wrong. The Government and many who supported our actions determined from the outset that we would not tolerate further ethnic cleansing. Britain stood firm against the Kosovo death squads, and the west stood firm with us. We halted the tide of hatred and helped turn it back so that public anger eventually consumed Milosevic himself.
  Under United Nations protection, and with our help, the people of Kosovo have repaired much of the physical damage. Repairing the damage to society will take imagination and painstaking efforts to break out of the destructive cycle of ethnic violence. However, the prospects are much brighter than they were four years ago for Kosovo and for the whole region. The key now is for Kosovo's Albanians and Serbs to disown extremism and revenge and to start to re-engage with each other to build a better society. The elections there later this year will be an important step along that path.
  Today, all five states that emerged from the former Yugoslavia have elected democratic, moderate leaders. There is a realistic prospect of the region becoming, with much hard work, a normal part of Europe. That would not have been possible if we had allowed Slobodan Milosevic to claim a place in history as the victor of Kosovo. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made plain in Belgrade earlier this month, today we extend the hand of friendship and assistance to Yugoslavia, and that must be a two-way partnership. The people of Yugoslavia must, in turn, help the international community. We shall have unfinished business until Milosevic has stood trial in The Hague. We welcome the fact that there is now talk of

  379
  charging him in Belgrade with his crimes against the Serb people. They will quickly come to realise that Milosevic was not a great Serb nationalist but a great enemy of the Serb people.
  However, a trial in Belgrade cannot replace the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's obligation to hand Milosevic over to The Hague tribunal, and I hope that the Serb people will come to see, as increasing numbers of them are doing, that it is in their own interests for that to happen, so that he can also face trial for crimes against the other peoples of the region. It was right to stop Milosevic in his tracks, and if we had not done so he would probably still be in power. There are lessons to be learned from that reality that should not easily be forgotten if similar situations should arise in future.
  One of the lessons of the Balkans war, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is that the world needs a permanent mechanism for securing justice against dictators and war criminals. Britain has put that lesson into effect by becoming a leading advocate of the International Criminal Court. The tragic paradox of the last century was that those who murdered one person were more likely to be brought to justice than those who plotted the genocide of millions. We all have a responsibility to make sure that the world does not provide an opening for another Milosevic.
  That is why the Government have brought the International Criminal Court Bill before this Parliament. I hope that the overwhelming support for the court among the nations of the world, and the bipartisan support in the House for the principle, will be matched by support for the Bill in the House. There is no point in supporting it in principle and obstructing it in practice. Swift passage of the Bill would allow Britain to be among the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and thereby bring the court into existence. The Bill will be one of the most enduring legacies of this parliamentary term. It will be by no means the only one.
  My aim is to make our commitment to upholding global values irreversible. I know that that aspiration is shared by both our parties. Never again should it be possible for a British Government to argue that human rights are none of their business. Crimes against humanity are the business of all humanity. We should not listen to the argument that upholding human rights is sometimes in conflict with our interests. There should be consensus that it is never in British interests to turn a blind eye to human rights abuse. I have just come back from Bahrain, where I had a robust discussion on human rights issues. Governments who are democratically accountable will be more reliable partners for peace, and Governments who respect freedom of expression will be more honest as trading partners. Countries that accept the rule of law at home are more likely to accept their international obligations against organised crime and weapons of mass destruction.
  Nowadays, every nation state is as interdependent as it is independent. The fact of globalisation is beginning to dominate our domestic politics as much as it does our international relationships. Old definitions and dividing lines are being reassessed. A more revealing measure of political outlook is how people react to the new global reality of interdependence. The progressive political forces will be those that are cosmopolitan, outward-looking and comfortable building international partnerships, and that respect people of different ethnic
  380
  identities. They will offer solutions that recognise that national security requires international alliances, and that domestic prosperity requires the dynamic pursuit of external economic co-operation.
  Those progressive forces will consist of those people who welcome foreign contact as enriching, not threatening. I strongly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about multiple identity, the need for all of us to embrace it and, even more important, for all our children to embrace it comfortably. No one should try to pin people down to being one thing or another: all of us in the Chamber, in our society and throughout the world are many things and should be proud to be so.
  The reactionary political forces will be those who are isolationist and inward-looking, and who feel more comfortable clinging to the comfort blanket of a false idyllic past. They want to build barriers between Britain and the rest of the world at a time when Britain needs bridges, not barriers. They offer isolation when Britain needs to play a leading role in the world.
  Few issues are higher up the international agenda today than climate change. I can assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling climate change through constructive engagement with the international community. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister strongly supported the Kyoto protocol in New York last week. We have also raised the issue directly with the United States: my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised it with Secretary of State Powell, and we shall continue to raise it with our US counterparts. Through engagement and detailed discussion with all parties, including, of course, the US Government, we shall make progress on this key issue. Working with the international community, rather than against it, is the way forward. That clearly demonstrates that protection of the environment is at the centre of the Government's policies.
  Britain must also be fully engaged in the work of the United Nations. No task is more important or urgent than maximising the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties spoke with one voice on this subject in the recommendations that the United Kingdom put forward at last autumn's millennium summit in New York. There have been more peacekeeping operations in the past decade than in the previous four. Increasingly, conflict within, not between, states is changing the environment in which our peacekeepers operate. Ambassador Brahimi's report has shown us the way to address this new environment. I particularly echo his call for more robust rules of engagement. Carrying out mandates impartially must not imply remaining neutral between good and evil, and UN peacekeepers who witness violence against civilians should be mandated to halt it.
  If our peacekeepers are to act with determination, we must equip them with the capacity to do so. UN missions need a headquarters unit capable of rapid deployment within a few weeks, not months, of a Security Council resolution. Each of us must develop a number of troops who are trained in the principles and practice of peacekeeping, and be prepared to deploy them rapidly and effectively. That is why Britain has proposed that there should be a staff college for UN peacekeeping. We have offered to act as the host country for such a resource, if that would be welcome to other members.

  381
  Reform of the United Nations must begin with reform of the Security Council itself. We need a more modern and representative Security Council: a body that represents the world of the 21st century, not that of the middle of the 20th. However, it is not only in the composition of the Security Council that we must seek reform. The Security Council must be more willing to engage across the full conflict prevention agenda. It must engage with all the relevant players at all stages. We need to mainstream conflict prevention in the work of the UN Security Council and the whole UN system.
  Our permanent membership of the Security Council reflects our historic weight in world affairs, but it also confers grave responsibilities. We must use our position to tip the balance against tyranny and oppression. That is why, for instance, we shall continue to work in the United Nations towards a solution to the problem of conflict diamonds. There is an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow on that important issue. Following a UK initiative, we are now on the verge of a world certification scheme, which will ensure that rough diamonds cannot be traded from countries in conflict unless they are validated by the legitimate Government.
  Equally important is our work on small arms and light weapons. The self-loading rifle is today's real weapon of mass destruction. The Government have been, and will remain, in the forefront of international efforts to curb the spread of such arms to non-state actors and rebel groups. We have put forward the suggestion of an international arms surrender fund to support the collection and destruction of surplus arms in return for development aid. We will not opt out of our international responsibilities, nor will we surrender our national interests within the United Nations or within the European Union.
  Our vision of Europe is one that we share with many Liberal Democrats. The Government have transformed British relations with the European Union. One has only to look back a few years to the chaos and the damage that was done to this country by the attitudes and the prejudices of the previous Government. We intend to stay engaged: we want a successful European Union because it is the only way to deliver the prosperity, quality of life and personal security that our people demand.
  The Tories say that the Nice treaty, with its provisions for EU enlargement, is bad news. It might be bad news for the Conservative party, but it is not bad news for the people of Britain, who will see a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. It is not bad news for the people of the rest of the European Union, who will share the benefits of the reunification of Europe, or for the people of the applicant countries, who know that accession to the EU is now in sight. By standing up for Britain at Nice, the Government stood up for stability and prosperity across our whole continent.
  We fully recognise that the EU raises vital issues that affect us all. That is why the Government have been at the heart of the debate on the future of Europe, but we need a healthy and mature debate. We need to get beyond sterile arguments that look for ways to turn the clock back. It is time to stop fighting the battles of yesteryear, and time for Britain to play a full part in shaping the future of Europe. This Government are equipped to lead Britain into a confident future in Europe and in the world.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues raised in the motion, and to examine differences in approaches to the way in which the world is currently developing. We have a new Administration in Washington, continuing tragic violence in the middle east, tensions in the Balkans, and a China that is becoming more assertive; so there is much on which to reflect. First, however, let me use this opportunity to acknowledge, freely and warmly, the way in which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) has sought over many years to highlight important foreign policy issues in the House as a distinguished parliamentarian and party leader. I also take the opportunity, personally, to wish him well in the future.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his party's motive for boycotting the right hon. Gentleman's valedictory speech?
  Mr. Spring: There was certainly no boycott. I think it rather churlish of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to make such an unfortunate and inappropriate remark.
  The complexities of globalisation demand multilateral approaches today, but nations and networks, not greater integrated Government structures, make that possible. A new world of nations and networks is replacing the old world of blocs and hierarchies. That is one reason why the Conservative party formed a commission on the Commonwealth to examine ways in which that often overlooked and undervalued organisation could be of real benefit to its members in the future.
  In this new world, the bedrock of stability, security and prosperity is the self-governing nation state, which enables societies to understand their roots and character in a way that integrated supranational constructs and multilateral organisations simply never can. Constantly resorting to higher and higher levels of supranational government, as the Liberal Democrats' ideas incessantly do, reflects a fundamental lack of confidence in Britain as an important player in the world, and—that elusive democratic deficit again—a fundamental reluctance to ensure that accountable forms of government, our best option in times of rapid change, remain to the fore. Those views, regrettably, are powerfully echoed by the Government.
  Given our range of assets across the world and our influence through our language and culture. Britain has a role to play, not as a pale shadow of the United States, or simply as a component of European foreign policy, but as a strong and independent force for good in the world. A unique British role is particularly possible in the context of the Kyoto protocol, but, given the Deputy Prime Minister's apparent keenness to express anti-American sentiments, it is a role that this Government cannot fulfil. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman found himself sidelined during his recent trip to Washington. We too will be sidelined, as a country, if we adopt the right hon. Gentleman's course. Sabre-rattling by the Government will certainly not style the problem. We will achieve a solution by agreement, not confrontation.
  Of course the United States' decision was regrettable. Conservative Members support action to tackle climate change and implement the Kyoto protocol. That is why

  383
  the next Conservative Government will act as a bridge between the United States and Europe in climate change negotiations, rather than simply encouraging animosity towards the United States.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, returned from Washington only this morning. He had meetings with the Vice-President, the national security adviser and the deputy Secretaries for Defence and at the State Department. A view was confirmed that many are happy to promote—a view of the United States becoming simply isolationist. That view is utterly misplaced. In reality, in the new Administration we have an ally whose outlook extends throughout the world, and it is in our interest that that position remain. We must do nothing to jeopardise it.
  With our allies across the Atlantic and across the channel, we have the basis for collective action in foreign policy, in maintaining our security and in tackling environmental concerns that know no geographical bounds. A multilateral organisation like NATO is the bedrock of our security. However, as the right hon. Member for Yeovil will know, NATO's decisions are not made on the basis of majority voting
  For 50 years the Atlantic partnership has been one of the most powerful forces for good in the world, but today I believe that it is at risk. Why do both the Government and the Liberal Democrats favour a European Union defence structure which in practice will be separate from NATO. and will risk weakening the Atlantic alliance? Is it not the case that a tried and tested multilateral arrangement is being bypassed by a developing European Union foreign and defence policy—a move that is supported not only by the proponents of the motion, but by the Government?
  What the Americans really want, acid are not materially getting, is greater burden-sharing. Multilateral co-operation must be flexible to succeed; by contrast, co-operation based on doing everything together at the same speed is a recipe for failure. Truly multilateral organisations such as NATO have achieved that successfully. Attempts to create an EU foreign policy response through political integration, absorbing the views of individual members, produces policies that no one will follow, and which are easy prey to other states that are willing to play off one EU member against the other.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I do not agree with the proposition that he has just described—but can he explain why that proposition is so unacceptable, given that it was signed up to by the Conservative Government whom he supported at the time of the Maastricht treaty?
  Mr. Spring: Let me put the right hon. and learned Gentleman straight. We are totally in favour, and have always been in favour, of pan-European defence co-operation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that to be absolutely true, and it was agreed in the talks at Petersberg. What is being proposed today is entirely different; the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of all people, knows that.
  We have seen the inertia that I have described again this year—the playing off of EU countries against each other. Britain again failed to register the deep concern that exists among many people in this country about human
  384
  rights in China. That is not to say that either the EU—or, more broadly, the UN—does not have a significant role to play in establishing international co-operation leading to firm action, but it should do that by doing less, and doing it substantially better. The aim of those organisations should be to muster international consensus, but not at the expense of national democracies' ability to act independently. Both, however, need substantial reform if they are to achieve that.
  Beyond the EU, the UN is and will remain the focal point of attempts to co-ordinate international action to deal with global issues—but the majority of today's disputes are internal. The UN has become more actively engaged in peacekeeping roles in the last decade than it was during the entire cold war.
  We are clear that it is now more important than ever that the UN be realistic about what it can achieve. It needs to focus its efforts on fulfilling the responsibilities it already has, rather than constantly taking on new tasks. The UN Security Council will remain the central pillar for international co-operation to secure peace and security.
  The composition of the Security Council is the source of some controversy today, but the criteria for membership remain clear. It should comprise those countries that are most willing and able to contribute to international security, and membership should not be seen as being related to the size of a country's economy, land mass or simple position on the earth's surface, in an age when distance matters less and less. We Conservatives believe that the UK and France, for example, should continue to be members in their own right. We, the next Conservative Government, will consider proposals for new members to join the Security Council, but we will not support the idea that the EU should have its own seat.
  We will work to reform the UN. The aim will be to ensure that it has a clearly defined role that it is able to perform effectively, and that its work is co-ordinated with organisations in the regions concerned.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I do not need to patronise the hon. Gentleman with a resumé of the history of the Baltic states, but not much in what he has said so far gives me much assurance that under his plan, were the Baltic states to be threatened by an aggressive Russia, they would be protected in the way that they believe they would be by a common European defence strategy. What assurance can he give to countries such as the Baltic states, which have a potential danger next door, that the Conservatives have a strategy anywhere near as effective as we believe the European defence strategy could be?
  Mr. Spring: The Baltic states will of course be strengthened by their membership of the EU, and I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later. Their defence and security will be embraced by the European family of nations and, under the umbrella of NATO, everything is possible. Need I point out to the hon. Gentleman that if we disengage from NATO and possibly cause the Americans to withdraw substantially from Europe—which is the threat—the Baltic states' situation could be considerably worse?
  I turn to the issue of human rights. Many areas of the world, such as China, Burma and Iraq, suffer oppression, and our position remains clear. James Mawdsley,

  385
  the courageous and defiant human rights activist imprisoned in Burma, recently joined the Conservative party because of the clarity of our stance on such issues. On Iraq, we have been clear about the damage that Saddam Hussein continues to do to his country's people by refusing to adhere to the UN resolutions. In the meantime, the Government have rowed back and forth from their initial promise of an ethical foreign policy.
  Labour's ethics have been bizarre to witness—a mixture of inconsistency, leading to an aggressive approach to Sierra Leone but a shockingly inadequate response to Zimbabwe, and condemnation of Yugoslavia but barely a murmur about Russian atrocities in Chechnya. We read this morning that, with the election approaching, the Foreign Secretary has been spinning his intention to continue with his so-called ethical foreign policy. I remain unconvinced that he will be around to pursue it.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: If the Government have got their ethical foreign policy so wrong, why did Lord Justice Scott, who did so much to unearth the scandal of arms to Iraq, recently say that he was "amazed" by the difference in the transparency of the position under this Government compared with the previous Government?
  Mr. Spring: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal in a moment with some of the problems that the ethical foreign policy has caused.
  Where are the ethics in the lack of firm action on Zimbabwe? I might add that I share the shock and horror at the Minister's announcement about what is happening in Harare this evening. It is truly tragic for that country.
  Was not it the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), a former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who described the phrase "ethical dimension" as
  "a hook on which we found ourselves"?
  It appears that the Government talk about ethics at election time and in practice try to distance themselves from the word the rest of the time.
  The Government's behaviour contrasts markedly with the succession of Governments who did not posture about ethics but succeeded in helping to spread freedom, law and democracy across the globe, including twice in the previous century fighting for all of Europe against tyranny and, most recently, helping to liberate millions of our fellow Europeans from the iron hand of communism. It is a proud record.
  As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has made clear, we believe that Britain can be at the centre of the new network world. We will use that position to serve British interests; we will do so honourably, and we will use Britain's strength in the world for peace and stability.
  Mr. Wilson: I seem to detect some weasel words from the hon. Gentleman. Was he by any chance attributing victory in two world wars and the events at the end of the cold war on a party basis? He seemed to making a contrast in terms of party. Will he clarify that?
  Mr. Spring: I should be happy to. I am sorry that the Minister is so sensitive, as I said nothing of the kind.
  386
  I cannot understand why he should rise out of the waters like some sort of fish. I do not know his track record in the 1980s with a regard to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or anything else, but perhaps he is sensitive about that. My only point was that Britain played an enormously important role, of which every person in the country can be hugely proud. We helped to liberate Europe not only from Nazism, but from the subsequent horrors of communism. That is something of which we can be extremely proud.
  Nowhere could the failure of the ethical dimension be clearer than in Zimbabwe. Months ago, the Prime Minister described the Government as being "insufficiently assertive" about what was happening there, but the dithering continued Even Lord Goldsmith, the Prime Minister's special representative, has joined in the criticism of what is happening in Zimbabwe. I repeat that this evening's news makes the matter even worse.
  Finally, it was agreed that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group might send a group of observers to assess the scale of the problem in Zimbabwe, but what has happened to them? When will the group travel to Zimbabwe? The way in which Britain has allowed months of violence to escalate is shameful.
  The Foreign Secretary has always reverted to a standard practice in the past: tackling Mugabe head on, he says, will only worsen the problem. When will the Government stop dithering about the dreadful disregard for human rights in Zimbabwe? The escalation in violence has had a destabilising effect on the whole of southern Africa. Zimbabwe is exactly the place where a multilateral policy that involves the Commonwealth—but especially Britain and South Africa—could work if there were a positive attempt to achieve that.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I have been reflecting on what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) said about Milosevic. He said that Serbians were more concerned about the Hague than about being shelled. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when Governments should start indicting Mugabe for some of the heinous crimes that he has committed? The Minister may have given the regrettable impression that the Government are more concerned about British nationals suffering damage in Zimbabwe, even though Zimbabwean citizens have been deprived of their civil rights and terrorised when they tried to carry on democratic politics. Is it not time for action to be taken?
  Mr. Spring: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The situation in Zimbabwe is horrific. I genuinely believe that the Government, who have an important role to play in Zimbabwe, have conducted themselves in a pusillanimous manner that has merely aggravated the situation. I am absolutely clear about that.
  As I have said before, there may well be advantage at times in co-operating comprehensively on foreign policy issues with our friends and allies. However, the hollowness of the common European Union foreign policy was recently made evident when two of our European partners received Mugabe—a huge personal boost to him. There was no justification for the French Government's action in that regard, and I remain appalled at the pusillanimous reaction of the Foreign Secretary to the way in which the red carpet was rolled out in Paris.

  387
  I have visited the middle east on a number of occasions in the past few months. Britain's absence from the task of moving forward the peace process was repeatedly commented on to me by people from all sides. Specific mention was made of the Prime Minister's special envoy. However well intentioned it was, and whatever initial benefits it may have brought, the special envoy's role has turned into an embarrassment for our superb representatives in the region and for our country's credibility.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he has made a pretty shabby attack on someone who is serving this country well? As a Minister who travels widely in that region, I have never heard those sentiments expressed by our representatives, who work closely with the Prime Minister's special envoy when he is in the region. If the hon. Gentleman can do no better than attack someone who is working at the invitation of the Prime Minister in a role that is vital to our diplomatic efforts, it is, again, a pretty poor show on the part of the Tory party.
  Mr. Spring: The Minister is carving out for himself a character of defensiveness. Whatever the special envoy's personal characteristics—and I made no negative observations in that respect—he has no accountability and no role in the negotiating process. If he would care to spend a little time talking to our diplomats in the region and understanding more of what is going on, he should do so, and then he would understand the situation better. I had better not say any more.
  We support greater multilateralism of the kind represented by the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth and the intergovernmental processes of the European Union. However, that is not the same as the loss of an independent voice in foreign affairs. We have much to give the world and we must not believe that somehow our influence will be enhanced if we lose that independent voice. That is defeatist, counter-productive and unworthy of a country which, through its unique historical ties and current reach in the modern world, has so much to offer.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It is a privilege to take part in this debate initiated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) who, in his valedictory dispatch, raised our sights in many key areas. I repeat my assertion that it is sad, given the respect throughout the House for the right hon. Gentleman, that Conservative Members have chosen not to attend this debate. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) does not believe me, I invite him to turn around and see the empty Benches behind him. That is an insult to the right hon. Gentleman and an insult to the House and our consensual traditions.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil made an excellent speech. I found nothing in it to criticise save, perhaps, that in his description of the trend in globalisation, he may have exaggerated the extent of that trend. Overall, I thought that it was a magnificent speech of which he and the House can be proud.
  I was a little puzzled when the hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the United Kingdom's role was not to be a pale shadow of the United States. I contrasted that
  388
  with the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition when the United States talked of siting at Fylingdales the national missile defence station and the indication that whatever the Americans asked for, the Conservatives would give—a sort of blank cheque.
  Mr. Spring: If the Americans ask for additional facilities at Fylingdales, would the right hon. Gentleman oppose them?
  Mr. Anderson: I know that there is a debate in the United States about the nature of the missile system that they want. Some missile systems—a boost phase system, for example—would not need to rely on Fylingdales. It is absurd to give a response in advance of any defined request.
  I found equally puzzling the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the United States wants greater burden sharing by its European allies. That is precisely the effect of the European security and defence policy, which has triggered greater defence expenditure by a number of our allies.
  I shall briefly examine the Government's record from two angles: first, the burdensome question of how others see us; and secondly, my assessment of the Government's record—a stocktaking exercise after four years. How are we seen abroad? I have been fortunate enough to travel abroad both as Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and as leader of our delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I have had many opportunities to discuss with colleagues in other Parliaments their perception of the British Government's record.
  I can say, without hesitation, that, at present, the British Government are seen positively. There has been a sea change in our attitude to Europe, which has been warmly welcomed. It is seen that we now play a constructive role and that we are no longer at the margins of foreign policy.
  Praise has come, too, from wider afield. For example, Mr. Dhanapala, the Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs at the UN, commented on the UK Government's role in disarmament and non-proliferation:
  "Britain's leadership … has been impressive indeed."
  He commended the UK for leading by example.
  Obviously, I do not have time to reel off all the comments that I have heard, but the Government's commitment to ensure that Britain is at the centre of international decision making and is a force for good in the world has certainly been noticed by friends and critics alike. We have used our many valuable assets constructively—especially our diplomatic service and our armed forces, which are both centres of excellence.
  My general assessment is that Britain is now once again seen as a leading player on the international stage. We still maintain a strong relationship with the United States. The extent to which the US will move towards a more unilateralist policy remains to be seen—there was an interesting article in yesterday's Financial Times on that theme. However, the abrupt dismissal by the US of its commitments under the Kyoto protocol, its position on national missile defence and its actions in respect of Russia and Vietnam do not give cause for optimism.
  The British Government have played a leading role in galvanising action in key areas such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone and East Timor.
  Paddy Ashdown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words earlier and apologise for interrupting

  389
  what must, inevitably, be a short speech. He touched on the United States and mentioned several points of concern. However, there are several encouraging things—the handling of the Israeli problem and of the banana issue, and, more recently, the delicate and subtle handling of the problems in China. We ought to cut the US Administration a little slack before deciding about them. Is it not always the case that American Presidents will often express isolationist rhetoric on the campaign trail, but not in practice when they come to government? I have a suspicion that the current US Administration are much more subtle in many of their international actions than we are sometimes encouraged to believe.
  Mr. Anderson: Most of my examples were of events that occurred well after the end of the campaign trail; the decisions were made in government. However, I wholly concur with the right hon. Gentleman. We must see how things work out in practice. However, there are none the less some concerns.
  Human rights were a large theme in the remarks of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. In 1997, the new Labour Government pledged to make human rights central to their foreign policy. That pledge has been much derided. The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph are prone to printing easy headlines such as, "And they call it an ethical foreign policy!"
  We may hear the phrase "an ethical dimension" rather less nowadays, but human rights are no less central. We continue to make concrete achievements. I can make only headline points, given the time constraints. Our influence was crucial in setting up the International Criminal Court, in developing the European Union code of conduct on arms sales and in making progress on debt relief for the world's poorest countries.
  During the past four years, there has been much of which we can be proud. We launched the global programme to challenge torture. We led the international campaign against trade in conflict diamonds. Our support for the war crimes tribunal on former Yugoslavia is well known. UK forces have arrested more indicted Bosnian war criminals than those of any other country.
  At home, there have clearly been changes, such as the substantially expanded human rights policy department, the newly created human rights project fund and the way in which non-governmental organisations have been brought in from the cold by public diplomacy and are now part of the discussions and debate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in posts abroad. We have ratified the protocol of the European Court of Human Rights, banning capital punishment in Britain, and we have lobbied foreign Governments on it.
  The Opposition are pursuing a dangerous strategy, which puts Britain's interests at stake, by flirting with the idea of leaving the European Union and with the concept of joining the North American Free Trade Area. For example, by refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice, they would block EU enlargement, creating instability in eastern and central Europe and, indeed, making enemies for Britain in several countries in that region. It is sad that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the shadow Ministers are able to say anything positive about the EU. Surely there must be something positive in our region and
  390
  in the new organisation in which we play such a large part. If the hon. Member for West Suffolk can point to any positive statement, I shall sit down immediately.
  Mr. Spring: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to intervene. I should be very happy to send him a great number of speeches on the subject by the shadow Foreign Secretary. I am disappointed that he thinks that we are somehow anti-European simply because we do not believe that the process of political integration with the EU is right ultimately for the continuation and success of the EU, which is the view of the majority of the British people. That could not be further from the truth.
  Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he can think of nothing, off hand, that his party has said that is positive about the EU. I shall sit down if he can do so.
  Mr. Spring: I have repeatedly said that we welcome the advantages of the EU—such as those involving the single market, that environment and the intense co-operation on policing, drugs and other matters—as well as the role that the Community has undoubtedly played in preserving peace in Europe since the war. We have referred to those issues time and again, so I do not understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from.
  Mr. Anderson: That is a minimalist agenda, beyond which we and our European partners went many decades ago. It is clear that the only way to have influence is to remain at the heart of discussions. Diplomats who served in the United Kingdom delegation to Brussels in the 1980s told me, rather graphically, how we were marginalised and had our interests adversely affected during that time.
  Of course there have been some shortcomings in Government policy. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee has been the source of several well-founded criticisms. We say things as we see them in respect of Gibraltar, Zimbabwe, the delay in tightening arms supply to Indonesia and a number of administrative failures involving Sierra Leone. Again, we acknowledge serious failings relating to arms exports and control, but the Quadripartite Committee has done a most valuable job. In its memorandum of December last year, Saferworld said:
  "The UK Government's annual report … currently stands as the most transparent report published by any European country, and offers a potential template for best practice throughout the EU".
  We have also banned landmines.
  On the basis of the Delphic saying, "Know thyself', my conclusion is that we should identify our strategic goals and the best instruments with which we seek to achieve them. This month, in its departmental report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly set out those strategic goals under the headings, "Security", "Prosperity", "Quality of life" and "Mutual respect". A collective approach is set out very clearly in the motion. Indeed, I could take exception to nothing in the motion.
  Gone are the days when we could achieve such goals—or even some of them—on our own. Perhaps the Falklands conflict in the early 1980s and the transition in Hong Kong will be seen by historians as the last examples of the independent policy for which the hon. Member for West Suffolk has such romantic and obsolete hankerings.

  391
  Now our goals can be achieved only by making a difference within our alliances and by building coalitions, as we did so successfully at the Nice summit. History and geography have given us a unique global reach through a unique series of alliances—NATO, the European Union, the Security Council of the United Nations, G8 and the Commonwealth. In my judgment, the Government have fully recognised that there is no future in pretending to our electorate that nationalist unilateralist solutions are possible. Self-delusion is the worst delusion.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution and to speak in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown). I know that his speech will be studied in years to come because his predictions have the rather depressing habit of coming true.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on the unilateral decision by the United States to reject the Kyoto protocol, and I shall explain why only a multilateral response to the threat of climate change will do. A multilateral response is clearly what the current US President's father wanted when he was in the Oval office. He might not have had in mind the world environment organisation at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil hinted, but, under George Bush senior, the United States signed the United Nations framework convention on climate change. It states that developed countries should take the lead in combating climate change. There is nothing in it about developing countries having to take the lead.
  I hope that George Bush junior and his advisers are considering a multilateral approach. They have been granted an extra few months in which to define their position and I hope that they will adopt a multilateral approach before the COP 6—sixth conference of the parties—talks resume. If they are not considering such an approach, they had better invest in a better server in the White house, because the "flood Bush" e-mails will continue to arrive. I understand that the server has crashed five times already under the weight of those e-mails and it risks being down permanently if Brush persists with his recipe for American excess and global meltdown.
  The United Kingdom's good faith and credibility in relation to climate change and the reduction of CO2 emissions would be further enhanced were the Government to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggested yesterday. They should allow the Climate Change Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to proceed. It would put on a statutory basis the Labour party's 1997 manifesto commitment of a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions. I cannot think of a better way of ensuring multilateral action than the UK taking unilateral action to reduce its CO2 emissions by an even more significant amount than the legal commitments that have been made and by demonstrating that that is good for business as well as for the environment.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was distinctly ungracious and I hope that we shall hear a more considered response from the Minister tonight. What emphatically will not assist in the process of securing multilateral action on climate change are ill-informed
  392
  statements by Ministers. Other Members will have seen the comments by Peter Ewins, the chief executive of the Meteorological Office, who told The Times about a week ago that
  "ministers' remarks about climate change were often so wrong that they made his scientists wince."
  The report continued:
  "He criticised in particular claims by Mr. Prescott … that last November's floods had been caused by global warming."
  Mr. Ewins said that such statements were not supported by science and that it was impossible to say that such weather incidents were caused directly by climate change. I hope that Ministers will avoid making such statements because they can be used by the US to justify its lack of action on the important issue of climate change.
  Few people can doubt that climate change is a major threat to mankind; fewer still can doubt that it will require a multilateral approach to tackle that menace. Unfortunately, one of those people is the President of the most powerful nation on earth. It is down to the United Kingdom and our European partners to ensure that he comes to his senses.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: It is pleasure to speak in the debate that was initiated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), who made an excellent speech. Despite the differences between our political parties—sometimes reinforced by the tactics of the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] I am going to be generous, so hon. Members should let me finish. Despite those differences, I was reminded of how much common ground there is between us. On the right hon. Gentleman's historical legacy as leader of the third political party, one of his major contributions has been to reposition the Liberal Democrats between the Labour party and the Conservative party. In the longer run, that can only be good for politics. It does not mean that we need pacts or have to merge, merely that where we have a common interest, we should say so.
  I agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman said about globalisation needing global solutions. That does not mean rejecting the nation state, but we have to recognise its limitations. We must take account of the fact that a decision taken in a moment in Detroit or Tokyo can cost tens of thousands of jobs in this country. The idea that we can face up to that global challenge within the confines of the nation state is not a sustainable argument.
  I also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman about national identity. We all have different identities, and as the regions and localities of the world develop, those identities change. On Europe, an opinion poll finding that often strikes me is that those people who believe that Britain was a once great nation now in decline, have a completely negative attitude towards Britain's position in the European Union; yet those who believe that Britain was a once great nation now on its way back, have a wholly positive attitude. We need to have confidence in our national identity. That is especially true of the English. I do not detect among the Scots, Welsh and the Irish the same uncertainty and reticence, and that affects their attitudes towards Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely positive contribution.

  393
  I want to focus on the recent decision by the President of the United States to repudiate the Kyoto protocol, which is of enormous concern. I was struck by the comments of the UK's chief scientific adviser during the Kyoto talks, who said:
  "Even if Co2 emissions were cut by 60 per cent. over the next few years"
  and let us remember that the Kyoto protocol does not sign us up to anything like a 60 per cent. reduction—
  "sea levels would continue to rise for centuries."
  That is the challenge that we face and it explains why I am so worried about the decision taken by the US President and his Administration.
  Members of all political parties can learn significant lessons from the events of the past few weeks. I fear that the first lesson is what those events tell us about the early stance of the new Bush Administration. Their actions during their first 14 weeks in office are cause for concern. Despite significant public opposition, especially within the United States, they are pushing ahead with the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic national wildlife refuge. There is also a proposal to renege on the supposedly binding agreement that was signed at Kyoto. In addition, there are concerns about decisions beyond the environmental agenda. Given that that is the case after 14 weeks, one might ask whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism", which was the slogan used by the Republican candidate in the run-up to the presidential election. We in this country can learn from that. Many people in the United States are reflecting on what has happened and learning from the intervention of the fundamentalist Greens and Ralph Nader in the presidential election which led directly to the results that we have seen on Kyoto and much else.
  There are those who argued that there was no difference between the candidates for the election in America, and in that respect the past 14 weeks have at least taught us an object lesson. The American people have made their choice and I do not criticise it, but there is a lesson for those in this country who claim that there is no difference between this Government and a Conservative Government. Whether those people are in the Socialist Alliance, fundamentalist Green campaigns or the Liberal Democrats, they should reflect on that.
  It is enormously instructive to observe what the situation in the United States tells us about the modern-day Conservative party and its stance on national self-interest. Whenever we debate Europe and there is any suggestion of the pooling of sovereignty to achieve a greater end for the nation, the Conservative party accuses us of selling out our national interest. However, when the United States acts in a way that contradicts or attacks our national interest, the Conservatives are at best silent and on most occasions seem almost to acquiesce in the subjugation of our national interest to that of the United States. We hardly hear a squeak from them. We heard from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who said that he regretted the decision by the United States. He then launched into a ritualistic and wholly unjustified attack on the Deputy Prime Minister. If the Conservative party is serious about these issues, it needs to make a better response.
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman made an assertion about the Conservative party's attitude to the United
  394
  States, saying that we appear to be essentially hostile to anything to do with the European Union but that we offer no criticism of the United States. Can he give a recent example of that? I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to hear from him.
  Mr. Rammell: The whole debate on national missile defence is an example. There is a series of unanswered questions about that proposal and there are genuine concerns that the initiative on its own could lead to an escalation of the arms race. The sensible response is the one that has been made by the Government, who have said that we should wait and see what proposals the United States Administration make and then make a judgment. That is not the response of the Leader of the Opposition or of the Conservative party, which has said that whatever the details are, we should sign up to the initiative. That does not serve the British national interest. The Conservative party's stance on the United States contrasts greatly with its attitude to Europe.
  Mr. Spring: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on this point. National missile defence may or may not go ahead and be successful, but the Americans propose to proceed with it. All that we have said, quite responsibly, is that we want to participate in discussions during the evolution of the policy and that we should not be expected to pay for it. That is sensibly in the interests of the British people and indeed all of Europe.
  Mr. Rammell: When the matter first became public debate I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that the Government should sign up now and support the proposal. That starkly underlines the way in which the Conservative party undermines the British national interest with its simplistic attitude to a matter that requires sensitive, detailed debate.
  There is obvious disagreement about Kyoto and the stance adopted by the American Administration which is felt throughout the advanced world and certainly in Europe and on these Benches, but George Bush is the elected President of the United States, which will continue to be a good friend and ally of this country. We have many common interests and we need to work with the Americans to achieve change on these issues. There are positive grounds for optimism. Recent polling evidence in the United States after the Bush Administration's decision shows that 77 per cent. of people want stronger environmental action Some centrist Republicans are even beginning to realise that the stance taken will not serve their interests as they approach the forthcoming congressional elections.
  We must use our position in the special relationship to be a candid friend to the United States and the American President. We must convince the Administration that their stance on the issue is wrong; I believe that there are grounds for optimism. To echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, I am convinced more than ever that, in tackling that kind of issue, the country's needs and interests are served by our being at the heart of the European Union, not apart from it, as the Conservative party wish.
  The idea that the only remaining global superpower will respond to one national Government, whoever they are, simply does not bear scrutiny. There is a much better chance that it will be forced to respond to the combined

  395
  might and pressure of European Union Governments working together. That is the lesson to be learned; whether on this issue or on the World Trade Organisation talks, unless we are at the table with the Europeans, in the longer run we will not even be in the room for international debate and negotiation. We should draw that lesson from the debate.
  I know that two other Members wish to take part in our debate, so I turn finally to the United Nations, which has been the major initiative of the past century to achieve multilateral and collectivist solutions. However, anyone who looks at the current structure of the UN knows that it is in significant need of reform. In many senses, it is the main forum for tackling human rights abuses throughout the world yet, too often, it does not fulfil that task.
  The conflict in Kosovo taught us more clearly than anything that, when we are taking justifiable action in defence of human rights, the UN does not always provide the best help and support because of its decision-making structure and the right of veto held by permanent members of the Security Council. If we are to proceed with the work of the UN and if it is to provide solutions, it must be subject to fundamental reform and rationalisation and the right of veto held by permanent members of the Security Council should be curtailed; otherwise, the UN will simply be reduced to the lowest common denominator because necessary action in support of human rights will always offend one or other member of the Security Council.
  This has been a positive and interesting debate, which underlines the extent to which we need both international and multilateral solutions.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I, too, think that the debate has been positive. Briefly, in my remarks, I want to look back and make an assessment of the Government's progress on their ethical foreign policy and on human rights issues.
  From the start, may I say that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed strongly the statement of the Foreign Secretary in 1997 that there would be a change in foreign policy, with the ethical element at its heart. From our perspective that was welcome and a fine contrast to some activities in the 18 previous years. However, we believe strongly that those words are easy and need to be followed by fine actions. We recognise good action on Jubilee 2000 and the abolition of land mines, but a number of major holes remain in the Government's ethical foreign policy.
  By far the biggest hole is the Government's failure to introduce legislation on arms exports. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to that and cross-party Select Committees have criticised the Government. Five years after the Scott report, it is disgraceful that no such legislation has been introduced in any Queen's Speech in this Parliament, let alone passed. Of course, we welcome the fact that, in recent months, the Government have said they will introduce a draft export control Bill, and that, in the past two or three years, they have changed elements of legislation in relation to arms exports. It is good that the Government are producing an annual report on export licences, and we welcome that. However, on reading the detail, it is difficult to judge the use to which some arms are being put. There is little detail about end use. For example, the
  396
  entry for the Channel Islands sets out the purchase of stun grenades, rifles and other firearms. Anyone would think that the Channel Islands are preparing to go to war, but the real detail is that these items were purchased for a museum. That illustrates the nonsense of not having more information in the annual report. Nevertheless, its publication is welcome.
  I am pleased also that the Government have made it clear that they want to tackle the work of brokers. However, there are difficulties in determining how to deal with British brokers who are operating from foreign countries. We need to know more about how the Government propose to tackle that issue.
  The greatest failure of the draft legislation that we have seen so far is not to put in place a system of pre-scrutiny of arms exports. If there is to be a genuine attempt to have an ethical foreign policy, that must start by allowing a cross-party group of Members to engage in pre-scrutiny to assess where arms are going.
  I understand that there are some concerns about the delay that pre-scrutiny might cause within the system. There are business men in my constituency who share these concerns. When they have been trying to export goods, they have been frustrated at times by long delays. However, I do not think that pre-scrutiny would cause delay. The vast number of products and goods that are being exported would not be required to go through such a system. It may be that only about 10 or 12 would. The process, which is already very delayed, would not be held up much more by allowing a cross-party group of Members to engage in pre-scrutiny.
  The second argument to be advanced is that pre-scrutiny would cause competition difficulties. It is said that if we were to open up the process, commercially sensitive contracts would be open for all to examine. It is suggested that other companies that perhaps were not aware that contracts were up for bidding would suddenly start to get in on the bidding process. Again, I think that that is a bogus argument against pre-scrutiny. It is not as if a Committee of Members will put up a big notice saying, "These contracts are out for bidding." If we trust Members, as we do now, to scrutinise MI5 and MI6—our intelligence services—surely we can trust them in the same way to examine arms exports.
  If I were a Minister, I would want a "get out of jail card"—an insurance policy. What more effective insurance policy could one have as a Minister than knowing that a decision that might have to be taken in private had been endorsed by a cross-party group of Members in advance? That is one of the most compelling arguments. It would assure a Minister that his lonely decision has already been considered by a number of Members and approved. That system is good enough for the United States, which has overcome the possible difficulties. It is good enough also for Sweden.
  Cross-party groups and the Quadripartite Committee and others all recommend the system as the way forward. I was pleased to hear that in a Select Committee this afternoon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he still has an open mind on the matter. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  If we are to have proper practice in place, there must be proper end-use monitoring. There is a concern that if we are exporting arms, it is extremely difficult to track down where they end up. I accept that it will be a difficult

  397
  system to implement, given that monitoring will be difficult. However, having pre-scrutiny in place would surely allow pressure groups and others, via Members, to highlight some of the potential concerns about how end misuse could take place.
  Mr. David Heath: I am pleased with what my hon. Friend is saying about the need for pre-scrutiny of arms sales. Will he accept from me, as someone who served in the early days on the Quadripartite Committee, that that Committee has moved a long way from the point at which it started in agreeing the present position? If a disparate group of Members can do that, I am sure that the Government can make the same journey.
  Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If four respected groups have come together in that way, there is still the opportunity for the Government to listen to the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that the Government will indicate that the issue is still open for discussion.
  One reason why we need to have a system of pre-scrutiny in place is what has been taking place in Indonesia. For those of us who are interested in human rights issues it seems a fine example of why we need to have proper arms export controls in place. One of the most disappointing things that the Government did was to continue with the contracts to supply Hawk jets to Indonesia. There were ample opportunities to review those contracts, and it was disappointing that the Foreign Office allowed them to stand. It is difficult to prove that Hawk jets have been used in human rights violations; equally, it is hard to prove that they have not been so used. We know, for example, that water cannon have been used in Jakarta against students protesting there. A pre-scrutiny panel would not have allowed such arms sales to Indonesia to continue.
  I shall touch briefly on a couple of other issues on which I would welcome the Minister's comments. This morning I met the Reverend Jackie Maraputi, who is a representative on human rights issues of the Protestant Church in the Moluccas. The Minister will know of the extremely difficult situation in that region over the past 12 months. The good news that Reverend Maraputi told me was that the Protestants and some of the Muslims are working closely together for reconciliation, and there is real hope that some of the difficulties in the region will be overcome as a result of that effort. Those difficulties have led to almost 8,000 deaths in the past two years.
  The most encouraging thing that the reverend told me was that some of the more extreme Muslim militant leaders have decided to take part in that process. What support can the British Government or the British Council offer to help to fund that process? He made it clear that the problems can be solved without outside interference, but that funding and support from the British Council would be extremely helpful.
  The bad news was that some of the human rights violations continue. The forced religious conversions are still taking place. There are appalling cases of the forced circumcision of children as young as six. People are forced to change their names and married couples are forced to
  398
  undertake a different marriage service to change their religion. All that, I am told, sometimes takes place with the Indonesian army watching and, on occasion, handing out medicine to those who have undergone forced circumcision. It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether he is prepared to put pressure on the United Nations or the European Union for the independent monitoring of events on some of the Indonesian islands.
  Finally, in relation to Indonesia, there is concern about the situation of those who are trying to avoid such atrocities. There are estimated to be about 2,000 refugees in the islands of Seram, Dura and North Molucca. They are hiding in the jungle, and they need aid and food. Will the Minister confirm that the best way of achieving that would be to put pressure on the Indonesian Government to get food and vital medicine into the jungle? Again, we need monitoring to establish the extent of the problem.
  In conclusion, I do not suggest that the problems in Indonesia are a direct result of the arms that we are providing. However, we want the Government to be more active in the region. The example of Indonesia demonstrates the need for proper arms control to be in place. None of us can say that a jet, a cannon or other military equipment has not been used in the Indonesian region in a way that we would find repulsive. I hope that if the Government are given the chance to govern again, they will quickly introduce legislation on arms exports. That remains a serious hole in the ethical foreign policy which we on the Literal Democrat Benches support.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I want to thank the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), before he leaves, for selecting the subject for debate tonight and particularly for his excellent rendition of Housman's poems. As I grew up in Shropshire, almost under the shroud of Housman, I fully appreciated their spirit. His prophetic utterances about the dangers of the first world war turned out to be entirely true. It is time that we heard more poetry in the House. A great deal can be learned from it, and it is better than the prose that we usually hear.
  My next point is not intended as a criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but the debate is in danger of becoming a self-satisfied discussion about what the rich northern world thinks about its place in the globe. In reality, we are one country in a world where, appallingly, a quarter of the population lives at starvation level and many have life expectancies that would mean that virtually every hon. Member present would be long dead. Life expectancy is constantly falling in many of the poorest countries. It is now down to less than 40 years in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. We live in a world in which the basic human rights of many people in respect of the ordinary ability to live—never mind of political expression—are completely lacking. We must do an awful lot better in this century than we managed to do in previous ones.
  I want to draw attention to three points. I do not want to speak at great length about the generality, but I think that the theme of our debate must be world peace, world social justice and environmental sustainability, and the need seriously to support international organisations that can achieve those aims. I refer especially to the possibility of ensuring that the UN's role in the world is much enhanced, rather than diminished. We should debate those

  399
  issues more often. Indeed, I think that our procedures would be improved if there were a more effective way of monitoring what we actually do at the United Nations. For example, we could establish a Select Committee on United Nations affairs or ensure that we receive a report back about what goes on at the UN. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is just completing its work, but I do not suppose that we will hear one word about it in the Chamber, other than the few mentions that it will receive tonight. However, what is currently occurring in Geneva is crucial and it deserves much greater publicity than it has so far received.
  As I said, I want to refer only to thee issues, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The first directly concerns the United Nations and the Security Council, which is meeting tomorrow morning. At the meeting, it will receive a report from the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, on the situation in the western Sahara. The western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco since 1974, but despite year after year of agreements, pledges and arguments about the voters' role, there has been no referendum, and the fundamental right of the people of the western Sahara to vote on their future in a free and fair referendum has not been recognised. I understand that the Secretary-General will not specify a date by which the referendum should occur in tomorrow's report, but will instead ask for an extension of the MINURSO—the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—mandate until the end of June, to enable him and other officials to continue progress on the possibilities of devolving power into the western Sahara from Morocco.
  Over the years, I have initiated a number of debates on the western Sahara, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), and I know that that is not what the people of the area have been campaigning for and demanding all these years. They want the right to vote on their self-determination. I am sorry to say that, if we merely keep imposing delays, hot war fighting will break out again, whatever the oratorical abilities of the leaders of Polisario or any other group. I do not want that and I do not advocate it. I want a peaceful solution, but I believe that the right to a referendum should be sacrosanct, and I hope that the British representative at tomorrow's Security Council meeting will make that point.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cause of the people of western Sahara and their right to a referendum have not been helped by the British Government's recent decision to allow the repair of gun parts and arms? I understand that the work was carried out against the will of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was overruled by the Department of Trade and Industry. Does he agree that that was a very false move?
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened; she made a point that I was going to make anyway. I agree that if we want to achieve a peaceful solution to what is, for want of a better term, a post-colonial conflict, it is not sensible for us to allow the refurbished arms to go to Morocco. We know that there is no external threat to Morocco from anybody and that the weapons can be used only in an internal conflict—it will be internal in terms of the current political arrangements—against the people of western Sahara.
  400
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that it remains the British Government's position to support a referendum in which the people of western Sahara can vote freely on whether to be part of Morocco or to follow their own independent path.
  The people of East Timor had that right. As one who observed the referendum in East Timor, I know that when a referendum takes place, United Nations officials have to attend—they did wonderful work in East Timor—but some security system must be put in place immediately afterwards. The carnage in East Timor after the referendum was horrific to witness.
  This afternoon, I attended a briefing for Members of Parliament by a lawyer who represented LAW, the Palestinian legal rights group. The picture that she painted of the conflict in the middle east, the attacks in the Palestinian territory and the heavy weaponry that Israel deploys was horrific. I hope that the British Government will renew their criticisms of Israel's actions in the occupied territories and help to bring about some serious developments that will lead to a long-term peace process. The more the helicopter gunships go in and the more bombardments, random arrests and killings that occur, the more the chances for long-term peace diminish. They are diminishing by the day. The rest of the world must engage in upholding the rights of people to a peaceful existence.
  Many UN resolutions have been passed to support the right of the Palestinian people to have a safe, secure place in which to live. Israeli forces have breached them often. Despite the supposedly even-handed approach and way in which the media report the conflict, the victims of the current conflict in Israel and Palestine are predominantly the poor and Palestinian civilians.
  The LAW briefing stated:
  "Between 28 September 2000 and 17 April 2001 390 Palestinian civilians have been killed and over 12,000 injured by Israeli soldiers and settlers. 73 Jewish Israelis have been killed and about 400 injured. About 84 per cent. of those Palestinians killed and 99.5 per cent. of those injured have been civilians who are not members of the Palestinian National Security forces."
  Any death is to be regretted and deplored, but the conflict is hardly even handed. Using helicopter gunships against a civilian population is an outrage anywhere in the world at any time. We should deplore that and try to encourage a peace process in the middle east.
  My last point concerns the huge issue of national missile defence and the role of President Bush, who was not elected but somehow achieved office. We live in one world where 36,000 nuclear weapons are available. The Bush Administration are hellbent on developing a national missile defence system that was initially devised by Ronald Reagan and the defence companies. Defence contractors are doing well; they are making billions of pounds from Government contracts. The four main defence contractors in the United States receive a fast rate of return for the $34 million that they spend on lobbying on Capitol Hill and the $3.7 million that they contributed to Congress members' election campaigns last year.
  The danger for the rest of the world is enormous. The incident involving the spy plane and the rising tension between China and the United States showed the dangers. We hear the rhetoric of right-wing think tanks in the USA that casts China as the enemy and claims that developing national missile defence will somehow protect the US for all time from any events elsewhere in the world. That is

  401
  crazy and extremely dangerous. Going ahead would require rewriting if not tearing up the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Countries worked hard for that treaty and it constituted an important step forward. It would also require tearing up the treaty that provides for space to be a weapon-free zone, and would at least undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
  While many European countries have said that they oppose national missile defence and would not be prepared to grant facilities for it, most other countries in the world are terrified at the very idea of national missile defence, the nuclearisation of space and all that goes with it. I would hope, therefore, that instead of waiting for the US to make an application to us, this country would join in and say that we, too, are not prepared to grant facilities for, or be supportive of, the national missile defence proposals put forward by the United States.
  If we want to live in a world that tackles environmental destruction and pollution, poverty, human rights abuses and the small wars that are going on with terrible consequences all round the globe, how on earth does national missile defence fit into that, other than to stuff full of gold the companies that have already been manufacturing weapons of mass destruction for a long time and to encourage the redevelopment of a nuclear arms race between Russia, China and the United States that can only be dangerous and damaging to the rest of the world?
  I would have hoped that in this century we would have learned some of the lessons of the wars of the previous century, so that we could say no to this system and encourage others to say no to it. We should put all the pressure that we can on the US Administration to abandon this mad system and instead use that skill and technology to do something good for this planet rather than something bad and dangerous.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I know that time is pressing, so I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
  First, I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) for his excellent introductory speech and particularly for his comments on the complexity of identity in the modern world. I found his somewhat apocalyptic vision of the years ahead disconcerting, although I share some aspects of it.
  It was also encouraging, during the early part of the debate, to see the Liberal Democrat section of the Opposition Benches full while the Conservative part was virtually empty. For those of us who have, from time to time, anticipated the possibility of a realignment of British politics whereby the Liberal Democrats would become the official Opposition, those moments were encouraging.
  I want to associate myself completely with all the comments made by my hon. Friends, and to pick up particularly on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). In the course of the debate, there have been several references to the American position on the Kyoto protocol and the American attitude towards national missile defence. I do not think that the link between those two United States policy positions has been noted. It is not arbitrary that the
  402
  Americans have become so intransigent over Kyoto, or that they have become so obsessed by national missile defence.
  A scenario is emerging wherein the United States has decided that it is prepared, as the 21st century moves on, to do everything possible to maintain its current position as the world's only superpower. It sees the main threat to that coming from economic development in China, and I feel that the justification given for the national missile defence system—that it is somehow a system to protect the United States against casual, irrational attacks by a small number of rogue states—is absolutely ludicrous.
  If any of those alleged rogue states wished to attack the United States, they could easily do so with a nuclear bomb in a suitcase, or by the importation of the foot and mouth disease virus. That would be far more effective than trying to launch a full-scale nuclear attack. The national missile defence system seems, therefore, to be a pretext for the Americans' developing vision of the future, in which, some time in the second decade of this century, they will be prepared to fight—and intend to win—a nuclear war with China to maintain their economic supremacy.
  The importance of President Bush's recently announced opposition to the Kyoto protocol is that the Americans are prepared to continue the exploitation of fossil fuels, and are determined to maintain their control over the majority of the world's oil reserves to fuel their economy to maintain their supremacy.
  I want yet again to flag up—as have other Members—the crucial importance of exercising our Government's influence to persuade the United States to see sense and finally agree to an international system for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; of the need to develop renewable technologies; and that the continuing use of fossil fuels will not necessarily enable economic supremacy to be maintained. In fact, as the years go by, it is likely to be the countries with high-level skills and manufacturing capacity in renewable technologies that develop economic competence and supremacy.
  I hope that our Government will do that, but I hope that at the same time they will use their influence, if not to oppose national missile defence directly, then to delay, prevaricate, cajole and even to try to persuade the United States to consider alternatives to the existing proposals.
  I think that the general view in the House is that our Government should resist national missile defence and the Americans' position on the Kyoto protocol. However, we cannot adopt that stance alone. That returns me to the starting point and the main theme of the debate: in the modern world, multilateral action is the only basis for foreign policy.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: This has been an extremely thoughtful debate, featuring well-argued contributions from all quarters.
  It would be wrong of me not to begin by thanking those on the Front Benches—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—for the generous tributes that they paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). They paid tribute not just to my right hon. Friend's sparkling contribution this evening, but

  403
  to his contribution over a long period—but especially while he was leader of the Liberal Democrats—to a number of important foreign policy issues. I know that my right hon. Friend is very grateful for their generosity.
  The Minister of State had to indulge in some pretty close textual analysis to find a justification for the Government's amendment, as opposed to the motion. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, they are so close that, by kicking over the traces for once in his ministerial life—he did it often enough in his political life before becoming a Minister—the Minister might just be able to find himself in the same Lobby as us.
  As I said, this has been a thoughtful occasion, and no one has been more thoughtful on these matters than my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. This evening, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of his insight and eloquence; but before moving on to some of the issues that were raised in the debate, let me remind the House that, in terms of foreign policy, my right hon. Friend has not only displayed insight and eloquence but, on occasion, shown rare courage.
  That has not always been popular in the House. I remember, for instance, the time when my right hon. Friend rose to say that all Hong Kong residents should have passports that might entitle them to come and live in the United Kingdom. I can tell those who were not present that that was not exactly a popular thing to say. I also remember my right hon. Friend's insistence that our party should support Lady Thatcher—an increasingly unpopular Prime Minister in her own party and in the country—when it came to the issue of whether the Government should back the effort to expel Iraq from Kuwait.
  I remember, too, my right hon. Friend's insistence—in the face of some pretty formidable arguments and quite a lot of heavy flak from the leader of the Labour party, the then right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East—that our party should support a Government who were deeply embattled over the Maastricht treaty, at a time when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was confronted with extraordinary disloyalty from certain Back Benchers, some of whom appear to have experienced a renaissance on the Front Bench of today's Conservative party.
  I remember, too, my right hon. Friend arguing knowledgeably and passionately— and not always achieving great popularity in the House—for early intervention in the Balkans. He also exposed the illusion of safe havens in an exchange of correspondence with the then Prime Minister that was best described as incendiary.
  We Liberal Democrats will miss my right hon. Friend, but the House will also be the poorer. Those who have been the particular losers this evening are those Conservatives who have found themselves—no doubt under the heavy pressure of engagements and other responsibilities—compelled to stay away. It may be that they are out looking for other recruits such as Mr. James Mawdsley, to bring them into the bosom of the Conservative party. When the hon. Member for West Suffolk described the recruitment of Mr. Mawdsley, I was reminded that in the 18th century the Duchess of Gordon used to encourage recruits into her husband's regiment by the presentation of a shilling and the offer of a kiss.
  404
  I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) fulfils that function in today's Conservative party.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned Europe, but I remind him that the Maastricht treaty talked not of a common defence policy but of a common foreign and security policy. It also envisaged something called a "common defence", which would be a united defence. That treaty was driven through the House on a three-line Whip by the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, a supporter.
  The hon. Gentleman taxed us with a lack of confidence about Europe. As someone who has lived all his life in a country with a single currency but two separate legal systems, I have never had any discomfort in asserting my Scottishness. Nor would I have any anxiety about asserting my Britishness in a European Union with a single currency of which the UK was a member. It is hardly likely either that the German or French characters will be dissipated or irretrievably damaged so as to make them invisible through being members of the single European currency. If any party lacks confidence about Europe, it is today's Conservative party, which has travelled a long way since the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), with great courage, insisted that the UK should join what was then the Common Market.
  The Minister was kind enough to refer to the fact that, last year, before the millennium summit, the Foreign Secretary and I sought to produce a joint position on the United Nations. I am sure that in recent weeks other hon. Members have experienced newspapers ringing them up and asking them to summarise in 40 words the achievement of which they are most proud. That is a somewhat precious question, and I have consistently failed to return the newspapers' calls. However, if I was forced under the thumbscrew to reply, I would admit to being most proud of that joint document that the Foreign Secretary and I produced. As the Minister generously pointed out, it formed a substantial part of the British Government's submission at the millennium summit and, in my humble and perhaps overly self-congratulatory opinion, made a sensible and reasoned contribution to the debate about the future of the United Nations.
  We must have a United Nations that has a collective capacity to prevent gross and persistent abuses of human rights. The UN is an imperfect institution of course, but it is the only truly global institution. It has universal membership, and that gives it a unique legitimacy. Of course, the imperfections must be remedied. The structure of the Security Council must be reformed, as must the nature of the funding. It simply is not right that the richest country on earth should be most in arrears with its contributions. The UN must also enjoy the support of those countries with real military capability. Part of the problem in Sierra Leone was not the number but the quality of the forces offered to the United Nations. That is why a stalemate continues in that country, with the British training of the Sierra Leone army and the UN insufficiently capable of performing its responsibility in the proposed long-term effort to return the whole country to democratic rule.
  It is also right, as the Minister said, that the rules of engagement for the United Nations must be drawn in terms that are sufficiently robust to ensure that we do not have to stand by and watch the horror of Srebrenica

  405
  unfold again. In my judgment, that name will reverberate down the years, marking a place where the United Nations, for all its idealism and the high-flown rhetoric attached to it, failed.
  For the people who suffered most there, even the mention of Srebrenica and the recollection of what it involved induce a shudder. Apart from those whose husbands, sons and brothers were the victims, their numbers include the Dutch peacekeepers who were forced to stand by. Their calls for air strikes to try and prevent the massacre that took place went unanswered. That was a bad day for the United Nations, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that such a day never occurs again.
  Human rights must lie at the heart of foreign policy. Human rights and personal freedom should not be the prerogative of the well-off, the well-governed or the well-connected. The motion recognises the universality of human rights. I venture to suggest that that must be the keystone of a foreign policy with an ethical dimension—indeed, the United Nations declaration of human rights is described as a declaration of universal rights.
  However, it is not enough simply to acknowledge the existence of those rights. We have a duty to implement them as well. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is not in his place at the moment, but he made a series of penetrating observations about the position of the Palestinians.
  I yield to no one in my determination to ensure that the people of Israel have the right to live in peace in the country that they now occupy, but that right cannot be considered to be mutually inconsistent with the human rights of the Palestinian people. The House need only consider the weapons ranged on either side of the argument—Apache helicopter gunships and tanks on the one side, and Kalashnikovs and rockets on the other. There is no doubt where the balance of military advantage lies. If we are serious about human rights, we should be arguing the case for the right of the people of Israel to live where they do, and for the human right of the Palestinians not to be treated as they have been treated recently.
  A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), spoke about the consequences of the unwillingness of the United States to accept the Kyoto protocol. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) put that unwillingness in the context of apparently unilateral action on the part of the United States.
  I recognise that a number of the things that have been done in recent times by the United States have given more than an impression of a determination to press ahead unilaterally, but they do not all date from the installation of the new Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration declined to support the International Criminal Court until their very final days. That was only done to embarrass the incoming President, not for reasons of the proposal's substance or the particular merits that it might enjoy. It was the Clinton Administration who felt compelled to proceed with the tests for national missile defence, and who were part of the dispute about bananas and the access of British goods to United States markets that involved cashmere workers in the Scottish borders.
  406
  The feeling that the United States is acting unilaterally does not arise solely from the deeds of the new Bush Administration. I share some of the anxieties in that regard that have been expressed in the debate, but we must understand that a degree of rhetoric has been involved, in the presidential campaign and in the Administration's first 100 days. In the past week or so, there have been some signs that, with the increasing influence of Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States' policy may be less unilateral than we feared. For example, its intervention with regard to the invasion of Israeli troops, described by Colin Powell as disproportionate, resulted in Mr. Sharon immediately giving the order that the tanks should be withdrawn.
  With regard to China, some of the exhortations and advice offered from Capitol Hill were enough to turn one's hair white. Mr. Bush resisted some of the more extreme recommendations from the Republican party.
  The dispute about bananas has rumbled on for three, four or five years. The Minister, who had a great deal to do with the issue in a previous existence, understands its complexity. Yet that dispute has been settled.
  In Taiwan, there was every suggestion that, as a reaction to the seizure of the American spy plane, the Bush Administration might, on a tit-for-tat basis, offer the Taiwanese Government the Aegis-equipped destroyers. No such offer has been made. These may be straws in the wind but they cause us to approach the issue of unilateral action on the part of the United States with a little more caution.
  On national missile defence, close observers say that there has been a change in temperature in recent weeks. I do not know how it will turn out; my party has made its position clear. However, I suggest that there is every prospect that the American Government might be able to strike a deal with that great deal-maker Mr. Putin. It is not difficult to envisage the basis of some agreement to allow the amendment to the anti-ballistic missile treaty—the provision of more money, as was given under the Nunn-Lugar scheme, for dealing with the detritus of nuclear weapons, a reduction in strategic nuclear warheads, a share in technology and, finally—something that may be more difficult for some to accept—an undertaking that the United States would not press for any further expansion of NATO up to the borders of Russia. It is not impossible to envisage a bargain along those lines. That may do with regard to Russia but it leaves out the attitudes of China, which are clearly of great significance in determining whether the perceived advantage of national missile defence is justified by what would undoubtedly be some disadvantages.
  The Foreign Secretary, who very courteously advised me that he would be unable to be present because he was speaking at the Lord Mayor's banquet, may just be getting to his feet to talk about foreign policy. I earnestly hope that the words "ethical dimension" will pass his lips. When he made that declaration, approximately four years ago, it enjoyed the universal support and acclaim of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Since then, it is fair to say, on an entirely objective basis, that there has been some rowing back. Words such as "constructive" or even "critical engagement" have been thrown about more often. It is not inconsistent to be constructively engaged with a country while ensuring that one's policies towards that country display an ethical dimension.

  407
  We have been most disappointed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said most eloquently a moment ago, in relation to arms exports. There is no doubt that there was considerable embarrassment in some parts of the Government that the first act of the incoming Labour Government four years ago was not to cancel arms sales to Indonesia, then under a rather different Government. Such a cancellation would have been entirely legitimate; it could not have resulted in any legal consequences. Arms exports are part of foreign policy, which is part of the Executive prerogative. In my judgment—a legal as much as a political judgment—a decision to discontinue arms exports for foreign policy reasons cannot be attacked. There was great disappointment that the Government did not do that. We hope that the Government will learn from the disappointments that they have caused and the embarrassments that have been suffered in some Departments.
  Finally, let me turn to the principle of collective action which lies behind the motion. Foreign affairs are regulated, as we know, by treaties and by conventions. However, they are also regulated by our membership of the European Union, the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO and the G8—whether by treaty provision, by the terms of a convention or by the obligations, expressed or implied, imposed on us by membership of those organisations. Foreign policy is conducted in accordance with those obligations. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil properly pointed out, an issue of pooled sovereignty. However, to achieve influence over the global economy, climate change and threats to peaceful co-existence, we need to enhance, improve and increase those partnerships.
  I venture to suggest that we should no longer talk of great powers, but of great partnerships. If we do not take the collective approach that the motion and many speakers in the debate have urged, we risk the recreation of the competitive system of the 19th century, which spawned the disasters of the 20th. In the 21st century, we should surely learn the lessons of the past 100 years.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall wind up the debate.
  I agree with the right hon. and earned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that the debate has been good and thoughtful. It has proved one thing beyond doubt: a Tory boycott greatly enhances the quality of debate in the Chamber. I can say with absolute confidence that less nonsense has been spoken from the Tory Back Benches tonight than on any occasion since 1997—long may that continue.
  On a much more serious note, I have been asked by several Members whether there is any further news from Zimbabwe this evening. We contacted the high commission in Harare at 9.15 and there is nothing further to report. However, as I told the House earlier, we shall take stock in the morning and we hall of course keep hon. Members informed.
  I shall try to cover some of the issues raised during the debate. Obviously, I shall write to hon. Members on other matters. We discussed Indonesia, the western Sahara and many other topics of real and detailed concern to hon. Members. I undertake to write to hon. Members on those subjects that I cannot cover.
  408
  I have some good news for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who referred to the importance of the meetings in Geneva this week of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the significance of those meetings. I am delighted to inform the House that earlier today, in Geneva, we and our EU partners secured the adoption by consensus of a draft resolution on torture. As a result the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, has been renewed for a further three years. In achieving that, we had to fight off repeated attempts from some countries to weaken that mandate and, indeed, to criticise the UN special rapporteur for his work. The steps that are being taken are incremental, but I contend that they are taking us in the right direction, with Britain in the vanguard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and other hon. Members asked about our position on Kyoto. The UK's position on climate change is to be publicly committed to achieving our Kyoto targets. We do not think that there is a need for a specific climate change Bill, because the programme announced in November 2000 will reduce greenhouse emissions far beyond the Kyoto targets of 12.5 per cent. According to those criteria, they will be 23 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. We shall continue to hold a dialogue with the United States on its position, but there is no doubt about our position; it is support for achieving the Kyoto targets.
  I shall use the few minutes left for my speech mainly to discuss ethical foreign policy—three words that should certainly cross the lips of anyone who speaks on behalf of the United Kingdom on foreign affairs. We should proceed with some humility; there are few absolutes in these matters and we should all recognise that, whatever we do, sometimes we make errors and misjudgments. However, the two criteria that matter are, first, motives and, secondly, the knowledge that progress is being made. On both those counts, I believe that the Government, especially the Foreign Secretary, have been true to the ethical objectives that we set ourselves in 1997. Frankly, I am not greatly interested in the views of the Tory party, in relation to which a decent period of silence on those matters should be measured in decades rather than mere years.
  I welcome the judgment of Amnesty International, which said:
  "The balance sheet"
  —of the Labour Government in office—
  "shows a record of real achievement."
  It is a long time since Amnesty said that about a British Government. I value Lord Scott's view, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who made an observation about the remarkable change that he can see, compared with the grubby and reckless scandals on which he reported just a few years ago under another Administration.
  The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked me to comment on the arms export Bill. The export control Bill will be a major measure. It is not as though nothing has happened in the past four years, but if we introduce something as major as an export control Bill, there must be consultation. If we aim to streamline existing procedures, some of which date back to the second world war and, in addition, introduce new provisions in complex matters, such as trafficking and

  409
  brokering, it is important to allow adequate time for consultation. It is equally important that the past four years should not have been a hiatus during which nothing happened.
  From my own relatively recent experience in dealing with such applications, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House about the thoroughness, care and depth with which each application in researched and about the way in which we who ultimately have to make the decisions treat them and try to get the balance right in each case. The Government remain committed to introducing such a Bill as soon as possible.
  On the specific point about prior scrutiny by the Committee, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it remains under consideration, subject to those complex issues, including those that he mentioned, such as commercial confidentiality and the timely processing of export licence applications. The motive comes from the two criteria that I mentioned earlier. First, the motivation must be right. Secondly, progress is being made in that direction. Again, to compare the position now with that four years ago is to compare day with night. Perhaps that is the reason why the Conservative Back Benches are silent and empty. People's memories go back more than four years.
  On the ethical foreign policy, we have a good story to tell, and across the world since 1997, the United Kingdom has set the agenda as a force for good. If we consider issues that were stale and hopeless and about which people despaired of progress being made, such as the Lockerbie trial, the Salman Rushdie fatwa, the Balkans and the role of Milosevic, East Timor, Sierra Leone and so on, the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard of ethical policies. Perhaps things are imperfect. We make no claims of perfection, but the policy is certainly ethical and progressive. We have taken a stand in defence of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq and on conflict diamonds.
  Mr. Spring: What about Zimbabwe?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman shouts that from a sedentary position, but he has nothing much to say about anything. What about the Tory party's record in southern Africa over a very long time? Again, the Conservative party's record calls for a long silence.
  Our efforts to establish the International Criminal Court and our anti-torture campaign; our leadership against the death penalty, which I referred to earlier; our action against landmines; and the different regime on arms sales and the consultation on the Bill that I have mentioned should all be considered. Not everything has been done, but there have been debt initiatives and changes have taken place in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where there are more women and more people from ethnic minorities and more exchanges with non-governmental organisations and businesses. All that is covered by the term "ethical foreign policy". When we eventually ask the country to give us a mandate, it will be on the basis that we have demonstrated that this Government have acted honourably and ethically.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 40, Noes 291.

  Division No. 196]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Baker, Norman

  Livsey, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Brake, Tom

  Moore, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russsell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Chidgey, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Cotter, Brian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tyler, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Wallace, Rt Hon James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Webb, Steve

  Gidley, Sandra

  Willis, Phil

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sir Robert Smith.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beard, Nigel

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Crausby, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Darvill, Keith

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clapham, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  411

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Laxton, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lepper, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Leslie, Christopher

  Godsiff, Roger

  Levitt, Tom

  Goggins, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lock, David

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gunnell, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Hain, Peter

  McCrea, Dr William

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Healey, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

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

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  412

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stevenson, George

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stringer, Graham

  Rammell, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock Joan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Ian Pearson and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the United Kingdom's national interests are best served by addressing the challenges of the modern world in constructive partnership with other countries and international organisations; further believes that human rights and protection of the environment are important global issues which are central to Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy; and welcomes the Government's full support for the work of the United Nations and initiatives to improve UN peacekeeping and the effectiveness of the Security Council.

  Nortel Networks, Paignton
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise an important issue for my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies.
  I shall begin by plotting some of the history of my constituency, which like all seaside resorts in this country, and certainly the big important ones, developed during the Victorian era, very much as a result of the railways. Much of the infrastructure in such communities has not been renewed, although it has been repaired, and perhaps, in some cases, updated. Tourism has had to cope with a number of competitive changes. The most significant was the development of the jet engine, which brought the package holiday in the Mediterranean and other parts of the world much closer for the domestic tourist. Other changes include the growth of farm and inner-city tourism, often through nationally funded developments of museums, galleries and other attractions. There has been little investment in tourism over the past 50 years, and each seaside resort, my own in particular, has sought to diversify its economy.
  One of the main motives for diversification is the fact that many seaside resorts have become unemployment black spots, with rates above the national average. Torbay has been lucky, in that in the 1960s Standard Telephones and Cables built a plant that was taken over, in the 1980s by ITT, and in the 1990s by Nortel, which later changed its name to Nortel Networks. Up to 5,000 people have been employed on that site, engaged in what was the very basics of the electronics industry, and has now become the modern-day fibre-optic industry. It became the largest private sector employer in the area covered by the Government office of the south-west. Last year, for the first time, manufacturing overtook tourism in its contribution to our local economy.
  When I say that 75 per cent. of all internet traffic in north America is carried on equipment made by people in my constituency, and that firms such as Sifam, better known today as JDS Uniphase, are located there, the House will realise that the area has become the centre for the fibre-optic industry in Europe.
  Last Christmas, we were in the unprecedented position of having job vacancies in hotels and catering over the Christmas break. Then, in February, came the bombshell that 700 short-term contract employees would no longer be required; in March, we learned that a further 700 redundancies were required on site. Today, the news is that JDS Uniphase, formerly Sifam, is going to lay off people in the fibre-optic industry in Torquay and Plymouth. Those devastating bombshells, together with foot and mouth, have highlighted the underlying fragility of the economy in south Devon. For years our dependence on one industry, tourism, was effectively shifting to dependence on one employer.
  However, I must tell the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, the House and people outside that it is not all doom and gloom. Torbay is in a magnificent, attractive environment and we have good schools and a
  414
  skilled labour force. We even have a climate that is kinder than that in the rest of the country because we are on the gulf stream and surrounded by hills. In fact, we have all the factors necessary for those wishing to relocate or start a modern business everything is there for inward investors.
  However two major factors are missing, which go back more than 100 years. Our strength was founded on tourism because of transport links using trains, and the investment in infrastructure. If I tell the Minister that no new hotels have been built in my constituency for more than 50 years, and contrast that with Mediterranean resorts, she will see the difference between the two areas. Most of our parks were constructed by the Victorians, as were our gardens and beach facilities. We have tried to develop a business park but, unfortunately and ironically, that was turned down because of poor transport links.
  The previous Government de-trunked the A380, so responsibility for it now rests with the local authorities. Yet a bypass on that road has been talked about since 1957. One can travel from the north of Scotland all the way down to Newton Abbot on either a three-lane motorway or a two-lane dual carriageway, but then one has to crawl in and out of the Torbay conurbation, which is the second largest conurbation in Devon and Cornwall and the fourth largest conurbation in the south-west region, south of Bristol
  Our rail links are vulnerable to coastal erosion at the seaside and flooding at the junction at Exeter. We have precious few through-train services from Torbay to other parts of the country Fifty years ago, there were several trains an hour to different locations around the country, which carried holiday visitors during the summer months, but today their journey has to be planned with almost military precision to meet connections from one end of the country to the other.
  We also suffer from poor air links. There is no link between the south-west and Heathrow. The other week, I met a pharmaceutical company which is looking to site its European headquarters somewhere in the United Kingdom. It wants that site to be within an hour and a half of Heathrow because an executive flying long-haul from Japan does not want to travel far when he arrives. A Nortel Networks executive flying in from Canada wishing to fly to the south-west arrives at Heathrow, transfers to Gatwick, then has to get down to the south-west. The last part of the journey is often along the A380 crawler single-lane road.
  May I thank the Minister, who has met me and given me some extremely helpful ideas? Indeed, she followed that up with a letter. However, we need to look at five factors. In an economy in a small constituency like Torbay, which is based on a small labour market, the effect of 1,400 redundancies is severe. We have a declining tourism industry, and also the worries caused by foot and mouth. That has a big impact on the amount of money that is circulating in the economy. We are, unfortunately, on the periphery of the United Kingdom, and that tends not to be recognised by government.
  First, we need emergency assistance for all the businesses that are affected by foot and mouth. There is a fear that businesses that are deemed not to be rural might not qualify, but whatever is available to rural areas should be available to seaside resorts, given the way in which their businesses are being affected too.

  415
  Secondly, we need to consider council funding, which seems to lag behind that in other areas. There have been overspends on personal social services year after year, which is common among seaside resorts. They are magnets, and people move into them Perhaps the census will catch up, but it is the local authority's estimate that there are several thousand people resident within the council area who are not accounted for in terms of government grants. I emphasise the need for a revision of the standard spending assessment. If it were possible, I should also like a revision of our qualification for any form of assistance from government to ensure that we are not missing out on anything to which we may be entitled.
  Thirdly, I would like a commitment to improve our transport links, and a recognition that we cannot do that ourselves. We are already suffering because insufficient money is made available to our local authority and other Government agencies. That limits our ability to do the big things that need to be done to improve transport links.
  Fourthly, I would like to see the area become a priority for inward investment within the Government office of the south-west. The Minister helpfully suggested that she would pass on our plight to Invest. UK, and I hope that that has taken place. That should be backed up by our becoming a priority area within the Government office of the south-west for inward investment and regional development agency support.
  Finally, I would like a sympathetic response from government agencies, and especially from the planning arm of the Government office of the south-west, when any proposals come from my area seeking to diversify our economy. A proposed business park was turned down three years ago by the planning office in Bristol because it said that we did not have the necessary transport links. If the project had gone ahead, it could have taken up some of the slack caused by the redundancies that have recently been announced. I know that the council is working on a revised and perhaps smaller business park, and there needs to be as much assistance as possible with that.
  I am aware that Government cannot wave a magic wand in a global economy. I am well aware that decisions taken in other parts of the world can have an impact on our constituencies. However, we can surely have an expectation that when we have a problem, it will be recognised by Government, and that they will do all in their power to assist the area to get itself out of the problems in which it may find itself.
  Even if the Government cannot wave a magic wand and say, "Yes, you can have a road here tomorrow," they could give a green light and say, for example, "We shall consider re-trunking the A380." It would help us to attract the inward investment that we desperately need if the inward investor knew that the infrastructure would be improved in future.
  I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  10.24 pm
  The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on his tenacity in securing the debate, on the vivid picture that he has painted of his constituency, and on the way in which it has moved from dependence on tourism to becoming one of the world's centres for high technology in manufacturing. The hon. Gentleman has set out the
  416
  difficulties that he and his constituents are now facing, given the global downturn, including the temporary but painful downturn in telecommunications and other parts of high-technology sectors. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he and I have met and discussed and also corresponded on the situation caused by the job losses at Nortel and, as we learned today, at JDS Uniphase as well. As I told him previously, we are already in touch with Nortel and we will continue to do everything that we can to assist his constituents and the wider community who are affected by the closures.
  As a member of the rural taskforce, I heard again at our meeting this morning of the impact of foot and mouth disease on a wide range of businesses right across Devon and Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman's comments about the impact, particularly on tourism businesses, confirms what we heard from the regional development agency and other colleagues at the rural taskforce meeting this morning.
  Like all my colleagues, I very much regret the job losses that are taking place in Torbay and other parts of the country in the telecommunications sector in the UK. The problem is not unique to Nortel, nor is it unique to the United Kingdom. Almost every major company in the telecommunications sector is experiencing substantial restructuring and job losses. That has been a marked feature of the past couple of months and is a direct result of the sharp downturn in the global telecommunications market, which is particularly pronounced in the United States, with the fall in stock market valuations.
  Today, as the hon. Gentleman said, there was a further announcement of site closures and job losses by JDS Uniphase in the UK, including the job losses at the company's Sifam operation in Torquay and the additional job losses at the two plants in Plymouth. Already, the Employment Service has been in touch with that company to offer advice and assistance, and the company is consulting with the work force on how the cuts will be achieved.
  We have been closely in touch with Nortel Networks and the hon. Gentleman has met some of the company's representatives. They are clear that the job losses being suffered in Torbay and south Devon are due to the downturn in the American economy. However, even with those job losses, painful though they have been, Nortel remains a very important and successful employer in the wider Torbay area. Even after the earlier round of job losses, employment in the company as a whole stands at more than 4,000—twice the level in 1998. The reflects the strong growth that the company enjoyed in the intervening period.
  I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that all the local agencies—the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency, the RDA and the Government office of the south west—have been working closely with Nortel and the local authority to establish exactly what help is needed and to ensure that it is delivered. On 1 February we granted major redundancy status, which means that the employees affected by redundancy have immediate access to Government job search and training programmes. We have extended that help and that status to cover all subsequent redundancies at Nortel in Paignton.
  Devon Training for Skills bid on behalf of local partners for rapid response funding, and that funding of almost £200,000 was approved by the Department for Education and Employment on 3 April. Former

  417
  employees of Nortel are already benefiting. They are getting help in various forms, including further IT training to help them move into other parts of the labour market. That help will continue to be available to people for up to 12 months after they have been made redundant.
  It is important to stress that the skills of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be in high demand by other local employers. I understand that Nortel held a jobs fair on 5 March at which local employers, the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency offered help back into work, and that more such events will be held if there is demand for them.
  When we met last month, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the skills of those employees, which is such a precious competitive asset, could provide an opportunity for potential inward investment into the UK. I assure him that the regional development agency has already been working closely with Nortel as part of what could be called its after-care programme for inward investors. Invest.UK is always in touch with inward investors wherever it can market existing facilities and skills within the United Kingdom. I have also specifically asked Invest.UK and the communication and information industries directorate within my Department to meet him to discuss Nortel and the wider aspects of marketing the attractions of Torbay, including both the climate to which he referred and the skills of the work force. I understand that a date is being fixed with some urgency for that meeting.
  It is difficult at this stage to assess with any certainty the effect that the job losses will have on the wider economy in either the short or longer term. I understand that the Employment Service has received locally a total of 285 new claims for jobseeker's allowance from ex-Nortel employees, which compares with the loss of about 1,400 jobs. That may indicate that many other people have already found alternative employment locally or elsewhere.
  Mr. Sanders: I think that the Minister will find that the reason for that figure is that a number of employees are now working shorter hours, so they are not going to the jobcentre to sign on. Although such people have not lost a whole job, the change means that less money is circulating in the local economy. If employees do not work full time, there is a longer-term impact, even if the number of employees remains fairly high on site.
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I understand from the company that although it offered short-time working as a way of managing the reduction in head count that it needed without losing valued expertise completely, a number of staff opted for the voluntary severance package rather than for such work. I am not sure about the extent to which shorter-time working affected the total number of people who would be seeking other work.
  I understand that employment at Nortel grew rapidly after 1998—I have referred to the figures—and that that accounted in part for strains in other sectors of the local labour market. The hon. Gentleman referred to unfilled vacancies in the tourism sector last Christmas, so it may be that people who have taken redundancy or who find
  418
  themselves with no alternative but to do so will be fairly rapidly absorbed into high-tech manufacturing with other employers or into other sectors in the region.
  Let me make a slightly more general point. The Torbay area has access to a range of programmes to help the local economy and, in particular, to improve skills and employability. They include the new European objective 2 programme in the south-west, which is worth some £108 million in European grant money over seven years. They also include objective 3, the new deal and our new DTI enterprise grant for businesses. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Torbay is one of the South West regional development agency's five priority areas for regeneration. The agency has already agreed to invest more than £500,000 towards the development by Midas Construction of more than 6,000 sq m of factory units at Long road, Paignton. It is also working with Torbay council on regeneration proposals for Torbay's waterfront.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned at the end of his speech a number of specific factors that needed attention as part of the wider regeneration of the local economy. In particular, he mentioned transport. In relation to the A380, my understanding is that a bypass was not proposed in Devon county council's local transport plan, so it was not possible to consider funding for the project, of which I know that he is long standing supporter. I believe that the joint study that was commissioned by Devon county council and Torbay council concluded that a bypass could be delivered only in the medium term of 2006 onwards. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has arranged to meet my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. I am sure that he will find him helpful in considering the way in which an effective transport structure strategy can be established with the help of the county council and, I hope, the regional development agency.
  The first of the hon. Gentleman's five points dealt with support for businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who chairs the rural taskforce, has already announced a substantial package of Government support for a range of businesses in different sectors that have been affected by foot and mouth disease The majority are not agricultural.
  We have significantly extended the small firms loan guarantee scheme. Although it is too early to predict its impact, inquiries about it are running at six times the normal rate. It will not help every business, but I hope that it will be useful to some that have been disastrously hit by the disease.
  We have introduced a package of more generous rate relief for rateable values of up to £12,000. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told me this morning that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have already deferred £28 million of due payments on income tax and VAT. That proves that the Treasury agencies are fulfilling my right hon. Friend's pledge that businesses that genuinely struggle with cash flow because of the disease will receive sympathetic support from Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the current population of the area was genuinely reflected in the calculation for standard spending assessment. That is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I am sure that he will take it up directly with them.

  419
  I have dealt with inward investment, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He also referred to the business park. That is exactly the sort of investment that the regional development agency, the county council and other local partners can make. He rightly stressed that it needs the benefit not only of potential skilled workers—the area has them—but good transport links.
  I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we greatly value Nortel as a major inward investor in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that it will remain committed to the area for many years and that its current activities do not reflect a weakened commitment to the United Kingdom or Paignton. They are simply the inevitable but painful result of a global downturn in the sector.
  I also assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do all that we can with the local agencies to ensure that the individuals who are affected by redundancy receive all possible help to get new jobs quickly. We shall continue to support the area to carry on creating the conditions for sustained economic and social success.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I adjourn the House, it may be helpful if I tell the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed many holidays in Torbay, which is a very friendly place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Division

  ROAD TRAFFIC (S.I., 2001, No 561)
  That the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 561), dated 26th February 2001, a copy of which was laid before the House on 28th February, be revoked.
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 282.

  Division No. 194]

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gray, James

  Allan, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Beggs, Roy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Horam, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brake, Tom

  Johnson Smith,

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Breed, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Key, Robert

  Burnett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burstow, Paul

  Lansley, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Chidgey, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Livsey, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Luff, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  McCrea, Dr William

  Collins, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cotter, Brian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Madel, Sir David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mates, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Day, Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fearn, Ronnie

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Randall, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  421

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Thompson, William

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ruffley, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trend, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyler, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Skinner, Dennis

  Webb, Steve

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

  Wells, Bowen

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann

  Austin, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Jean

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Crausby, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Darvill, Keith

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  422

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading B)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hain, Peter

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Merron, Gillian

  Hill, Keith

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hope, Phil

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

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pound, Stephen

  Joyce, Eric

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruane, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sawford, Phil

  Linton, Martin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  423

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Stevenson, George

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Timms, Stephen

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Todd, Mark

  424

  Touhig, Don

  Watts, David

  Trickett, Jon

  White, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wyatt, Derek

  Question accordingly negatived.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

New Deal (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire]
9.30 am
Mr. Ernie Ross: I am very pleased to be here this morning to talk about a subject that is so close to my heart. I spent 10 happy years as a member of the Select Committee on Employment. Although they were happy years for me because I was doing something that I enjoyed, they were disastrous for the people of this country because they were part of the 18 years of misery that we had to suffer as a result of the infamous pact to bring down the previous Labour Government. I make that point because I note that, once again, no representative of the Scottish National party is here. It seems that the nationalists do not give a hoot for the unemployed or for people living in poverty in Scotland. We should not be surprised. No doubt, they will have some excuse that will satisfy some of their colleagues.
We are here to examine the new deal's impact on Scotland. The idea of a new deal was born from our experience and that of people who were unemployed or seeking employment during those 18 years of Conservative Government. During the 10 years for which I was on the Employment Committee, we examined various Government initiatives but could perceive no coherence in the schemes there seemed to be no policy framework surrounding them, other than an aim to reduce the claimant count, which was high and rising.
I fought the 1979 election alongside the Minister of State, Scotland Office, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall)—all of us aspiring MPs. I remember a poster—"Labour isn't working"—that had a picture, allegedly of a dole queue. By the time that we got rid of the Conservatives 18 years later, that dole queue could have been replicated three or four times, without reflecting accurately the damage that those 18 years had done to people their life chances and the economy. That upset most of us who were trying to get our constituents back into work or help those seeking to enter the work force, for whom there was no ladder and no coherent strategy.
There was instead a series of schemes. I do not claim that every scheme that the Tories tried to introduce was wrong or bad—some were very good. I remember a community programme that many of us hoped might last, but did not, and there were other programmes that had a basis in good policy. The problem was that the Government did not believe in them. Their main criterion was to get the headline claimant count to below a magical number. We never really understood what that number was, but that was their idea. Every month, the Government would look anxiously at the claimant count, without noticing the individuals and their
70WH
circumstances, families and communities—they were side issues to the main criterion of getting the claimant count down.
A group of people working at the Department of Employment was allegedly attempting to help people into work. I say "allegedly" because, although those civil servants had once been full of enthusiasm and fired by the belief that their task in life was to help people find work, once they were in the Department under the previous Government, they quickly learned that their job was to discipline the unemployed for failing to have a job—not to help the unemployed but to sanction them. Those civil servants became very dispirited. My experience on Select Committees, visiting various Departments and parts of the country and meeting officials from the Department of Employment, means that I know how the frustration and anger was apparent in those individuals. They wanted to do a job for which they knew they had the capacity, but the Government and their policies would not allow them to do it. They were particularly frightened at conference time, when prophetic speeches would be made at the Tory party conference.
Mr. David Marshall: Prophetic or pathetic?
Mr. Ross: Probably both, but they certainly excited the masses at the conference. The Tories are not the only culprits; occasionally, we do the same—or we did before we reinvented ourselves and got back on to the straight and narrow. However, making a speech at conference and translating it into something that will work in the real world are entirely different things.
I remember a party conference at which the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), then Secretary of State for Social Security, waxed lyrical about how he would drive the unemployed back to work; he received great cheers from the audience. He was supported by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), then Secretary of State for Employment. The idea was that itinerant people were wandering the country, living in hippy communes on the south coast, enjoying the palm trees and cream teas of Devon. They were supposedly enjoying the good life and turning up for job interviews in such a poor condition either of dress or of attitude that they could not be employed.
Those of us who understand the nature of unemployment and the way in which the unemployed are driven down know that after six months, one year, a year and a half or two years of unemployment and living in a household in which no one works, people are in no mental or financial position to turn up to an interview in an Armani suit and Gucci shoes. However, it was thought that if they did not turn up in such style, the employer could write on the green card that they would not employ that person because his or her attitude was wrong, the green card would be sent to the Department of Employment, and a sanction would be levied against the poor individual. That was the theme of the speech made at the Tory conference.
However, the two right hon. Gentlemen had to face reality when they came before the Employment Committee. I remember that I and other members of the

71WH
Committee questioned them closely. We asked them whether they would expect someone who had been unemployed for two years and was living on subsistence money to turn up to an interview in a sharp suit, clean shirt, tie and the latest shoes. Both said no. They did not say it as emphatically as that, but their answers—which are on record in the Employment Committee minutes—show them backing off considerably from their rhetoric at party conference.
That Government had no coherent policies or strategies, and no long-term aim. There was a succession of schemes, but I challenge the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to name one scheme, which the Tories introduced during their 18 years, that went from start to finish.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The statistics do not bear out the success of the new deal compared with earlier approaches. Since 1997, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment because of the new deal, as the hon. Gentleman says; however, over a similar period previously, the reduction was 29 per cent.
Mr. Ross: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is here to defend the indefensible, but he did not respond to the question that I posed. Can he tell me of a single scheme introduced by the previous Government that started and finished? No, he cannot, because none of them did. Can he tell me of a single scheme for which there is any record of how successful it was? Again, the answer is no, because when we asked successive Secretaries of State for Employment and representatives from the Department for Education and Employment, we were told that no records were kept. That is not unusual. If one reads the latest Select Committee on Education and Employment report, one finds not enough record keeping is done even in respect of our own new deal programme. Our Government accept that we need to keep records and they are instituting a series of initiatives to ensure that we have a record of how successful such programmes are.
That was the overall situation. Then there were the trainers, who were a mixed bag, Mr. Chairman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Committee. It is the equivalent of the main Chamber of the House of Commons, and whoever is in the Chair ought to be addressed as Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Ross: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the trainers were a mixed bag. I remember a training and enterprise council in or just outside London that was allegedly providing horse riding for the disabled. The Select Committee discovered that the chairman of that TEC had bought himself a nice ranch: he owned the ranch, the horses, the paddocks and the fields and, even though the scheme went bankrupt he was—lo and behold—still left with the horses, the fields and the ranch. The disabled were left with no facilities.
That was an exceptional case, but there were many different types of trainers and serious mismatches. Something had to be done. Those of us who were
72WH
involved in trying to do something about it all agreed that a new start was required. We therefore promised, in the 1997 election manifesto, that we would use the receipts from a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to introduce a welfare-to-work programme designed to get young people and the long-term unemployed back into work. It was one of our early five pledges.
We can look forward to the election, whenever it comes, knowing that we have met that pledge. We have not met it in its entirety—I remind those present that we set out a programme that ran until 2002, so we have not met all our targets. We still have at least a year to go before it can be judged whether we have met our targets. However, we are well on our way to meeting the initial targets, which included getting 250,000 young people back into work—
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman says that the target of getting 250,000 young people back into work has been met, but the statistics show that at the time that the Government were elected in 1997, there were not 250,000 young unemployed to be got back into work. Is that not an example of how the new deal has been a complete piece of spin?
Mr. Ross: I now see the way in which the hon. Gentleman intends to approach the debate. However, it will not work. The fact is that those people are well on their way to benefiting from a whole package of measures.
If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to continue, I would have said that we realised that getting people back into work was not just a matter of welfare-to-work programmes—there was more to it than that. We had to deal with the economy as well. I would like to refer to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Centre for Scottish Public Policy on 12 March. In that speech my right hon. Friend clearly set out the criteria against which the Scottish economy should be judged as a part of the United Kingdom economy. She linked dealing with poverty, social deprivation, the long-term lack of investment and the need to develop the skills base of people in Scotland with the new deal—working hand in hand with measures to make work pay.
My right hon. Friend set out some facts that are worth sharing with the Committee. The new deal has helped 31,500 Scots to fined work. The national minimum wage, which is part of the same package, is benefiting 120,000 Scottish earners. The working families tax credit is making work pay for 108,000 families in Scotland. My right hon. Friend clearly demonstrated that our overall economic strategy is right, both nationally and for Scotland. We can use the new deal to deliver programmes that will make people more employable and get them into Teal, long-term, sustainable jobs. The Labour Government have delivered a strong and stable economy as the foundation for such opportunities. Because jobs have always been at the heart of our programmes, we have provided employment opportunities for all and we are moving towards a stage at which there will be jobs for all.
Not only have vie removed the barriers—such as low pay—to some people taking those jobs by introducing the minimum wage, affordable child care and personal

73WH
advice to the individuals, we have done more. When we said that there were four options, we also said that there was to be no fifth option. We made it clear that we would not allow people living in poverty, who felt that they would be disfranchised, to believe that that was the life that Government envisaged for them. We showed that we did not intend to allow them to languish on the dole queue and in communities that were breaking down, but that they had a future and that we would shape it in a way that would benefit them and their families.
Having won the confidence of the unemployed, we also won that of the civil servants in the Employment Service. They have realised that the new deal has made it possible for them to do the job that they are trained to do. I should like to recount some of our experiences in Tayside, which, although it is a small part of Scotland, plays a large part in our lives and in the Scottish economy. We have one of the best Employment Service teams imaginable. Under its manager, Bob Alexander, it is as good as any in Scotland. I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that if there is any attempt to move Bob Alexander from Tayside, dead bodies will come into the frame. He is one of the best Employment Service managers in Scotland and has been a real find. Our new deal has liberated him and his team and I should like to share some of the positive things that have happened in Tayside as a result of their entering wholeheartedly into the scheme.
Since January 1998, Tayside has blazed the trail in the Government's crusade to fight unemployment and tackle the scourge of social exclusion. Helping people into work is the best anti-poverty strategy, and the Government's welfare-to-work initiative is a central plank in our efforts to achieve equality of opportunity. The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds was the most important of the welfare-to-work programmes. It was introduced with twelve pathfinder districts throughout the United Kingdom, with Tayside piloting the programme for Scotland. The pilot was launched in Dundee by Donald Dewar, the then Secretary of State for Scotland who is sadly no longer with us; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), then a junior Minister at the Scotland Office.
When the new deal was launched in Tayside, we had to break the pattern of households with no working adults. Some of the young people of working age had never had a job and had become almost completely detached from society. We have enabled more than 2,250 people to find jobs, ranging from retail positions with major companies to jobs in information technology. Of these, 1,087 Dundee new deal clients gained employment between April 2000 and March 2001. We have helped 1,336 young people, 379 25-plus clients, 251 50-plus clients, 272 lone parents and 28 partners of unemployed people to find jobs.
Under Bob Alexander's leadership innovative practice has been introduced in Tayside that has now been copied elsewhere in Scotland. The new deal support personal adviser was something dreamed up in Tayside. We discovered that the period in which young people were most likely to opt out of the programme was the first two or three weeks; we would lose them completely. The new deal support personal adviser is an advocate working with the young person and the employer to prevent dropping out. The new deal
74WH
aftercare personal adviser was first used in Tayside, and phased attendance for options is another innovative approach used there. When someone experiences difficulties in taking up an option after long unemployment, an agreement is made between that person, the personal adviser and the employer for attendance on an agreed number of days, for agreed hours, during the initial period, to enable the individual to get used to being back in employment. We are hoping in the near future to implement a follow-through subsidy for clients leaving options and entering employment. It could include a £200 payment to clients who enter employment from the new deal. It could benefit them educationally or otherwise, perhaps through the opening of an individual learning account.
The range of innovative practices that I have outlined has been used by the local Employment Service team in Tayside, which is committed to preparing the people with whom it works for employment. Those involved have been happy to work in the relevant programmes. As well as seeing their own success in their chosen activities, they have witnessed the success of people entering real jobs. Those people have returned to thank the team and to ask for further help if they have difficulties.
There is also good news from Tayside about lone parents. A lone parent aged 33 joined the new deal case load in June 2000. She was an honours graduate in ecology and had experience as a care assistant. Initially she was trying only to find a job as a care assistant, but because of the presence of the Scottish Crop Research Institute nearby, she was encouraged to look for a job there. It was discovered that she was over-qualified for the job that she applied for. However, because of her qualifications and dedication and the intervention of the personal adviser, she found a research job at the institute, which is paying for her to do a masters degree. A lone parent aged 31 attended an interview with a personal adviser and was referred for an interview on the same day. She was offered the job, but the hours were unsuitable. The personal adviser intervened with the employer and as a result suitable hours were arranged. Another lone parent with a child of three had been claiming income support since August 1997. She attended an initial interview on 11 September and was referred by an adviser for 15 vacancies and several speculative approaches to employers. The client found a post, the local employer was delighted with the new employee, the person concerned was delighted to be working again and she was approximately £34 a week better off. That effect was repeated for another client, who was approximately £47 a week better off and loved the new job.
The new deal has been a success for people in Tayside because of a group of people working in the Employment Service who are doing the job that they have been trained to do. They get up in the morning and want to come to work. Under the previous Government, there was a series of shady trainers, but we have tried to ensure that there are much better training companies under the new deal. I want to quote one example from Tayside that is close to me personally, simply because it offers the best. Back in 1987, the Employment Committee accepted that Workstart, based in Dundee, was one of the best training companies, delivering

75WH
training in a most helpful way. Workstart is now part of the Claverhouse Group, a not-for-profit charitable organisation in my constituency which provides training over the whole range of employment programme initiatives and, for the past 16 years, has tried to provide quality services to the local community.
More than 300 local employers throughout Tayside currently use the Claverhouse Group as their main source for new employees. Their occupation areas cover a wide range, but are predominantly factory work, packing, assembly, printing, catering, driving and office work. In 1999, the company managed to progress 590 unemployed adults into employment. That increased to 694 in 2000, and projected targets indicate that the figure for the current year will be close to 775.
I am a member of that company, although I receive no remuneration from it. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I have been associated with the company almost from the start. It is dedicated to providing the best training and helping people to reach the highest levels in their employment. It has not been prepared to cut the targets that it has set for itself or the targets that it has set in preparing people for jobs, even though it has meant that the company has occasionally lost contracts. Under the previous Government, it lost several contracts simply because the training that it delivers costs money. It does not cost as much as some other trainers, especially the bigger trainers in Scotland. The company provides the best training, but at a cost that the previous Government were not prepared to meet.
Last Wednesday saw the conclusion of all the company's efforts. The Claverhouse Group has been trying to provide a one-door approach for anyone who lives in Tayside and has a problem finding work or other associated problems a one-door approach to getting people off the dole queue and back into employment. That one door is Claverhouse. Last week, the company signed a contract with the Employment Service in Tayside to deliver the new 25-plus programme—a £1.5 million three-year project. The contract will ensure that the company continues to deliver what businesses in Tayside require and what individuals require to get them back into employment.
When I was in Tayside last Wednesday for the signing of the contract, I noticed that one of the projects was called FUN, and I wondered whether the company had gone a bit too far. Then I was told that FUN stands for "further underpinning for novices". That programme recognises that some individuals need to acquire life skills in addition to training, and that unless they acquire those life skills, they will not be ready for employment. There used to be a community industry programme to deal with that, but the previous Government got rid of it. We now have an organisation that can get people job-ready for the employer and give them some knowledge of what will be expected not only from their employer, but from colleagues who will be working alongside them. That will ensure that they are ready for the job. The work force readiness certificate that people will be awarded at the end of that process will demonstrate to any employer that they understand the responsibilities that they accept if they take a job.
76WH
For Tayside, the Government's policies are right. They are committed to ensuring that the national economic situation is right, offering jobs and a way out of poverty. The Employment Service is dedicated to its job and has demonstrated through the innovations that it has introduced under Bob Alexander that it will respond to the challenge. We want training companies such as Claverhouse, which can implement programmes in a way that is acceptable to the employer and the person who has been offered a place as a client. We in Tayside are saying, "Yes, we have problems and we still need help." I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
Mr. David Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to Tayside. Does he agree that the story there is being repeated up and down Scotland and that far from being a story of spin, as the apologist for the Tory party said earlier, the new deal in Scotland is in fact a story of success followed by success? I say that as someone whose constituency had for far too many years the highest unemployment among adults and young people. The new deal has made a tremendous difference to my constituents—we cannot commend it highly enough.
Mr. Ross: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. He and I understood that unless we looked at the whole picture and got everyone working together, change would not 1e possible. No one assumes that the previous Government did not have difficulties or that the current Government do not. Governments do not make jobs as such.
Sir Robert Smith: None the less, does the hon. Gentleman agree that Governments can destroy jobs?
Mr. Ross: Absolutely. However, much more disastrously, during their 18 years in government, the Conservatives destroyed people, communities and morale across the region. That is what I have been trying to say. They destroyed the organisation that was established to help the unemployed. Then, anyone entering one of the fortresses supposed to be centres to which people went to get themselves a job would have felt the tension. If we go into an Employment Service office now, we find it much more relaxed. I am not saying that there are not people who have got out of bed on the wrong side or who are trying to dodge the system; such things will always exist. However, there are now people in the Employment Service who see that they have a role in life and who can picture themselves getting on. They can enjoy the fact that some of the people with whom they work are moving into work either directly or after a period of training.
In the four years of our Government, we have managed with the help of many organisations and individuals—not least the Employment Service and training companies such as Claverhouse—to build a fairer society. We are on our way towards cutting unemployment, creating jobs and ensuring that the money that is intended to go round does so. Instead of using the trickle-down theory of the previous Govt, we are putting the money in at the bottom to ensure that it goes up. In that way, people will feel that their health and life chances are improving and that public service is

77WH
improving. What we are really doing is tackling the exclusion and hopelessness of the Tory years. The programme in which we are involved is based on job creation and increasing the employability of those who have been unable to find work for long periods. The new deal represents a radical and unprecedented investment in people and their futures. We recommend it to everyone. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that the programme will continue after the next election to ensure that gains that we have made in the first term are mirrored and expanded throughout the years that we are in power.
several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I remind the Chamber that winding-up speeches must begin by half-past 10. At least three hon. Members wish to participate in this important debate, and if they are reasonably brief, all those who wish to speak will be able to do so.
10.5 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and I congratulate him on securing this debate. He talked about his experience on Tayside, and to generalise from a particular constituency is no bad thing.
I shall make specific points about the new deal, but go on to talk about the economic background against which the new deal has been experienced over the past few years to examine whether them will be a major change in the economic forecast, with the economic problems that are looming.
The hon. Gentleman skated over some of the perceived problems in the new deal. I would not suggest—as perhaps the Conservative spokesman would—that the new deal has been a major disaster in every respect. On the contrary, I think that it has done some—
Mr. Grieve: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not be making that suggestion. I do not think that the new deal has been a total disaster, but it has not been anything like it has been cracked up to be by the hon. Member for Dundee, West.
Mr. Salmond: I apologise—I was basing my remarks on the hon. Gentleman's two previous interventions. Obviously, he will develop the point in his own speech. I was going to suggest that a balanced view would be that there have been limitations in the new deal. For example, in the 18 to 24-year-old programme, 38 per cent. of people stay in their placement for fewer than 13 weeks, and after placement, 39 per cent. either move back on to benefits or to what is called an "unknown destination".
Many of us have doubts, scepticism and regret about the compulsory element in the new deal. The hon. Member for Dundee, West described it by saying that there was to be no fifth option, but it is actually a compulsory element. I am experienced enough to remember when many hon. Members regarded compulsory elements on employment programmes as being too similar to workfare to give them unqualified support. For all that, many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman are correct, and every hon. Member
78WH
can point to important life opportunities that have been given to people in their constituencies through the new deal process.
My main point—I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—is that the new deal has been introduced against an economic environment that has not been a success. I must re-examine the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland to see the criteria by which he judged the performance of the Scottish economy as excellent. I would have described its performance over the past few years as disappointing, certainly in terms of international comparisons. Most of us support the International Labour Organisation's definition of unemployment, and on that basis, unemployment in Scotland is currently 6 per cent. compared with Austria at 3.6 per cent., the Netherlands at 2.8 per cent., Denmark at 5.3 per cent., Sweden at 5.4 per cent., and Ireland at less than 4 per cent. Therefore, if one compares Scotland's rate of unemployment with other small countries in Europe, its performance is disappointing.
Growth figures in Scotland over the past few years, have also been disappointing. The manufacturing industry in Scotland has experienced serious problems—since 1997, 32,000 jobs have been lost. Recent figures for manufacturing exports for the last quarter of 2000 reinforce that view. Food, drink and tobacco exports are down 24 per cent. since 1997, mechanical engineering exports are down by almost 20 per cent., and exports in textiles—a very troubled sector—are down by 34 per cent.
Despite the disappointing general performance of the Scottish economy and its under-achievement when one considers its potential, and despite the problems that have been concentrated on manufacturing and exports in particular, the service sector in Scotland has, generally speaking, been performing pretty well during the past few years. Many new deal placements—not all, by any means— have been in the service sector. I should be interested if the Minister, when replying to the debate, would give us an analysis of what proportion of new deal placements have been in manufacturing and in the service economy.
There are signs that we are moving into a much harsher economic climate. That was shown to all of us yesterday by the hugely tragic announcement in Bathgate, but we can also see across Scotland— with Compaq at Erksine and the Panasonic announcement a couple of weeks ago in East Kilbride— that continuing major job losses are on the way.
If we are entering a more troubled economic environment, it will be much tougher for a scheme such as the new deal to find suitable placements for young people. Of course, a tougher economic environment and a more difficult employment situation reinforces the argument for interventions such as the new deal, but one of the failings of the many schemes employed during the Conservative period of office was that they were always identified as attempts to disguise the unemployment figures as opposed to generating genuine employment opportunities.
Miss Anne Begg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unemployment problem was often with the long-term unemployed? When people

79WH
were unemployed for more than six months, and especially for more than a year, it became increasingly difficult for them to get a job. The challenge for Government in situations such as that at Bathgate is to ensure that people enter new jobs as quickly as possible. The new deal can only help to achieve that, because it ensures that people will have experience of work in the near future, which makes them much more employable.
Mr. Salmond: I take the hon. Lady's point. Of course, there is structural unemployment. After a period of employment catastrophe such as there has been in many areas and many industries over the past 20 years, we would expect structural unemployment—those without experience of work, whose families have not had experience of work and who are not familiar with the work culture—to grow. It is obviously right for the Government to introduce policies to try to bring back work experience, lifetime opportunity and the work culture to people, families and communities who have been disadvantaged for a substantial period. My point is that that is much easier to do in a relatively benign economic environment. Attempting to address structural unemployment is much more difficult if general employment opportunities are limited, because the people who tend to be squeezed out are exactly those whom the hon. Lady and myself are anxious to help.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when long-term unemployed people enter the new deal but then return directly to unemployment and to claiming benefit, they no longer count in the statistics as being long-term unemployed? One of the successes of the new deal from the Government's point of view has been in disguising long-term unemployment.
Mr. Salmond: I do not absolve the Government from disguising the unemployment figures. I merely suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if they were looking for lessons on how to massage unemployment figures, they had 18 years of tutelage from his party. I accept that this Government perhaps all Governments—tend to pick up bad habits from their predecessors. In several areas they have taken lessons taught by the Conservative party to excess.
Mr. David Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned bad habits. I can pick on one bad habit displayed by him and his party. I am loth to raise the matter of voting records, because we all miss votes. However, apart from the vote on the national minimum wage, when no Scottish National party Member voted, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Finance Act 1997 contained the policy of levying the windfall tax on the privatised utilities in order to fund the new deal to reduce unemployment in Scotland. The vote on that occurred on 29 July 1997, less than three months after the last general election. Not one SNP Member voted to help the unemployed in Scotland. Where were they? Had they all gone on holiday early? Can we have an explanation? The hon. Gentleman comes along and criticises the Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long intervention. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will deal only with the part of the intervention that is relevant to the debate.
Mr. Salmond: Unfortunately, that leaves me nothing to deal with, because the intervention was totally irrelevant. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons Library has furnished me with a list of hon. Members that shows, among other things, voting records. He will accept that I have been serving in two Parliaments for some time, and I am happy to compare my voting record with that of Labour Members who serve in two Parliaments. However, I shall not do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you might prevent me.
The Library document shows that, if we examine hon. Members' speeches, interventions in the Chamber and questions together, it appears that I come 10th in the list of 72 Scottish Members of Parliament. I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) by saying where he ranks, but it is substantially lower in the list.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is not taking my advice, but is addressing his remarks to matters that are irrelevant to the debate.
Mr. Salmond: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you agree that I was sorely provoked and tempted. My final point to the hon. Gentleman is that it seems that I have been more effective in two Parliaments than he has been in one.
I shall return to the new deal, which is the subject of the debate, and make a serious point. If we are moving into a more difficult economic and employment environment than that within which the new deal has operated over the past four years in the service sector in Scotland, the challenge for the Minister is to explain why, in such an environment, the new deal will not fall victim to the same pressures that I believe were instrumental in undermining confidence in previous employment schemes that were devised by the Conservative Government. I hope that we receive a substantial answer to that, because I do not want the matter to be yet another area of policy in which too many bad lessons were learned from the previous Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to call at least two more hon. Members. I hope that the first hon. Member I call will be responsible and enable me to call the second.
10.18 am
Miss Anne Begg: I apologise for being late, but I had difficulty getting up in the lift. However, now I am here safe and sound.
I want to reflect on a report by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs about welfare to work in Scotland and the new deal, which was completed in January 1998. That was the first report with which I was involved following my election. It is worth looking at its recommendations in order to measure the success of the new deal in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, we visited Tayside,

81WH
which was one of the pilot areas. It was interesting to note that people had concerns about whether the new deal would deliver everything that the Government said it would. It has already been mentioned today that there were such bad experiences of schemes under the previous Government that there was some cynicism. Those who piloted the scheme, especially in Tayside, had to overcome that, because people did not believe that the Government's intention was to get people—particularly young people—back into work, and that we were serious about the promised fun ding and help.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to the major concern felt by people about the compulsory element. They were worried that the new deal would be compulsory and that many young people would disappear down a black hole, come off benefits and not gain from it. However, that fear has generally been proved to be groundless. Because it was such a good—I was about to say "scheme", but I must avoid using that word—project for the young unemployed, it was spread by word of mouth that it was worth while becoming involved in it. The compulsory element has not been the big issue that many people feared that it would be.
Another fear was that there would not be enough personal advisers, or that they would not be properly trained or any different from those in the old Employment Service who just managed unemployment rather encouraging people into work That fear has not been realised either. There have been enough personal advisers. Indeed, their mere existence has been the major success of the new deal and set it apart from previous schemes.
There was a misunderstanding about the meaning of the new deal. Some people thought that it was a job creation scheme. It was never intended to be that. It was about making people work-ready so that they could take up the opportunities that already existed in the economy. As I said to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, problems often arise for the long-term unemployed for whom the work culture and ethos have disappeared. Such people find it increasingly difficult to get back into work. Because of the success of the new deal for the young unemployed as w as for the long-term unemployed, many fewer people fall into that category in Scotland. In my constituency, youth unemployment has fallen by 90 per cent., which is an outstanding figure. It shows the deal's success. The drop in long-term unemployed is 46 per cent. The new deal is working.
I must remind hon. Members that several worries were expressed about how the new deal would work in Aberdeen, because traditionally we have low unemployment. It was feared that those young people who were not already in work would' be difficult to place. My local enterprise company gave me a detailed brief setting out such fears and said that more options might need to be available so that people could swap between them. It said that in some cases the young unemployed needed a longer gateway to become work-ready. The Government have now put in place such changes, which have been an important development.
Provided that we continue to have a Labour Government, we can be optimistic that the new deal for disabled people will be expanded. It has not yet been fully rolled out and is only working in pilot form in some
82WH
areas. I am picking up on the impatience that is felt among the disabled community. People with disabilities, particularly those with mental health problems, regard the new deal as a way of helping them get into work. They really want "a wee job", something that will get them out of the house and back into society. While I am hasty for the new deal for disabled people to be in place nationwide, I understand the difficulties in doing that too quickly. The personal advisers must be extremely well trained and sensitive to the needs of disabled people. It is no use putting people with severe disabilities into a workplace where they will fail because they have not been properly matched to it.
Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Lady consider that the Government should ensure that the subsidies provided to employers in respect of mainstream new deal participants are available in respect of disabled people?
Miss Begg: That should certainly be considered. It may help to encourage more employers. One problem is the search for more employers. Good work is being undertaken by one of the access to work groups in Aberdeen that operate from Choices on Westburn road. It tries hard to interest employers in employing people who are desperate to find work and to be productive members of society. The new deal has proved successful, and I hope that it will continue to roll out for the disabled and for people who are still not engaging in work or getting involved in society.
I am grateful for the debate, as it has provided an opportunity to state that Government policies can make a fundamental difference to people's lives. Because of the new deal, in the recent past fewer people have been out of work or experienced long-term unemployment. I hope that, in the future, if people find themselves unemployed because of the vagaries of the economy, they will be better equipped swiftly to find new employment.
10.25 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on securing this important debate.
I have visited local Employment Service offices in my constituency and the people who work in them are enthused by the new deal because it greatly improves the service that they provide. There has been a significant reduction in unemployment among people aged between 18 and 24.
However, I am concerned by some remarks that appeared in a recent poverty report by the Scottish National party. Its attitude towards the new deal is very different from that expressed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) this morning. He was conciliatory, but I want him to comment on the poverty report's statement that it
"has been an abject and expensive failure"
and that
"it has made little or no difference to the employment prospects of Scotland's people."
That is a staggering statement in light of the reduction in unemployment that has occurred because of the new deal. It is easy to mention statistics such as 5 or 6 per

83WH
cent., but it is important to remember that they refer to many individuals who may have found themselves without jobs and excluded from society and its amenities. The new deal successfully addresses such people's problems, so it is essential not to be negative about it but to examine how it fails people so that we can ensure that we move forward and provide the employment opportunities that are essential for the people of Scotland.
The new deal must be continued, and changes to it should be welcomed by all parties.
10.28 am
Sir Robert Smith: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on securing the debate, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) that it is important to recognise that we are discussing a matter that fundamentally affects how individuals become involved and take part in society.
The economy creates the wealth that funds society, and it is important that as many people as possible are able and willing to work. There are also non-economic reasons why we should try to ensure that people are involved in society and become engaged and connected with the wider community. I support the new deal's aspiration to create a climate in which there are no barriers to work, except for each individual's skills and experiences.
Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I had decided to mention that it is important to recognise that the new deal has been launched and tested in the most benign of world climates. It will face harder challenges in the future, and the Government should tell us how they intend to ensure that it can cope with them. The Chancellor has issued vague warnings that we should not be quite as optimistic as in the past.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West was coming from two different directions; when I intervened on him, he said that Governments did not create jobs, but he spoke about job creation later on. Fundamentally, Governments do not create jobs, but they do affect the climate and the likelihood of jobs being created. We welcomed the Government's recognition when they came into office of the need for an independent central bank, which would bring stability to economic planning and take interest rates out of the political domain, so that they would no longer be subject to short-term decision making.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, there are changes on the horizon, as evidenced by what is happening at Motorola. If the world market for mobile phones collapses, it will have an impact on employment in this country. If the jobs are not there, the new deal faces a much bigger challenge in helping and supporting people back into work. The foot and mouth outbreak has exacerbated the problems of the strong pound for farming and tourism, especially in Scotland. As a result, the rural economy, and those parts of the economy that depend on those industries, face many challenges in providing jobs. The new deal cannot be judged in isolation. To achieve the goals of the new deal, we need
84WH
to ensure that everything is being done to create a climate in which innovation takes place and jobs are created.
An important and welcome development, on which the hon. Member for Dundee, West touched, is the creation of the personal adviser, who provides a link with the individual. Although different factors affect the ability of different groups to get back into work, people must be treated as individuals. Rather than having a scheme for a group—whether of young people, disabled people, single mothers or the over-50s, or a group which does not fit into those categories—we should consider all those who face the challenge of long-term unemployment, and make sure that all of them have access to a personal adviser to help them get back into work. It does not matter to long-term unemployed people which group they are in; they still face the challenge of unemployment, and they need help and assistance. Once people become disengaged from getting work, they enter a cycle that must be broken; that is why intervention is so important.
The hon. Gentleman—rightly and understandably—went on a brief tour of Conservative failures. In dealing with the needs of individuals to get back into work, the new deal responded to the failure to invest in the education service to ensure that our young people—and the next generation—were equipped with the tools and life skills that they needed to meet the challenges that they would face.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Do you believe in a policy to tackle ageism? Old fellas like me do not get a chance because, for instance, they are over 50.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) by his constituency, or as "the hon. Gentleman". On the matter to which he refers, I have no view.
Mr. Clarke: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I forgot where I was, and used the word "you" as if I were having a conversation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a policy must be laid down to tackle such bias?
Sir Robert Smith: I recognise the challenge of ageism. Given increased life expectancy, businesses are wasting talent and opportunities if they do not embrace the experience that people who have worked all their lives still have to offer to business and the community. The idea that a cut-off point exists at which people no longer have anything to offer means that we are wasting opportunities for society and the economy. I deprecate ageism and recognise the need to challenge it, and I encourage business to embrace that experience.
To break the cycle and, in the long run, to reduce dependency on intervention at the new deal and unemployment stages, we must ensure that the foundations are right. Good education stays with people for life; no one can take their skills away from them. Whatever happens to the economy or society, those skills are their personal assets and underpin people's participation in society and the economy. It is fundamental to our future to ensure that we put the necessary investment into education. Although the

85WH
Conservative record was disappointing, the failure in the first two years of this Government to recognise that need was extremely disappointing, too, certainly for my constituents. The consequences on the ground were felt in the education system.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said that, in our area, the challenge for the long-term unemployed might be even greater. Constituents whom I meet want to work, but are not finding out how to find work or match their skills. Lifelong learning and the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland to encourage more people into higher education are positive proposals that will help to undermine some of the need for the new deal.
The Minister should assure us that he understands the challenges that are to come in the wider economy. In the Scottish Grand Committee on 29 February 2000, I cited figures from Sheffield university that showed that 600,000 people in the UK were economically detached —that is, not employed and not on benefit—and did not show up in our statistics or have access to the new deal. I asked whether the Government had a breakdown of the figures or had examined them, to find out how they applied to Scotland. Has the Minister any further information? The new deal is designed to re-engage people in society by employment, but we must find and re-engage those who are not even showing up in the statistics.
The challenge in an area of high employment, such as the north-east of Scotland, is to find the skills and the people. For the economy to grow, we need more people to work in our industries. In the North sea oil industry, there is a great skills shortage. Similarly, in parts of the country that face high unemployment, we need to ensure that the Government do everything to avoid damaging job creation and putting barriers in the way of jobs, such as the problems of the strong pound.
I hope that the Government recognise that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that everyone has the best opportunity of getting a job. We welcome the work of personal advisers, and the Government must recognise not only the people who face unemployment, but the hard work of the people who make the scheme work, including the personal advisers. The service being provided and the atmosphere at employment centres is a breath of fresh air. We must congratulate those who are doing the work, give them all our support for their future endeavours and recognise the valuable contribution that they are making to improving our society.
10.39 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on having secured the debate. I listened with great interest to his comments, especially his personal references to how the scheme had operated in his constituency. In my role as spokesman for Scotland, I am conscious that my constituency, being located in an area with the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom—
Sir Robert Smith: On a point of language, I hope that the hon. Gentleman meant to say "Conservative spokesman for Scotland".
Mr. Grieve: I think that the correct title is "Opposition spokesman for Scotland".
86WH
Representing a constituency with low unemployment, as I do, it is easy to be glib about what the new deal sets out to achieve or to be critical without paying attention to how it works on the ground. To that extent, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, West for bringing his personal experiences to bear on the matter. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I highlight one or two areas where I believe that his arguments—and, indeed, some further arguments that have been presented—seem to be a little out of touch with reality.
The first is the suggestion that the new deal has achieved some great revolution in getting people into employment. If one examines the figures, it is obvious that that is not the case. The process by which employment availability in this country surged began in about 1994, and was due to the previous Government's economic policies. It was also doubtless due to a revival in the world economy. So when figures are bandied about for the number of people who have been helped into work since 1997 through the new deal, I would simply say that more people were helped into work in the period from 1994 to 1997 than have been helped since.
By the time that this Government came into office, the back of the major unemployment problem—in terms of figures—had already been broken. Nothing reflects that more than the fact that one of the Government's key promises in 1997 was to reduce youth unemployment by 250.000. However, the statistics for 1997 demonstrate that there were not 250,000 unemployed people aged under 25 looking for jobs; it was pure spin. In fairness to the Government, I suspect that they came up with that figure before they discovered that it had sunk below 250,000.
Miss Begg: The most recent statistics I have show that 270,000 young people have been helped into work as a result of the new deal. We somehow seem to have helped back into work extra people who did not appear in the official statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grieve: I should point out that 40,000 young people have been through the new deal twice. I wonder whether the Government's statistics involve some double counting. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) rightly emphasised that all Governments doubtless seek to massage statistics, but the massaging of unemployment statistics by this Government has been distinct. It is also worth remembering that the new deal was achieved by means of the windfall tax on utilities, which, frankly, amounted to a theft of£3.1 billion and had serious adverse consequences on the economy. I am sometimes left with the horrible, niggling feeling that if the Government decided not to do anything to help the unemployed, we would still see patterns of rise and fall for which no Government—Labour or Conservative—could take credit. I have a worrying feeling that the Government's intervention in such matters tends to be peripheral.
The Government have admitted that the new deal is flawed. They do not say as much in the House but, on one occasion—at the Franco-British Council—the Government admitted that the new deal was unlikely to bring new recruits into modern business and industry because those employers required youngsters with knowledge of new technology, which the new deal was

87WH
unable to provide. Again, we have an example of the Government admitting shortcomings in the new deal to other Governments, but those did not emerge from the various panegyrics that we heard this morning.
Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman must take account of the fact that the new deal is not the only way for young people to get into work. They go through the normal education process, and investment in further and higher education—in the new technologies in particular—will allow them to be trained in the area that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The new deal is specifically to help young people who are not job-ready; it is not meant to be a panacea to get all young people into work. It was never designed for that and nor should it have been.
Mr. Grieve: I accept that entirely, and have no difficulty with it. The new deal was designed to target those who were having great difficulty getting into work. As the economy began to boom and unemployment fell, obtaining jobs appeared to be relatively easy for those with the relevant aptitudes and skills. Indeed, in my constituency, the problem is not unemployment, but finding people. Those who are unemployed in a low-unemployment area tend to be those who have enormous difficulties holding down or attaining a job. However, we must consider whether we are getting a return on what we have put in. Various figures have been put around, but I believe that the correct statistic is that it costs about £20,000 a job to get people into the new deal.
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): No.
Mr. Grieve: I shall listen in due course to what the Minister has to say on that subject. The provisions cost a great deal. The Financial Times noted last year that if one considered the amount of investment and the return—only about 20 per cent. of those involved hold on to a job in the long term—it is clear that we are not getting value for money.
I accept that the individual instances that the hon. Member for Dundee, West cited are heart-warming. I do not mean that pejoratively; it is pleasant to hear about them. I do not doubt that the staff are working hard and trying to help those who are trying to get a job. Nevertheless, the overall picture is not satisfactory. A great deal is being invested for a very limited return. In the long term, the number of people who are successfully placed in jobs that they then keep is poor.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the unemployed individual who believes that he is outside the system will feel 100 per cent. part of the system by getting back into work? There are different levels at which people get back into work. We are beginning to approach employers, as happened in America; that is where many of our examples have come from. We are looking for ways in which to offer individual employers specifically job-trained people. That is the new deal.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to intervene, but we want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply.
Mr. Grieve: I am mindful of that and will try to ensure that that happens, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West, which is why I listened with such interest to what he said about the circumstances and individuals in his constituency. However, that does not get us away from the fact that the issues that we are discussing have arisen in a benign situation, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) said. It should be relatively easy to get people into work and to help them, but it costs a lot to do so. Furthermore, when we consider the overall statistics—I obviously cannot comment on the individual instances to which the hon. Member for Dundee, West referred—the overall return appears to be very poor in terms of the number of people in jobs.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my party has suggested that we can and should make a radical reappraisal of the situation and that there is much to learn from the United States. We have suggested that the key to getting young people and people generally back into work when they have difficulties is not training so much as getting people into the workplace, keeping them there and ensuring that they get training there. That is why we have come up with the "Britain Works" scheme, which the Financial Times described as one of the best programmes for the jobless ever. It seeks to offer job experience to the long-term unemployed, which increases—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, which worries me even more. We have been provided with a classic illustration of the way in which the Government have sacrificed objective analysis of how to get people into work, replaced it with massaged figures and presented many individual instances that do not show the whole picture. There are better ways to approach the task, but I shall wait to hear from the Minister how the new deal is progressing. I am interested, but I hope for considered analysis rather than what I fear we shall be given; a further panegyric on a scheme with serious flaws.
10.50 am
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on securing this debate on a vital subject. His long-standing commitment to the training and employment prospects of young people is well known in Scotland and beyond and deserves the commendation of the whole Chamber.
I remind the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that it is beyond even me to accomplish a detailed analysis of this subject in 10 minutes, but several important contributions have been made in an excellent debate and I shall reply to as many as I can. The new deal has made a huge impact on Scotland. Several of my hon. Friends have already paid tribute to its success and its effect on their constituencies. Contrary to the patronising contribution from the Opposition spokesman, and while the new deal may not be needed in the leafy lanes of Beaconsfield, it is vital in Dundee, Glasgow, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and in other parts of Scotland.

89WH
The success of the new deal is to be found not just in statistics, but in the individuals affected. I do not apologise for giving two examples. The first, from Dundee, concerns Patricia, aged 51, who was unemployed for more than four years. She talked to a new deal adviser. My hon. Friends are right to say that personal advisers are a crucial element in the new deal. Patricia had been a voluntary befriender for the Dundee Society for Visually Impaired People. A full-time job was advertised, the adviser told her to apply for it and she found a job. She is now part of the success story of the new deal 50-plus, and there are many more. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)—I do so with personal commitment—that people over the age of 50 are still vital to this country's work force, as well as to Parliament.
My second example is from my constituency and concerns Andrea Gardiner. She had been unemployed for three years and joined the new deal 25-plus. With the help of a personal adviser, she took a medical secretary course at Kilmarnock college in August 1999. On completing it, she applied for a job as a medical records clerk at Ayr hospital and started work in October 2000. Those are just two of the many real stories of people who have benefited from the new deal. Such carping criticism as we have heard from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield does the project a disservice.
The success of the new deal is to be found in the profound improvement in the situation of people who are given a chance, sometimes for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said, the Scottish National party did not acknowledge that in its poverty report. To be fair, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) acknowledged it today. I think that he had to take his spokesman on poverty—or, rather, the spokesman of his colleague, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney)—to task for not recognising the value of the new deal. It will be noticed in Scotland that not only did his party not vote for the new deal money, but it has talked it down day by day, month by month and year by year.
Mr. Salmond: On the subject of what will be noticed in Scotland, when the Deputy Prime Minister speculated yesterday about slashing Scottish public spending, did his analysis include cuts to new deal expenditure, or just to health, education and other public services?
Mr. Foulkes: If the hon. Gentleman reads today's papers, he will find an entirely different story.
When we introduced the new deal in 1997, unemployment among young people was effectively out of control. However, we did not accept the so-called accepted wisdom that, in a modern, high-tech, low-inflation economy, we could not find jobs for those people. We were determined to change a system that had consigned so many people to the scrap heap without any hope.
I would like particularly to talk about events in Dundee, because Dundee is a good example. Tayside has made a significant contribution to the new deal from the start. It operated as a pathfinder pilot area for the new deal for young people, testing and putting into
90WH
practice our theory of work for those who can, and support for those who cannot. The pilot helped more than 1,000 young Scots into jobs in just six months. More than three quarters of those jobs were sustained. That answers Opposition Members.
Since the new deal for young people was introduced throughout the country in April 1998, Tayside has gone on to help a further 3,000 young people to find work, 780 of them from the Dundee, West constituency. Under the new deal 25-plus, Tayside has helped 639 long-term unemployed adults into work, 144 of them in the Dundee, West constituency. That constituency and Tayside are a microcosm of what is happening all over Britain and are an example to all of us.
We welcome the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan back to Westminster. I congratulate him on his Pauline conversion on the way to Macduff. He has suddenly realised, once again, the importance of this Parliament to Scotland, and its particular importance in relation to employment. There could not be a better example. However, his economic comparisons with other countries were highly selective. He picked the ones that suited his argument and left the other ones out. He forgot that unemployment in this country is at its lowest level for 25 years. That is the significant difference. The number of people actually in work is at its highest level since 1960, when I was just coming out of school, which shows how long ago that was.
Mrs. Anne McGuire: Primary school.
Mr. Foulkes: No, I am afraid not.
It may do the party of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan some service to talk Scotland down. It may be wishful thinking on his part—he may wish to see more unemployment and more redundancies—but it does not help Scotland. If he is going to stand up for Scotland, not only must he and his colleagues turn up here, but they must speak up for Scotland and not keep talking it down. Of course there are job losses, but there are also significant job gains. If he had come with me to Atmel and to Caledonian Clear he would have seen job gains. Those gains must be significant, otherwise unemployment would not be steadily decreasing.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No, least of all shall I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talks failure. The SNP talk failure all the time. Why will the new deal not fail? It will not fail because it is personalised. It is not a job-creation scheme. People get real jobs in the real job market—sustainable jobs.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No, not even to the nice hon. Gentleman.
I will, however, reply to the ridiculous claims of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the cost of the new deal. Even the Conservative party's own policy announcement "Britain works" states that the cost per job is around £4,000, not the £20,000 that he mentioned today. For every £5 spent on the new deal, the

91WH
Exchequer gets back nearly £3 in lower benefit spending. That is the advantage of the new deal. It gets people off benefits and into work and they become taxpayers and contribute to society. Not only do they make an economic and practical contribution, but it is better for their morale.
In conclusion, youth unemployment is now at its lowest level since the mid-1970s. Long-term unemployment among young people was 15,700 in 1997; now it is down to 4,400. That is a significant gain. The new deal has made a real impact, but we accept that there is still more to do. I say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that it is relatively easy to place people with doctorates and degrees in jobs. As unemployment reduces, we must find work for those who are more difficult to place. We are determined to find work for lone parents, for those with disabilities, for all people. Only a Labour Government will do that. Thank goodness, there will be a Labour Government for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:The fight is over.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No points of order can be made now. We must move to the next debate.

Child Sex Trafficking (West Sussex Social Services)
11 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am pleased to have secured this debate after many weeks of trying in the ballot. Over the past five years, the problem of child sex trafficking has reared its ugly head in West Sussex, largely because of the location of Gatwick airport—this is often forgotten—in what is a predominantly rural county. However, it is a problem that could spread to the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I speak at some length about the background, because it is a complicated issue.
As I see it, the problem is threefold. First, it reveals a serious loophole in the law. Police have been powerless to bring convictions against international traffickers in human beings, which is what this amounts to. In the eyes of the Foreign Secretary, it should contain a Government health warning, because it touches on the problem of asylum, an issue that dare not speak its name for the duration of the run-up to the general election, at least in the view of the Commission for Racial Equality and various Ministers. However, I make no apology for mentioning it today, given the direct threat that the inadequacy and failure of the present system poses to the lives and well-being of scores of young women from west Africa who arrive in West Sussex.
Secondly, it is a problem that needs the involvement of the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and International Social Service, in taking preventive action to protect young women embarking on the perilous journeys from their families in Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
Thirdly, and more pertinently to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is present, the problem has made an impact on the county of West Sussex, particularly, unwittingly, on the social services department of our county council. I pay tribute to West Sussex social services department, which has devoted significant resources and time to the problem, in collaboration with other agencies, particularly Sussex police. However, it is costing West Sussex social services department £1 million a year—a cost that that department can ill afford, given the many pressures on its budget due to the fact that our county has a larger number of pensioners than any other in the country. That is a nice problem to have, but it places additional financial pressures on social services and on the national health service.
I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Health is responding to the debate, as I know that he is acquainted with the problem, having been to Chichester to speak to West Sussex social services officials and councillors. Colleagues from West Sussex will want to participate in the debate on behalf of all our constituents so that we can talk about the pressure being experienced by the social services department.
Recently, we have heard much about suspected child slave trade ships in west Africa. The Nigerian ship, the Etireno, sailing from Benin, was the focus of a big press story last week. Fortunately, it turned out not to have the dire consequences that had been feared for the future

93WH
of the young children involved. There has been a lot of publicity about the so-called chocolate slaves on the Ivory Coast, who cause much anguish in that part of west Africa, and about the young women trapped in the sex trade in the United Kingdom and on the continent, who come from eastern Europe in particular. Today's papers report police raids on various houses in Southampton over the past few days where the deputy chief constable said that people trafficking is now second only to drugs as a major problem in the county. I am sure that that also applies in other parts of the United Kingdom. In West Sussex, we have seen what I can only describe as a modern-day example of the slave trade—an especially grotesque version that is unacceptable in this day and age.
Since 1990, 479 child asylum seekers have arrived at Gatwick airport in West Sussex and been placed in the care of West Sussex social services. Since 1995, 64 of those children have gone missing. Forty of them are young women who travelled from Nigeria—most are Nigerians, although some are from Sierra Leone. Strong evidence shows that they end up as prostitutes in northern Italy, predominantly in Turin. West Sussex social services became aware of the pattern of disappearing minors in 1997, the rate of which increased 50 per cent. year-on-year until the end of last year.
I pay tribute to the officers of West Sussex social services, especially the child asylum team officers such as Lynne Chitty, who have worked on the problem for some while. They are devoted to helping the young women, and provide a rapid response team at Gatwick airport to deal with the girls when they first arrive. I also pay tribute to the work of the dedicated colleagues in social services, in the children's homes where some of the girls are taken and the foster parents with whom some of them are placed.
A BBC "Southern Eye" documentary called "Lost Girls", which recounted some of the girls' stories, helped to raise the profile of this much-neglected issue a few months ago. Nigerian girls as young as 12 leave their families because they are abducted or to seek better prospects abroad. In some cases, the girls' families sell them to traffickers so that the girls can raise money from working overseas.
Once in the hands of the criminal Traffickers, the girls are subjected to hideous voodoo rituals. One girl, who was traced to Italy by social services and police, revealed some of the details. Girls are subjected to macabre voodoo ceremonies involving up to 50 cuts about their bodies with razor blades. Things are placed beneath their skin, or so they feel. They can be taken into a room where there are human heads on spikes, and forced to drink the blood of dead women. In fear of their lives they are forced to do what they are told by the orchestrators of those evil practices and forced not to tell anyone about what is going on.
In the hands of the international pimps—the only way to describe them—the girls are flown to Gatwick airport, provided with false passports and given a story in order to claim political asylum. The teenagers are often dressed in the same clothes, have similar luggage, and a similar script from which to quote. In some cases, they arrive with one of the pimp's henchmen who claims to be a parent or guardian. In fear of their lives, the girls dare not deny that.
94WH
Some girls are under the impression that a better life awaits them—some expect to get jobs in supermarkets that will enable them to send money back to their families in Nigeria. Some have a slightly better idea of what insalubrious fate awaits them, but fear the consequences of what will happen if they do not go along with the traffickers who profit from this trade in human beings.
If the girls are under 18, they become the responsibility of the social services department, and are placed by West Sussex social services either in children's homes or with foster parents, some of whom are my constituents. As I said, some of the girls are only 12 years old.
In a matter of days in some cases, or up to four-and-a-half months in others, despite the best endeavours of social services, 40 of the girls disappeared, often in the dead of night or at gunpoint, picked up on the beach. Under the Children Act 1989, it is not an option to detain girls in secure accommodation, which might solve the problem. They are therefore free to go whenever they like—although they are obviously vulnerable to the evil men who are cajoling them to go on to terrible things. Most of the traffickers come down from London. There is evidence that, via the port of Dover, they cross to Belgium and then go on to Turin. Once in Turin, the girls are sold on to madams for a large fee and face a life of prostitution.
By that stage, a lot has been invested in the business. The traffickers will have paid for flights and travel, they may have paid fees to the parents and they might have paid for false documents. In many cases, they will have had to bribe immigration officials in Nigeria. The girls are therefore told that a lot of money will be required if they want to buy their freedom. In some cases, that has amounted to up to £38,000—an enormous sum that they have no hope of raising. In fear of their lives from the voodoo curses that they think have been placed on them if they do not obey instructions, and in fear of their lives because a large price hangs over their heads if they do not do what they are told, they are reduced to a life of prostitution in northern Italy. Few return; many are subjected to beatings, and at least seven prostitutes from Africa have been murdered in Turin during the past few years.
As I said, it is a modern version of the slave trade coupled with a grotesque modern version of the sex trade, which is wholly unacceptable. What is being done about that, and why is it happening? First, why are the girls not taken directly to their end destination in Italy? The Italians made their asylum-seeker laws somewhat tougher some years ago, and the United Kingdom is seen as the soft touch to bring the girls into Europe. Gatwick airport has been alighted upon as a suitable disembarkation point. The United Kingdom is seen as a soft touch by international criminals trafficking in human beings—profiting from human beings—so the problem comes to the United Kingdom, and specifically to west Sussex.
As I said, the police have been heavily involved with the problem; they have worked closely with social services and immigration authorities. A pattern of such abductions was established back in 1996, and operation Newbridge was set up by the Sussex police. They spent two years intensively investigating the matter and gathering evidence. They sent officers to Italy, liaising

95WH
with the National Crime Squad and police forces on the continent. I pay special tribute to Superintendent David Gaylor and his team from Sussex police, who headed that investigation and who feel passionately that something must be done. Those policemen tracked down some of the girls and heard their stories, the accounts of which have formed part of my speech. In one case, they actually stopped an abductor in the process of taking a girl abroad at a port but nothing could be done within the law to prevent them leaving. They have raided houses in the county and found hair samples connected with voodoo ceremonies; they have collected a lot of evidence, but no criminal convictions have been obtained.
The National Crime Squad operation, Operation Egypt, which took place after operation Newbridge, was concluded last July as a result of the Crown Prosecution Service not supporting a prosecution against one of the trafficking suspects due to lack of appropriate legislation. Amazingly, strictly speaking it is not illegal to traffic in humans if they are apparently compliant—as the girls are, because they are in fear of their lives if they do not say what they have been told to say. If those criminals were trafficking drugs, a whole host of laws could be brought to bear upon them, and they would hopefully be in jail. Due to a loophole in the law, the fact that they are trafficking human beings means that they escape conviction. That is an obscene and strange anomaly in our legal system. The police are more frustrated than anyone, and have made many complaints about the weaknesses in the law. Superintendent Gaylor points out that we appear at present to have little contact with the girls' country of origin, despite the fact that there is clear evidence of corruption among airport officials in Nigeria.
Immigration authorities have sent staff to Lagos to identify potentially trafficked girls, and for a short while that resulted in a reduction in the number of those arriving at our airport. However, that was not sustainable, and staff who were sent over were subject to intimidation and threats, so the sending of such staff stopped.
The police will say that we must update legislation and review immigration regulations in order to frustrate the traffickers and protect the young women. The acts that we would consider to be offences are not sufficiently covered by the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Any changes must be joined up internationally to take such offences into account. In this case, the offence begins in west Africa, moves through the UK and ends up in Europe. That is the complexity of the crime.
West Sussex needs national help and Sussex police require more support from the Home Office. So far, the Home Office has declined to take any action, and that has only hindered local investigations. The Home Office has been cautious about attempts to identify the girls who have gone missing and to produce publicity, because it feels that that may endanger the girls further.
Following the BBC programme, I wrote at length to the Home Secretary on 12 March. I am still awaiting a reply. The Home Office's attitude to Sussex police is that this is not their problem. However, it is a problem for us all and a moral issue that concerns us all, especially those of us who are close to the problem in West Sussex.
96WH
The Government must, and should, be seen to take direct action on the matter, and the Home Office is falling parlously short of taking such action.
We must examine the experiences of other countries, particularly Australia, which introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999. That contains new federal offences directed at slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting. The legislation contained flaws, particularly the reliance on witnesses' willingness, to testify, and in this specific case, that is a problem because the girls dare not say anything.
There is a suggestion from Sussex police that that the facilitation of removal or exit from the United Kingdom of children who have sought political asylum, or the accompaniment of such a child, should be made a criminal offence. If there were such a law, action could be taken at the point of exit—the port of Dover or wherever—when the abductors were taking the young women to the continent.
There is no specific law against trafficking people into the UK, but those who traffic and sexually exploit women are breaking a large number of laws. Technically, however, that is not happening in West Sussex. Superintendent Gaylor recently said:
"We feel neutered and disempowered."
I wholly agree with his frustration.
The other side of the matter relates to the Foreign Secretary. I also wrote to him on 12 March, and I am glad that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is keener to take the matter seriously than the Home Office. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), replied to me and said that the FCO is aware of the problem and is liaising with the Nigerian authorities. That is a good start, and I wish to see practical results from it. However, the Minister also said that the UK is signed up to the United Nations convention against transnational organised crime, and that Nigeria has signed up to many conventions. However, the acts are still happening, because too many people in Nigeria are turning a blind eye, and too many people are profiting from the criminal trade.
We also need closer liaison with Nigerian social services so that they lake the matter seriously. We must link overseas aid programmes that exist between Britain and Nigeria in order to address the problem, which is of immense common interest to Nigeria and the UK. We must stop it happening at source in the first instance, and keep the girls safe with their families, where they belong.
We must also utilise the media in Nigeria to show that prostitution is not a way out of poverty. If families were really aware of the true fate of their children, they would do more to prevent them from leaving the country. In some cases, there is evidence that families are selling their daughters into the ghastly business.
We also need help from the High Commissioner in London. We must use International Social Service, an organisation that has been around since 1924. It has 146 branches throughout the world. It is a transnational social and criminal problem and such an organisation should do something about it. We must stop the problem at source to ensure that the girls are safe in

97WH
Nigeria and stay there with their families. We want those girls who are obviously not genuine asylum seekers, although they are tutored to claim political asylum when they arrive, to be returned to Nigeria to live with their families in safety. We must ensure that there is a safe haven for them. As long as they are not in danger, that is the best place for them to be. We need to work internationally with the social services organisations, with the Nigerian Government and the overseas development industry to ensure that they are safe. They would like to return to Nigeria, but we must stop them embarking on the planes in that country in the first place.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing such a debate. What he has told us is extraordinary. I am linking the problem with the so-called cocoa slaves and the slave ship that left Nigeria. Has the hon. Gentleman contacted UNICEF? In respect of the cocoa slaves, it was curious that UNICEF appeared to know about the children. It thought that the children were on the ship, but nothing else has happened or has been done. Is the problem not something with which the United Nations organisations should be concerned?
Mr. Loughton: I agree with the hon. Lady. Before she came into the Chamber, I referred to those whom I believe are called the chocolate slaves. It is a problem that hit the press recently and is one with which UN organisations and International Social Service should be involved. West Sussex social services has liaised with such organisations and other agencies. I have not done so personally, but I know that social services has been exhaustive in working with people to deal with the problem. The hon. Lady is right about which organisation should be dealing with it.
I realise that I have taken up a lot of time, but this is a complex issue, the details of which I want to put firmly on the record before the Minister and others respond to my remarks. This terrible business is an unfair and uncalled for burden on West Sussex social services because it is happening through Gatwick airport. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the social services department; to John Dixon, the director of West Sussex social services, who raised the problem with West Sussex Members of Parliament some time ago; to Councillor Barry Mack, who has been a most exceptional chairman of the social services committee over the past four years and to the child asylum team, especially Lynne Chitty, who feels passionately about the girls. She said recently:
"I can't believe how brave they are. They arrive here, they don't even know where they are. They deserve to be safe, to be cared for. They are children."
We have a moral duty to stamp out such abuse and to care for the girls. The problem is adding to the already intolerable pressures on West Sussex social services. It is costing about £1 million per year from its budget. West Sussex is acting as an unwitting warehouse for what is an international criminal trade in human suffering. The Minister knows the problem; he has recognised it on his visits to West Sussex, although with due regard to him, the financial compensation that has been forthcoming is woefully inadequate. He well knows the demographics of our county. He knows that a quarter of the population, and rising, of West Sussex is of pensionable
98WH
age against 18 per cent. Of the population nationally. He knows that the number of over-75s in West Sussex is increasing by 1 per cent. each year. He knows that 32 per cent. Of my constituents are of pensionable age. In Chichester, the figure is a third; in west Worthing, it is the highest in the country, at 47 per cent.
There are big pressures on social services accommodation in our county and on the availability and cost of home helps. There are staff shortages and extra cost factors associated with employment and living expenses in the south-east. The Minister will also know about the particular pressures that feed through to the local health service because of the elderly population. That is why, in spite of the fact that Worthing hospital is an excellent hospital with dedicated staff and in spite of the Government's paranoia about setting targets rather than achieving results, we now have the seventh longest waiting times of any hospital trust out of the 259 in England and Wales. The average waiting time has worsened by around a quarter over the past four years. That is intrinsically connected with the problems of the extra costs posed by an older population. A recent letter from the chairmen of social services from the counties of West Sussex, Kent and Surrey stated:
"The situation in most authorities has now reached crisis proportions with care homes closing at an alarming rate, staff vacancies rising sharply and ever increasing numbers of older people being denied the care that they desperately need."
Local authorities provided on average 9 per cent. More than the standard spending assessment for their social services departments in the financial year 2000–01. That figure is forecast to increase to 11 per cent. more than the SSA in 2001–02, the current year. However, those authorities are not being profligate. They have been required to achieve 2 per cent. Annual efficiency savings.
The Local Government Association, together with the Society of County Treasurers, the Society of Municipal Treasurers and the Association of Directors of Social Services, carried out a survey. Of 150 local authorities, 146 responded. Of those, 85 per cent. Said that in the current year they will overspend in their social services budget. More interestingly for this debate, 64 per cent. Said that children's services were the most under pressure.
The biggest problem is in children's services. In West Sussex, the pressure is compounded by child asylum seekers, on which we are second only to Kent. In West Sussex, the number of children being looked after has increased by 15 per cent. Over the past year.
The Minister complimented the children's services provided by West Sussex. He knows what a great job our social services department does in almost impossible circumstances. That has been achieved at a cost—a great cost, because West Sussex now spends 10 per cent. More than its SSA on social services. In the past four years, the increase in service demands on West Sussex social services has cost us £48.8 million, but the increase in Government funding has been just £22.8 million. Over the past four years there has therefore been a shortfall in Government funding for social services of £26 million.
West Sussex realises that social services are a priority. By taking from other services and increasing council tax much more than we would have liked, it has agreed an

99WH
£11 billion increase in this year's budget—£4 million more than we were allotted. This year we needed £12 million extra from the Government for social services in order to stand still and provide all the services that the authority currently provides and all the additional services that the Government require it to provide. In fact, we received £7 million, a shortfall of almost £5 million.
The Minister will no doubt cite in response Government grants for West Sussex and other, similar authorities. However, such grants are predominantly directed at new responsibilities and are intended to relieve pressure, supposedly, on health, especially winter pressures and mental health, and for children leaving care.
Demands on social services in West Sussex and in many other authorities throughout the country are at breaking point. Raiding the budgets of other departments or excessive increases in council tax are unsustainable measures. Nevertheless, West Sussex is doing an outstanding job in difficult circumstances. It is doing what the Government require of it and has also made efficiency savings of £14.3 million over the past four years.
The recent suggestion in the press that the Government may abolish the area cost adjustment—one of the few measures that recognises, although inadequately, those extra pressures—fills my county's social services department with absolute horror. That is one of the few measures that compensates for the extra pressures that we face.
I ask the Minister to recognise the state of social services in West Sussex, and to consider providing serious extra financial support for the specific problem of trafficking in children, in which West Sussex is playing an unwitting role as the warehouse for international criminals—a role that contributes £1 million to the cost of running social services.
Plainly, the law needs to be changed; we have a moral and international duty to stamp out that horrible business. It is absurd that we could catch criminals if they trafficked in drugs but cannot touch them because they are trafficking in human beings in those bizarre circumstances. That is an especially sinister abuse of the asylum system that again underlines the weakness of the United Kingdom regime and how we are seen by the international criminal fraternity as a soft touch. That obscene trade, which has no place in this century or the previous one, is profiting from that weakness. It is not fair or right that West Sussex has to bear the brunt of that.
There is one bit of good news, which is that so far this year, none of the girls in the care of West Sussex social services has been abducted. Long may that continue. I hope that raising the profile of the issue, as the media, West Sussex county council, Sussex police, colleagues from the county and I have done during recent months, has helped to get the message across to those criminals that we are on to them and will not tolerate such abuse of the system in our county. However, the risk remains that they may set up that obscene trade elsewhere in the United Kingdom—there is no reason why they could not do so. We must be aware of the problem across the
100WH
country, not just in West Sussex. We need concerted help from the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Secretary of State for International Development and, today, from the Minister responsible for social services, to prevent it in future. It is a truly complex problem that requires a properly joined-up approach from all those Departments to solve it. I hope that the Minister will recognise the seriousness of the issue and give those people working tirelessly within West Sussex social services and Sussex police some ray of hope that the problem will be addressed and will not rear its ugly head again in the future.
11.32 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing the debate. It is disgraceful that the problem should be occurring in this country in the 21st century and disappointing that the Home Office, in particular—although the problem covers the territory of other Departments—has declined to give attention and assistance to solve it. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, at the root of the problem is the need to change the law because the police, while aware of the problem and the culprits, have been unable to address the issue. I hope that the full airing of the facts given by my hon. Friend will cause the issue to be properly addressed.
I shall focus on the knock-on effects of the general underfunding of social services in West Sussex and especially of the increased child care obligations—although in many ways it is meaningless to separate the territory, much of the extra expense has been on child care. I repeat the tributes that have been paid to Councillor Barry Mack, the chairman of the social services committee, who has done a model job for the rest of the country, tackling major problems with inadequate resources, to John Dixon, the head of the department of social services in West Sussex, and to Lynne Chitty for her work on the particular problem of these poor girls. All three have played important roles in these problematic areas.
Social services funding fell by 7 per cent. In real terms in the six years from 1993–99. There has been a significant transfer of extra responsibilities from central Government to local government, especially in the area of child care, without the resources to finance it. There have been impressive efficiency savings, particularly in West Sussex, and transfers from other sources of funding. Part of the greater-than-desirable increase in council tax has gone to finance extra social services requirements.
In the past three years, however, services that formed part of the necessary care of the elderly in West Sussex and other local authorities have had to be withdrawn. The evidence is there to see. Residential homes are closing, which has a knock-on effect on acute hospitals and causes bed blocking. The Government have financed less than half the additional social security responsibilities placed on local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to the detailed report and survey undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association and the societies of county and municipal treasurers. Some

101WH
146 of the 150 local authorities approached responded to that survey. The report shows that although local authorities provide, on average, 9 per cent. More than the standard spending assessment, the average overspend continues at 2.1 per cent. For the current year, the effective subsidy required by local authorities as a result of the absence of central funding will rise to 11 per cent., and that comes after 2 per cent. efficiency savings. Some 85 per cent. Of local authorities expect to be forced to overspend.
As a result of the extremely effective reorganisation undertaken by Councillor Barry Mack and John Dixon, West Sussex has made savings of £40 million over the past three years in terms of improved efficiency, but that has gone nowhere near far enough to match the additional burdens that the authority is required to finance. The survey also showed that most social security departments are restructuring and withdrawing services again, particularly for the elderly.
In the first three-year settlement in 1998, large sums were effectively taken away from many social services departments, particularly in the south—where, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we have the particular problem of an ageing population—and transferred to other authorities, particularly in the north. The Government have funded West Sussex social services for less than half its extra responsibilities. In addition, the human trafficking tragedy has resulted in costs of £1 million being incurred.
Other social services departments have similar problems. The survey shows that 64 per cent. Of local authorities are having to overspend, particularly on child care services. There is tangible, evidence of all that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He said that the Government have funded West Sussex for only half the extra statutory responsibilities that the authority has been given in relation to social services. I am completely lost as to what he is talking about. For the benefit of the Chamber, will he describe what he thinks those extra social services responsibilities are?
Mr. Flight: The additional responsibilities, to which I will come later, are largely in the area of child care. The Minister has the report from the Local Government Association and the societies of county and municipal treasurers, which sets out the territory. However, if the Minister will be patient, I shall focus towards the end of my remarks on particular additional responsibilities that have been imposed and answer his question specifically.
The Department of Health has said that it expects local authorities to develop new intermediate care services using funding included in next year's SSA and part of the £900 million that was announced for the purpose in the national health plan. From the available information, that represents about £110 million nationally from the SSA and £1.5 million specifically for West Sussex. There has been a reduction in the base promoting independence grant and there are new funding responsibilities in capital threshold, amounting to £18,500. The disregard of property for three months and responsibilities for top-up, preserved rights and
102WH
residential care will cost another £1.2 million. There have been pressures for modernisation, including investment in IT and other infrastructure, but there has not been adequate funding through specific grants.
Mr. Hutton: Those are not new statutory responsibilities, which is how the hon. Gentleman described them. All those additional financial obligations, which we have required local authorities to meet next year, have been fully funded through their SSA or specific grants.
Mr. Flight: I do not think that the Minister's assertion is correct. He will be aware of strident correspondence between his Department and West Sussex social services on the issue. It is playing with words to ask whether "new" and "additional" mean the same thing. I accept the concept that the obligations are additional rather than new, but 15 per cent. Of the children involved are new and need to be cared for, and there is no extra money for them. However, I shall pull out the argument later, rather than citing the individual facts in specific responses.
Generally, on an entirely non-party political level, I am asking the Minister to listen to what the experts on the ground are saying. They are not making things up and do not seek to make political points. They are suffering an acute underfunding problem. Detailed figures have been produced, and I ask him to go through them, to go again to West Sussex and to understand clearly what people are saying. It is technical territory, as he is well aware. However, the reality of what people are saying is there to be witnessed.
To return to the general points, let me say that there is tangible evidence in other areas of rising vacancies for social workers, which is due in part to low pay and in part to the stress of the job. In addition, the number of residential nursing homes that provide home beds is collapsing, in part because social services cannot afford to pay economic rates and in part because of the additional regulatory burdens that are imposed on private sector home care, which results in the withdrawal of facilities.
The fabric of social care is in danger of breaking down with a potentially costly impact on acute services, in particular as regards bed blocking. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham commented, it would be an extreme problem for us if the Government were intent on scrapping the area cost adjustment.
Since 1997, West Sussex social security essential requirements have increased by £49 million. Government funding towards that has increased by £23 million. Key measures and key problems have resulted from the 15 per cent. increase to which I referred in the number of children being looked after. There is also a 1 per cent. Compounding increase in the number of people over 75 to be looked after.
On the national health front, additional tasks are required in terms of social services care in liaison with the national health service and the Department of Health. The local authority is expected to develop new partnership services. Cost efficiency savings of some £5 million have been contributed by West Sussex. In addition, as a result of the lack of central funding, the

103WH
subsidy from West Sussex county council has increased by 10 per cent., amounting to £10 million. For 2001–02, the figure worsens by a further £5 million. An extra £12 million is needed, but only an extra £7 million is being provided.
The most serious evidence of central underfunding is the rationing of services and its impact on the elderly. Those problems have been compounded by the difficulties experienced by private sector care homes as a result of the heavy-handed imposition of minimum regulatory standards. Many private sector homes have closed, causing a major loss of capacity, which has increased the burden on the local authority and acute hospitals. The lack of care facilities for the frail and elderly is becoming a serious problem in West Sussex. The Government are now proposing—desirably—full nursing care facilities for the elderly, but they have failed to make clear how that will be funded, or to say how a distinction will be drawn between nursing care that is funded and other aspects of personal care for the elderly.
The Government are supposed to be caring for social needs. It is unacceptable that funding for the elderly and the young should be inadequate, and that fundamental problems should be worsened by the fact that the local authority has been left to deal with the specific problem of human trafficking. There is some element of pork-barrel politics in transferring money from the north to the south, but the real issue is the need to provide adequate finance for a growing elderly population and for considerable growth in child care requirements.
I conclude by asking the Minister, first, to recognise the problem of human trafficking and, secondly, to go back to West Sussex and go through the figures, so that he will recognise that there is inadequate central funding for the growing requirements of local authorities in providing social services care.
11.47 am
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing the debate. I must admit that when I was preparing for the debate, I wondered why it was a health matter, because, as has been outlined, it is a multi-departmental issue. I have been somewhat horrified to find that the very important subject of the trafficking of young girls has been superseded, to some extent, by party political broadcast and diatribe against the Government's funding of social services.
I am not here to stick up for the Government. I have slightly more respect for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who was honest when he said that the funding problem stemmed from 1993. Obviously, the blame cannot be laid completely at the door of one Government, so it is a shame that the debate has been used to make political points.
Mr. Loughton: That is slightly unfair. The first 80 per cent. of my speech related entirely to the problem of trafficking. The debate was brought home specifically to West Sussex because the problem, in this form, is unique to the area. It compounds a problem of which the
104WH
Minister is only too well aware. It is entirely fair, and there is nothing party political about it. The problem is happening as we speak.
Sandra Gidley: I agree that the hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time on the issue, but I still feel that the overall debate so far has been too heavily weighted towards the issue of social services funding. There are problems with social services funding, but this is not the time to discuss them.
I wish that the point about our being a soft touch for asylum seekers had not been made. Britain is not a particularly soft touch. On the radio this morning, evidence was provided for our being at exactly the same place in the league for numbers of asylum seekers entering the country as we were four years ago. It is a shame that another chance of a cheap political point has been taken.
Dr. Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not being a very soft touch to receive unaccompanied, sometimes very young, children at a port of entry and to see that they are properly cared for and handed to social services?
Sandra Gidley: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I wanted next to refer to people who have been referred to as young women, whereas in fact the vast majority of those asylum seekers are children. I hope that I speak for everyone in the Chamber in wishing that those asylum seekers had stayed in this country. I hope that I shall never be quoted out of context on that point. The disappearance of those children means that they have had to go on to a life that no one here would wish for anyone.
The current state of affairs is a problem for West Sussex county council, which I congratulate on its thorough approach. Other councils may have similar problems, of which we are unaware, and may not have delved into them in such depth.
I pay particular tribute to Lynne Chitty. An article in Guardian Unlimited states:
"She and her family have been threatened. Disturbingly, half a dozen of the young people fitting the "profile" are working with the gangs, corrupted by money and power. Chitty knows, and they"—
the gangs—
"know she knows."
It is rare today for people to be so positive, and so determined to do something about a problem, that they put themselves and their families in danger.
The problem of trafficking generally is discussed by the Home Office in the document "Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences". That document cites UK research estimating that between 142 and 1,420 women a year were trafficked into the United Kingdom to work in the sex industry. I consulted a wealth of newspaper cuttings before the debate and I would be surprised if the figure were not even higher. The problem is huge and it is up to all Departments to do something about it.
As has been mentioned, there is no specific law against trafficking, but relevant offences exist under a range of different laws. It has already been pointed out that it is

105WH
difficult to get convictions and we should note that, on conviction, sentences are low—commonly 18 months. That is nothing if a large, international criminal organisation is involved. The law has few effective provisions on pimping or sexual exploitation of children, so there is a huge problem that needs to be tackled at several levels.
My worry is about how we can be sure that the problem affects only West Sussex. Yesterday in Southampton, a huge police exercise uncovered not asylum seekers but a great many illegal immigrants. I do not know whether there could have been, among that number of people, young children who disappeared. Social services simply did not know about those people and would not have been able to help. I believe that the problem is larger than has been highlighted. I should like the Minister to give an undertaking that he will liaise with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, because the problem should be attacked on number of levels. The Home Office should look at the legislation, which can be done fairly soon under "Setting the Boundaries—Reforming the Law on Sex Offences", and the Foreign Office needs to consider how public information can be developed in countries such as Nigeria, because young people do not know what it is that they are coming to.
In those countries, people approach girls from poor families with the promise of good jobs. The girls think that they are coming here to be maids, or even to reach the dizzy heights of a supermarket worker, and their families think that they are going to a safe place in a good country where they will have a good life. They do not know what their children are coming to. We need to ensure that that does not continue. We have an international responsibility, and I hope that the Minister will take a lead in co-ordinating our response.
11.56 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: This is a grave subject and it is good that we should debate it in Westminster Hall. All who have listened are grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) has managed to secure the debate, although horrified by what we have heard. The subject is clearly cross-departmental. As I was preparing for the debate, I was all too aware, as the Minister must be, that a range of departmental Ministers should be here because, if the problem is to be tackled effectively, they need to work together. There is no room for party politics in dealing with it. It is an appalling situation, and our country is on the butt of it. It is an iniquitous trade, unacceptable in this day and age, and we need to act effectively together to stop it.
It is important to place it in the context of social services because the authorities in certain counties, purely because of their location, are particularly affected. It is a problem for Kent, which bears a particular burden, and for West Sussex. Perhaps it is not such a problem for the Minister's constituency or for mine, but that could change. With an airport in one's constituency one might well find that one has the gateway to this kind of trade.
Dr. Tonge: It is a problem for my constituency, although not on the scale suffered by West Sussex. We
106WH
are close to Heathrow and our social services budget has had to stretch to cater for an enormous number of unaccompanied children.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She demonstrates the point of having the debate. Circumstances are placing a burden on certain local authorities and the Government should respond for the sake of everyone—for the unfortunate women and children who are being brought in illegally and for those suffering the knock-on effect, whose services may be adversely affected, particularly the elderly of whom there are so many in West Sussex and in Kent. The logic is irrefutable. We are not dealing with hearsay. There is a clear pattern of trade. I invite the Minister to consider why Britain has been chosen as the gateway for a clearly established route of illegal trade that leads to Italy.
The shocking fact is that 2,500 young Nigerians are estimated to be working in prostitution in Turin. Sadly, Italy has turned into a capital destination for this trade.
Sandra Gidley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: I should like to proceed. We want to hear from the Minister, and the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to make her intervention. Our borders are not contiguous with Italy. If I were a criminal involved in this trade, why would I choose to come through Britain? It would make a great deal more sense, geographically, to go for a country whose border is contiguous with Italy.
It is difficult to get away from the common sense that tells us all that Britain is chosen because it is easier to enter.
Sandra Gidleyrose—
Mrs. Spelman: No, I will not give way. Such a fact needs to be addressed urgently and internationally. The route for the girls is through the gateway at Gatwick, through Belgium—for some reason, which needs to be established—and on to Italy. There is a clear case to work together and to shut down that route. The problem starts through a gateway in this country and the Government cannot ignore that fact.
The television documentary, "Lost Girls", which I urge the Minister to watch if he has not already had the opportunity to do so, shows clearly the intense frustration of West Sussex social services. Its officers work in the rapid response team at Gatwick with immigration officials, but find repeatedly that no effective legal instrument exists to tackle the problem. An example is shown of the rapid response team being alerted to a woman entering Gatwick with an 11-year-old child, who she claims is her daughter. Social services knew that the woman had entered the country months earlier with other children of similar age. However, the law is so weak on that point that, unless the 11-year-old denied that the woman was her mother, there was nothing that the immigration official could do. It is obvious to all of us that there needs urgently to be a change in the law. I accept that such a change applies to the Home Office, but perhaps the Minister can bring his influence to bear on a Department that so far seems not to be listening clearly to the voice of real concern that has been raised by my colleagues in West Sussex.

107WH
The Minister should not underestimate the spiritual aspects of such cases. The girls really believe that they will die if they break their promises to the traffickers. As the documentary showed, it takes specialist counselling resources to help to tackle the beliefs of such young women, rather than the everyday resources of social services departments. I invite him to consider the cost of protecting the women in foster care and the patent failure to do that effectively. As far as we know, 40 young women have disappeared. The resources currently put into the protection process could be used more effectively if the Government were prepared to consider more secure accommodation for them.
Will the Minister think of the foster parents, for example? The documentary highlighted a case of a foster family who have twice had a young woman abducted from their home. It is clear that there is inadequate protection. If 40 young British women were abducted from foster homes in a local authority area, it would be a scandal and the problem would be tackled. Why are such vulnerable young African women offered such inadequate protection?
I know that the Minister has been to West Sussex. I commend him for that. He has heard evidence at first hand from those who are under pressure in social services. However, the assistance that has been offered to West Sussex social services is inadequate. That is why I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Kent and West Sussex are in a special position that requires particular attention because of the extra burden that they have to bear. If he or I had Gatwick airport in our constituency, with such clear evidence of such an iniquitous trade in young woman and such patent evidence of failure to protect them adequately, we would be asking no less of the Government. I urge him to respond specifically to the problems that face West Sussex social services.
12.4 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), not only on securing this debate but on many of his points, with which all hon. Members would find it difficult to disagree. I especially agree with him that such exploitation of young people is a loathsome trade—it exploits the innocence and vulnerability of young people, which is deplorable, but it also strips them of their childhood, which is unforgivable. We need to tackle that evil trade, and I shall try to set out as clearly as possible the ways in which we are trying to do so.
I agree strongly with much of what the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said about the need to address the problem not just as a social services responsibility—although, clearly, social services departments are in the front line—but as part of a co-ordinated programme of work across Governments and between Governments, which is an important element of tackling the problem. Unfortunately, it is not a new trade, and we are aware of certain patterns of development in the trade that we need to tackle. I hope to reassure her and other hon. Members about some of the measures that are being taken to tackle the problems that have been mentioned.
108WH
Hon. Members who contributed to the debate also commented on the financing of social services departments. I wane to correct some inaccuracies, which were especially apparent in the contributions of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), about the Government's record on social services funding. I am afraid that some of their statements in that regard were simply not true.
I was surprised by what the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said about enhancing the security and well-being of children who come to this country as asylum seekers by detaining them in secure accommodation. I was taken aback that she was asking us to do that—but perhaps that was not what she was saying. I am aware that the Conservative party's policy is that asylum seekers should be detained in detention centres, but I did not realise that that applied to children, too. Will she clarify that position?
Mrs. Spelman: I should be happy to do so. It is clear that 40 young women have disappeared from foster homes. If they had been in secure reception centres, which might have the specialist skills to counsel them on spiritual aspects, they would have been safer.
Mr. Hutton: It seems that the hon. Lady is saying that young children who come as asylum seekers should all be detained in detention centres, which is not what I understood the Conservative position to be. That is an interesting issue, to which I am sure we shall return. If she is concerned about English children who might be vulnerable to such risks, presumably the same logic would apply to English children in care. Does she also want to clarify that position?
Mrs. Spelman: I think that the Minister would accept that, currently, there is a clear trade from Nigeria, through Britain, to Italy. Given the number of abductions, there is a special case for providing secure accommodation and appropriate counselling support to those young women, who are clearly not safe enough at present. There is a specific trade from west Africa to the continent of Europe.
Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is certainly the case. I want to say something about how West Sussex is dealing with those problems, which the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have identified. I take it that she is saying that young children who come here seeking asylum should be detained in detention centres—
Mr. Loughton: If there were secure reception centres, in which those children could be securely accommodated and helped with the various problems identified by my hon. Friend, does the Minister think that the trade would still be happening in this country, and if it were still happening, would those children be more at risk of being abducted? Surely he would agree that if such reception centres were introduced, the trade would disappear overnight.
Mr. Hutton: I agree that there is a strong case for looking at the security and well-being of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country. However, I am not sure that the solution, on

109WH
which the hon. Members have apparently agreed, is to build secure detention centres and keep young people, indefinitely, in those types of environments. If he is not saying that young children should be kept indefinitely in detention centres, he and I can probably agree that the best way to deal with those problems is to consider the security arrangements that apply to young people coming into care. I do not agree that the right way forward is to build new detention centres—
Mrs. Spelman: That is not what we said.
Mr. Hutton: It is what the hon. Members have been saying. It is the wrong thing to do.
Mr. Loughton rose—
Mr. Hutton: I will not give way again because I want to make further progress on the other issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
We must always keep in mind the children's welfare and well-being. The solutions that the hon. Gentleman and others have proposed would require changes in primary legislation, and I do not think that that is the best way to proceed. However, I accept that he has raised genuine concerns and I will try to address some of them.
The hon. Gentleman correctly made the link between child trafficking and young people in the care of West Sussex county council. West Sussex social services became aware of the pattern of young people going missing in 1997, and it was the first local authority to draw attention to the issue. It has long been a receiving authority for a significant number of asylum seekers, because of Gatwick airport. However, his statement that West Sussex is second only to Kent in terms of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children for whom it cares is incorrect: about 10 other local authorities in the country care for more such children.
At present, West Sussex social services department is caring for 141 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Since 1990, 479 such children have been referred to it. As the hon. Gentleman said, in recent years, some children have gone missing. The first such disappearance was in 1995, and the second in 1996. Seven young people went missing in 1997, and 11 in 1998. The figure peaked at 23 in 1999, and last year there were 21 disappearances. He correctly stated that no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have gone missing from West Sussex social services department this year.
The majority of young people who go missing are aged 16 or 17, although the two youngest were aged 12 years and five months and 13 years and nine months. There is no discernable pattern with regard to the length of time that they are resident in the United Kingdom before they go missing: their lengths of stay vary from one day to 145 days, although 65 par cent. arrived less than a month before they disappeared. There has also been an increasing trend for such young people to arrive and disappear in pairs or groups.
There appears to be a discrepancy between the children's country of origin and their reported country of origin. Until July 1999, the great majority of them reported their nationality as Nigerian. Since then, a
110WH
similar majority is claiming to originate from Sierra Leone, but it has become evident that most of them are also Nigerian.
All of the children have been girls, except for a group of four Ghanaian boys who arrived and left between March and July 2000, and three Chinese who arrived and left between September and December 2000. It is believed that those groups of young people are the victims of organised crime, but there is no connection with the west African criminal network that appears to control the movements of the Nigerian girls.
Since 1990, 64 young people have gone missing out of a total of 479 who were referred to West Sussex social services as unaccompanied young asylum seekers. These disappearances are a cause of great concern. However, in West Sussex, no such young people have disappeared since December last year, and no west African young person has gone missing since October 2000.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that social services can also face difficulties in determining the identity and age of such young people. It is probable that some of them had been given false identities to help them evade detection. It is also suspected that some of them had falsely claimed to be younger than 18 years of age so that they could receive care and assistance directly from local authorities. I also understand that there is hard and anecdotal evidence that some of the young people who go missing are being trafficked to mainland Europe to be sexually exploited. Some of them know that this is their intended destiny when they arrive in the UK, but tragically others believe that they are coming to the UK to work or receive training.
My concerns about the matter have led me to seek further information about the circumstances in which such young people go missing. I understand that they tend to be in their later teens, so it is inevitable that, once they are placed with foster carers, they have ample opportunity to disappear. Some of them might have been given contact numbers for people who will assist them in leaving. Others choose to go missing because they have made contact with members of their extended family who are already resident in the UK.
The suggestion that some of the young people go missing in suspicious circumstances is particularly worrying. West Sussex social services has, rightly, worked closely from the outset with Sussex police to try to prevent them from leaving care, and to ascertain their whereabouts when they have gone missing. It is because of the excellent work of West Sussex social services with the police and other agencies that the risks to the young people have become more apparent. The police have worked closely with Interpol, with other police forces in the United Kingdom and abroad and with the immigration services.
West Sussex social services, the police and the immigration services have built a profile of the characteristics of young people who are deemed to be at risk of going missing and who therefore require enhanced protection. In turn, the profile has helped the local authority to develop a safer system of care for asylum-seeking children—I think that was the point to which the hon. Member for Meriden referred.
Young people who are deemed to be at risk of disappearing are housed with foster families or in designated safe houses that are staffed 24 hours a day,

111WH
and they receive added supervision and support from properly trained staff. Some foster families are specially recruited through an independent agency. The action to prevent young people from going missing begins by using profiling to identify those who are most at risk. It continues by using people with similar cultural backgrounds to assist in the reception of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, by using safe houses that are staffed 24 hours a day for those who are thought to be most at risk and by avoiding isolated rural placements. That is a far cry from building new secure training centres.
Mr. Loughton: In the Minister's 11 minutes, he has quoted facts that have already been stated and that he could have gleaned from various briefs from the Home Office or West Sussex social services. Does he believe that the majority of the 40 girls from Nigeria who disappeared ended up in prostitution in north Italy? His comments make it sound like he does not believe that.
Mr. Hutton: I think that it is probable that a large number of the girls have ended up in the deplorable trade that the hon. Gentleman and others have described, although I would not like to say how many because I have no evidence—nor does he. He said that I was quoting facts that I could have gleaned from other sources, or that he has given. That is not so. I am trying to explain sensibly how West Sussex social services are trying to respond to the concerns. There is a way of targeting resources and protection measures towards the children who are most at risk. That is a sensible approach. Detaining all the young people in new, purpose-built secure detention centres, as the hon. Member for Meriden suggested, is not the correct way to deal with the matter.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although every effort is made to ensure the safety and security of the young people, none of the foster care placements is secure, in that the young people do not have their freedom of movement substantially impaired. They are not prisoners or young offenders, and it would not be possible to place the young people in secure accommodation without the approval of the courts. In practice, if a young person decides to abscond and has an outside contact who is prepared to help to remove that person from the area, or the control and care of the local authority, it is difficult for the social services to prevent that.
We must understand the reasons why young people go missing, and we should do all we can to ensure that sex traffickers do not coerce them. Social services therefore work closely with Sussex police, immigration, the Refugee Council and the national missing persons helpline to establish protocols, to investigate the wider picture and to try to track down missing young people. Efforts to identify and to find younger people are hampered by poor or missing paperwork and the restricted ability of the country of origin to assist with inquiries. The hon. Member for Romsey is correct to say that the matter must be addressed internationally in order to make substantial progress.
I am impressed by the work of West Sussex social services to recognise the vulnerability of the young people and to ensure that those who are at risk of
112WH
coercion by sex traffickers are given additional protection to ensure their safety as far as possible. My officials will take forward work to share learning and good practice and to ensure that the work that has been done by West Sussex social services is shared nationally with other authorities who look after asylum-seeking children in the same manner.
Although no west African young person has disappeared in recent months, West Sussex social services continue to provide additional care for children who fit the profile. The fact that there have been no further disappearances this year provides concrete evidence that the action taken by West Sussex social services and other agencies may have been effective in preventing young people from going missing. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will welcome that.
The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Arundel and South Downs advanced a substantial argument about funding and how central Government fund local authorities that accommodate many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the costs faced by local authorities. I must point out to him and to other Conservative Members that the previous Administration provided no additional resources for West Sussex county council to meet the extra costs associated with looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—no additional support whatsoever.
Mr. Loughtonrose—
Mr. Hutton: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs had the good grace to recognise that the problem did not start on 1 April 1997. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham fell into the trap of assuming that all the funding problems started from that date—he was wrong.
Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No, I will not.
The situation has now substantially improved, thanks to the changes that the Government have made to the local government special grant system. West Sussex's 1998–99 claim for £587,000 for associated costs was met in full. In 1999–2000, central Government provided more than £1.1 million funding to West Sussex to meet in full—I stress that point—the claim that the county council submitted to the Department of Health. Awards for the financial year 2000–01 are being assessed, and I understand that the council has submitted a claim for more than £2 million As West Sussex social services is one of the authorities that supports on average more than 100 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per week, it qualifies for the higher rate of central Government-funded financial support. This year, a total of £85 million has been made available to local authorities to help them meet the costs of looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. So the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Government are

113WH
somehow sitting on our hands and not responding to the financial pressure felt by West Sussex is completely and utterly false.
Mr. Loughton: Does not the Minister agree with the figure cited by West Sussex of at least £1 million for the additional cost of the problem? Will he therefore guarantee that that £1 million cost will be met in full, especially given his comments about the extra security features that are now, I am glad to hear, being added to social services department care homes for such children? There is an on-going and increasing cost. Will he guarantee that that amount will be met in full? If not, he is not even remotely funding the cost to social services of the problem, the existence of which he has admitted.
Mr. Hutton: Let us be clear. In the past two years, we have met West Sussex social service' claim for the cost of looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in full. It claimed an amount; we paid it in full. I am not aware of the extra £1 million to which the hon. Gentleman refers, because West Sussex social services department has not sent me any request for £1 million in unspecified additional costs. There is a procedure for claiming under the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children's grant; the county council has gone through that process and submitted a claim for about £2 million. That grant is administered by the Home Office, so my colleagues in the Home Office will decide the appropriate level of payment. As I said, because of the large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children that the county council looks after, it qualifies for the enhanced level of grant.
Painful though it is for the hon. Gentleman, who has been going on about funding, he must confront the fact that when his party was in government, no additional resources at all were made available to West Sussex county council for the additional costs that it was then incurring looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman's point—that the Government are not doing as much as we can to support local authorities such as West Sussex—is completely and utterly fatuous.
Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Hutton: No. We are doing more than the Conservative Government did during their term of office.
I must also deal with the point about funding raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. West Sussex personal social services' standard spending assessment has increased by more than 25 per cent. since we took office. The hon. Gentleman made the fair point that that may not be enough. We are getting extra resources into social services as quickly as we possibly can. Of course, that must be dependent on the general state of public finances and the health and well-being of the economy. The hon. Gentleman must understand that—I understand that he speaks for his party on finance matters. He and the hon Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke for half an hour about the need to spend more on social services. That is good. In that case, he should have a conversation with the hon. Member for Meriden. As he will know, his party has
114WH
consistently refused to say that it will match the level of spending on social services that the Government are making available.
Mr. Loughton rose—
Mr. Hutton: No, I will not give way. It is time that the hon. Gentleman addressed the reality. I know that Conservative Members do not like it up them. [Interruption.] Everyone heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution. The hon. Member for Romsey, who did a very good job, would probably back me up if I asked her to. The hon. Gentleman said that the real problem was that we were not funding social services adequately. When Conservatives are confronted with their record on the issue, and their conspicuous failure even to match the present level of spending that this Government have committed to social services—
Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: No.
Most people of good will would regard that as party political posturing, which devalues the other important issues that have been raised.
It is probably irrelevant to try to restore an element of consensus in this debate, because, having dispensed with the hon. Gentleman's false arguments about funding, we must now examine criminal law. He and the hon. Member for Romsey were right to say that trafficking is currently not a specific criminal offence under British law. Although he did not mention it, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that last year the Home Office issued a consultation paper examining ways in which to reform the range of offences that cover sex crimes—I am glad to see that he has it. One of the proposals was to establish a new criminal offence of trafficking. The consultation period on those proposals ended in March. The Home Office and my colleagues throughout Government are reviewing the responses, and we will introduce proposals in due course.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is an offence under section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 to remove a child under 16 from someone who has lawful control of that child? That provision would clearly extend to West Sussex social services as the corporate parent of the children in their care. The offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years, so, with respect, it is not the case that there are currently no criminal offences that might be committed in the circumstances that we have discussed.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that in all the cases that have been mentioned, a successful criminal prosecution would depend on the availability of credible and reliable evidence to sustain that prosecution and make it worthwhile to proceed, which may be a problem. There is a loophole. I accept his argument about trafficking, and we are consulting on proposals to deal with that problem. However, it is wrong to suggest—as he may have done inadvertently—that criminal law as it is currently constituted is completely powerless to deal with any of the dimensions of the problem that he has identified.
Mr. Loughton: The Minister knows that the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Child Abduction Act 1984

115WH
are wholly inadequate. If they were not, why has not a single prosecution been brought to deal with the problem? Why do Sussex police and other police forces that deal with the problem believe that the law is woefully inadequate and incapable of bringing criminal charges against the traffickers?
Mr. Hutton: I acknowledge that point, and my colleagues in the Home Office have made it clear that we must revisit the area of law that covers sex offences. That is why there is a consultation proposal to establish the type of offence for which the hon. Gentleman and others are calling. We must weigh up the responses. Whether a particular prosecution is launched in any given set of circumstances is not a matter for Ministers to comment on, nor is it proper to speculate as to why prosecutions have not been brought. Those are matters for the prosecuting authorities. The hon. Gentleman is a mature individual—although he did not always show that today—and he knows that it is sometimes difficult for a prosecuting authority to pull together the substantial evidence necessary to support a prosecution. That is why we are consulting on how we can strengthen and improve criminal law in such cases.
We can have either a serious or a silly debate about this issue. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is repeating some rather silly points that have been acknowledged as being a problem and which we are trying to solve. He cannot have it both ways. I have acknowledged that there is a problem; we are trying to find ways to plug the loopholes that he and others have identified, and that is the sensible way to proceed. However, to suggest—as he did—that the Home Office is doing nothing to deal with the problems is wrong, and does not to advance our understanding of the arguments.
This is a serious issue. We are trying to deal with the problem. We are working closely with West Sussex social services to find a sensible way of enhancing the children's security. We are providing significant additional resources for social services, especially to deal with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. A new grant of £85 million is being disbursed across local authorities this year. We are also trying to strengthen criminal law and work across international boundaries to enhance the safety and well being of the young people. They are at risk, and it is our responsibility to provide better levels of security. We are determined to do that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): I invite hon. Members who do not want to stay for the next debate to leave quickly and quietly.

Armed Service Pilots
12.29 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this short debate on the recruitment, training and retention of pilots in our armed services. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is present to reply.
Our armed forces have a tremendous history of achievement. Members of Parliament from all parties are anxious that the standards of our forces are high and maintained. The people in the forces are vital in achieving that, as the Government acknowledged in their strategic defence review in 1998, which contained an entire chapter on policy for people. The Select Committee on Defence followed that up with an important report in February.
I shall discuss the people involved; military personnel, civil servants at the Ministry of Defence and civilian back-up people. They are the crucial element in our armed forces. In all our modern forces, people are extremely important. The Army requires many helicopter pilots, as does the Navy, which also requires fast jet pilots. The Royal Air Force, in particular, requires helicopter pilots, multi-engine aircraft pilots and fast jet pilots. I shall concentrate my remarks on the need to sustain an adequate supply of highly trained fast jet pilots. I shall rely a great deal on information published by the National Audit Office last September in a useful report entitled "Ministry of Defence: Training New Pilots".
The first point in the report was that the Government inherited a problem. There is no question that there was a shortage, but I shall not spend a lot of time on statistics. The NAO report contains many interesting statistics and graphs. The report covers the five years from 1994 to 1999, and makes the point that, over that period, the services required about 250 pilots. In fact, the number achieved on average fell short by 45 each year, or about 18 per cent. There was a significant shortfall in the availability of trained pilots over that period. The report refers to "an acute shortage" of fast jet pilots on the front line. I hope that we shall constructively deal with that matter in the short time available to us this morning.
The number of pilots available for operational service depends on recruitment, training and retention, and I shall say something about all three of those aspects. On recruitment, almost half the RAF trainee pilots come from university air squadrons. Others gained flying experience through the Air Training Corps. Most of us have probably had some contact with one or other of those organisations in our constituencies.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in his place. It is common ground that those organisations need to be supported, nourished and encouraged. They are important in attracting new recruits to the RAF. The NAO report pointed out that about 20 per cent. of trainee pilots had no previous flying experience.
Of the three aspects of recruitment, training and retention, recruitment has not been the major problem. I wish to toss a factor into the debate to give the

117WH
Secretary of State a chance to comment on it if he wishes. Should more women be recruited to be trained as pilots? The Select Committee report published in February homed in on the whole matter of such a policy as set out in the strategic defence review, but I do not believe that recruitment is the main area where most action is needed.
The National Audit Office report went into training in some depth. It is obvious that the success rate must be an important factor. Being a fast jet pilot is a demanding profession. The report points out that, for every 100 new trainees, 48 will be expected to complete fast jet training. Some trainees who do not succeed in becoming operational fast jet pilots become pilots of helicopters and other aircraft. However, given such high and exacting standards—which no one would want to lower—it is inevitable that there will be a high wastage rate. I do not believe that a lot can be done in that area, although we should keep examining the training procedures and ensuring that they are as good as possible.
An interesting point came out of the National Audit Office report. It concluded that a major factor in the shortfall of pilots over the period that they studied was the time that it took to train them. The time usually allocated for training was about three years, but in practice it took five. That had the effect of reducing the number of operational pilots who became available each year. The report said that that also had the effect of reducing the time for which pilots were available for service. The time taken to train a pilot was an important factor in the shortfall.
To its credit, the Royal Air Force has been considering the matter. In his evidence to the Select Committee in November, Air Vice Marshal Ian Corbitt, the chief executive of the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency, said that some of the difficulties with training courses that had resulted in the pilots taking five years rather than three were being dealt with. That is certainly good news.
My next point is slightly tangential, but like many hon. Members, over the years I have taken considerable interest in the development of the Eurofighter, not least because of the important industrial interest that Edinburgh has in it. We are on the threshold of a major historic change in respect of fast jet pilots. The Eurofighter will come into service next year, and over the next decade or probably longer, we shall see a transition to heavy dependence on it. I should welcome the Secretary of State commenting on the training for the Eurofighter.
Evidence, both from the report and from our experience of talking to people in the services, suggests that we should direct our attention towards retention. The major factor is the attraction of the growing civil aviation sector. That is a problem of success—the economy has been growing well, so people's living standards have been rising. Not only is the economy growing but air traffic of all kinds—commercial, passenger and holiday traffic—has been growing even faster. Commercial airlines therefore have a huge need for trained personnel.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on raising that
118WH
urgent and important issue. Is he aware that, two weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State four questions? I asked him to set out the anticipated shortfalls in fast jet pilots and single seat fast jet pilots for each of the next five years. I asked him how many fast jet pilots in the RAF and the Royal Navy are combat ready. I asked what the current shortages are of trained pilots for the Sea Harrier, Harrier GR7, Tornado F3, Tornado GR1, Tornado GR4 and the Jaguar. I also asked what is the maximum output of fast jet pilots from RAF Valley. To each of those questions, I received, yesterday, the answer, "I will answer shortly."
Surely it would be a terrible indictment of the Government's fundamental competence if they did not know the answer to those questions and could not acquire them in two weeks. Therefore, should there not be much more than a suspicion that the present situation is a good deal more alarming than the right hon. Gentleman and I suspect? The Government may be trying to cover up the issue, without answering such vital questions, until after the election.
Dr. Strange Dr. Strange: I cannot accept that, but we are fortunate that the Secretary of State is present in this Chamber, and I am sure that he will try to thrown light on this matter.
However, all hon. Members agree that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. One cannot wave a magic wand; whatever is done to address the matter will take time. I do not believe that there is any question of a cover-up; indeed, the National Audit Office report was useful. A great deal of evidence was presented to the Select Committee, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied. That evidence relates to recruitment as whole, not just that of pilots, in depth.
Clearly, the pressure from commercial airlines will not go away. It will probably be there indefinitely. It is a challenge that must be addressed. Indeed, someone in the RAF said to me the other day that there is evidence that the exodus from the RAF, including that of pilots, mirrored recruitment by civil airlines and their policies at the time.
My other point on retention, which is an obvious and basic one, is that a trained fast jet pilot is a hugely valuable resource. I do not want to go into details on the figures, but it costs more than £million—perhaps as much as £million—to train a fast jet pilot to the point at which he is capable of operational service. On that ground alone, it is vital that we secure the maximum service from the individuals concerned as pilots.
To their credit, the Government have already started to address the issue. The announcement on pay a few months ago included a further two financial incentives. Some people say that, in terms of salary, the Government cannot compete with the commercial airlines, and that they should not try to do so. I do not accept that. Of course the commercial airlines will always be able to pay high salaries, but financial incentives have a part to play. I put it no stronger than that. I am not saying that the Government can pay the same money as the commercial airlines, and I congratulate the Government on having introduced several measures to address the problem. If one reads the Select Committee report, it suggests that the Government's response has been radical. Certainly, it is

119WH
a start; it is too early to say what effect the incentives will have. If the Secretary of State has information on the matter, that would be helpful. The important point is that, to his credit, the Secretary of State has ensured that action is beginning to be taken to tackle the problem.
The Government's strategic defence review made it clear that our forces were more likely to be taking part in overseas deployments. Peacekeeping and humanitarian activities are facts of our modern world. Since the general election in 1997, we have seen such deployments in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor and northern and southern Iraq. There has been no shortage of challenges facing the Government in relation to the use and role of our armed services. It is clear that the shortage of pilots has not inhibited the Government from meeting such challenges. We are all proud of the role that our forces have played.
It is important to clarify that there is no evidence that the shortage of pilots has had an adverse effect on the quality of the contribution of our forces in such deployments. That is not to say, however, that there is not a problem. There has been a danger of overstretch. There is a worry that excessive demands could be made on our pilots. We must avoid that. The quality of life and the time between deployments are important factors to bear in mind. A shortage of pilots means that the time that they can spend with their families between deployments is much shorter. Let us face it: by definition, a fast jet pilot is at the peak of his productive ability. He would often have a young family, so it is important that we face the matter in the round and follow through the changes and initiatives that the Government have already taken. I congratulate them on that. We must create a climate in which we can retain the fast jet pilots for longer than we are doing at present. I suggest that securing a full complement of highly trained pilots is a challenge that has not only been faced by the present Government but will face the next Government after the election.
12.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strange) for the opportunity to debate such an important issue. It is one in which I have taken a close personal interest.
The challenge of manning operational squadrons and the services' flying training organisations with sufficient pilots against the pool from the civilian airlines is not new. It goes back even before the constructive National Audit Office report to which my right hon. Friend referred. As long ago as 1988, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body drew attention to the issue. It is a problem that is facing most NATO air forces and many other air forces throughout the world. The situation has been deteriorating slowly for some time.
The current position is that on 1 March 2001 we had about 196 fewer pilots in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy than we would ideally like. That translates into about 79 empty cockpits at the front line in relation to 42 RAF fast jets, 22 support helicopters, five Sea Harriers and 10 Royal Navy helicopters. The Army had
120WH
a surplus of 38 junior officer pilots and a small deficit of non-commissioned officer pilots. The figures change all the time and depend on the definitions that are used, which is why I can assure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that there has been no cover-up. His questions will be answered at 3.30 this afternoon.
The deficit is forecast to continue for several years, mainly because of the pressures of a global shortage of pilots arising from the sustained growth in the civilian airline sector. However, we are not complacent about the matter and have taken steps to address the problem across the complete spectrum of requirement, training and retention. Yet more work is in hand, and as recently as 13 March, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Minister for the Armed Forces informed the House that a comprehensive review of aircrew retention had been commissioned to report in the autumn. Three main factors must be in harmony if the services are to be manned with sufficient pilots with the right balance of experience. I will deal with each in turn. I begin with the requirement—that is, how many pilots do the services need?
The requirement for pilots is generated largely by the number of aircraft on the front line. It also reflects how those aircraft are expected to be employed to meet their operational task. Obviously, the more intensively we plan to fly the aircraft, the greater the pilot-aircraft ratio will need to be. Those factors were scrutinised carefully during the strategic defence review, and I am satisfied that we have the balance right.
Another factor that drives the requirement for pilots is the need to fill certain ground appointments with personnel who have had first-hand experience of flying aircraft and of air operations. Such posts include those in headquarters concerned with aspects of planning or commanding air operations, some flight safety appointments, and equipment capability appointments for procurement of new systems. Additionally, some personnel are required for training posts. Appointments which fall into that category have been rigorously scrutinised, and as a consequence about 500 RAF posts have been disestablished or will in future be filled by members of the operations support or other ground branches. We are therefore making the most effective use of our pilots' skills and training.
The next factor to be considered is the provision of an adequate flow of newly qualified pilots from the training organisations. I am delighted to say that recruitment is buoyant and that for the year ending 30 March 2001, the RAF met 100 per cent. of its pilot recruitment target. The Royal Navy and the Army achieved similar success rates. Military flying is especially challenging and the services rightly demand the highest standards of their pilots. To ensure that those standards can be met, careful selection is undertaken and appropriate training given. That is a lengthy and expensive process—as my right hon. Friend mentioned—but a vital one if our aircrew are to continue to operate successfully in demanding operational theatres.
The flying training pipeline is both long and complex. It varies depending on the background of the trainee— those who enter via university air squadrons, for example, will already have some basic flying experience; those who enter directly from school are likely to have none. I will describe the route followed by trainees

121WH
destined to fly fast jets, because that is the most lengthy and demanding training profile, and the one on which my right hon. Friend concentrated.
All RAF student pilots start the training process at the RAF college at Cranwell. There they undertake a 24-week initial officer training course. The Navy undertakes similar training at the Britannia Royal Naval college at Dartmouth and the Army at Sandhurst for their officers—NCO pilots are recruited only from within the service. After successful completion of that course, flying training commences and all direct entrants undertake elementary flying training, except for recruits who have already completed that stage as members of a university air squadron. Elementary training involves 62 hours of flying and ground instruction, and gives the student the skills needed to fly safely.
Those students selected for training for fast jets then undertake basic fast jet training at RAF Linton-on-Ouse on the turbo-prop Tucano aircraft. The basic training includes 131 hours of flying and is a lead-in to the 107-hour advanced tactical training course. Following conversion flying on Hawk aircraft, students master advanced flying techniques, such as high-speed low-level flying, which is vital to the effective performance of operational tasks. Students are also trained in air tactics and undertake weapons training for the first time. That training is undertaken at RAF Valley in Anglesey but 20 students each year go to the NATO flying training school in Canada. During the advanced training phase, the successful students are awarded their wings.
Before the new fast jet pilot can he assessed as suitable for operations he—or, increasingly she, to respond directly to my right hon. Friend—needs to undertake a further period of training at one of the strike command operational conversion units or, in the case of Royal Navy pilots, the 899 Naval Air Squadron Sea Harrier conversion unit. There is an OCU for each fast jet type and at the OCU the pilot learns to fly and operate the specific aircraft type—not just the different flying characteristics of the aircraft and its unique equipment but the tactics particular to the type.
For example, a Tornado GR1 pilot will learn advanced evasion skills, automatic terrain following, electronic counter-measures and advanced air-to-ground weaponry techniques. The training for the more demanding and capable aircraft types, such as the Tornado GR1, typically takes just over four years and in their report last year on flying training, the National Audit Commission assessed the cost as about £6 million.
There is a limit on the number of newly qualified pilots who can be absorbed by the front line without impairing operational efficiency, and it is critical that the planned training output should be met, because it is almost impossible to increase output sharply in subsequent years to compensate for any shortfall. Even if output were to be increased, there would be the danger of swamping front-line squadrons with too many inexperienced pilots.
Additional resources have been provided to ensure that training targets are met, and that includes fully staffing the training systems by making additional flying instructors available at RAF Valley. Innovative means have also been adopted to maintain output and cope with the unexpected. For example, students are
122WH
currently undertaking basic flying training with the Royal Australian Air Force, to cover the gap caused by the temporary grounding of the Tucano fleet last year.
My right hon. Friend asked about Eurofighter. We must get manning right so that the new aircraft can be brought into service in the planned numbers and within the planned time scales. That is a top priority. It is planned that the first conversion course for RAF pilots will begin in August 2004, which will be for experienced pilots. Training for novice pilots will begin in November 2004. Overall, Eurofighter will not generate substantial demand for pilots until 2006–07, whereas we expect the pilot shortage to ease from 2003 onwards.
For the future, we are conducting a study that is known as the United Kingdom military flying training system. That will lead to the development of a strategy to ensure that appropriate flying training, from start to finish, is in place for the latter part of the decade.
I shall deal with the third factor that I mentioned at the outset—retention. That is the most important factor, because it can be influenced relatively quickly. I have explained the considerable amount of training and the substantial associated cost that is necessary to produce combat-ready pilots. That makes it important that such pilots stay in substantial numbers and for long periods. That makes financial and operational sense.
Of course, such an argument applies equally to all our service personnel, which is why we have introduced a comprehensive programme to make service life more attractive with the aim of improving retention. I shall not discuss those measures, but I can let my right hon. Friend have the details.
Many general factors must be addressed but additional measures to improve air crew retention have been introduced, some very recently. The rate of flying pay has been improved substantially for more experienced pilots and, where particular shortages were identified, targeted financial incentives have been introduced. Such incentives are £50,000 for Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilots and £10,000 per annum for two years for pilots aged over 38. LINKUP, a scheme that helps air crew obtain civilian pilot's licences in exchange for a commitment to longer military service, has been introduced, and eligibility has subsequently been extended. Many pilots are taking advantage of the scheme, and it has been judged to be a success.
Service secretaries are offering extensions of service to pilots who wish to continue beyond normal retirement age, and that is helping to reduce pilot deficits. Attempts are underway to recruit younger pilots with the aim of increasing the return of service that is linked to the in-service degree. Additionally, amortisation periods are being reviewed, with the possibility of increasing the return of service following training.
The pull from civilian airlines is unlikely to diminish, and we must face that long-term problem. For that reason, we have set up a working group specifically to make recommendations on how we may improve air crew retention. The working group has been given wide-ranging terms of reference to examine all factors that influence the subject, and it has been directed to report by the autumn so that, where a financial response is appropriate, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body may take our reviews into account for its 2002 report. The working group, assisted by a specialist consultant and

123WH
with Treasury representation, is collating the views of about 1,000 air crew to pinpoint what factors must be addressed.
In conclusion, I make no attempt to disguise that we have fewer pilots than we would ideally like for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. The main cause of that shortfall is a disappointing retention figure. However, such a situation is faced by virtually every air force in the world. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government are not complacent about the matter, and that we have taken, and will continue to take, vigorous steps to address the problem.

Sex Education
12.59 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about sex education in schools. Sadly, our country suffers from among the highest levels of under-age pregnancy and divorce in the developed world. The breakdown of our families has created a rising tide of misery for many young people. It has been rising, under all Governments, for a generation, and it laps at the doorsteps of most hon. Members' constituency surgeries. We see increases in drug-taking, alcoholism and youth homelessness and, sadly, the youngsters of our country have developed a Europe-wide reputation for yobbery, as so many of them have not experienced the disciplines of traditional structures. With regard to such matters, sex education in schools is an important factor—although by no means the most important—and I am therefore very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the subject.
Sex education can help to develop moral attitudes about sexual activity' among young people, and it could play an important role in re-establishing the crucial link between sexual activity and child rearing. Sex should not be portrayed to our young people simply as a form of recreation, and should certainly not be so portrayed to those of primary school age.
Since they were elected, the Government's position has been that sex education should not be covered by statute, but merely by guidelines in circulars. In July 2000, the Department for Education and Employment's promised guidance on sex and relationship education was finally published, and it will play a pivotal role in my presentation.
My party has highlighted two statutory areas where force of law was important. First, with regard to the Learning and Skills Act 2000, many of my colleagues and I sought to press amendments to place a higher priority on marriage in sex education. Secondly, our debates on section 28 and the potential promotion of homosexuality in schools were widely publicised.
With regard to those issues, I will illustrate how badly things can go wrong by examining two groups of bureaucrats. The Minister does not have immediate responsibility for either of them: indeed, one of them is now outside the responsibilities of this Parliament. Most teachers take a sensible approach towards sex education, but certain sections of the education bureaucracy do not.
The two groups of bureaucrats to whom I am referring are the English health authorities and their sexual health promotion units, and the Scottish Executive. Scotland's recent experiences offer a terrible warning of what would happen south of the border if the Government's plan to repeal section 28 were successful.
In the debates on the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the House was given repeated assurances that marriage would play an important role. Those pledges were also made in the negotiations with the churches. That led most of the churches south of the border to sign up to the package. There are a number of positive features to the guidance published last July. There are references to the importance of love and care—not just recreation—in sex, and to the importance of linking sex

125WH
with the responsibilities of parenthood, which I applaud. It also stresses the importance of sex education for boys as well as girls. However, overall, the document is lamentably and pathetically weak in restraining certain activities. Only three short, passing references are made to marriage, in each case closely linked to so-called stable relationships, one of the myths of the new era. An acquaintance of mine who is a general practitioner in the east end of London once told me that most of the young girls who come in, to see him tell him that they are in something that they call a common law marriage. Most young men who go to see him tell him that they are in a short-term sexual relationship.
Statistics show that a child has almost six times as good a chance of its parents staying together for 10 years or more if they are married than if they are in an allegedly stable relationship—Government statistics from 1997, provided by the Library. None of that makes any mark in what is being taught to our children in schools if Government guidelines ate being followed.
I cite two examples from English health authorities of the sort of material that is reaching schools. One that has been extensively discussed before is the video provided by Avon health authority, which invited 14-year-olds to act out roles such as a married man caught cottaging—having gay sex in a public lavatory. The same video featured a 13-year-old advising pupils to try both boys and girls until they found which they preferred.
In my own patch, East Kent health authority provided a presentation—we have one of the highest levels of under-age illegitimacy in the country—and the health promotion team made it abundantly clear that the word "marriage" would not figure in presentations provided in schools. Members of Parliament were not told that it was, incredibly, simultaneously issuing instructions that under-age children were to be furnished with morning after pills without even necessarily telling the parents, a decision that raises considerable clinical as well as moral issues. That circular had been issued without Kent county council, the education authority, being told about it. In an open letter, the leader of the council, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, wrote to the chairman of the health authority, making it clear that he was disgusted that that liaison had not taken place. The document has failed miserably to put over to the bureaucracies with which we are dealing the importance of the pivotal role of marriage in sex education.
All that pales compared with the warnings from north of the border of what could happen here in England. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not feel that I am getting at you personally, as a Scot who represents an English constituency, with the following examples. I am sorry that one or two of the examples may seem lurid beyond belief, but as they are being given to children in our schools in part of the United Kingdom, it is right to touch on them briefly.
On 19 January 2000, the Prime Minister made it clear, in answer to a question that was, ironically, asked by a Scottish Member of Parliament, that on both sides of the border, although he was referring to south of the border:
"That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life."— [Official Report, 19 January 2000: Vol. 342, c. 840.]
126WH
I was so incredulous on reading material from the Christian Institute that I had to ask it to fax me copies of the documents involved. In the primary school document, the sex and relationships education pack, oral sex and masturbation are given the most graphic descriptions. In the same pack, primary school children are told at considerable length just how much fun is to be had out of sex. It is presented as a recreational activity, rather than something that has a role in a wider relationship, let alone marriage. In another package, which is aimed at 11 to 14-year-olds, there is a role-playing exercise in which children are expected to represent homosexuals coming out. That is despite the fact that, on 10 March, the Prime Minister pledged in a widely reported speech that
"no child is going to be forced to take part in homosexual role playing."
Technically, I suppose that children are not being forced to take part, but if their teacher tells them that it is a good idea, it is quite likely that they will do so.
In another pack for 11 to 14-year-olds, groups are to discuss sexual activities that two people can do together, including the
"use of sexual toys e.g. Vibrators or other items…sadism/or masochism—the use of pain…partner swapping".
That is for 11 to 14-year-olds. So much for even the alleged stable relationships.
Finally—you will be relieved to hear that this is the last example that I shall give, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there are activity cards for 15-year-olds. These are not from the Scottish Executive, but from one of the Scottish local authorities. I can show them to the Minister afterwards. They give the most lucid details on a variety of sexual practices, including very detailed material on how to maximise pleasure from anal intercourse.
In a remarkable text, the great Christian writer C. S. Lewis said that practising Christians should avoid at all costs' running about sounding as if they spend all their time trying to prevent people from having fun. However, we surely must have a better vision for the rising generation of children than the things that I have described. Surely, there are other activities that should grasp the imagination of young children—of primary school children—before those. Of course, children should be taught the facts of life. My parents taught me them very early, and sex lectures were provided at school when I was about 13. We should guide children in such activities through the difficulty period of puberty. We should teach them about the virtue—that is an old-fashioned word—of self-restraint. They should be taught that in a proper context. I unashamedly believe that marriage is the right context for sex. Children should at least be told the facts about how much more successful marriage is for child rearing than anything else that has been tried.
I have one last statistic. The largest ever survey on the issue was carried out by the United States Department of Health—not some right-wing think tank—in 1988. It showed that children from the poorest backgrounds in

127WH
America, who were struggling to exist on less than $10,000 a year, had a lower rate of juvenile delinquency when their parents were married than children from the most prosperous families in America under every other marital arrangement that was considered.
I do not want to condemn anyone. The family of every one of us is touched in some way by family breakdown. All I ask is that in providing guidance to children in schools, we should aspire to give them something better and to achieve more than our generation did for our children.
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on gaining the opportunity to talk about what I think we both agree is an important issue.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a successful sex and relationship education programme will help young people to respect themselves and others. It will enable them to make responsible and well-informed decisions about their lives and it will help them to move with confidence from childhood, through adolescence to adulthood. It will also help to achieve the Government's objective of As the hon. Gentleman said, we published our sex and relationships education guidance last July. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe that it was a significant step forward. I will also talk about the legal background and the statutory nature of that guidance, because the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in suggesting that there is no legal force to what we proposed in our guidance or what we set out in the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
The guidance was a significant step forward. It is helping teachers to make a difference in the classroom; it is helping parents to have confidence in the education that their children are receiving; and it is helping our drive to tackle teenage pregnancies. It underlines our commitment to ensuring that our young people receive a good education in sex and relationships. We held broad consultations on the draft guidance and we received broad support—even though it was not from the hon. Gentleman. We had productive discussions with the Catholic Education Service and with the Church of England during the passage of the Bill that became the Learning and Skills Act 2000 through Parliament and during the compilation of our guidance. Many of those organisations' comments were taken on board.
There were positive comments from other church and faith groups on our guidance. For example, the Methodist Church said:
"In general, the Methodist Church welcomes this document as a valuable tool for governors, head teachers and parents as they develop policies on sex and relationship education, and for teachers as they put such policies into practice."
The Jewish Marriage Council said:
"Faith communities will all welcome the greater emphasis on relationship education, particularly the recognition of marriage and thereby couple relationships as being key building blocks of community and society."
128WH
We have also had very positive feedback from teachers. They have told us that the new guidance is supporting them and helping them to deliver high-quality education in sex and relationships. People are telling us that they want to get on with their jobs and our guidance will enable them to do just that, in the sort of context that I believe is important for our children.
There are concerns, however, and we responded to them in our guidance and in our legislative framework. First, there is the issue of inappropriate teaching and materials. As often happens in these debates, the hon. Gentleman has reeled off a list of materials that he claims may be being used in schools. I have to say that our guidance makes it very clear, as does the Learning and Skills Act 2000, that children and young people should be protected from inappropriate teaching and materials. This is the first time that that has been set out in legislation.
Head teachers now have a legal responsibility to protect children from inappropriate teaching and materials in the classroom. Health authorities have to have regard to that guidance, and colleagues in the Department of Health have produced guidance and written to health authorities to make them aware of the fact that legally they must take our guidance into account.
Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister tell me when that guidance went out? The presentation that I referred to by East Kent health authority took place only at the end of last year. The guidance does not seem to have reached my health authority yet.
Jacqui Smith: I understand that the Department of Health sent out guidance at the end of last year alerting health authorities to the requirement to have regard to our guidance. Under the guidance, schools also have a legal responsibility—for the first time ever—to ensure that children are taught the importance of marriage. That provision was notably absent from the guidance issued by the previous Government and absent from the national curriculum before it was reviewed under this Government.
In the personal, social and health education framework that was first included in the national curriculum in September 2000, we made it clear that marriage had an important part to play and that children should be taught about it from seven to 16. That is now part of the framework of the national curriculum and that is reflected in our guidance. The guidance also recognises the central role that parents should play in developing a school's sex and relationship education policy, including their right to withdraw children from lessons should they wish so to do.
It is also worth reflecting on what the guidance replaced and on the improvements in the new guidance compared with the old circular 594. First—here, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—it is important that sex and relationship education is framed in such a way that it links into personal, social and health education, and into education on citizenship. For the first time, we have

129WH
linked sex and relationship education into that framework, which helps pupils to develop the skills to tackle moral and social questions.
Secondly, our guidance emphasises the importance of the relationship aspect of sex and relationship education. The hon. Gentleman focused on, as he described them, lurid explanations of some of the more mechanical and biological aspects of sex. The Government and young people believe that we must place sex education in the context of relationships, which the Government's guidance does.
Thirdly, the guidance aims to ensure that sex and relationship education gives pupils the confidence to negotiate relationships and to delay sexual intercourse. Some people have argued that sex and relationship education should focus solely on avoiding sexual activity. Our view is that good sex and relationship education will encourage pupils to make well-informed decisions, and our guidance aims to achieve that. For example, we recommend that all pupils in secondary schools should have a clear understanding of the reasons for delaying sexual activity and resisting pressure. Research demonstrates that good comprehensive sex and relationship education, set in the context that I have outlined, does not make young people more likely to engage in sexual activity. Indeed, it can help them to learn the reasons for, and benefits to be gained from, delaying sex.
Mr. Brazier: The Minister referred to my objection to some of the more mechanical descriptions. I appreciate that she is not answerable for what happens north of the border, but from what is happening in my health authority, we can see that the Government's guidelines are simply not being followed. Following the removal of section 28 in Scotland, the following is a quotation from guidance for primary schools. Oral sex is defined as
"using the mouth and tongue to lick, kiss or suck a partner's genitals. Oral sex on a man involves his penis. Oral sex on a woman involves her clitoris."
Would the Minister welcome that being distributed in primary schools south of the border?
Jacqui Smith: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman hoped to achieve by that intervention, apart from giving him another opportunity to read from materials that he may or may not consider to be inappropriate.
The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that teachers are responsible and professional people. So do the Government. That is why, within the guidance that we have given and the statutory framework that we have laid down for the first time, we trust teachers, governors and parents to develop the sort of education that is important for our young people. Given the guidance that we have provided, I believe that the professionals in our schools can recognise what is appropriate and inappropriate. I have more faith in our schools, governors and parents than he appears to have.
130WH
There has been some success, and I am pleased that recent figures show—
Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I will not take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister refers to my attitude to teachers. I have made no attack on teachers. In fact, I defended them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): That is not a point of order.
Jacqui Smith: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam.
We are seeing some success in terms of a fall in teenage conception rates for both under-16s and under-18s. The conception rate for under-16s in England fell from 8.8 per 1,000 in 1998 to 8.2 per 1,000 in 1999—a 7 per cent. fall and the lowest rate in any year bar one since 1983. The conception rate for under-18s in England fell from 46.5 per 1,000 to 44.7 per 1,000 in 1999; a 4 per cent. fall. That is excellent news, but we cannot be complacent. We must continue to tackle sensitive issues and help young people to wait until they are ready before they have sex, and to protect themselves when they do.
I am pleased that the guidance has helped schools, but we need to do more to support teachers effectively if they are to provide good sex and relationship education. That is why I want to concentrate on two aspects of the Government's support for schools, the first of which is funding. For 2001–02, we shall make £15 million available to schools for support of personal, social, health and citizenship education. Schools will be able to decide how to spend that. It could include training for teachers, materials and resources, or paying the costs of an external speaker to support the relevant teaching.
I am also strongly aware of the need to provide other, more direct, training for teachers. That is why I am pleased that teachers are receiving training to support our guidance. Regional seminars have taken place for the key people involved in providing sex and relationship education. We also recognise that teachers need particular skills for that type of education, and we want to recognise those skills through a new system to accredit sex and relationship teaching.
The Government have, through the Learning and Skills Act 2000, provided for the first time a firm legal foundation for effective sex and relationship education. The new guidance provides a robust framework for use by heads, teachers and governors. We have tackled some of the issues that were raised today by the hon. Gentleman and during consultation. They include protecting young people from inappropriate materials while recognising the importance of depending on teachers' and governors' professionalism, as well as parents' roles in sex and relationship education in schools.
With our support through the standards fund and the extra training that we are providing, we are helping schools to provide high quality education in which teachers, governors, young people and parents can have confidence.

Igroup plc
1.27 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: Shortly after the general election in 1997, I was contacted by my constituents, David and Pauline Spencer. In 1992, they had run into financial difficulties and were put in touch with Wilmslow Financial Services. They had intended to borrow £5,000 to pay off mortgage arrears, associated county court judgments and a sum of money to a friend who had helped them with previous mortgage arrears.
Mr. and Mrs. Spencer were visited by Mr. Phillip Jones, who persuaded them to borrow £10,000 on the grounds that they needed to renew some of the windows in their property, and to allow them a flexible sum of money to make it easier for them to pay off the loan at the beginning of the repayment scheme. In my view, the Spencers were not made aware of the detailed conditions of the contract that they eventually signed.
Because Mr. Spencer was self-employed, Mr. Jones, the agent, proposed that he also pay a double protected payment premium. That was unnecessary, since Mrs. Spencer was not working at the time. The cost was an additional £3,526 and brought the total borrowed to £13,526. Mr. Spencer is a market trader and had combined earnings then of far less than £1,500 per month, although he had achieved that total once in the preceding months. Mr. Jones put that highest figure on the mortgage application form. A contract was signed with J & J Securities on 1 April 1992 and repayments began.
The Spencers feel that the agent did not adequately consider their monthly expenditure or income, or its sustainability. They were never asked to provide documentation to prove the figures that Mr. Jones put on the application certificate. Mr. Spencer was asked to provide evidence that he was self-employed, but production of a business card was all that Mr. Jones required. Mr. and Mrs. Spencer felt pressurised throughout their contacts with that agent. They had asked whether he could secure a loan for them from a high street building society or another reputable mortgage provider, but he informed them that their poor credit history made that highly unlikely. Mr. Jones pointed out that their credit rating could be improved sufficiently to secure another loan by entering into the J & J Securities contract and keeping up the repayments. Since they wanted to secure a second mortgage from a high street provider, that proposition began to sound attractive. In the event, they were precluded from going down their preferred avenue, as I shall explain.
There was no mention of the excessive commission that brokers are normally paid for securing that type of loan. I do not know how much commission Mr. Jones secured, but I have been made aware of a similar loan, worth £23,000. The commission on that was a very high £4,300. Unfortunately, Mr. Spencer became ill shortly after the loan was granted, and was unable to work. The protected payment premium scheme should have protected the Spencers during his period of illness. Mr. Spencer duly wrote to Wilmslow Financial Services in May 1993 but received no response. While loans were usually made for 15 years, the premiums covered only the first five years. Hence, clients paid for a loan to cover the premium for three times as long as the premium was operative.
132WH
Many of the mortgage deals negotiated by the companies seem to have been with the most financially vulnerable clients, with a view to repossession and resale of the properties. For example, one was with a pensioner couple living on stale benefits who wanted to buy their council house under the Government's right to buy scheme. The Spencers were told that it would cost them about £1,000 if they wished to settle the balance early. At that time the companies were applying the rule of 78—a complicated formula used to calculate redemption figures—for settlement of loans. Redemption figures are usually a considerable percentage of the loan and make it virtually impossible for clients to switch mortgages to high street lenders.
In June 1993, J & J Securities attempted to repossess the Spencers' house. The protected payment premium scheme, which had cost them £3,256 before interest, proved worthless. Fortunately, an agreement was reached in court between the Spencers and the company, which meant that they were not forced out of their home. They are still living there under duress. They have suffered a lot of stress as a result of having entered into the agreement and have had to endure numerous court proceedings. They are still under constant threat of losing the house.
The Spencers had been told by the agent that the interest rate would be 13.5 per cent. and that they would risk repossession of their property if they failed to make repayments. However, in the particulars of claim relating to the court case the Spencers found out the truth about the interest rates applied. Paragraph 2 of that claim states:
"The loan agreement provided that the loan was to be repaid, together with interest, at the monthly rate of 2.31 per cent. flat rate with an Annual Percentage Rate of 31.5 per cent. by monthly instalments of £3 17.66".
To show how financially punishing the agreement has been, I should like to put on record the most recent redemption statement that the Spencers have received, through their present solicitor, from CMR Loans Servicing Ltd., dated 15 March 2001. Before I quote the figures, I should explain that the loan has been rewritten since the court proceedings, but the APR, which is now 21.5 per cent., is still punishingly high. In March, the total charge for credit had reached a massive £44,579.40, including the original loan of £13,526. At that date, the Spencers had parted with £27,776.88 and the sum required to redeem the loan after all those charges was another £16,978.77. Some companies that have been operating such loans have used dual interest rates in their contracts. While regular payments are kept up, a concessionary interest rate operates. However, if even one payment is missed, a much higher interest rate kicks in. Fortunately, that does not apply in the Spencers' case.
While the original loan was secured with J & J Securities Ltd., the Spencers have dealt with a string of companies as their business has been handed down a chain: from J & J Securities Ltd. to City Mortgage Corporation—CMC —then, more recently, Ocwen Asset Investment UK LLC—OAI—and, now, igroup plc, which claims that it manages the Ocwen loans in the UK, of which there are approximately 10,000 in total. It is interesting to note that the Royal Bank of Scotland has a 49 per cent. share in igroup.

133WH
Successive solicitors employed by the Spencers have found it difficult to keep track of the changing companies, which has also made legal actions complicated. Several solicitors are attempting court proceedings on behalf of thousands of clients, with little success to date. The National Association of Mortgage Victims has also tracked proceedings and offered advice to its members.
Since 1997, I have written to several Ministers in different Departments of State and approached different agencies in an attempt to help the Spencers, so far without success. Hence the need for this debate. The activities of these companies have been well documented in the press. On 8 April 2000, The Guardian published an article entitled "Turning screw on poor", which detailed the case of Trevor and Susan Reeves of Suffolk. They took out a loan with Homestead Financing, which was subsequently taken over by City Mortgage Corporation. They were treated in an unsatisfactory manner and faced the prospect of having their home repossessed. Articles in other newspapers, such as the News of the World, The Times and The Daily Telegraph, have also highlighted the unscrupulous nature of these dealings. However, despite such widespread uncomplimentary media coverage, companies are still trading in the market, largely unregulated.
In July 1997, the Director General of Fair Trading issued guidelines for lenders and brokers in the non-status lending market, which is also referred to as the sub-prime or impaired credit market. Those guidelines, which were revised in November 1997, highlighted some of the main practices in the market, which the Director General found to be
"deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper, within the meaning of Section 25(2)(d) of the Consumer Credit Act, and which would be likely to lead me to take regulatory action against those involved."
The report on the revised guidelines correctly indicates that the mortgage lending market is not subject to regulation under the Financial Services Act 1986. However, I have received indications that mortgages may become subject to regulation under that Act, and perhaps the Minister will say whether that is the case.
Nevertheless, a licence is required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from the Director General of Fair Trading to engage in a credit business or ancillary credit business. The fitness of licence holders can be brought into question by evidence of unfair business practices. City Mortgage Corporation gave undertakings to the Director General of Fair Trading in December 1997—as, subsequently, did Ocwen when it acquired the CMC business—in response to concerns arising under the Act and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Ocwen was then the subject of a management buy-out—by igroup, I believe.
I quote from a letter of 3 March 1908, which I received from the Minister who was then responsible for competitiveness and consumer affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry. The letter states:
"CMC agreed to stop imposing the unfair penalties in all"—
and I underline all—
"its loan agreements, old and new."
Apparently, igroup has agreed to investigate any borrower's complaint referred to it by the Office of Fair Trading, a trading standards department or a citizens
134WH
advice bureau, and to report on the outcome of its investigation. After the title of this debate was published, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux contacted me to say that it receives a high proportion of complaints about this market. I received a letter from it this morning. It states:
"NACAB is receiving an increasing amount of evidence from citizens advice bureaux all over the country about the practices of Igroup, both concerning the loans they manage on behalf of Ocwen US and their own loans."
There are 50,000 such loans at present, and igroup continues to make them. The letter goes on to state:
"Our main concerns are as follows: interest rates on loans managed on behalf of Ocwen US… the actions and behaviour of some brokers selling Igroup loans";
and the way that arrears and possession cases are dealt with before court, in court and following court proceedings. I do not have the time to read the full list of complaints that has been forwarded to me by NACAB, but there is clearly still a lot of concern about the mortgage lending market, indeed about igroup as well as all the precursor companies that I have mentioned.
Ocwen and igroup are aware of the thousands of borrowers who, like the Spencers, borrowed money from the constituent companies that became City Mortgage Corporation prior to the Director General of Fair Trading becoming involved in these businesses in 1997. I would like to pose a question to igroup, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and to the Director General of Fair Trading. Why cannot people like the Spencers—at least 10,000 and possibly 50,000 people—be transferred to contracts and interest rates like those issued since 1 August 1997? Can we please have some of the unfair conditions attached to those contracts removed?
I look forward to a response to that important question. I challenge Ocwen, igroup and the Royal Bank of Scotland to end the misery of the Spencers and countless other borrowers like them. It should not be necessary for each of the individual borrowers to take separate legal action, when these companies know exactly who their customers are.
I hope that this debate has highlighted the desperate situation still faced by thousands of people in the mortgage market. Other right hon. and hon. Members have raised similar concerns in the past, both in correspondence with Ministers and on the Floor of the House. It is my strong opinion that Government action on the residual poor practices of these companies is long overdue, and I ask my hon. Friend to consider that. I look forward to his response.
1.43 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr Iddon) on securing this debate. I know, from previous conversations with him, that he has researched this issue with tremendous thoroughness on behalf of his constituents, and done an extremely good job of it. In doing so, he has contributed greatly to our thinking on how best we should move forward on issues such as this.
My hon. Friend has raised an issue that is of great concern to many consumers including those outside his constituency, and probably concerns consumers in the

135WH
constituencies of all hon. Members. The Government recognise that the relative lack of choice available to borrowers who have a low credit rating or who have had credit problems in the past makes them potentially vulnerable to unscrupulous lenders and unfair lending practices. In the past, some non-status lenders have been associated with exploitative lending practices and it is vital that these people are protected effectively by our consumer legislation.
Mortgages and other loans, both secured on the home and unsecured, are already subject to regulation. Since taking office, as my hon. Friend has described to us, the Government have introduced legislation to increase the protection for borrowers. We plan further changes to increase that protection in the near future, and in response to some of the questions posed, I will try to describe some of them. I shall deal first with the consumer credit licensing system and the non-status guidelines of the Director General of Fair Trading.
The Consumer Credit Act 1974 already applies to many non-status loans and, under the Act, traders require consumer credit licences to lend to consumers. The Director General of Fair Trading administers the licensing system and must satisfy himself that traders are fit and proper persons to hold licences. He has powers to vary, suspend or revoke licences where he considers that that is justified. The Director General has also used his powers to introduce guidelines for lenders and brokers involved in the non-status sector.
The guidelines set out practices that the Director General of Fair Trading regards as deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper, whether unlawful or not, and which would be likely to lead him to take regulatory action against licence holders or to consider using his powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. They also set out examples of good practice that the director general considers both lenders and brokers should adopt, and we have heard about some of them today.
The guidelines emphasise the need above all for transparency in lenders' and brokers' dealings with their customers. They state that there should be no high-pressure selling and that borrowers should be given ample opportunity to read and understand the loan conditions, and to seek independent advice, if necessary, before they commit themselves. Lenders should not cold call and their advertising and promotional material should be clear and not misleading.
The guidelines require that non-status lenders, like other lenders, should lend responsibly and that their underwriting decisions should be subject to a proper assessment of the borrower's ability to repay, taking full account of relevant factors. I noted from my hon. Friend's speech that information about his constituents' earning power and potential was completely distorted in the calculations about the loan—in favour of the lender, of course.
I believe that the guidelines have significantly improved practices in the non-status sector. Some of the worst practices of a few years back, such as penal increases in the interest rate, which could be triggered if a borrower's monthly repayment was a few days late, are no longer a problem for consumers. Nevertheless,
136WH
the guidelines are almost four years old, and I am glad that the Office of Fair Trading intends to review them this year to ensure that they are comprehensive and adequately cover any changes in the market.
The Government are determined that lenders should not take advantage of mortgage borrowers when they may be vulnerable because they are focusing on a home purchase. We have decided that the Financial Services Authority should be given responsibility for regulating virtually all retail mortgages, regardless of who the lender is or why the loan is taken out. The mortgage loans to be regulated by the FSA will be loans of any size that are first legal charges on UK properties, where at least 40 per cent. of the property is for residential accommodation.
Mortgage lenders, like all other authorised firms, will need to meet the FSA's high standards on fitness and propriety to carry out the business in question. That will not be simply a requirement for obtaining authorisation. The lenders will need to maintain the standards if they are to continue to retain authorised status. I am very glad about that, because all too often in the past, lenders were not judged or monitored as closely as they should have been after obtaining licences. The FSA has recently consulted on its high-level approach to mortgage regulation, including the information that will have to be disclosed to borrowers. That will ensure that borrowers will be aware about both the mortgage product and their responsibilities. The FSA's recent consultation also suggested that it is minded to introduce rules on the treatment of those in arrears or facing repossession—for example, setting minimum standards as to the type and frequency of information supplied to consumers. The FSA's consultation paper explained that the OFT's guidelines on non-status lending, together with the Council of Mortgage Lenders' statement on handling arrears and possessions, will be taken into account when its detailed approach to mortgage regulation is formulated.
The FSA will shortly consult on detailed rules for mortgage regulation. My hon. Friend asked when mortgage regulation is likely to happen. We expect that it will come into force no later than August 2002, just over a year away. I am glad to see that the process will be that rapid.
My hon. Friend also referred to unfair contract terms. Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, consumers cannot be bound by contractual terms that are weighted unfairly in favour of the lender, such as terms that purport to give the lender the right to charge excessive early redemption penalties. However, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is one thing to be able to say that and another to get a court to agree with it. It is very difficult to provide the cast iron evidence needed to prove that such distortions have taken place, especially in cases that took place nine years ago.
The DGFT and every local authority trading standards department have the power to prevent the use of unfair contract terms, if necessary by seeking a court injunction. The Financial Services Authority will gain those powers on 1 May 2001. The regulations also give individuals the right to challenge unfair terms in contracts into which they have entered with lenders.

137WH
There have been instances in which the courts have determined that the terms in non-status loan contracts are unfair and, therefore, unenforceable.
I recently made the "stop now" regulations, as we have named the injunctions directive that came from Europe. These regulations will come into force on 1 June 2001. They will give the Director General of Fair Trading and other consumer protection bodies the power to apply to the courts for "stop now" orders to stop traders in their tracks, so that they do not infringe a wide range of consumer protection legislation, including that on consumer credit. The powers can be used, for example, to stop lenders from failing to inform consumers of the total cost of credit. The regulations implement a European Union directive that will, for the first time, give UK consumer bodies the right to apply directly to the courts of other member states for injunctions to stop illegal practices that originate elsewhere in the community and that harm the collective interests of UK consumers.
We also plan to look at whether we should make changes to consumer credit legislation to complement the FSA's regulation of mortgages. The FSA will regulate those mortgages that are secured by a first legal charge. Often, that is not the critical issue, as my hon. Friend has said. It will not regulate those secured loans where the charge is not a first charge—for example, loans for double glazing. Because consumer credit legislation regulates only loans of up to £25,000, a significant rump of consumer loans will remain potentially unregulated. We need to consider whether to increase the upper financial limit for loans regulated by the legislation so that the majority of such loans will be protected.
The consumer credit legislation contains provisions that allow the courts to reopen extortionate credit bargains, so that justice can be done between the parties. Credit bargains are extortionate if they require the borrower to make payments that are grossly exorbitant or otherwise contravene ordinary principles of fair dealing. When the court is considering whether a credit bargain is extortionate, it can take, account of such factors as interest rates, whether the borrower was under financial pressure and his age and experience. If the court decides that the credit bargain is extortionate, its options include altering the terms of the agreement, requiring the lender to make repayments to the borrower and setting aside the whole or part of the borrower's obligations under the agreement.
The provisions have been used to re-open non-status credit agreements, but the Government recognise that they have not been used often, and they should be used more often. The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned research to examine the effectiveness of the provisions and make recommendations about how they could be changed to ensure that they provide the protection that was originally intended. We intend to introduce proposals for improving protection against extortionate credit and unfair lending practices in the near future.
Regulations under the Consumer Credit Act currently allow lenders to use the so-called rule of 78 when they work out the terms on which loans can be redeemed early. That method has been criticised as unfair and biased in favour of lenders, especially when it is applied to high-value, long-term loans such as
138WH
those typically offered by non-status lenders. The Government intend to bring forward proposals to use a different method to calculate early settlement terms that would give a more balanced outcome. We also want to improve loan information, so that borrowers are aware of early settlement terms before they commit themselves to a particular loan offer. We believe that that will help those consumers who expect to redeem loans early to be able to identify the loan that offers the best overall deal.
I understand that igroup plc services loans that were previously owned by a company called Ocwen UK plc. Ocwen, in turn, had acquired the business and assets of the City Mortgage Corporation. The OFT obtained undertakings from the City Mortgage Corporation in 1997 that related to non-status loans that the company had. When Ocwen acquired its business and assets, it also gave undertakings to the OFT. As part of those undertakings, Ocwen agreed to investigate any borrower complaint referred to it by the OFT, a trading standards department or a citizens advice bureau and to report back to the OFT on the outcome of its investigation. When Ocwen found a complaint that was justified, it would consider in its undertaking providing an appropriate remedy for the borrower.
When Ocwen became igroup, igroup took on those undertakings. The OFT continues to monitor both the undertakings and igroup's compliance with them, especially in respect of borrower complaints. If my hon. Friend has information—which he clearly has—that is relevant to the undertakings or igroup's fitness to hold a consumer credit licence, I am sure that he will be willing to pass it to the OFT. That should be done as quickly as possible.
I do not want to condemn all non-status lending. Like my hon. Friends in the Chamber, all of us have constituents who need such lending from time to time. The higher interest rates charged by lenders in the sector are to some extent justified by the higher risks they take on. For some borrowers, obtaining a non-status loan is an important step towards re-establishing their credit worthiness. I am aware of borrowers who have taken out mortgages with non-status lenders and who, when they have shown that they are able to manage their debts, have been able to remortgage with lenders at more favourable rates.
It is important that as many of our citizens as possible have access to credit. Of that, I am convinced. However, non-status loans may be the only option for some of them. However, that lending must be on a responsible basis and the Government are determined to make sure that consumers are protected against the exploitative lending practices that my hon. Friend described. The changes that we have already made and those that we will introduce in the future will help to ensure that non-status borrowers, like other borrowers, get a fair deal. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. He has made a significant contribution towards strengthening our determination as a Government to do whatever is required to bring fairness and protection for borrowers in the sort of situation that he has described and which has been experienced by his constituents. For that, we should all be grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average length of time is that people spend on Incapacity Benefit. [157077]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The average duration of Incapacity Benefit for claims which terminated in the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 is 1,027 days. If people who leave Incapacity Benefit for retirement pension are excluded, the average duration is 500 days.

  Note:

  Figures are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time that people who apply for a national insurance number must wait before(a) being given an appointment with the Benefits Agency and (b) receiving a national insurance number. [158676]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information on the average time that people who apply for a national insurance number (NINO) must wait before being given an appointment with the Benefits Agency is not held.

  After a customer is interviewed by the Benefits Agency, the length of time he/she has to wait to receive their NINO depends on whether the application is for benefit or employment purposes.

  With the introduction of the enhanced NINO process in April 2001 the Benefits Agency is responsible for notifying the customer of their NINO by letter after all inquiries have been completed.

  Child Benefit (Greenock and Inverclyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Greenock and Inverclyde will benefit from the latest increase in Child Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [158598]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  The latest information shows there are 13,610 children and 7,957 families in the Greenock and Inverclyde parliamentary constituency receiving Child Benefit. Since 1997 the rate of Child Benefit for the first child has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms. The rates from April 2001 are £15.50 for the first child and £10.35 for all other children.
  270W
  Notes:
  1. Figures are based on the November 2000 100 per cent. extract of the Child Benefit computer system.
  2. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the relevant version of the ONS Postcode Directory. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Army Base Repair Organisation for the financial year 2001–02. [159241]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets (KT) have been set for the Chief Executive for financial year 2001–02. The targets build on the progress already made by ABRO since it formed in April 1993 and will help it to prepare for trading fund status. They are as follows:KTI Service Delivery—Programme Load
  To complete 95 per cent. of all programmes designated critical within the times agreed with the customer.
  KT2 Service Delivery—Land District Load
  To complete 95 per cent. of Land Command District Load tasks within the priorities agreed with the customer.
  KT3 Efficiency
  To reduce the average cost of a selected range of Programme Load products by 5 per cent., exclusive of spares, over the course of financial year 2001–02 from a 2000–01 baseline.
  KT4 Efficiency
  To reduce the average cost of a selected range of Land Command District Load tasks by 5 per cent., exclusive of spares, over the course of financial year 2001–02 from a 2000–01 baseline.
  KT5 Winning New York
  To produce a robust marketing strategy for the first year of trading (planned to be 2002–03) and to increase the value of third party revenue won in 2001–02 by at least 100 per cent. from a 2000–01 baseline.

  Tornado GR4
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Tornado GR4 mid life update. [159242]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that following further development work and extensive trials, the GR4 with improved software achieved a Military Aircraft Release on 10 April. We expect shortly to deploy the GR4 operationally.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the future of the contract to be placed with Harland and Wolff for the construction of two roll-on roll-off ferries to provide strategic sea lift capability for the armed forces; [157725]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the programme to secure guaranteed access to roll-on roll-off ferries to provide strategic sea lift capability for the armed forces. [157726]
  271W
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 March 2001, Official Report, column 359W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The commercial shipbuilding contracts for the two ships to be built by Harland and Wolff have been taken over by the Ministry of Defence. These contracts will be managed on our behalf by AWSR Shipping Ltd.

  Negotiations on the Private Finance Initiative contract for the full Strategic Sea-lift service are proceeding and we expect to place a contract shortly. As a result of the adoption of a parallel build programme in two yards, it is planned that the full Strategic Sea-lift capability will be available by 2003, some two years ahead of the planned in-service date. Until then, a provisional service is being managed by MOD, providing an enhanced level of sealift compared to that previously available.

  Fast Jet Pilots
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the maximum output of fast jet pilots is from RAF Valley per year. [157721]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: Over the next four years RAF Valley is tasked to provide places for 102 fast jet pilot students per year to meet the current RAF Valley output target of 80 pilots per year. The output target is determined by the future front-line manning requirements and is reviewed regularly. The RAF Valley output target has recently been increased as the result of such a review.

  Capacity is greater than output as not all students achieve the full range of skills necessary to complete fast jet training. Those that do not are usually restreamed into rotary wing or multi-engine roles.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the anticipated shortfalls in(a) fast jet pilots and (b) single seat fast jet pilots for each of the next five years. [157722]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: The current forecast shortfall of fast jet pilots in the armed forces over the next five years is as follows:

  Year

  Fast jet pilots1.2

  2001–02

  125

  2002–03

  138

  2003–04

  139

  2004–05

  138

  2005–06

  132

  1Figures comprise the forecast shortfall in RN Sea Harrier pilots and RAF junior officer pilots—filling both flying posts (including front line and training squadrons) and ground appointments

  2RAF Personnel Manning Agency. RAF Manpower planning forecasts do not differentiate between the various types of jet aircraft

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fast jet pilots in the(a) RAF and (b) Royal Navy are combat-ready. [157724]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: As at 31 March 2001, there were 230 combat-ready fast jet pilots in the Royal Air Force and 21 in the Royal Navy. A further 94 pilots were at lower states of readiness.

  Pilot Shortages
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current shortages of trained pilots are for the(a) Sea Harrier FA2, (b) Harrier GR7, (c) Tornado F3, (d)Tornado GR1-GR4 and (e) Jaguar. [157723]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: The shortfall of trained pilots based on the frontline strength and establishment of specific aircraft types on 1 March is as follows:

  Aircraft type

  Pilot shortfall

  Sea Harrier FA2

  5

  Harrier GR7

  9

  Tornado F3

  12

  Tornado GR1/GR4

  18

  Jaguar

  3

  Notwithstanding the shortfalls, all operational commitments are being met.

  A400M
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has allowed the final production line for the A400M to be located in Spain. [157720]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 April 2001]: The location of the final assembly line for the A400M is primarily a matter for Airbus Military Company. The company will be contracted to deliver aircraft on the basis of a "commercial approach" which makes maximum use of existing supply chains and centres of excellence. Just as Airbus UK is the centre of excellence for wing design and will be leading the wing design for the A400M, so European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company of Spain is the centre of excellence for military transport aircraft assembly and this thus influences the choice of Spain to host the final assembly line.

  Holy Loch
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) of 29 March 2001,Official Report, column 733W, on the cost of the clean-up operation of Holy Loch, what proportion of the cost has been met by the US Defence Department; and if he will make a statement. [158600]

  Dr. Moonie
  The US Defence Department are not contributing to the cost of the clearance nor are they legally obliged to do so.

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he is making for his Department's staff who wish to continue to be paid on a weekly basis. [158541]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's industrial staff will transfer from weekly to monthly pay during April and May this year as part of the process of harmonising their pay and grading arrangements with those of non-industrial staff, who are paid monthly. The change to monthly pay was negotiated with the industrial trade unions and supported by a majority of industrial staff who voted in favour by ballot. As is normal practice, the
  273W
  change will apply to all industrial staff covered by the negotiations and consequently there is no provision for staff to continue to be paid weekly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many reports Lord Birt has submitted to the Attorney-General in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement. [158235]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I received a briefing from Lord Birt setting out his emerging findings, prior to our meeting with him. Aside from that, the work undertaken by Lord Birt was considered alongside that undertaken by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and Her Majesty's Treasury in preparing the Government's strategy document "Criminal Justice: the Way Ahead".

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions, and on what dates,(a) he and (b) the Attorney-General have met Lord Birt in his capacity as an adviser on crime since his appointment; and if he will make a statement about the contribution of Lord Birt to his Department's policies. [158228]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and I have had one substantive meeting with Lord Birt. The work undertaken by Lord Birt was considered alongside that undertaken by the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and Her Majesty's Treasury in preparing the Government's strategy document "Criminal Justice: the Way Ahead".

PRIME MINISTER

  East Midlands Airport
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit East Midlands airport. [157684]

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

  KFOR
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Bush the role of the American element in KFOR in Macedonia and at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [157576]

  The Prime Minister
  KFOR's mandate does not include operations in Macedonia. As is the case for other KFOR contributors, including the UK, the US has a logistical unit based in Macedonia in support of their KFOR contingent based at Camp Bondsteel.

  The US forces based at Camp Bondsteel are an integral part of KFOR, and make an invaluable contribution to its performance, and its ability to achieve its objectives.

  I have no plans at present to discuss the role of the American element in KFOR with President Bush. But I and Ministers in my Government discuss Balkan-related
  274W
  issues with the US on a regular basis. President Bush and I underlined our joint commitment to promote peace and stability in the Balkans on 23 February at Camp David.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Newcastle Airport
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety of passenger aircraft approaching Newcastle Airport, following the AAIB report on an incident involving civilian and military aircraft on 20 March 2000; and if he will make a statement. [158411]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The AAIB report made two recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), both of which the Authority has partially accepted. In its published response to the recommendations, the CAA said that the Directorate of Airspace Policy had conducted a study of operations by scheduled public transport services in all Class G airspace, including those in the vicinity of Newcastle Airport. The study confirmed that provided a Radar Advisory Service or Radar Information Service is used, safety levels in such airspace meet the internationally agreed standard.

  It is clear from this incident, however, that not all traffic is availing itself of such air traffic services. Consequently the CAA is working closely with airspace users and Newcastle Airport, as a matter of urgency, on a wide range of initiatives aimed at preventing such conflicts in the future.

  Motorcycle Excise Duty
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) emissions reduction and (b) congestion reduction of the decision to raise motorcycle excise duty by £5. [158406]

  Mr. Hill
  Vehicle Excise Duty for motorcycles over 250cc increased by £5 to £65 from 1 March 2001. My Department has not carried out any formal analysis of the effect of this change on levels or patterns of motorcycle use and hence on congestion and levels of emissions. However, we believe that any such effects are likely to be negligible.

  Housing Developments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many housing developments were approved in London during each of the past three years; and what proportion of the development was for affordable rented housing and for social housing. [158583]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The estimated number of planning applications, for which planning permission was granted, relating to housing developments in London is as follows:

  1998–4,000

  1999–3,600

  2000–4,000

  275W
  A full breakdown of information on affordable housing provided as part of individual development schemes is not available. The Department, working with the Greater London Authority, is taking steps to ensure that consistent and accurate data are collected for the provision of affordable housing in London.

  Fare Concessions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with rail companies on the introduction of further fare concessions for retired people. [158385]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no discussions. The franchise agreement under which rail services are provided require train operating companies to participate in mandatory railcard schemes, including one for senior citizens, based on the railcards offered by British Rail. Participation in these schemes will be a requirement in any new franchise negotiated under the Strategic Rail Authority's replacement programme. Any further concession would be a matter for the Association of Train Operating Companies to consider.

  Londonwide Cycle Lane Network
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with London local authorities to encourage the development of a Londonwide cycle lane network; and if he will make a statement. [158475]

  Mr. Hill
  None. This is a matter for the Mayor of London, Transport for London and the other local highway authorities in London. The Mayor's draft transport strategy shows that Transport for London is taking a proactive approach to encouraging cycling.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken since May 1997 to equip local authorities with greater powers to regulate noise pollution. [158701]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The provisions in the Noise Act 1996 relating to the new night noise offence and associated powers of seizure came into force on 23 July 1997. We have issued a consultation paper, following a review of the Noise Act, setting out further options for local authorities to use in tackling noise nuisance. The closing date for comments was 31 March. I will announce the outcome of the consultation to the House. Copies of the report and consultation paper are available in the House Library.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the

  SSSIs within Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council area

  Site

  Notification date

  Area (HA)

  Grid reference

  Attingham Park

  22 March 2000

  190.75

  SJ550096

  Berrington Pool

  25 January 1984

  4.8

  SJ524072

  Bomere, Shomere and Betton Pools

  26 October 1983

  59.8

  SJ502080

  Buildwas River Section

  5 February 1986

  1.29

  SJ640045

  Buildwas Sand Quarry

  22 December 1992

  0.14

  SJ644041

  276W
  Government are taking to ensure that only buses travel in the bus lane at peak times; and if he will make a statement. [158404]

  Mr. Hill
  It is for the local highway authority to decide, in the context of its local transport objectives, whether other classes of vehicles, such as cycles and taxis, should be permitted to use bus lanes. The highway authority would normally liaise with the local police on the enforcement of the traffic regulations so that only permitted vehicles use the lanes, but where authorities had taken on the powers now available to them to enforce parking restriction, they would be able to target parking offences in bus lanes more effectively.

  Following successful trials in London, enforcement systems using bus-mounted and CCTV cameras are being introduced along bus routes in London. This includes local authorities carrying out enforcement using camera evidence.

  My Department will be consulting later this year on regulations to allow local authorities outside London to take up powers in section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 to enforce bus lanes using camera evidence. These new powers would be available to authorities which have parking enforcement powers. We would hope to see a wider use of such approaches leading to better compliance with bus lanes restrictions, keeping them clearer for buses to use.

  School Transport
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the US-style yellow bus as a home-to-school transport service in those counties where it has been piloted; and what implications the scheme has for home-to-school transport throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. [158769]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are keen to promote bus travel as an alternative to using the private car. We have reached an agreement with First Group plc which enables them to offer suitably modified US-style buses for use in pilot schemes. We shall be evaluating the results of these schemes in due course.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 182W, regarding sites of special scientific interest, if he will list the locations of SSSIs in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [158763]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The table shows the name of all 27 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) wholly or partly within the Shrewsbury and Atcham area. It also gives the date the site was notified, its area and grid reference.
  277W

  SSSIs within Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council area

  Site

  Notification date

  Area (HA)

  Grid reference

  Bullhill Brook

  21 July 1998

  0.31

  SJ555015

  Chermes Dingle

  17 July 1986

  5.46

  SJ614064

  Comley Quarry

  26 July 1985

  1.92

  SO484963

  Coundmoor Brook

  20 August 1985

  3.99

  SJ558037

  Earl's Hill and Habberley Valley

  26 July 1985

  62.62

  SJ410048

  Granham's Moor Quarry

  28 November 1985

  2.64

  SJ389036

  Hencott Pool

  4 March 1985

  11.8

  SJ490160

  Hope Valley

  30 March 1987

  4.85

  SJ348013

  Hughley Brook

  13 November 1985

  10.42

  S0585996

  Huglith Mine

  15 March 1993

  4.2

  SJ404016

  Lin Can Moss

  16 February 1984

  1.88

  SJ375210

  Long Mynd

  23 March 1990

  2,719.29

  SO421924

  Minsterley Meadows

  28 November 2000

  8.14

  SJ379048

  Old River Bed, Shrewsbury

  18 February 1985

  14.99

  SJ496147

  River Severn at Montford

  14 December 1994

  27.02

  SJ422144

  Sheinton Brook

  5 February 1986

  2.51

  SJ607037

  Shrawardine Pool

  12 July 1983

  17.89

  SJ398161

  The Wrekin and The Ercall

  17 December 1986

  287.05

  SJ630084

  Tick Wood and Benthall Edge

  22 August 1985

  144.74

  SJ650029

  Trewern Brook

  28 November 1985

  5.1

  SJ305121

  Wenlock Edge

  17 December 1986

  135.24

  S0596986

  Whitwell Coppice

  13 November 1985

  15.35

  SJ619021

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to local authorities under the Bellwin scheme in respect of costs incurred following recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [158891]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Councils and other authorities around the country should be commended for the way they have responded to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. While they have a responsibility to budget for the unexpected, the costs that some authorities have incurred because of this outbreak may be exceptional. The Government are keen to ensure that authorities are reimbursed for any extraordinary emergency expenditure so other key services such as education and social services do not suffer.

  That is why I am announcing today an extension of the Bellwin scheme to provide emergency financial assistance to local authorities to help them meet some of the costs of responding to outbreaks of foot and mouth disease.

  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified to help those councils affected by foot and mouth disease. Under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, grant will be paid against valid claims to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold. These are costs incurred in connection with the taking of immediate action to safeguard life and property or to prevent severe inconvenience following an emergency connected with foot and mouth disease.

  My officials are in correspondence with local authorities about the details of the Bellwin scheme. Information will shortly be posted on the Bellwin website which can be found at www.local.detr.gov.uk/finance/bellwin/bell0001.htm.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  EU Youth Orchestra
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy towards funding of the European Union youth orchestra; and how much support was given from public funds in the current financial year. [158755]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The European Union youth orchestra offers young musicians from across the European Union the opportunity to work together to extend their musical experience, and to perform with leading world conductors and soloists. The specialist training and preparation for concerts provides invaluable training and experience for young musicians and can help in the pursuit of a professional career.

  The European Union youth orchestra is primarily supported financially by the European Union. Additional contributions come from the 15 member states of the European Union, of which the UK's contribution was £30,000 from the British Council for the financial year ending 30 September 2000. Funding is also received from corporate and private sponsors.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cheltenham Gold Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to assist businesses and individuals who have been financially disadvantaged by the cancellation of the Cheltenham Gold Cup Festival. [158346]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government recognise that businesses in areas affected by foot and mouth disease (FMD) are under considerable financial pressure, while
  279W
  visitor numbers are down and high-profile events such as the Cheltenham Gold Cup are cancelled or postponed.

  The Government are constantly monitoring the financial impact of FMD in the country, and have already announced a range of measures to assist businesses through any immediate financial difficulties, including a £120 million extension to the Small Firms Loans Guarantee Scheme (SFLGS).

  In addition to these measures, the South-West Regional Development Agency (SW RDA) and Objective 2 partnership have identified over £4 million to assist with the immediate needs of the region and invest-in-recovery programmes to rebuild businesses and communities over the longer term.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the projects funded by his Department and its research councils in the past 10 years on scientific research into genetically modified or transgenic fish in the United Kingdom and abroad, by research project title indicating the purpose of the research, the project timespan, its total cost and recipient research centres including projects recently begun. [157754]

  Research project title

  Timespan

  Cost (£)

  Institution

  Agriculture and Food Research Council

  Efficient production of transgenic fish

  21 October 1991–21 October 1995

  112,100

  University of Southampton

  Directing gene expression in transgenic fish

  13 January 1992–13 September 1995

  99,500

  Universities of Southampton and Edinburgh

  Grass carp growth hormone gene expression in the early development of goldfish and salmon

  9 November 1992–9 December 1995

  118,200

  University of Aberdeen

  NERC

  The genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon on local adaptation and fitness of wild populations: performance of second generation hybrid (ie investigating the genetic impact of genetically modified fish on the wild fish)

  September 2000-February 2002

  36,240

  Queen's University Belfast

  Aquaculture Research
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the research projects supported by his Department over the last 10 years into aquaculture research, including the sums spent on each project. [157755]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am not aware of any, although the research councils, funded by the Department, may be supporting a number of potentially relevant projects, including contributions to the LINK Aquaculture programme. I would be happy to provide further details.

  Digital TV (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to enable television viewers in the Verwood area of Dorset to obtain access to the full range of digital terrestrial television. [158472]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting on 23 April 2001, Official Report, columns 16–17W.
  280W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Project details are listed as follows. All experiments using fish must satisfy the regulations of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Those involving genetic modification are subject to the regulations governing releases to the environment. Marketing of genetically modified fish would also require further approvals, principally as a novel food.

  In 1991–92, the then Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC) funded three grants to work on transgenic fish. These were on carp, salmon, trout and goldfish (a form of carp). These grants finished in 1995. One was to determine how to undertake transgenesis in fish because techniques for other species did not work well, one was to manipulate the onset of sexual maturity and the third to change the rate of growth of the fish.

  In addition, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Medical Research Council are supporting a good deal of research using the fish genome as a model. However, this research is aimed at understanding genetic function more generally at a fundamental level, not at improved varieties of fish.

  The research councils are also supporting a range of wider research on fish genetics and aquaculture, but I understand this does not involve genetic modification (GM). I would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with the details if he so wishes.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in discussions on establishing a universal bank at the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [158770]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be concluded shortly.

  Parental Leave
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of parents' rights to take parental leave. [159150]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are committed to helping parents to achieve a better balance between their home and work lives, in ways which enhance competitiveness for business. That is why we published the Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice", and have carried out extensive consultation with employers and their representatives, employees and their representatives, and family groups.
  281W
  As part of these consultations we have, among other points, received representations on the existing right to parental leave. In the light of these responses I am today announcing three important decisions.

  First, we will increase from 13 to 18 weeks the amount of parental leave available to parents of disabled children. An increase on these lines was almost universally positively received by both parents and employers.

  Secondly, parental leave will remain unpaid. Parents gave more priority to other options in the Green Paper, and while paid parental leave was supported by some employee representatives and family groups, employers of all sizes maintained a high level of opposition to its introduction on grounds of cost and the impact of absence levels from the workplace. The cost of paying for parental leave would be excessive for both the state and employers.

  Thirdly, we will extend entitlement to parental leave to parents of all children who were under five as at 15 December 1999, when the right was first introduced. Experience since then suggests that parental leave has created fewer practical problems for business than may first have been anticipated, and the time is now right to increase the number of parents who are able to exercise the right. Transitional arrangements will apply for parents of children who have since reached, or will soon reach, the age of five, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.

  A note on the regulatory costs of these measures has been put in the Library of the House. We will publish the necessary draft statutory instrument before the summer.

  We will announce the further decisions taken as a result of the Green Paper as they are reached.

  Employee Consultation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is conducting the review of UK law on employee consultation; and when the review will be completed. [158814]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 18 January 2001 that he would review UK arrangements affecting collective redundancies, and that the review would consider whether the current laws were working and in particular whether more should be done to promote effective consultation with employees. As part of the review, the Department of Trade and Industry is holding discussions with companies and trades unions and other interested parties with experience in this field. These are continuing. The review will be completed as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. [159243]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are already committed to reviewing the rehabilitation periods in the Act, following a recommendation from the better regulation task force in their review of fit person criteria in 1999. The sentencing 282W
  framework and its application has changed considerably since 1974 and may change further in the light of current reviews. We believe that the time is right for a fundamental review of the Act as a whole, rather than looking at just a part of it. We are working on preparations for such a review, and will give further details in due course.

  Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the review of the boards of visitors. [159244]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to announce that the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) presented his report to me on 30 March and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library. I am very grateful to him for the great care and trouble that he and his working party have given to this review of the boards of visitors and the complex issues that arose from it.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Joint Schengen Authority information web page will be fully operational. [158758]

  Mrs. Roche
  I understand that the Joint Supervisory Authority, the independent body which oversees the operation of the Schengen Information System, presently maintains a web page providing information about its activities to members of the public.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards retaining Schengen Information System material on domestic files after completion of the spot check; [158756]

  (2) what public information campaign he plans to launch about the Schengen Information System. [158754]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have established a programme to take forward the introduction of the Schengen information System to the United Kingdom. These are both matters I would expect to see the programme address in due course.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on UK participation in Schengen Information System inspections; and what assessment he has made of the report of 9 September 1999. [158759]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is the Department's policy to be fully involved with the Schengen evaluation process, including consideration of any reports that emerge from such evaluations. If the hon. Member will give me further details of the document in question, I will explore the matter further.

  Malcolm Reddican
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inquiries he has made of Greater Manchester police with regard to the disclosure of information relating to the death of Malcolm Reddican. [157963]
  283W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The disclosure of information relating to the death of Malcolm Reddican is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and Greater Manchester police.

  Crowd Control Technologies
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 68W, on what date he received the Crowd Control Technologies report published by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel of the European Parliament Directorate General for Research; and what measures he has taken to implement the recommendation that an independent and objective social impact study be (a) commissioned and (b) published prior to authorisation of purchase orders for new crowd control technology. [158036]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Officials have seen a copy of the report in question, which is not an official report of the European Parliament, and its conclusions have been noted.

  The main direction for my Department's future work on baton round systems comes from the Patten Commission report on the future of the police in Northern Ireland. In line with the commission report, full account will be taken of public acceptability and all other relevant issues in our continuing efforts to identify alternatives to the baton round.

  Prison Inspections
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the prisons and penal institutions where conditions have been severely criticised by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons(a) he and (b) other Home Office Ministers, have visited; and if he will ensure that a Minister makes an unannounced visit to every such institution within a year of an adverse report by the Chief Inspector. [158376]

  Mr. Boateng
  Ministers undertake a rolling programme of visits to ensure that the full range of types and categories of prison are visited. Additionally, visits, both announced and unannounced, are arranged in response to issues or concerns raised for various reasons, including adverse comments from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to detain all asylum seekers. [158336]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: The powers to detain individuals are set out in paragraph 16 of schedule 2, and in paragraph 2 of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. These need to be exercised consistently with article 5 of the European convention on human rights, and with detention policy. There is no blanket power to detain all asylum seekers and the
  284W
  exercise of such a blanket power would almost certainly raise issues under the European convention on human rights.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will add anti-androgen pharmacological treatments to the sex offenders regime. [158522]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service's principal means of reducing reoffending by sex offenders is the sex offender treatment programme (SOTP), which is based on cognitive-behavioural principles. The service is aware of the value of anti-androgen treatment for some sexual offenders, and will be considering the extent to which it should be used as an adjunct to psychological therapy.

  Immigration Detainees (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees were held in Battersea police stations in the past 12 months; and what was the average length of detention. [158736]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is only held in manual form and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since 1 April, the immigration service has sought to transfer individuals held by the police solely under Immigration Act 1988 powers to dedicated immigration detention facilities after no more than one night spent in custody at a police station.

  Crime (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has assessed the effect the installation of CCTV cameras has had on the reduction of crime in Burnley and Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [158402]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Police operational experience and various research studies show that closed circuit television (CCTV) has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  The independent evaluation recently carried out on behalf of Burnley borough council of the "Piloting Neighbourhoods, Burnley" scheme suggests that there has been a reduction in crime of 49 per cent. from the period one year prior to the installation to one year after the installation of CCTV. This residential scheme was funded in 1997 under round 3 of CCTV challenge. The evaluation of Burnley town centre's CCTV scheme, funded in 1996 under round 2 of CCTV challenge, suggested that there had been a reduction in crime of one quarter after the installation of cameras.

  We are not aware of any evaluations being carried out into the effect of CCTV in Lancashire as a whole. Schemes funded under round 1 of the CCTV initiative are still being implemented. They will need to have been in place for at least 12 months before their impact can be fully evaluated. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships will also be evaluating schemes locally.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions, and on what dates,(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have met Lord Birt in his capacity as an adviser on crime; and if he will make a statement about the contribution of Lord Birt to his Department's policies. [158238]

  Mr. Straw
  I met Lord Birt on two occasions on 25 May and again on 15 December 2000. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Ministers of State met Lord Birt on 17 October. These meetings focused on analysing existing data on offenders, offences and victims and crime reduction.

HEALTH

  Premature Babies
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many premature babies were born in the Greater Manchester area in 2000. [157230]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested for the year 2000. However, in 1997–98, an estimated 2,900 babies were born in National Health Service hospitals in Greater Manchester prematurely (before 37 weeks gestation). This represents about 8 per cent. of total NHS hospital births in Greater Manchester.Source:
  Maternity Hospital Episode Statistics

  GP : Patient Ratios
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of patients per general practitioner is in(a) England, (b) the north-west, (c) north Cheshire and (d) Halton. [157842]

  Mr. Denham
  The average list size of unrestricted principals and equivalents in England, the north-west region, North Cheshire health authority and Runcorn and Widnes primary care groups (PCGs) as at 30 September 2000 is shown on the table.

  Average list size of unrestricted principals and equivalents in England; the north-west region; North Cheshire health authority (HA) and Runcorn and Widnes primary care groups (PCG) as at 30 September 2000

  Average list size

  England

  1,853

  North-west region

  1,880

  North Cheshire HA

  1,918

  Runcorn PCG

  1,821

  Widnes PCG

  1,972

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid in compensation by the NHS for medical negligence in each of the last 20 years. [158338]
  286W
  Mr. Denham
  Figures on the amounts included in the national audit summarised accounts for clinical negligence payments for the latest available years are as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  1999–2000

  373

  Notes:

  1. Figures prior to 1996–97 are not available because clinical negligence was not separately identified in the accounts prior to that date.

  2. The 1999–2000 figure is provisional as it is subject to audit.

  3. Changes to accounting policies mean that these amounts are not directly comparable.

  Source:

  National Health Service summarised accounts for health authorities, NHS trusts and NHS Litigation Authority.

  Victoria Climbié
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 687W, on Victoria Climbié (a) when he expects to set up the statutory inquiry and (b) what the remit of the inquiry will be. [158354]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Further announcements about the statutory inquiry into the circumstances leading to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbié were made on 20 April 2001. The inquiry has been established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under powers in section 81 of the Children Act 1989 and section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 49 of the Police Act 1996. Lord Laming of Tewin has been appointed to conduct the inquiry. The terms of reference have been placed in the Library. The date of the preliminary meeting will be announced shortly.

  Nutriprem 2
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances first reviewed Nutriprem 2; what recommendations that Committee made about its suitability for prescription; and if those recommendations have been implemented; [158193]

  (2) on what date his Department first received an application from the manufacturers of Nutriprem 2 for the product to be available on prescription; and when he will announce a decision on this matter. [158190]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which advisory committees of his Department have considered the suitability of Nutriprem 2 for availability on prescription; when that consideration was undertaken; what conclusions were reached; if those conclusions have been implemented; and if he will make a statement; [158319]

  (2) if he has received an application from the manufacturers of Nutriprem 2 for their product to be made available on prescription; and if he will make a statement. [158321]
  287W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Pre-term infant formulae were originally considered by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances (ACBS) in 1992. Their conclusion at that time was that prematurity was not a medical condition and that it would not be appropriate for such formulae to be supplied on national health service prescription. In consequence, pre-term infant formulae have been included in Schedule 10 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, and may not therefore be prescribed on the NHS.

  An application for an ACBS recommendation for Nutriprem 2 was made on 8 February 1999 which the Committee considered at its meetings on 29 March and 15 June of that year and on 31 January 2000. At its meeting on 31 January 2000, the Committee decided to reverse its earlier view and agreed to recommend Nutriprem 2 as suitable for prescription by GPs at NHS expense for catch-up growth in pre-term infants (ie less than 35 weeks at birth), and small in size for gestational aged infants, until six months post-natal age. Unfortunately, at that time, the fact that Nutriprem 2 was included in schedule 10 was overlooked. At its meeting on 16 May 2000, the Committee recommended that Nutriprem 2 should be removed from schedule 10.

  The Department has been considering whether the reasons which the Committee has given for reversing its earlier decision are sufficiently convincing to justify the additional cost to the NHS of removing this product from schedule 10. We expect to announce our decision in due course.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average period is between a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances that a product is suitable for prescription and a decision to implement that decision; and what the average period of consideration given by his Department is to recommendations from that Committee in respect of Nutriprem 2. [158320]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: General practitioners may prescribe any product which they consider to be a drug, unless it is included in schedule 10 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations, provided they are prepared to justify their decision to the health authority. The Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances provides advice to the National Health Service, the effect of which is that prescriptions issued in accordance with the Committee's advice will not normally be investigated. Generally, therefore, there is no decision for the Department to take when the ACBS has recommended that a product is suitable for prescription. Indeed, I know of no case other than pre-term infant formulae where the ACBS has recommended as suitable for prescription products which cannot be prescribed because they are included in schedule 10. There is thus no average time with which to compare the time taken to consider the ACBS's recommendations on these products.

  Endoscopy Activity
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he decided to reclassify new endoscopic activity as complex out-patient rather than in-patient work; and if he will make a statement; [158267]
  288W
  (2) what his estimate is of the reduction in inpatient waiting lists consequent upon the reclassification of new endoscopic activity as complex out-patient procedures. [158268]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made no changes to the way endoscopy activity is classified.

  Gastroenterology
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are on a waiting list for in-patient gastroenterology in England and Wales; [158266]

  (2) what proportion of the national waiting list for gastroenterology is made up of patients waiting for endoscopic activity. [158270]

  Mr. Denham
  On 31 December 2000, the latest date for which this information is available, 11,526 people were awaiting admission to hospitals in England for gastroenterology. Information collected centrally does not identify separately those patients awaiting endoscopies. Information for Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) E.coli poisoning and (b) salmonella poisoning have been reported in the United Kingdom in each year since 1970; and how many people died in each year. [151645]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: Table 1 sets out the total number of laboratory-confirmed isolations of E.coli 0157 from humans reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) in England and Wales, the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health in Scotland and the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Northern Ireland in each year since 1982. There are no reports prior to 1982.

  There is no specific ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases) code for Verocytotoxin-producing E.coli (VTEC) 0157 and therefore it is not possible to obtain data from the Office for National Statistics or the General Register Offices on deaths attributable to VTEC 0157 infection. Furthermore those who die following infection will usually have symptoms of kidney failure or brain damage and these features are more likely to be recorded on death certificates.

  Table 1: E.coli 0157: Reports of laboratory-confirmed isolations from humans in the UK, 1982–2000

  Year1

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK reports

  1982

  2—

  1

  0

  1

  1983

  2—

  6

  0

  6

  19843

  3

  9

  0

  12

  1985

  3

  50

  0

  53

  1986

  4

  76

  0

  80

  1987

  12

  89

  0

  101

  1988

  39

  49

  0

  88

  1989

  87

  119

  1

  207

  1990

  165

  250

  1

  416

  1991

  202

  361

  2

  565

  1992

  115

  470

  1

  586

  1993

  119

  385

  2

  506

  1994

  242

  411

  3

  656

  289W

  Table 1: E.coli 0157: Reports of laboratory-confirmed isolations from humans in the UK, 1982–2000

  Year1

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK reports

  1995

  247

  792

  7

  1,046

  1996

  506

  660

  14

  1,180

  1997

  423

  1,087

  25

  1,535

  1998

  217

  890

  24

  1,131

  1999

  295

  1,084

  51

  1,430

  2000

  200

  897

  48

  1,145

  1No data

  2There were no reports of E.coli 0157 in the UK prior to 1982

  3There were no laboratory reports of E.coli 0157 to the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (SCIEH) prior to 1984

  4Data for 2000 remains provisional

  Sources:

  Scotland data are from the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (SCIEH) and represents laboratory reports (faecal isolates only) of Escherichia coli 0157 in humans England and Wales data is from the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens (LEP) and represents verocytotoxin-producing strains of E.coli 0157 isolated from humans
  Northern Ireland data are from the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Northern Ireland and represents laboratory reports of E.coli 0157 from humans.

  Table 2 sets out the number of laboratory-confirmed reports of Salmonella in humans made to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) in England and Wales, the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health in Scotland and the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in Northern Ireland in each year since 1970.

  Table 2: Salmonella: Reports of laboratory-confirmed isolations from humans in the UK, 1970–20001

  Year

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK reports

  1970

  828

  6,848

  55

  7,731

  1971

  983

  6,784

  36

  7,803

  1972

  854

  4,849

  36

  5,739

  1973

  919

  6,871

  29

  7,819

  1974

  580

  5,663

  44

  6,287

  1975

  1,157

  8,912

  120

  10,189

  1976

  1,550

  7,831

  166

  9,547

  1977

  889

  6,505

  117

  7,511

  1978

  1,253

  9,042

  35

  10,330

  1979

  1,483

  10,381

  71

  11,935

  1980

  1,577

  9,508

  136

  11,221

  1981

  2,526

  10,251

  131

  12,908

  1982

  2,621

  12,322

  94

  15,037

  1983

  2,288

  15,155

  186

  17,629

  1984

  2,221

  14,727

  157

  17,105

  1985

  1,690

  13,330

  109

  15,129

  1986

  2,015

  16,976

  282

  19,273

  1987

  2,286

  20,532

  480

  23,298

  1988

  2,563

  27,478

  200

  30,241

  1989

  2,557

  29,998

  201

  32,756

  1990

  2,458

  30,112

  259

  32,829

  1991

  2,330

  27,693

  159

  30,182

  1992

  2,992

  31,355

  226

  34,573

  1993

  2,919

  30,650

  180

  33,749

  1994

  2,969

  30,411

  282

  33,662

  1995

  3,107

  29,314

  452

  32,873

  1996

  3,266

  28,983

  413

  32,662

  1997

  3,349

  32,596

  432

  36,377

  1998

  2,109

  23,728

  534

  26,371

  1999

  1,879

  17,532

  688

  20,099

  20002

  1,723

  14,845

  419

  16,987

  1 Faecal and other reports, excluding S.typhi and S.paratyphi

  290W

  2 Data for 2000 remains provisional

  Sources:

  Scotland data are laboratory reports to the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health (SCIEH) of Salmonella in humans in Scotland, 1970–2000

  England and Wales data is from the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). The Salmonella data for 1970 to 1980 differ from 1981 onwards as follows:

  1. The pre-1981 data are paper records whereas data for 1981 onwards have been computerised and published on the PHLS website;

  2. The pre-1981 data include all human isolates whereas the data from 1981 onwards are for faecal isolates only;

  3. The pre-1981 data include more than one report for some patients whereas the data for 1981 onwards have had duplication removed so that there is only one report for each patient.

  4. Data for 1981–91 is from Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens (LEP) (formerly DEP). Data for 1992 onwards is from the PHLS Salmonella datasheet.

  Northern Ireland data are from the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Northern Ireland

  Table 3 sets out the annual corrected notifications of deaths related to Salmonella infections (other than S.typhi and S.paratyphi), reported to the Office for National Statistics in England and Wales and the General Register Offices in Scotland and Northern Ireland in each year from 1970 to 1999.

  Table 3: Salmonella associated deaths in the UK, 1970–991 (ICD-003)2

  Year

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total UK reports

  1970

  3

  28

  3

  34

  1971

  3

  34

  0

  37

  1972

  1

  25

  0

  26

  1973

  3

  37

  1

  41

  1974

  3

  29

  0

  32

  1975

  6

  45

  2

  53

  1976

  7

  39

  1

  47

  1977

  7

  34

  3

  44

  1978

  2

  38

  0

  40

  1979

  6

  48

  0

  54

  1980

  3

  37

  1

  41

  1981

  9

  34

  0

  43

  1982

  8

  65

  1

  74

  1983

  5

  49

  0

  54

  1984

  6

  54

  2

  62

  1985

  4

  49

  0

  53

  1986

  2

  40

  0

  42

  1987

  1

  52

  2

  55

  1988

  3

  58

  2

  63

  1989

  3

  61

  0

  64

  1990

  1

  68

  1

  70

  1991

  4

  62

  0

  66

  1992

  3

  59

  0

  62

  1993

  2

  35

  0

  37

  1994

  1

  40

  0

  41

  1995

  2

  36

  1

  39

  1996

  2

  49

  0

  51

  1997

  1

  44

  0

  45

  1998

  5

  21

  0

  26

  1999

  4

  25

  0

  29

  1 Data for 1999 are provisional

  2 Annual corrected notifications ICD-003 ('Salmonella Other') Salmonella related deaths excluding Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi

  Sources:

  England and Wales: Office for National Statistics (ONS) Scotland: General Register Office Scotland (GROS)
  Northern Ireland: General Register Office Northern Ireland (GRONI)

  ICD-003: International Classification of Diseases (ICD) category for 'Salmonella Other' these infections exclude Salmonella typhi and Salmonella paratyphi

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to compensate farmers who have cattle approaching the 30 month cut-off and who suffer financially from being unable to transport their cattle to market. [152017]

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if compensation will be awarded to farmers who as a consequence of foot and mouth exclusion zones have been unable to move cattle and whose cattle have gone over the 30-month age limit. [155654]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 5 and 27 March 2001]: The Government are continuing to look at ways in which the industry might be helped and recognise the concern of beef producers whose animals are subject to movement restrictions which push them over the 30-month age limit and so leave only the OTMS as an outlet for them. The Government's first priority is the eradication of the disease, but we are keeping the position of the producers affected in these ways under review. In the meantime, cattle of all ages may be entered into the livestock welfare disposal scheme if the circumstances are appropriate.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if abattoirs will be compensated for the reduction in the value of hides following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153851]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]: Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease. We have currently no plans to make consequential loss payments of this kind but the situation is being kept under review.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to vaccinate livestock in Lancashire. [158225]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 April 2001]: Although vaccination has not been ruled out in areas other than northern Cumbria and Devon, there are currently no plans to vaccinate livestock in Lancashire. Any such measure would require substantial farmer support.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has made to protect new areas of low foot and mouth infection from exposure to stock originating from areas with higher levels of infection; and if he will make a statement. [154393]

  Mr. Morley
  The general ban on movement of animals susceptible to foot and mouth disease remains in place. Welfare movements are permitted only under licence from areas of low risk to areas of higher risk. This is based on a careful risk assessment, the principles of which we have set out on the MAFF FMD website http://www.maff.gov.uk/.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action will be taken to improve biosecurity to prevent the reintroduction of foot and mouth disease after the disease has been controlled. [156011]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The Ministry is already starting to look at what lessons can be learned from this outbreak to prevent foot and mouth disease recurring. We are currently consulting on a possible ban on swill feeding and on introducing movement restrictions
  292W
  on sheep, goats and cattle to require a 20-day standstill period. We are also reviewing the enforcement of legislation governing imports of animal products, both commercial and personal, and we will consider other issues surrounding the livestock sector, for example the operation of markets.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances foot and mouth-free status can be achieved without the slaughter of vaccinated animals. [156650]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The recent European Commission decision (2001/257/EC) authorises the vaccination without slaughter of cattle in specific areas of the UK. Chapter 2.1.1 of the OIE International Animal Health Code contains guidelines on the steps to be taken to regain foot and mouth disease-free status in various circumstances.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what warnings were given to(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department of the risk of spreading foot and mouth prior to the present outbreak arising from the use of swill feeding. [156879]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: It has long been recognised that infected meat products might pose a risk if they are not adequately processed in pig swill. The controls in the Animal By-Products Order 1999 are designed to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases such as foot and mouth and classical swine fever by ensuring appropriate treatment of any catering waste which might include meat products.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he has made for the vaccination of livestock against foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [153023]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 March 2001]: Vaccination has always been an option which we have constantly reviewed in the light of veterinary and epidemiological advice. We have developed contingency plans which would enable us to carry out a limited vaccination programme in certain circumstances. We also need to assess the views of the food and livestock sector.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what vaccines are available against foot and mouth disease; and what his policy is on their use. [152471]

  Mr. Morley
  The vaccines are:

  (i) Adjuvanted inactivated foot and mouth disease vaccine. An aqueous based vaccine for the immunisation of domestic ruminants.

  (ii) Aftopur DOE. An oil based vaccine for the active immunisation of ruminants and pigs.

  (iii) Aftopur AlSap. An aqueous based vaccine for the active immunisation of ruminants.

  Vaccination has always been an option which we have constantly reviewed in the light of veterinary and epidemiological advice. We have developed contingency plans which would enable us to carry out a limited vaccination programme in certain circumstances. We also need to assess the views of the food and livestock sectors.

  Modern Biotechnology Information Transfer Club
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the transfer club members for each of the years of his Department's funding, indicating which of the transfer club members also received public funding for biotechnology research during this period, specifying the project details, research partners and funding periods. [157801]

  Ms Quin
  Membership of Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association (ca 1,000 members) automatically conferred membership of the club in its first phase of operation (January 1996 to July 1997). Membership by direct subscription applied in the second phase (October 1997 to March 1999). There were 130 registered members, distributed as follows: retail (7 per cent. manufacturing and wholesale (41 per cent.); agriculture (8 per cent.); biotechnology (15 per cent.); academic and R&D (17 per cent.), Associations and Government (12 per cent.)

  There is no direct link between the activities of the club and public funding for research.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the role was of the Modern Biotechnology Information Transfer Club set up by his Department. [157799]

  Ms Quin
  The initiative to set up the Modern Biotechnology Information Transfer Club was taken by Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association. The objective of the club was to stimulate the information of links between the food industry and the biotechnology sector. The main club activities were to disseminate information via bulletins (10); seminars (six); and visits to research laboratories (seven). MAFF's involvement was to provide partial financial support for the club as a technology awareness raising project, and to monitor the activities to ensure that agreed objectives were met.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial and other public resources were put into the transfer club for each year until March 1999. [157800]

  Ms Quin
  Financial resources put into the Modern Biotechnology Information Transfer Club were as follows:

  Year ending

  £

  March 1997

  15,000

  March 1998

  9,900

  March 1999

  7,500

  Total

  32,400

  Financial resources put in by industry through club membership fees were £57,412, representing 64 per cent. of total costs.

  The only other public resources put into the club were for monitoring purposes to ensure that contractors were meeting objectives.

  Cod
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the findings of the scientific investigation into the diet of cod. [157833]

  Mr. Morley
  Copies of final report executive summaries for completed MAFF-funded research projects can be requested by e-mailing fisheries @csg.maff.gsi.gov.uk, specifying which area of research or project information is being requested. The research project investigating the diet of cod will be completed in March 2004.

  Sand Eel Fishery
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of the three years research programme into sand eels announced in November 1996. [157831]

  Mr. Morley
  This presumably refers to EU Contract 95/78 dealing with the effects of large-scale industrial fisheries on non-target species. The research partners for this project included the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St. Andrews and the Marine Laboratory at Aberdeen, which will be able to supply the hon. Member with information on this project.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Appointments (Age Limits)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in his Department; if this limit is mentioned in advertisements for such posts; and what the basis for this limit is. [158113]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are committed to equality of opportunity and to increasing the diversity of those appointed to public bodies. No age limit is placed on appointments to public bodies in this Department.

TREASURY

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 2001,Official Report, columns 300–02W, on what date each of the resource accounts for 1999–2000 were published; what the (a) greatest, (b) median and (c) least number of days that elapsed was between each of the resource accounts being laid upon the table and being made generally available to the public; and if he will make a statement. [158540]

  Mr. Timms
  The dates that Departments' resource accounts were published are shown in the table.

  Departments

  Date published

  DFEE

  22 March 2001

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  22 March 2001

  Ofsted

  15 February 2001

  NHS Pension Scheme (England and Wales)

  1—

  Department of Health

  22 March 2001

  Department of Environment, Transport and the
  Regions

  29 March 2001

  295W

  Departments

  Date published

  Ofwat

  31 January 2001

  ORR

  21 March 2001

  Home Office

  1—

  Charity Commission

  28 March 2001

  Lord Chancellors Department

  1—

  Treasury Solicitors

  1—

  Crown Prosecution Service

  30 March 2001

  Public Records Office

  25 January 2001

  Serious Fraud Office

  7 March 2001

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  30 March 2001

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme—MOD

  13 December 2000

  Defence—MOD Consolidated

  1 February 2001

  FCO

  30 March 2001

  DfID

  1—

  DfID—Superannuation Pensions

  1—

  DTI—Main

  31 January 2001

  ECGD

  20 December 2000

  OFGEM

  20 December 2000

  OFT

  31 January 2001

  Oftel

  31 January 2001

  UK Atomic Energy Authority—DTI

  31 January 2001

  MAFF

  1—

  Forestry Commission

  1—

  Forestry Commission Pension Scheme

  22 March 2001

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  9 November 2000

  DCMS

  31 January 2001

  DSS

  16 February 2001

  Scotland Office

  1—

  Wales Office

  24 January 2001

  Northern Ireland Office

  1—

  HM Treasury

  1—

  Crown Estate

  19 April 2001

  Customs and Excise

  31 January 2001

  Department of National Savings

  3 November 2000

  GAD

  31 January 2001

  Inland Revenue

  24 January 2001

  National Investment and Loans Office

  22 November 2000

  Office for National Statistics

  2 April 2001

  Cabinet Office

  1—

  Security and Intelligence Agencies

  12 April 2001

  Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation

  30 March 2001

  Central Office for Information

  19 April 2001

  Privy Council Office

  9 February 2001

  1Where no date is shown the accounts were not published by 24 April 2001

  As at 24 April 2001, the greatest, median and least number of working days between the laying and publication of departmental resource accounts were as follows:

  Number of days

  Greatest

  54

  Median

  6

  Least1

  -1

  1 DETR's non-statutory resource account was published the day before it was presented to Parliament

  Fourteen Departments arranged for this statutory resource account to be published on the same day that they were laid by the Treasury, as did one Department for its non-statutory resource account.

  This is the first year that Departments have had to organise the printing and subsequent publication of statutory accounts. The National Audit Office undertakes publication of appropriation accounts. The Treasury has informed Departments of the need to publish their resource accounts promptly after laying. Work is in hand to improve Departments' performance in respect of publication of 2000–01 resource accounts.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to stop money laundering from the developed world through the City of London. [157659]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom already has comprehensive provisions in place to prevent money laundering, irrespective of where the funds originated. Money laundering is a serious criminal offence in the UK and attracts penalties of up to 14 years imprisonment—among the highest in the world. The UK anti-money laundering regime has been praised by the financial action taskforce as a model for other countries. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to implementing further measures to strengthen the laws against money laundering.

  The Proceeds of Crime Bill, published in draft for consultation in March, will create a new criminal assets recovery agency, update the criminal laws on money laundering and permit the restraint of realisable property at the beginning of an investigation, an earlier stage than is possible at present. The Bill will also make it an offence for employees in the regulated sector to fail to disclose a transaction to the authorities when they knew or suspected or had reasonable grounds to suspect that it represented the proceeds of crime.

  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will give the FSA powers both to issue money laundering rules and to prosecute for breaches of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993.

  Furthermore, the UK has taken an active role in updating the EU money laundering directive. The directive will be updated to expand the range of predicate offences giving rise to an obligation to report suspicions and will impose reporting obligations on lawyers and accountants. It will thereby ensure that the minimum standards applicable in other member states are brought close to the tough standards already applied in the UK.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated average life expectancy of(a) men and (b) women retiring today; and what the figures were for (i) 1991, (ii) 1981 and (iii) 1971. [158898]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table gives life expectancy at state retirement age calculated from population estimates and deaths data for the calendar years shown.

  Life expectancy at state retirement age, United Kingdom

  Males age 65

  Females age 60

  1971

  12.4

  20.1

  1981

  13.0

  20.8

  1991

  14.1

  21.9

  1999

  15.3

  22.7

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Minimum Wage (Greenock and Inverclyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Greenock and Inverclyde benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage; how many are estimated to benefit from the increase to £4.10; and if he will make a statement. [158599]
  297W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 25 April 2001:
  As National Statistician. I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Greenock and Inverclyde who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW), and the number who will benefit from the increase to £4.10.
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Trading Opportunities
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to improve the trading opportunities of poorer countries. [157648]

  Clare Short
  We are working hard for the launch of a new trade round at the ministerial meeting in November in order to achieve an improvement in the trading opportunities of developing countries.

  Water and Electricity
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department offers to ensure public water supply and electricity supply to communities in poorer countries; and if she will make a statement. [157649]

  Mr. Mullin
  We live in a world where over 1 billion people lack access to safe water, 2.4 billion lack adequate sanitation, and a similar number have no electricity in their homes. Water and sanitation are fundamental to health and well-being. Electricity is essential for cooking, lighting and opportunities for small-scale enterprises. Last year my Department provided over £60 million to improve access to water supply and sanitation and £40 million for electricity services.

  Egypt
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the budget is for EU and UK development assistance to Egypt for(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [157650]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our budget for bilateral assistance to Egypt was £4 million in 2000–01 and is set to remain at this level in 2001–02 and 2002–03.
  298W
  Assistance by the European Commission to Egypt was approximately £93 million in 1999, of which the UK contribution was £16.5 million, which is the latest year for which figures are available. Budget allocations for 2001 and 2002 have yet to be agreed.

  Russia
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department is spending on overseas development assistance to Russia. [157651]

  Clare Short
  We spent £26 million on aid to Russia in 2000–01 and expect our programme to continue at this level. We contribute a further £12 million through the EC Tacis programme.

  Our new country strategy will focus our work on support for the Government's economic and social reform programme which is crucial for the reduction of poverty in Russia.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to the Palestinian Authority. [157652]

  Clare Short
  Britain is providing assistance to the Palestinian Authority to help reduce poverty and support democratic and accountable government in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians are suffering badly from the effects of the current conflict and the economic sanctions imposed by Israel.

  Peru
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policies on poverty reduction in Peru. [157653]

  Clare Short
  Although a middle-income country, Peru has a serious poverty problem with 41 per cent. of the population classed as poor and 15 per cent. as extremely poor and unable to meet food needs. The Government of President Fujimori grew increasingly corrupt before it collapsed in late 2000 and in the process undermined and reversed the progress on poverty reduction that they had achieved in the mid 1990s.

  After the interim Paniagua Government was formed in November 2000, we concluded that our future strategy should remain focused on the problem of inequality in Peru and would be centred on enabling poor people, especially indigenous groups and women, to realise their social and economic rights, play their full role in society and get out of poverty. Once the Peruvian presidential election (now going to a second round in May or June) is decided and a new elected Government take office on 28 July, we will open discussions with them on the future shape of our support for poverty elimination. We will seek to work with the Peruvian Government, civil society and the international community to maximise progress towards meeting the international development targets in Peru.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on development aid to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa. [157654]

  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is the single most important development challenge in Africa. The epidemic is undermining economic growth and fundamentally threatens social and economic development. DFID continues to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also support efforts to combat the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  As national strategic plans to tackle the epidemic improve, we have begun to place our support within the framework of those plans. For example, we have recently approved significant HIV/AIDS-related programmes in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe totalling over £60 million, and a £20 million programme is being designed to support Mozambique. A new programme for South Africa is also planned for this year. We have also committed £7.5 million to a regional initiative on HIV/AIDS with the Southern Africa Development Community. Last month, I approved a £25 million programme under the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa to support the efforts of Ethiopia, Rwanda and Burundi and other countries to curtail the spread and reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the measures her Department is taking to strengthen the international effort to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. [157656]

  Clare Short
  The Chancellor and I announced, as part of the global child poverty initiative, several tax measures and purchase fund options, to help increase access to medicines in developing countries. My Department is in discussion with other countries, international organisations, the private sector and civil society, to explore further options to increase international investment to tackle the diseases of poverty in developing countries, including the establishment of a global purchase fund for commodities for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and diseases of childhood. In addition, we continue to encourage the EC to rapidly implement its programme of action for tackling the major communicable diseases.

  We are also currently supporting a number of innovative public-private partnerships aimed at tackling the diseases of poverty. These include £14 million for the international AIDS vaccine initiative and support for the global alliance for vaccines, the medicines for malaria venture, and LAPDAP to treat drug-resistant malaria. In addition, the UK strongly supports the World Health Organisation-led roll back malaria initiative, which provides the vehicle for concerted action to deliver more widely the benefits of currently available methods of malaria control to the poorest.

  Finally, we continue to work with developing countries to strengthen their basic health systems capable of delivering drugs correctly without which poor people will be unable to access the necessary drugs in their communities.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has committed in support of sexual 300W
  reproductive health programmes and action against HIV/ AIDS since 1997; and how much it plans to spend in the next financial year. [157655]

  Clare Short
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what risk and impact assessments her Department has commissioned on genetically modified fish programmes. [157657]

  Clare Short
  The recent press reports that have suggested that DFID-sponsored research on genetically modified fish is being carried out in secret were false. Results are published and designed to help developing countries to decide for themselves whether they want to use these technologies.

  The one current project is investigating genetic modification techniques to accelerate the growth rate and confer sterility in tilapia, a freshwater fish widely farmed in Africa and Asia. Each stage in the progression of this research depends on evidence of the balance between risk and potential benefits. Two assessments of environmental impact have been undertaken and a third commissioned. Socio-economic studies will help to provide a better understanding of how poor producers and consumers could benefit.

  No genetically modified fish have been released from this project. Any controlled field testing will depend on the outcome of current studies. We would only consider a partnership with a developing country where appropriate bio-safety regulations are in place and with the full co-operation of the relevant local authorities.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received regarding assistance for projects in Zimbabwe. [157658]

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other Governments in the industrialised world concerning future aid to Zimbabwe. [157665]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department' s involvement in aid projects in Zimbabwe. [157667]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997 I have kept our development programme in Zimbabwe under regular review. As part of this process, I have had discussions with and from representations from a variety of interested parties from Zimbabwe, the UK and elsewhere. We remain committed to helping the poorest in Zimbabwe who are suffering the combined effect of economic mismanagement and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But the situation in Zimbabwe is difficult and we continue to work only where we are confident our support can be effective.

  For that reason, I have closed 12 development projects and suspended or substantially modified five others in the last 12 months. Most recently, we wrote to the Zimbabwe Government on 6 April informing them that we were ending our support to the Privatisation Agency of

  301W
  Zimbabwe and to a Trade Policy Capacity Building Programme. In the continued absence of Government policies likely to reverse current economic decline and reduce poverty, I concluded that those projects were likely to have little beneficial impact for the people of Zimbabwe.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to help developing countries contribute to carbon dioxide reduction under the Kyoto protocol. [157660]

  Clare Short
  Over the last three financial years, we have provided around £200 million of development assistance to developing countries for projects and programmes which have contributed to mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change. The UK has also provided around £215 million since 1992 to the global environment facility (GEF). One of the GEF's four focal areas is climate change, where it has looked in particular at developing renewable energy resources in developing countries.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the US President's decision not to ratify the Kyoto protocol on sustainable development in developing countries. [157671]

  Clare Short
  Climate change is a global problem which needs a global agreement. The UK believes that the Kyoto protocol provides the only framework for this. Developing countries are the most affected by climate change. We therefore believe that their best interests would be served by continuing to pursue our aim of ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto protocol by 2002, so as to start to deliver emissions reductions by developed countries. We will of course continue to encourage the US to engage in global efforts to tackle climate change and to take domestic action to reduce its emissions.

  Generic Drugs
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her policy in respect of the use of World Trade Organisation sponsored and unilateral trade sanctions as a response to developing countries providing generic drugs to treat diseases. [157661]

  Clare Short
  The TRIPS agreement does not apply to generic medicines, which are off-patent. Copies of patented drugs can be legitimately made under the TRIPS agreement through voluntary or, in certain circumstances compulsory licensing. There have been no cases of the WTO dispute settlement panel imposing sanctions on a developing country providing generic drugs.

  Malawi
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the Government of Malawi to support their anti-corruption measures. [157662]
  302W
  Clare Short
  We are working with the anti-corruption bureau through the provision of a technical adviser, support to undertake prosecutions, training and equipment. We are also helping to tighten Government-wide financial controls, supporting the Accountant-General in developing an integrated financial management information system, and have recently agreed support for the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to amputee victims of the RUF in Sierra Leone. [157663]

  Clare Short
  We are providing support to various NGOs including World Vision for work with displaced people in Sierra Leone. World Vision is providing support to amputees and others.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on discussions with the US Administration on third-world debt. [157664]

  Clare Short
  I expect to meet members of the new US Administration to discuss debt issues when I am in Washington later this month for the spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF. My officials maintain regular contact with their US counterparts.

  Maternal Mortality
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of maternal mortality in developing countries. [157666]

  Clare Short
  The International Development goal of a three quarters reduction in maternal mortality by 2015 is a key priority within DFID's health strategy.

  Functioning health systems are needed to achieve sustained progress in lowering maternal mortality. We have committed £1 billion since 1997 to help developing countries put in place effective health care systems, vital if maternity services are to be improved. We are also spending around £85 million on bilateral reproductive and sexual health, including projects specifically focusing on maternal health in Malawi, Nepal, Kenya and Ghana.

  We are making significant contributions to the maternal health programmes of the European Community, the World Bank and international and national civil society groups, and collaborating with the health and development agencies of the United Nations system, particularly the World Health Organisation, the UN Children's Fund and the UN Population Fund to intensify efforts to make pregnancy safer.

  Firearms
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the availability of small firearms on developing countries. [157668]
  303W
  Clare Short
  Our work on analysing conflict-related issues and our experience and that of others in implementing development programmes demonstrates that the availability of arms, especially small arms and light weapons, exacerbates conflict and undermines sustainable development.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the role of trade unions in developing countries in promoting social justice. [157669]

  Clare Short
  Trade unions and other civil society organisations have an important role to play in promoting social justice. A strong independent civil society is essential for holding Governments to account and for ensuring that the voice of poor people is heard. Trade unions have traditionally drawn their membership from workers in the formal sector. The challenge for trade unions today is to reach the vast majority of poor people who work outside the formal economy.

  Corruption
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the level of corruption in British Government aid programmes. [157670]

  Clare Short
  My Department continuously reviews and assesses mechanisms for the delivery of, and accounting for, UK development funds in order to minimise the risk of corruption.

  I am confident that our carefully designed programme management systems, supported by Internal Audit and National Audit Office scrutiny, are sufficiently robust to prevent or detect fraud or corruption.

  In developing countries, my officials work closely with Governments, civil society and other development agencies to improve the quality of public sector financial management reform. These measures help to reduce the risks. In addition we may call for special programme management, audit and accounting systems in order to satisfy ourselves that funds are used for the intended purpose.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the value was of her Department's aid to(a) Macedonia, (b) Kosovo and (c) Serbia for the most recent six month period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [157575]

  Clare Short
  The most recent period for which bilateral aid figures are published is the financial year 1999–2000.

  In that year, my Department spent £111 million in emergency assistance for Kosovo refugees in the region including Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and in
  304W
  Kosovo itself. The UK's share of EU aid to Kosovo and Kosovo refugees in the calendar year 1999 was £56 million.

  Our bilateral spending on non-emergency aid to Macedonia in 1999–2000 was £0.84 million. The UK's share of total multilateral aid to Macedonia in the calendar year 1998, the latest for which figures are available, was £4.7 million.

  We did not support a bilateral aid programme to Serbia in 1999–2000, in view of the lack of commitment to reform by the then Serbian Government. Our activities in Montenegro were confined to provision of advice to the Privatisation Council.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new proposals she has to reduce fatalities in childbirth in Azerbaijan. [157644]

  Clare Short
  Azerbaijan is not a priority for direct assistance, due to poor progress in democratic reform. My Department does, however, provide financial support to international institutions including the WHO and the UNFPA, which operate safe motherhood and reproductive health projects in Azerbaijan.

  Commission on Intellectual Property Rights
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the members of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights; and if she will make a statement on its objectives. [159344]

  Clare Short
  The commission, which we promised to set up in the international development White Paper published last December, will be headed by John Barton, Professor of Law of Stanford University in the USA. He is an expert on intellectual property law, who has long studied the impact that international and national rules have on developing countries.

  The other members of the commission are:
  Daniel Alexander, an intellectual property barrister from the UK
  Professor Carlos Correa, Professor of Economics at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
  Dr. R. A. Mashelkar, Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India
  Dr. Gill Samuels, Senior Director of Science Policy and Scientific Affairs, Europe, Sandwich Laboratories, Pfizer, UK
  Dr. Sandy Thomas, Director, Nuffield Council for Bioethics, London, UK.

  The terms of the reference of the commission are to consider:
  how national IPR regimes should best be designed to benefit developing countries within the context of international agreements, including TRIPS;
  how the international framework of rules and agreements might be improved and developed—for instance in the area of traditional knowledge and the relationship between IPR rules and regimes covering access to genetic resources;

  305W
  the broader policy framework needed to complement intellectual property regimes, including for instance controlling anticompetitive practices through competition policy and law.

  I hope that the commission will advance understanding of how IPR regimes could be sensibly implemented in ways that promote sustainable development, and better livelihoods and health for poor people in developing countries.
  306W
  The commission will hold its first meeting in London on 8–9 May to chart out its objectives and how it will go about its work. The aim is that it will report to me by March next year. The commission will be supported by a secretariat whose members will be drawn from the staff of the Department for International Development and the UK Patent Office.

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

M40: Service Stations
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the provision of a service station on the M40 between London and the Oxford service station; whether planning permission has been granted; and, if so, what is the projected date of opening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there are two current applications for planning permission for motorway service areas both near Junction 2 on the M40: one at Hedgerley, which was the subject of a public inquiry last year, and on which a decision is awaited; and one at Burtley Wood, which we expect to be considered at a public inquiry later this year.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he understand the enormous frustration and disappointment that that will cause people who use the M40 every day? Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to have a motorway service station in the area as soon as is possible and practicable? Will they also consider the possibility of having directional signs, and perhaps distance signs, on some of the roundabouts on the M40 to direct people to where they can buy petrol?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the M40 has three service stations at roughly 30-mile intervals, according to government guidelines. The distance between Oxford and London is slightly further than that; nevertheless, there is not necessarily a case for the development of a motorway service area. We shall, however, consider arty proposals that come forward. At present, the inspector considering the Hedgerley proposal has recommended against it. Such matters are also complicated by the fact that planning applications have also been made as regards the M25, some of which have been subject to court procedures. That will also have some influence on the availability of service stations in the area.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the High Wycombe bypass was developed in, I believe, the early 1970s, provision was made for a service station in the area? Indeed, some of the slip-roads were constructed at the time and are still there
190
today. Can my noble friend say what has happened to that proposal? Thirty years is an awfully long time for the provision of a service station!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of that situation, principally because my noble friend told me about it roughly four minutes ago. I am afraid that I do not have at my fingertips information regarding the reasons for not proceeding with that development 30 years ago. Indeed, if my arithmetic is right, the party opposite was in power at that time. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, knows more about it than I do.
Under the present system, we shall consider any commercial proposals that come forward. There are currently two commercial proposals regarding areas further down the M40, closer to Gerrards Cross. There is currently no proposal to use the site at High Wycombe on the table.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much I appreciate that warm and unsolicited tribute to me?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. I deeply appreciate, as does the whole House, the noble Lord's participation in these debates.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister did not respond to the second of the noble Lord's supplementaries with regard to signing. This is a problem in quite a number of different areas in the country. Therefore, in areas where service stations are not situated at fairly frequent intervals, should not the availability of petrol and other services he signed on the motorway or dual carriageway?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the general policy would be against installing such signs. Broadly speaking, service stations are situated at least every 30 miles on motorways. Therefore, installing signs indicating that petrol facilities are available off the motorway would raise issues not only of traffic flow and, potentially, of safety, but also regarding the Highways Agency effectively favouring one garage as against others in the vicinity. Although there are exceptional circumstances in which we sign off-motorway facilities, we do not do so in general. However, I shall bear the point in mind in this case.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps take a different point of view about the M40; namely, that there is an adequate number of service stations and that, if anything needs to be improved, it is the quality of the food? As for signing, if anyone happens to miss such a sign should not he be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly agree that motorway service areas and facilities are pretty well signed in advance. Indeed, as you approach one sign, you are told how many miles it is to the next one. Drivers should certainly be paying attention to such

191
signs. As to the quality of food and service, the contents of my postbag indicate that there is considerable concern in the country about such matters. The OFT recently considered the pricing and the quality of the service available, and wants to increase competition and improve services. Discussions are taking place with both the operators and my officials to ascertain how competition could be increased and the quality of the service thereby improved.

Northern Ireland: Organised Crime
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for tackling the increasing level of organised crime and racketeering in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government and the operational agencies in Northern Ireland are committed to tackling the organised crime problem. Organised crime is unacceptable in any society but in Northern Ireland the problem is compounded by paramilitary involvement. In September last year the Northern Ireland Office established a multi-agency Organised Crime Task Force which has already published an analysis of the problem and a strategy for tackling it. A copy of these documents can be found in the Library.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. As a result of the Good Friday agreement the paramilitaries are on cease-fire. However, they have not been doing nothing. They have supported the alarming growth in organised crime such as racketeering, drugs and intimidation, bringing untold misery to thousands of people. Does the Minister accept that the RUC has, against all the odds, prevented anarchy for over 30 years? Does he agree with the previous Secretary of State who assured Parliament that the implementation of Patten would proceed only at a pace favourable to maintaining law and order in the Province?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the statement made by the previous Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson, about the introduction of Patten. I agree with what the noble Baroness said about the relationship between paramilitaries and organised crime. Indeed, that is specifically referred to in the document produced by the task force, The Threat to Northern Ireland Society from Serious and Organised Crime. It is vital that the Government and all the agencies address it with full vigour. That is what they are doing. That is why they have set up the task force and why the task force has analysed the threat and has set out a strategy for dealing with it.
Lord Blease: My Lords, is it not vitally important and in the best interests of the citizens of Northern
192
Ireland, of Britain and of the Republic of Ireland to combat the growing destructive evils of powerful local and international organised crime and racketeering with plans to ensure the retention and development of the ongoing, effective and efficient police service in Northern Ireland?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course it is and, indeed, the police service has achieved some considerable coups against organised crime in the past year. I should have associated myself with the noble Baroness's comments about the splendid job that the police service is doing. I give one statistic. So far in 2000–01, 51.4 million cigarettes have been seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. Last October a joint police and Customs operation resulted in the recovery of about 7.5 million cigarettes from premises in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the police continue to be so effective.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, of the 78 mafia style organisations mentioned in the report of the task force to which the Minister referred, over half are paramilitary sourced. Gangsterism is flourishing in this potentially transitional period for Northern Ireland as those with expertise in using paramilitary networks for serious criminal purposes are increasingly using their expertise for purely personal rather than part-paramilitary gain. Does the Minister agree that until paramilitary organisations and their criminal networks are either disbanded or destroyed Northern Ireland will be unable to become an organised crime and intimidation free society?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that there is a link between the paramilitary organisations and organised crime which is committed simply for criminal purposes and for no other. It is vital that not just the police but all of the agencies involved get together and fight that with all the vigour they can command. The task force was set up to bring all the relevant agencies together to fight organised crime. It is vital that it be defeated so that Northern Ireland can return to normal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what proportion of the crime in Northern Ireland—that is, the established crime which has resulted in convictions—is known to be politically motivated?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the statistics to hand. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord do his best to convince his colleagues that harmonising VAT and other taxes as between Northern Ireland and the Republic would do a great deal to reduce organised crime and in particular to reduce the profitability of smuggling?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's point. I am very aware of the fact that the greater the difference in duty rates between the two

193
countries and, indeed, between the United Kingdom and other countries, the greater the prevalence of that kind of crime.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend able to make a comparison between the crime rate in Northern Ireland and that in England?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the rate of ordinary crime, as it were, in Northern Ireland is lower than in the United Kingdom.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what is the volume of illegal diesel being brought into this country from the island of Ireland and particularly from the Province? Who is benefiting from those illegal sales and what is being done in the United Kingdom to prevent them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures. I believe that the figures are greater in the main part of the United Kingdom than as between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I shall give the noble Lord the figures in writing.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, have Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP yet taken any steps to encourage their communities to co-operate with the police as against hating the RUC and doing their best to destroy it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know from the debates that we had on the then police Bill that neither the SDLP nor Sinn Fein has yet urged their communities to join the new police service.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the key to tackling this problem lies with the paramilitaries? Can he report any progress in dealing with their prevalent activities? Is he aware that the editorial of the Belfast Telegraph of 24th April states:
"The reality is that despite the ceasefires many areas of Northern Ireland remain within the grip of the paramilitaries. These self-appointed groups lay down the law and intimidate those who stand up to them"?
Do the Government recognise that description and—I appreciate the difficulties—can they offer us some progress?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the analysis of the threat posed by organised crime published by the task force earlier in the year specifically recognises the link between paramilitary organisations and organised crime. It states that the legacy of terrorism is a significant influence. More than half of the groups known to police are either associated with or controlled by loyalist or republican paramilitary organisations. The task force seeks to bring together all of the agencies tackling these groups and to make the tight concerted. The first step it has taken is to
194
prioritise against which groups they must focus the fight. In the light of what has been said, it is clear which groups those are.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, against the background of the debate we have just had, does the Minister share our deep concerns over reports that up to half of the senior officers in the RUC are set to leave the force by the autumn of this year?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this point has been raised in the past. I was able to report that the Chief Constable is satisfied that as a result of boards he is having there will be sufficient people above chief inspector to fill any vacancies.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the introduction in Ireland next year of the notes and coins of the single currency, the euro, may give new opportunities for organised crime and racketeers, especially in the areas of fraud and money laundering?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a point which has to be taken into account by the task force.

US Weapons Sales to Taiwan
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations have been made to the United States administration with regard to the supply of advanced radar weapon systems such as Aegis to Taiwan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, none. This is a matter for the United States administration, which decides on weapons sales to Taiwan with reference to American law and its assessment of Taiwan's needs. We attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Straits which could be very destabilising for the whole of the region. We look to both China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and indicate appreciation for the restraint shown by the US administration in postponing any decision about the supply of Aegis radar systems to Taiwan at present.
First, is the Minister aware that the eight diesel submarines which are to be supplied to Taiwan are all based on European designs? Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether those European designs have been the result of consultation with the United States; and what the German and Dutch governments may have said about them?

195
Secondly, will the Minister and Her Majesty's Government consider making the strongest representations to the People's Republic of China about possible retaliation through the supply of missile technology to the Middle East and Pakistan, indicated in the past two days by a leading military officer in a leading think tank in Beijing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we understand that by mutual agreement the United States and Taiwan do not discuss the specific decisions taken at their annual meetings on arms sales. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to do so now. Although I am aware of the details contained and widely discussed in the press and have noted their comments, I cannot respond, therefore, to the first part of the noble Baroness's questions. However, we see it as of crucial importance that everyone should now behave in a temperate way; that we should be very careful to do all we can to make sure that there is a rapprochement between China and Taiwan and an amelioration of any anxieties that may currently exist between the United States and China.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will back the Minister in her desire to avoid conflict between China and others. However, will she also bear very much in mind that the Government of Taiwan are not now the rump of the Kuomintang. They are an elected, proper, authentic, democratic government. Will the noble Baroness further remember that in any supply of weapons to Taiwan there is no danger whatever of Taiwan committing aggression against China; and, frankly, there is every prospect of something nasty happening from the Chinese end?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we of course acknowledge the elections the Taiwanese held, and we were warm in our congratulations to the Taiwanese on those elections and the democratic process in that country. We bear well in mind what the noble Lord says. However, I reiterate that we must all consider how to express ourselves with moderation at this time. Ill considered words can sometimes cause more damage than good.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, does the Minister accept that while the Americans are probably right on this occasion to withhold the Aegis antimissile radar systems from the Taiwanese, they are totally justified in supplying equipment to allow the Taiwanese, who are a resourceful and dynamic people and nation, to defend themselves against violence and violent threats. That is their democratic right. That is consistent with the ethical standards which I understand Her Majesty's Government support. So could we have a little more enthusiasm from the
196
Government Benches for the measures which are being taken to ensure that the Taiwanese are allowed to protect themselves against violence and violent attack?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that from these Benches we fully appreciate the nature of the situation. But I reiterate that the American position is the American position. We have demonstrated the position that we take, which is moderate, well considered and balanced.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that technologically Aegis is unlikely to be effective within the next 10 years, by which time wiser counsels may have prevailed in Washington? But can someone explain to the American Government that if they seek to protect America and her allies from nuclear attack, destabilising the non-proliferation regime is rather like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the debate that we have just had demonstrates quite dramatically the differences of view on this. That is why we take the view that it is important to retain the balance of which I have already spoken, and to emphasise that the American situation is different from our own. Their position is governed by their legislation; ours is not. We shall continue to do everything within our power to strive to ensure that there is a de-escalation in international tension, and that we have a more balanced and stable world.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will the Minister gently and with moderation point out to the Government of the People's Republic of China that the responsibility for increasing military tension in this area lies entirely with them for having installed between 250 and 300 missiles on their coast aimed at the cities of Taiwan? In those circumstances, are not the Taiwanese Government entitled to defend themselves from an apparent military threat, particularly when that seems to be accompanied by the People's Republic of China completely ignoring the democratically and freely expressed views of 23 million Taiwanese people in their recent elections? May it not be the case that on this occasion and on this issue the Bush administration has got the issue right?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall say for perhaps the fourth or fifth time that it is of real importance for everyone to behave with moderation. We have exhorted all sides to do so in the interests of world peace and we shall continue so to do. There is much merit in what a number of different noble Lords have said, but I think that it is evenly shared. All must do what they can.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I commend the Minister on the moderation and wisdom of her replies. Perhaps I may remind some of our colleagues in this House that, first, whether we like it or not, Taiwan is not a sovereign state; and, secondly, we have

197
a substantial stake in a contained and peaceful South China region, given our relationship to Hong Kong and the restraint with which China has behaved towards the dual nation policy.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to remind us that we do not recognise Taiwan as a state; and that we acknowledge, and have done so for a considerable period, the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. That is a reality for them. It is a reality for us.

Zimbabwe: International Bar Association Report
2.59 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the report of the mission of the International Bar Association to Zimbabwe about the situation of the judiciary and legal system of that country.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the report by the International Bar Association makes depressing reading. It reflects mounting international concern at the Government of Zimbabwe's blatant disregard for the rule of law and their policy of intimidating the hitherto independent judiciary. The Government of Zimbabwe have so far ignored international calls for them to take action to implement the rule of law. For the sake of the Zimbabwean people, who are clearly suffering, we hope that they will not ignore the recommendations made by such an eminent body as the IBA.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the mission was organised by the IBA's Human Rights Institute, of which Nelson Mandela is president? As the noble Baroness has said, the mission included senior judges and lawyers from Commonwealth countries and one from the United States. It concluded:
"Conduct committed or encouraged by government ministers has put the rule of law in Zimbabwe in the gravest peril and the very fabric of democracy at risk".
It went on to say:
"This cannot be justified by the need for social justice".
What action is being taken by the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union, in all of which the United Kingdom is an influential member?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all those agencies are trying to exert appropriate pressure on Zimbabwe to behave well. The noble Lord will know from questions that we have had in the House before that it is hoped that a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group delegation will be sent to Zimbabwe to discuss the issues with the Zimbabwe Government and Mr Mugabe in particular. No response to that idea has
198
yet been received, but the Commonwealth Secretary-General has recently been in touch with the Government of Zimbabwe about the proposed ministerial mission. It is for him and for the Ministers involved from Barbados, Nigeria and Australia to agree on the timing. Internationally we are doing all that we can to bring pressure to bear on the issue. Tragically, it does not appear to be bringing the response that we would like from Mr Mugabe.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be highly desirable for the October Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane to have before it a report on the state of the law and the judiciary in Zimbabwe even if CMAG is not able to send a mission? With that in mind, would it be possible for the Commonwealth Secretariat to ask the United Nations rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to compile a report for the CHOGM, regardless of whether he is able to visit Zimbabwe for that purpose?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there may be much merit in the latter part of the noble Lord's question. It is hoped that the CMAG delegation will be able to go. If it cannot go, it will make the appropriate report in Brisbane when the issue is considered. At that point the whole Commonwealth will be able to consider where we go from there. This is an important step. We hope that Mr Mugabe and his Government will see the merit in receiving a delegation, which will include representatives from Barbados, Nigeria and Australia, and will allow them to have proper discussions with him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's answers. Has President Mugabe been reminded that in a democracy it is vital that the judiciary should be free from political interference of any kind?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that issue has always been clear. The independence of the Zimbabwean judiciary has always been impressive. They have been extraordinarily brave and robust to date. We must commend their bravery. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith participated in the trip and I understand that the issues to which the noble Lord referred were raised with Mr Mugabe.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this telling report, in which, as she says, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, played an important part, carries two powerful messages? The first is that the matter of Mugabe's behaviour is not a white issue or an ex-colonial issue, but concerns everyone in the world who loves liberty and justice. The second clear message from the report is that the one thing that Mr Mugabe really fears and will be moved by is well directed international action. In the light of the conclusive arguments in the report on that point, is it not time to be a little more vigorous than simply relying on critical dialogue and to take some of

199
the steps suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others in the CHOGM and all the other international institutions in which Britain has considerable leverage? We have not yet used that leverage in relation to this problem.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord says that the Government have not really used their influence. There are those who say that we have used it too much and that the criticisms that have been made of Zimbabwe really represent the voice of Britain, not that of the international community. We know that that is wrong. Britain has been at the forefront among a number of equals in our clear condemnation of what is happening in Zimbabwe. We have put a lot of energy into making sure that Mr Mugabe knows how strongly the international community condemns what is happening and he has heard us. That is why he has been so critical of our involvement.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware that paragraph 12.3 of the report of the International Bar Association says that the Attorney General of Zimbabwe did not consider the intimidation of judges an offence. Do the Government consider that an acceptable application of the rule of law? If not, what representations will they make?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made clear representations. It is of interest and importance to note what the acting Chief Justice said. I cannot immediately find the reference in the report, but I shall paraphrase his comments. He has made it clear that he saw no reason for any of the judges currently sitting to be removed. We have a clear indication that the judicial integrity and robustness of the judges remains unchanged. All the issues that have been highlighted will continue to be pursued with the Zimbabwean authorities.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the Government's actions in relation to Motorola, Bathgate.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be helpful if I explain that the purpose of the Motion is to allow the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to appear on the Order Paper next to the Motions in the
200
names of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont. This will mean that all the Motions relating to the Chinook helicopter crash will appear together and can be debated together.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank to be taken immediately after the Motion relating to the second report of the Liaison Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Learning Society
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Prashar Baroness Prashar rose to call attention to the role of national policy makers in creating a learning society; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Government embraced the concept of lifelong learning as one of their six education promises. The 1998 Green Paper, The Learning Age, embodied the concept of a learning society. The commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the Minister, to lifelong learning is well known.
The European Council held in Lisbon in March 2000 confirmed the move towards lifelong learning, but what kind of a learning society do we want? What is our vision of such a society and what do we need to do to achieve that vision?
Alongside the excellent initiatives to provide and increase opportunities for lifelong learning, we need a debate about defining what a learning society is. That may seem like a small point, but clarity of vision will ensure that our means to achieve the goal are appropriate and effective, for learning is a means to an end.
We live in a complex social and political world, where predictability horizons are shortening all the time. Patterns of learning, living and working are changing. Societies are changing, and we must learn to live positively with cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity.
Our approach to becoming a learning society should therefore reflect the democratic, diverse and free society that we really are and the multifarious ways in which people learn. It should be a society which places high value on participatory democracy and active citizenship, where government, management and employees and their representatives view learning skills and knowledge as a central feature of national economic success and competitive advantage. It should be a society where the climate is conducive to learning.
Our shared aim should be for everyone to have the opportunity to develop his potential to the full and to feel that he can contribute and belong. We should promote a system of education which allows individuals to enhance their quality of life through personal growth. It should dare people to think

201
outside the box, equip them to climb outside the traditional frame of mind, and place primary value on the search for understanding. It should be tolerant enough to allow individuals the freedom to make and correct mistakes, and produce citizens who are endowed with the abilities to adjust to constantly changing and transforming situations. Not only should citizens be tolerant of difference; they should recognise that diversity holds great potential for creativity and innovation.
This Government's efforts to provide opportunities for lifelong learning and to change the climate for learning are admirable. The scale and breadth of initiatives are impressive. Progress has been made to create programmes to allow young and old to engage in some form of learning; for example, through the Sure Start programme.
We have seen massive improvements in the provision of nursery education. There have been efforts to improve the classroom environment, particularly at primary level. There have also been efforts on citizenship education, the establishment of the University for Industry, and of the learning and skills councils. There have been efforts to improve further and post-16 education, with learning direct centres, learning partnerships and initiatives such as Connexions, to name but a few. To some extent, wider initiatives, such as neighbourhood renewal, the New Deal for Communities, local strategic partnerships and others, also have wider implications for learning.
But we need to build on those initiatives. We need to tackle the structural issues which act as barriers, and some of the other weaknesses, such as the lack of coherence, missed opportunities for synergy, short-term funding strands and the lack of appropriate levels of funding for structural deficiencies.
In order to bring about coherence and synergy, those initiatives need to be underpinned by an active dialogue and debate which should begin to address our vision for a learning society. That will be most valuable as it will contribute to developing understanding and changing the climate. I believe that there is still much to be done to capture the necessary national imagination on this issue. At the same time, we need to consider seriously how people learn, how teachers teach, what is taught and how students are assessed.
In that context, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to two interesting proposals. One, proposed by Professor Claxton of Bristol University, is for a different set of 3Rs; namely, resilience, resourcefulness and reflection, which, he says, are the skills that should be developed in childhood and in formal schooling, and be honed and strengthened throughout life. I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose that they should replace the traditional 3Rs, but I believe that they deserve serious consideration.
The second is a "declaration on learning" written by 13 people who have researched and written extensively about effective learning. They came together in an experiment to see how far they could agree on a
202
statement about learning that would be of benefit to others and, in particular, to policy-makers and those in leadership roles. They said:
"[We] must make learning to learn one of the fundamental goals of education and training and reduce the excessive focus on knowledge and skills that can quickly become obsolete. Learning to learn is a skill that can never become obsolete".
Secondly, they said that we must,
"support and invest in uncertified learning as much as in certified learning. We must abandon the preoccupation with controls that inhibit learning; for example, accreditation, inspection, audit and predefined standards".
Thirdly, we must,
"recognise that there is no such thing as a non-learner. All people are learners. The challenge is to secure the kinds, amount and pace of learning that benefits individuals, organisations and society as a whole … [We must] encourage and support the self-management of learning, that is, learners to set their own goals and to choose how and when to learn to meet needs identified by themselves rather than by others … create schemes that remove financial obstacles to learning for individuals and socially disadvantaged groups … use participative democratic processes to promote inclusion and co-operation as a basis for learning".
I believe that that provides useful food for thought.
The elimination of barriers which exclude people from learning must be a priority. There is currently an expectation gap—that is, people do not yet have the expectation of an opportunity to learn throughout their lives. Removing those barriers will require the co-operation and partnership of those responsible for delivery and for fostering the right environment.
However, we have not yet succeeded in engendering the relationships which are necessary for the task of creating a learning society. Let us take, for example, teachers. Rather than working with teachers through the difficult task of catering for an ever-expanding population of students with an increasing range of needs and abilities, teachers have found considerable institutional changes imposed on them from above, and their autonomy curtailed.
Teachers should be partners in a process of ongoing personal and organisational learning. Maintaining standards is about continuous self-evaluation rather than a single snapshot event. We need to treat teachers as committed professionals. We need to value our teachers. The quality of formal provision depends on the recruitment and retention of quality teachers in all sectors. There are currently both schools and post-16 basic skills teacher shortages.
Major structural issues of teacher recruitment are not being tackled; they are simply being patched up. We need to tackle the question of teacher recruitment for the long term. Statistics show that the increase in staff is not keeping pace with the extra posts created by additional government funding. More temporary teachers are being recruited, but not enough to fill long-term vacancies. Other teachers may be quitting permanent jobs for a less stressful life.
We also need planning and delivery systems and perspectives to develop initiatives in a connected fashion at national, regional and local levels There is much to do, for example, in linking learning and skills councils, learning partnerships and local education development plans with other policy drives and in

203
harnessing fully neighbourhood renewal initiatives and other initiatives designed to tackle social exclusion. We need to recognise the connected dimensions of supply and demand, ensuring relevant supply for diverse demands. We need targeted initiatives to enhance learners' and potential learners' self-esteem and motivation.
Through my experience as chair of the National Literacy Trust and chancellor of De Montfort University, I am only too aware that this is a very complex area. However, unless we tackle some of the deep-rooted structural problems, we shall not be able to break down the barriers working against new participation in learning. Yes, we need to raise levels of achievement and widen participation; but moving from here to the desired goal is not a mechanistic exercise. In all instances, target-setting is not the answer. It is critical that more attention is paid to what is stopping the desired changes and to the restraining forces. We need top-down support for bottom-up initiatives and not simply directives. There is a need for preparedness to listen to those who deliver the programmes and to individuals and communities, and there is a need for the capacity to disseminate innovative and promising initiatives.
We need a long-term national strategy that will connect all the key contributors, build on a sense of shared responsibility for lifelong learning among all the key players, improve formal practices, link those practices to informal practices and engage more effectively the full spread of communities and agencies in lifelong and life-wide learning through debate and action.
We need to go beyond merely doing better what we currently do; we need to begin to make changes that will encourage and motivate those who deliver and those who engage in learning.
Such an important subject as this demands an holistic strategy if we want to create a dynamic learning society. I am grateful that provision was made for this debate and I greatly look forward to the contributions of noble Lords and to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for giving us this opportunity to engage in such an important and interesting debate. This matter is close to my heart.
In her speech, the noble Baroness ranged far and wide—she gave a tour d'horizon of what has been achieved and what still needs to be done. There are many definitions of a learning society; mine would refer to a society in which all members are learning and to the fact that the society is learning about itself and the way in which it changes. Such a society would enable everyone to navigate a future for themselves in what can be a high-risk social setting.
There are many reasons to be cheerful. The learning world has been turned upside down in recent years not just by the Internet and the external revolution but by
204
an internal revolution, which involves what we know about the way in which the brain works. I hesitate to say more on that in your Lordships' House because many noble Lords have great neurological expertise. We know more about the way in which learning works than we have done for many years.
The outlines of the learning society are developing before our eyes. The most recent version of the Fryer report contains no less than 23 separate initiatives—and, I admit, a mass of acronyms—several of which have already been mentioned. They are making a profound difference to our access to learning. They involve radical steps but those steps are the right ones. Any government would have been at fault if they had not taken advantage of the ferment of new ideas and possibilities that are now available.
The mass of changes raises two paradoxes. First, if the learning society is potentially so inclusive, what shall we do about people who are still left out? Secondly, if we cater so well for individual learning opportunities, what is the government's role? How can governments be as effective as possible in relation to the new prospect that involves when, where and how people learn?
The doors to the learning society may be open to individuals. The Government's role is to hold those doors open and that of the community is to enable people to pass through them. Only the Government can take the lead in that regard by dismantling the structural and cultural barriers that continue to hold people back.
Those who want to join should not be left outside and those who are left outside are, I am afraid, only too well known to us. I refer to the 30 per cent of adults who experience no further educational training after formal education and to disaffected pupils, who become disaffected adults. Such people are most likely to be unskilled workers, lone parents, part-time or temporary workers or ethnic and linguistic minorities. Those people need to be able to access courses and qualifications and to afford them. They also need childcare facilities, mentoring support and individual support. That would help them to appreciate that such initiatives are for them.
Unless we provide such coherent extra support the learning society will become a learning market that is open only to those with information and expertise and access to that market. People are banging on the doors. Much more needs to be done, particularly, as the noble Baroness said, in terms of integrating learning with social renewal.
That is already happening on a small scale, but it is an inspired initiative. A network of learning partnerships is springing up across the country. It contains learning towns, learning cities and learning regions. They are already showing new ways of engaging people. They are largely funded in parallel to the formal education system through single regeneration budgets and European and lottery funding. In many areas, they have become the key to local regeneration and they are powered by the needs of skilled people. In some areas—for example, the

205
family centre in east Leeds—priority is given to families and in other areas priority is given to those who are traditionally excluded, such as those with disability. The Torfaen initiative in the Valleys, for example, is developing a community valleys university. Blackburn and Darwen take particular care of their Asian communities and are creating new opportunities for them. Such initiatives take learning into everyday situations in which people gather together. As the noble Baroness said, they risk falling between different funding strategies and regimes, and in many respects they are failing to connect with formal learning, which can give extra power and effect.
The second set of barriers involves the cultural barriers that are placed across the workplace and the community as a whole. Many noble Lords can speak with great expertise about the workplace. I say only that we have a particular challenge with regard to small firms and small voluntary organisations, in which much innovation is taking place. Unless we provide extra help, they will not have access. For example, I want the Government to measure the gap between the corporate policy for training and employment development and what is happening on the ground. Are the marvellous plans that were set out in the annual report being accessed in practice by individual workers?
When it comes to dismantling the structural and cultural barriers in the community, we have a working model before our eyes. We have a proud tradition of community education, which is now reborn through the concept of full service schools which can bring into schools new opportunities to learn and health, career and family centres—everything that the community needs. Why should not such facilities be offered in schools? Adults can access, for example, fitness or ICT training. It is not a far-fetched idea—it is already happening in some schools in parts of the United States. We have a blueprint in the Social Exclusion Unit report. Schools Plus, and there is a commitment to implement that. I am delighted by that. I hope that we shall continue to invest in the concept and the reality.
Perhaps the greatest challenge involves another set of barriers—the personal barriers to learning. That involves motivating those who do not want to learn or who do not appear to want to learn. I agree with the noble Baroness—I do not think that there is anyone who does not want to learn. William Morris said that the essential point about education is that it must build on the desire to learn. I believe that everyone instinctively has a desire to learn.
The terms "lifelong learning" and "the learning society" are slightly problematic. I remember some years ago seeing a cartoon of two little boys going unwillingly to school. One was saying to the other, "Bad news—there is something called lifelong learning". Many people have the same reaction to the concept of a learning society, which may appear to involve being on a treadmill.
There are new ways of offering learning and new places and situations in which to do so. We are already doing that. One example involves the "playing for
206
success" initiative, which I know is dear to the heart of the many noble Lords who love football. The initiative places homework opportunities in football clubs. There are already more than 30 such schemes in operation and they are highly successful. Summer learning is another initiative that has developed during the past three years, and it covers the curriculum. Summer universities and summer schools are now springing up all over the country. They are highly successful at raising people's skills and motivations. The schemes show that the way to succeed is to find out why young people enjoy learning and to provide more of it. We need to build on their voluntary commitment to learn.
Today's debate is timely for another reason. We have been rather short in this country of hard evidence to show why the funds for out-of-school learning work. Today the first national cohort study of 8,000 young people is being published. Those young people have been followed for three years to establish their commitment to out-of-school learning in homework clubs and so on. The results show conclusively that young people who have been taking part do significantly better in their GCSEs. They have shown better attendance in school and they have a more positive attitude towards school. That is a very fine achievement and I hope that it provides us with a platform on which to build.
Finally, the key question is: what can the Government do? I would say that the key task of the Government is not to invent or manage informal learning or the learning societies. They have the more difficult task of steering, supporting and co-ordinating that and ensuring that there is sustained cultural investment. There are a plethora of partnerships and a mass of initiatives. If we are not careful, they will all contradict and cut across each other. We need to have a strong framework to bring this together. That framework can ensure that those opportunities are equitable and accessible. That is the key task in ensuring that education and social policy really work together.
That must be done in view of the alternatives in terms of the social and economic costs. We only have to look at the fate of looked-after children or the fate of children who are excluded from school to see the huge costs which continue throughout their lifetime. We simply cannot afford those costs. I believe that if we do not do that, we shall not have a learning society but we shall have a learning enclave within a wider society which does not value learning or society, and we certainly cannot afford that.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing this debate. She has obviously struck gold with two debates in two days. What a wonderful contribution we had from her. Perhaps I may say also how much we, on these Benches, are looking forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. We shall certainly listen to her with great care, as we always did when she controlled the other place.

207
I welcome this debate directed at the role of national policy makers in creating a learning society. I intend to confine my remarks solely to education and the Prison Service. There is so much neglect in our prisons that, at times, it seems almost hopeless to suggest any reforms. I read with much interest an editorial in a magazine of the Prison Reform Trust which said:
"Education gained in prisons can transform lives. Opportunities to write, play music, paint or perform can unlock doors to closed emotions. Employment and training, access to gaining qualifications and a prospect of a real job on release all undoubtedly reduce the rates of reoffending".
No one should be sent to prison because he would benefit from educational opportunities behind bars or the chance to develop work skills prior to release. Prison reduces employability and adds to social exclusion. Many prisoners lose their homes or tenancies, contact with their families, educational places and jobs or careers as a result of incarceration.
I do not believe that many sentencers take such factors into account. That is a high price to pay. It is justifiable if, and only if, the crime is so serious and the offending so persistent as to warrant those social outcomes.
We spend too much time locking inmates in their cells rather than creating a learning environment which would benefit them individually. What do we achieve when we lock up inmates for up to 24 hours per day? My time as a member of the board of visitors made me realise how little time and consideration we had given to education in a closed environment. Many of the inmates lacked numeracy and literacy skills and yet little has been done to put that right.
Surely there is a relevance between reduced offending rates and the availability of learning skills in our institutions. I have seen the positive effects of writers in residence in our prisons. The same applies to art and music. It is a constructive way to run our prisons. Education has a crucial part to play in reducing reoffending by released prisoners. Research evidence shows that released prisoners who do not have basic educational skills are 40 per cent more likely to reoffend than those who have such skills. Moreover, unemployed ex-prisoners are twice as likely to reoffend as those who get and keep a job on release.
Yet at present 60 per cent of the prison population is below NVQ Level 1 in basic skills, which rules them out of over 90 per cent of new jobs. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a group of highly intelligent offenders whose criminal activity has demonstrated a range of qualities which would be admirable had they been directed into legitimate pursuits—qualities such as drive, ingenuity, resourcefulness and an ability to influence and lead other people. Access to further and higher educational qualifications have helped many such offenders to turn around their lives. Without educational opportunities, it is much more difficult for released prisoners to obtain jobs comparable with their abilities and to lead a productive future life without breaking the law.
208
The connection between educational failure and offending is particularly striking if one looks at the characteristics of young offenders. In 1997 the Chief Inspector of Prisons carried out a thematic review on young offenders. He found that over half the young offenders in custody had been excluded from schools and many others had regularly truanted. Two-thirds had no educational qualifications. Two-thirds had been unemployed before entering custody.
The following year, a research study published by NACRO entitled Wasted Lives looked at a sample of juvenile offenders in custody: 86 per cent of the sample had been persistent absentees, truants or excluded from school; and 46 per cent had no skills or qualifications of any description.
The Government have recently announced some welcome moves in relation to prison education, notably that prison education will, in future, be managed by a partnership between the Prison Service and the DfEE and that resources for prison education will be ring-fenced. Let us monitor the situation carefully and see how it will work out.
What more should be done to tackle the problem of prisoners' education and under-achievement? First, the Government should continue to increase the resources available for basic skills education in prison in view of the extensive need demonstrated by the survey and figures which I have cited.
Secondly, however, the Government should recognise that many prisoners can benefit from more advanced educational courses, many of which have been cut over the past few years as a result of Prison Service budget cuts. Providing basic skills education and access to further and higher education courses should not be seen as an either/or. Both are needed for different prisoners.
Thirdly, the Government should tackle firmly the problem of prisoners missing out on educational classes because prison officers are not made available to bring them from their cells to the classrooms. Time and again reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons give examples of prisoners regularly arriving late at classes or not arriving at all, so that all classes are run with empty places or, in some cases, are cancelled completely if teachers are unavailable to take them.
Fourthly, we need a strategy to help prisoners to bridge the gap between education programmes inside prison and accessing courses on release. That should include changing the funding system for Employment Service training programmes to ensure that all areas of the country have a range of specialist programmes which cater for ex-offenders and other unemployed people who have special support needs. At present, the availability of such specialist programmes varies greatly from one area to another. In many areas, contracts are being withdrawn from organisations such as NACRO which can provide effective specialist programmes of that kind. Will the Minister look at that to see whether the matter can be rectified? I should declare an interest at this stage as I chair that particular charity.

209
Fifthly, we need to ensure that prisoners who could safely be given temporary release to go out to educational programmes in the community during the day are allowed to do so. We currently have a nonsensical situation whereby low-risk prisoners towards the end of their sentence are rightly allowed to go out of prison to do paid jobs or community work but they are not allowed to go out to participate in employment training programmes run by the Employment Service. Yet that can be one of the most effective ways of getting prisoners into work on release. The Home Office, the Prison Service and the DfEE should jointly examine and change that anomaly as soon as possible.
We need to move away from the old concept that education was one way of establishing control and discipline in prisons. There may be some truth in that because, if you keep inmates occupied with purposeful activities, they are less likely to be disruptive. But in essence that is a policy about managing prisoners rather than promoting meaningful education.
Of course I value the core curriculum that was established in 1995. The aim is laudable. The emphasis is on numeracy, literacy, intermediate technology and social and life skills. The purpose is to reduce the number of prisoners released without basic skills at Level 2 or above. However, there is a concern that art, drama and vocational classes now receive less emphasis, if any at all.
There is also a lack of support for higher skills. At least 30 to 40 per cent of inmates—on remand or in custody—have a higher level of education than Level 2 on entry to prison and such persons are told that there is nothing in the system for them. I refer to a case reported in the magazine of the Prison Reform Trust where an inmate said the following:
"Prior to coming to prison I had started an OU course and I asked about continuing the degree whilst I was here. I was told that the department was unable to get involved—a question of resources, even though I was going to fund the course myself".>
I draw the attention of the Minister to Professor David Wilson of the University of Central England in Birmingharm, who has established the Forum on Prison Education to lobby for prison education beyond the provision of basic skills. I am sure that the Minister would find it helpful to open a dialogue with that particular body.
In conclusion, with an agenda that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime we should remember that the promotion of a learning society offers the best prospect for reducing crime, criminality and the unacceptably high prison population.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling her Motion which has enabled me to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I confess that I rise with great nervousness. This is my first parliamentary speech on an issue of national policy in over 14 years. I know that at the start I must declare an interest, although it is an
210
unpaid interest. The Open University made me its Chancellor seven years ago. It was the second best thing that has happened to me.
The difficult birth of the Open University illustrates the narrow line that sometimes exists between success and failure in our approach to education policy. One distinguished statesman described its concept as "blithering nonsense". I shall not mention the name of that statesman as that would be too contentious. Others in positions of influence were indifferent to its struggle to survive the Treasury axe during the economic difficulties of the 1960s. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, played a valuable role in keeping it afloat. The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, was our first vice-chancellor who believed that the Open University could not only exploit new ways of teaching through the media, thereby encouraging a learning society, but that it could also promote better teaching in some of our conventional universities.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has described his exchanges with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she became Opposition spokesman on education as "sharp, short and furious". But the noble Baroness admitted to being better informed after their frank exchanges and the OU survived her scrutiny as Secretary of State.
Had it been allowed to go under in its early years we would have lost an academic institution that has pioneered new ways of higher education, stimulated thousands of people to become learners and which is admired and emulated in many countries. We would have been denied a university that has transformed the lives of 250,000 mature students—people from all walks of life and many without formal educational qualifications—who have won degrees.
Such achievements would not have been possible without the skills and dedication of a world-class academic staff, to whom I pay tribute. Nor would it have happened without the determination of its founders, notably my colleague and friend Jennie Lee, who served in your Lordships' House. My point is that when we, in this country, embrace a worthy cause, nothing can stop us. The Open University is living proof of that.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships something of its finances without boring you too much. Its students appreciate it so much that last year they paid £102 million in fees and for the purchase of study materials. Of course, the nation contributes £137 million of the OU's income, but where else in higher education is there such enthusiasm for learning that students themselves provide 37 per cent of the university's entire income?
Nor do our students indulge themselves in subjects that some noble Lords may consider to be frivolous. Two of the five top courses are computer and Internet-related and another teaches health and social care. Today over 21,000 students are taking those two courses.

211
When the Right Reverend Eric Devenport sent his entry to Who's Who with "BA (Open University)" after his name they queried it. Nobody does that any longer. The OU earned the maximum possible score for general engineering in a recent survey. It has become the largest provider of management education in Europe. I am proud to add that it is also the country's leading provider of higher education for the disabled.
I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, who was our Chancellor for 15 years. We both followed in the tradition set by the late Lord Crowther, our first Chancellor in 1969. He was succeeded by a most distinguished Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, Lord Gardiner. But it was Lord Crowther who pinned the OU's colours to the communications revolution and it has since changed all our lives.
As a new girl in your Lordships' House I gather that I am entitled to a laptop. Is that right?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I am open to advice on how to use it. I fear that I would not stand a chance among the 110,000 students who link up to the OU's online teaching at home.
At this time of year in particular I meet hundreds and hundreds of graduates at weekend degree ceremonies. Many of them are very young and they get through their studies in record time and many are more mature and their studies take them a long time. There are housewives, men with full-time jobs, people with homes to look after, people with children to bring up and people who have to take time off to look after elderly relatives. Many come to me on the platform and whisper, "It took me six years to get here, but I did it in the end and this is my proudest day". It is a most moving experience for all of us who take part in those ceremonies.
I associate myself with so many of them because I too was a slow starter. It took me five parliamentary elections and 16 years to reach the other place. My best friend said that I could have qualified as a brain surgeon in that time and my second-best friend said, "She ought to pack it in". But I do not complain. Being here and being Chancellor of the Open University are both great privileges.
I conclude by rejoicing in the success of that university and the learning society that I believe that it is helping to create. I do so by inviting today's policy makers to show some of the vision that made that possible some years ago.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has given us the opportunity to debate the learning society. I, too, admire her stamina in taking part in three debates in two days.
212
It is my great honour and privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on her outstanding maiden speech, full of the wisdom and order which, if I may say so, we have come to expect of her over the years. The noble Baroness's reputation and skill go before her. She is a most welcome, elegant and dynamic addition not only to this House but to the women Peers' room—with or without computer! She is a hard act either to precede or to follow.
Today I shall focus on the role of families and schools in setting the foundation for a learning society, as I believe that they are key agencies. As others have done, I shall argue that an holistic approach to education is necessary. Levels of adult illiteracy have remained constant and high in this country for the past 20 years. If we think that literacy is one of the symbols of a learning society, clearly new approaches are needed.
I believe that those approaches must put people, not topics of instruction, at the centre of learning. It is about creating a "can do" society rather than a "cannot do" one; and "can do" societies need structures which enable and encourage people to be confident learners.
I do not believe that an emphasis on more academic targets, important though they are, necessarily encourages lifelong learning. Indeed, they may set up unpleasant associations with learning at an early age unless other support is involved. Learning is not only about getting to grips with helping individuals to pass exams or reach academic targets; learning has many strands. It is about motivation to learn, enthusiasm to continue to learn, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, and to enjoy learning. It is not just intellectual; it is about creativity and curiosity. It encompasses the arts and sport. It includes manual as well as academic skills, and appreciation of other cultures and languages. It involved what some psychologists have called "emotional intelligence", which is valuable in itself and which also supports other kinds of learning.
Children can be taught to challenge constructively rather than merely conform and be satisfied with passive rote learning. Children are curious. What happens to that curiosity as they grow up? Do we forget that the processes of learning are often more interesting and valuable than the outcomes?
The diverse strands of learning must, I believe, inter-relate if we are to deliver a context for holistic and sustained learning. Unifying the strands means that policy-makers from different disciplines must also inter-relate. There are instances of those relationships; for example, between the Departments of Health, Education and Employment, and of Culture, Media and Sport. I am trying to avoid using the term "joined-up".
I was at Lord's Cricket Ground last week where rain, hail and wind greeted the first day of the cricket season. The Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, was launching an initiative where major sports bodies contribute at least 5 per cent of their TV income towards developing grass-roots sports

213
facilities and activities. Chris Smith talked about investment and commitment being necessary to make a difference to development and achievement in sport.
I believe that the same is true in creating a learning society; that is, we need both investment and commitment. The investment and commitment must come from national policy-makers, local policy-makers, communities, institutions and individuals; not just in joined-up thinking but in joined-up strategies which place people at the centre of policy, and not policy at the centre of people. This surely begins with families and particularly with parents. Poverty, and what Sir Keith Joseph some years ago called "the cycle of deprivation", must be addressed vigorously if children are to develop and maintain learning strategies. It is well known that language development, self-confidence and a particular view of the world and self are formed in the early years. It is well known that children who are talked to, read to, played with and stimulated are more likely to want to extend their learning in many directions and for life. Indeed, parents need confidence to parent effectively.
Government support for families, with the children's tax credit, increased child benefit and so forth, is helpful; so are new projects, such as the Supporting Families report, the Sure Start programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the National Family and Parenting Institute set up as a focal point for policy and research. Organisations are carrying out important parent training programmes. Those, too, are important and could be a valuable part of the school curriculum. Parenting may come naturally to some, but it is difficult task for which many people are ill prepared. The fact that more than one-third of children between the ages of two and eight do not have bedtime stories read to them is a matter of concern.
Schools of course have a vital part to play in creating and fostering a learning society. The Campaign for Learning suggests that school structures and approaches need to change in order to focus on giving pupils confidence that they have the ability to learn, encouraging self-esteem, and developing capacity for learning as key tasks for teachers. Learning and teaching are not just about gathering or giving information. They are about developing motivation and the tools to seek information and to make use of it.
The recent Green Paper on schools omits discussion of what is called the National Healthy Schools Standard. That has helped schools and parents to develop healthy atmospheres and good relationships in schools, as well as healthy approaches to exercise, diet and the environment. We know that healthy children make better learners as well being able to make informed decisions about their own health. It is this kind of multidimensional approach which inspires people to become involved, to enjoy working as creative teams and to want to carry on learning.
Children who are shown respect and understanding make better learners, too. Some children are victims of discrimination or low expectation due to their race,
214
special needs, gender or sexual orientation. Some carry deep disenchantment of school processes, which may distract from enthusiasm for learning.
National policy has improved class sizes in primary schools, endorsed pre-school education for four year-olds whose parents want it, set up a scheme of learning mentors, provided extra assistance for those whose first language is not English, and has introduced the successful literacy and numeracy hours.
There are of course concerns and these relate largely to secondary schools. A substantial number of children go backwards when they go to secondary school. In a challenging report called Education Futures, the Royal Society of Arts—I declare an interest as a Fellow—has reported the thoughts of several educationists. Reva Klein, in a chapter entitled "Lost at School", talks about children in secondary schools becoming "invisible" unless they are destructive or outstanding. She points out that
"the interconnected nature of subjects that allows children to see and make links and get excited by them",
when in primary school later disappears. There are new plans for improving performance in secondary schools. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that this will not just be about more academic targets, but about humanising schools and supporting the teachers and pupils in them.
The Goodison Group has held seminars where expert witnesses reflect on learning. It suggests that people need to be convinced that learning is valuable, but also that it pays off in economic, intellectual and emotional terms. Professional development for teachers is essential. That should be about enhancing the role of the teacher, especially at middle management level, about mobilising resources both inside and outside the school, managing the boundary between schools and community, and spreading good practice. It is not about putting more burdens on teachers, but about rethinking the nature and structure of teaching as a profession.
Schools and families are not the only source of education for young people. Theatres, art galleries, museums and sports clubs have outreach programmes. I emphasise the multifaceted nature of learning. There are startling examples, both nationally and internationally, of how a learning society should be encouraged. I wish that we could take greater note of those practices and research. The "learning society" is a complex notion, but I believe that if we are prepared to invest and commit creatively and imaginatively, it can become a reality.
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I shall attempt in this debate to make a connection between the learning society and the concept of global citizenship. I extend my warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Prashar for giving the House this opportunity and allowing me to bring a global perspective to this important subject which is, after all, as broad as the www itself.

215
It is often said that globalisation shrinks the world and makes learning more accessible and the world, theoretically, more understandable. Ultimately, with more awareness it should also be a safer place in which to live, although I shall not pursue that aspect today. I shall simply argue, with the general election in mind, that the Government are making good progress in this subject but could still do better. While they have embarked on a somewhat utopian journey towards lifelong learning and new communications skills, I do not believe that they have yet fully confronted the pressing demands of global citizenship or the urgency of learning about other cultures and religions. I do not need to spell out why this is important to the harmony of our society; that is clear from other debates to be held today.
The Department for International Development White Papers of 1997 and 2000 recognised the importance of increased understanding of other cultures alongside the more commonly accepted need for international development. In previous debates I have acknowledged the growing commitment of both governments in this decade to spreading greater awareness of international issues. It can even be said that international development is an election issue because of its implications for our society and the sheer number of votes which issues such as fair trade and debt relief can now command.
The most recent example referred to in the other place today is the campaign against the pharmaceutical companies which supply AIDS drugs. That is one in which the Chancellor has played a part by offering tax concessions, and we shall hear more about that from the Government. I hope that we shall also hear from the Conservative Party, which traditionally has had more impact on multi-nationals but has yet to announce its position on the matter. However, it has moved a long way from the anti-social decade of the 1980s.
Within the national curriculum, too, there have been significant developments. There must now be,
"knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society".
Those words come from the statement on values, aims and purposes for the national curriculum of 2000. That theme is summarised in the phrase "global citizenship" which is close to the heart of today's politically correct education. "Active citizenship" is also one of the aims of lifelong learning spelt out in the post-Lisbon European Commission staff working paper last year.
Citizenship education, therefore, has come rapidly up the agenda and from 2002 it will become a statutory subject at secondary level, with recognition of the global dimension. I have welcomed this very gradual advance by Ministers before, although I believe that the rhetoric is well ahead of the classroom and the workplace, as was implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. In the daily context of formal education, the global dimension has been kept very
216
firmly in the sub-culture of cross-curricular work—the no-go areas of the curriculum where teachers were once allowed to use their initiative.
Today, I am concerned not only with global awareness but with learning about the many cultures within our society. One can find out a lot on the Internet these days. Yesterday I contacted one of today's great gateways: the Campaign for Learning. This eminent quango belongs to the burgeoning school of government-friendly wordsmiths and instant service providers with the motto "I will always fax you 18 pages when you want only one". I recognise that it is behind much of the rhetoric of today but there is no doubt that inside that armoury it carries out valuable educational functions. I noticed that, apart from its more down-to-earth task of spreading e-learning through websites, citizenship and the notion of "democratic learning schools", which is new to me, are encouragingly high on the agenda. I hope that the Government will explain what those concepts mean before they become too orthodox.
Gateways cannot disguise the yawning gap between various branches of government. Whatever the talk of debt relief, global fair trade and ethical foreign policy, which has been inspired largely by the supporters of NGOs, I am still not satisfied that the educationists in this Government, with the honourable exception of those present, have a genuinely international outlook. It is not just citizenship but current affairs and Europe. For example, we still have a terrible record in modern languages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, is not here to make that point. We assume that mastery of the Internet somehow exempts us from any other language but English. If we cannot find the teachers, perhaps the BBC World Service will help with its excellent record of foreign language broadcasting and many skilled staff. Insularity cannot be justified today, especially with our membership of the Commonwealth, most of whose citizens must learn a host of languages in their own countries whereas we get by with only one. And how many of us have actually read the Koran?
Yet our talents already lie in our midst. How many times have we sat in a London bus listening to our own citizens speak Russian, Urdu, Swahili or even Spanish without being able to make out a word? The Secondary Heads Association warned in its policy statement on the international dimension in education in 1999:
"The Island mentality' is deep-seated within our culture. While an understanding of cultural history and norms is central to our well-being, such an aspiration often results in insularity. In short we are not natural international citizens. Current and future students will be members of an international community. This will require an understanding of different cultures and communities far beyond that which has been our current practice".
This is a serious agenda which I believe is the task of a learning society—a responsibility to learn more about the world to which we belong, and through the medium of our own citizens. I know that the Government are alert to this, but they must keep at it and make more use of non-governmental organisations and institutions like the British Council and the Commonwealth.

217
The current issue of the Development Education Journal focuses on the role of politicians, which is novel, and contains a lot of useful European examples from which we can learn.
From my experience of working with aid agencies, I believe that there is no substitute for overseas experience as a means of sharing knowledge and skills at both the giving and receiving ends. Where our parents went out to serve and administer, we go out mainly to see and learn. When we come back from war-torn areas like the southern Sudan, as I recently have, and remember our own recent European history we learn not to draw too many conclusions. Strong minorities, whether they be Dinkas, Sikhs or Anglo-Saxon football supporters, are a part of every society, and the contribution of other cultures, as is often stated in this House, is always to be celebrated.
I looked up "lifelong learning" in Commons Hansard and found 1,298 references to it already this year, not all of them uttered by Ministers. I did not look up Lords Hansard, but I suspect that there have been fewer references to it in this Chamber. Obviously, IT is the motor behind most of the new learning initiatives. Life skills in IT have provided the biggest opportunity that any government could wish for, of literally spreading the word to schools, colleges, adult groups of all kinds and, most recently, even to small rural communities, as has been mentioned. I have seen the benefits in country towns in west Dorset where I am a school governor. I know less able students and disabled people who have literally been rehabilitated by their laptops, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, will be, if that is possible.
In education and employment, I know of many examples of Internet conferences, exchanges and training programmes which are helping young people to enter or progress in the job market. I hope the Minister will reassure me—I think she will—that global citizenship, which incidentally is a growing source of employment too, will have an increasing share of their timetable.
So what should policy-makers do during the next period of government? First, I would like to see the DfEE further develop its present partnership with the Department for International Development in promoting the concept of global citizenship throughout formal education. This partnership has been manifested most recently in a joint paper with the Development Education Association called Global Perspectives to the Curriculum, which demonstrates the breadth of opportunity across the whole spectrum of education.
Secondly, I will expect the DfID to expand its programme of development education and its support for appropriate education programmes. I am quite seriously looking forward to a third DfID White Paper on education which could involve DfEE more closely and become a new monument to joined-up government. Several other ministries already have an input in this subject: the DTI through the ethical trading initiative; the FCO through the British Council and human rights initiatives; the Home Office through
218
immigration and race relations; the DCMS through broadcasting; and even the DETR through its interest in sustainable development. I gather that the MoD is to develop a learning culture throughout the Armed Forces. So there is no end to it. If there is ever a case for holistic government, this is it. But, of course, the Treasury presides over all, and the learning society, fashionable as it is at the moment, will probably have to wait in the queue like everyone else.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I too am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for initiating the debate. I am more than happy to declare my own relevant interests, which include being chair of the General Teaching Council and Chancellor of the University of Sunderland.
I would also very much like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on a wonderful maiden speech. We were doubly blessed, not only by the quality of her delivery—she has forgotten very little in the past 14 years, if I may say so—but also for reminding us of the birth pains of the Open University, which, to an extent, underlines much of what I should like to address in the next few minutes.
The past four years of political life have been marked by any number of transformations, but surely none more remarkable than the way in which education in the very broadest sense has at last taken its place at the heart of government thinking. I should add "its rightful and timely place", a place It had for too long been denied by successive governments who seemed all but oblivious to the linkage between the quality of our education system and the impact of that system on our collective national future: literally generations of lawmakers seemingly content to see unequal opportunities harden into unequal outcomes.
This Government, and most particularly this Prime Minister, were elected on a commitment to make education their number one national priority. To their credit, they seem intent on delivering on that promise. Spending on education is now growing almost three times faster than it was under the previous government. But I am sure your Lordships, most particularly noble Lords opposite, will be glad to hear that I do not intend to engage in an extended eulogy on the achievements of this administration, impressive as they undoubtedly are.
Instead, I want to argue that if Britain is genuinely to become a learning society, with all that that implies, there is not the slightest room for any let up in our efforts to deliver a world-class educational opportunity for every man, woman and child in this country. There can be no return to the bad old days, the days when—to borrow a rather dispiriting phrase—it was perfectly acceptable to see state education as "a poor service for poor people".
The daily realities of global competition leave no excuse for apathy or ignorance of the overwhelming importance of a superb education. As I have argued in this Chamber before, like it or not, we inhabit a post-industrial economy. In a world where market value

219
can collapse with the click of a mouse and thousands of jobs can disappear virtually overnight, then surely, more than ever, we need a workforce with high-quality transferable skills, skills that will enable us to ride out the crests and the troughs of an increasingly turbulent global economy.
Yet there are still those who seek to go back, whose sense of security lies in the past, and who, brick by brick, would dismantle much of the work of the past four years. I can only hope that that form of negativity is consigned where it rightfully belongs; that is, to the dustbin of history. For in reality we are only scratching the surface of the learning revolution, let alone understanding what, when fully developed, it might come to look like. We are only just beginning to address the benefits that might be gained from giving back to our teachers their pride, their confidence and their self-esteem; in short, all those qualities which, to their eternal shame, the previous government were so instrumental in destroying.
How ironic it is that any mature society, having come to terms with the notion that beating learning into a child was possibly not the best way to achieve results, wilfully sets about trying the same dunce's cap treatment on its teaching profession.
One of the central tasks of the General Teaching Council is to offer that profession the sense that it really is a profession, one that can justifiably stand alongside doctors, engineers, accountants and any number of others. It is vital that we at last give teachers a sense that they can and should be constructively involved in the shaping of their own professional destiny. They have much to be proud of. A great deal has been achieved already in raising standards of attainment. But the human price has been high. Much of that has been at the cost of teachers' personal sense of trust and professional fulfilment.
I think it is true to say that the positive impact of information and communications technology in schools and colleges is beginning at last to make itself felt. Yet we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be harnessing even a fraction of the potential that ICT possesses to revolutionise the manner in which we teach and learn. We seem to be as bad at taking ICT on board as we were to embrace the fantastic opportunity that the Open University offered in the 1960s. As I see the matter, the problems we now face relate far more to the "how", than the "if'. How do we shift investment policy in ICT from creeping incrementalism to radical step change? Or, to put it another way, how are we to "frame" the need to equip an education service for the present rather than the previous century? How do we ensure that the "proliferation" of initiatives relating to ICT that have emerged from various government departments deliver a high-quality coherent strategy, a strategy that produces far more than the sum of its parts? How do we move away from the increasingly irrelevant political imperative to value increases in "computer-pupil" ratios above all else when what we urgently need is far better ongoing support and training for teachers and the development of a world-class content
220
to inspire them? Because without it, the National Grid for Learning, and many other initiatives may well be doomed to failure.
If we are to have the remotest chance of remaining a competitive nation on a global stage we have to invest massively, if necessary, in training and education for the skills-based industries of the future. The very idea that we can scrimp and save on that obligation, or cut taxes while sustaining the necessary investment, is, frankly, an extravagant fantasy. It is a rather old fantasy, one, I am sad to say, which has been on display in this House as well as in another place since time immemorial. Similarly, I believe that the idea that we can achieve a successful and sustainable society while offering some 20 per cent of the population the opportunity of a first-class education, leaving the remainder to sink or swim as best they can, is now as economically indefensible as it always was morally.
During the past few years I have had the opportunity to visit literally scores of schools all over the country. Likewise, I have spoken to innumerable groups of business leaders on the subject of education. Everywhere I go I ask my audience, whoever they may be, if they can offer any formula whatever for the future of a successful Britain that is not in every respect built upon a first-class education system. I have to tell your Lordships that as yet not one single person in three and-a-half years has responded to that challenge.
I am constantly amazed by the tenacity and flexibility of the teachers I meet. I have yet to come across a chief executive of any private sector enterprise—or public sector for that matter—who would be expected to deliver half of what the average head teacher achieves with such meagre resources. CEOs of all companies have finance directors, human resource departments, operations managers and, where relevant, research departments. Head teachers have only the good-will and the patience of their increasingly over-stretched and under-rewarded colleagues. But while the imperative for a step change in educational provision is increasingly becoming a commonplace in the rhetoric of politicians, educationists and indeed business people, we have yet to attach it to a "funding model" that makes it even remotely possible.
I genuinely applaud this Government's increased investment of £540 per pupil since 1997. That is a significant increase when judged by the small, incremental increases of the past 20 years. But it is still not remotely sufficient. There is no point in acknowledging our desperate need for a world-class education system unless we are prepared fully to face the financial implications. We have to stop pretending that we can drift into this new century in a spirit of resigned complacency; that same spirit in which we economically drifted through most of the last. From Beijing to Bombay, the learning societies of the 21st century are racing ahead. They are pouring hard earned and often extremely scarce resources into their effort because they know that there is no other future for their own populations. If we do not respond, and respond quickly, decisively and courageously, we will be left by the wayside—a nation vanquished in the one

221
area in which, for some 150 years, we were entitled to believe that we led, or at least equaled, the very best in the world.
The noble Baroness has offered us a deceptively innocent title for this important debate. The ambition it refers to is, in reality, fundamental to our national future. The role of policymakers in achieving it is equally fundamental. As I see it, those policymakers are confronted with three essential challenges: first, in the course of the coming election—whenever that may be—unambiguously to set out for the nation the price our children and our grandchildren will pay should we fail to secure an effective and thoroughly competitive "learning society"; secondly, unstintingly to invest in the professional development and therefore the confidence of this nation's teachers, without whom there can be no "learning society"; and, finally, to make real the Prime Minister's declared ambition that every school in our state system offers the resources and opportunities of the very best of the independent sector. This, like the creation of the "learning society" itself, cannot remain a warm aspiration because in today's world both have become an inescapable economic and social necessity.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate. Noble Lords have covered many subjects and they have addressed those involved in the learning society. I shall address my remarks to a group of people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I refer to the prison society and to those defined in a government document as "non-learners".
A significant group within the "non-learners" is the dyslexic population. I draw attention to this one disability group because of its size. It undoubtedly presents the greatest number of problems in terms of a truly learning society. It is reckoned that 4 per cent of the population have dyslexia to a sufficiently high degree to have a noticeable difficulty. A further 6 per cent have it to a lesser extent. If someone has had a bad educational experience and comes from a background where learning and the initial school experience are undervalued, one will probably find that those effects are greater. Where adults have dropped out of the system, it is almost guaranteed that they will have much greater problems.
It is reckoned that 81 per cent of the prison population have a major problem with literacy. The most conservative estimate of those with noticeable and detectable dyslexia is 17.5 per cent. That is probably not the true percentage as one cannot put a gun to people's heads—yet anyway—to make them have an assessment. That 17.5 per cent is three to four times the level one would expect.
I draw attention to this issue because of the positive moves the Government have made. Noble Lords may think that it is a slightly odd way of approaching the subject to say, "Here is a problem group and you have done some positive things", but I do so because in some of their documents the Government make
222
commitments to getting people up to certain levels and they refer to assessments. But this group has different learning patterns, different learning needs and different continuing learning needs. People in this group have had worse initial experiences of education. They present totally different problems. If they are merely placed back in situations similar to the ones they have come from, they will fail again and may become even less acceptable in terms of the learning process.
The Government describe themselves as being positively bullish. Government departments probably need such assertiveness and drive to fight their way through the Whitehall jungle in order to get the money to do something. But if we constantly drive forward, we shall be in danger of leaving behind people who do not figure in the statistics. I look to the Minister to reassure me on this issue. If we do not have properly trained staff to assess people in order to give them the help that is appropriate to their situation, we shall make matters worse.
Having said, "Hello, but help!", I should like to set out what I think those problems are. We are dealing with people who have a different learning process. They have problems with short-term memory. They tend to have difficulties with time management. Those problems are difficult to deal with. Where someone in the outside world has a disorganised life—perhaps because he is long-term unemployed—it is extremely difficult to bring him back into the learning process. When we were debating the new one-stop shop for the social security system I bored the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, almost rigid at times by asking whether people would be sufficiently trained to deal with this problem. The noble Baroness said that they would, but I still did not accept that the Government had totally taken on board the idea that it would be incredibly difficult to deal with the problem.
No one test fits all types of dyslexics. It is a blanket term. It is probably one of the widest terms used when referring to disability. We sit here discussing the problem. Indeed, work done under the previous government—it was under the previous government—has meant that in the education system, particularly the school system, dyslexia is a recognised problem. We are only starting to get it recognised in the outside work environment. Although progress is being made in adult education, it is probably not an ingrained as it should be. We are dealing with a difficult situation. When it comes to passing on basic skills, if we insist on teaching in the wrong way we shall fail.
Let us be perfectly honest. Dyslexia is a disability. It does not go away. Some dyslexics who come into this non-learner category will simply not be able to reach the required level. It is like saying to someone who is confined to a wheelchair, "Get up and walk". He or she cannot do it. That aspect must be brought into the system of assessment and tuition. Although people may not be able to reach the literacy level, there may be ways around that in order to achieve employment and so on.

223
In the prison situation we have an opportunity to create proper tuition. We have the staff there. That is one positive aspect of a very negative situation. We can ensure that people receive the right kind of tuition if they have the right assessment. That cannot be done initially by a computer program or through a screening process. One must explain to people who may have written themselves off as stupid, at least in academic terms, that they have real problems. When that has been explained to them, I have known adult dyslexics who feel that they have had the weight of the world removed from their shoulders. However, an adult dyslexic who is functioning quite well with a low-level job might say, "I simply do not want to go back into that environment where I am learning again and failing again. I shall simply stay out of it". Explaining the problem to people may well prevent much anti-social behaviour. However, I know it is odd to suggest that saying, "Don't worry, you cannot do it because of", will stop half the problem.
We must also concentrate on getting these people accepted and understood by those around them and those who are dealing with them. Government bureaucracy, especially low level bureaucracy, must be made more aware. If someone said to those in a government office, "I am dyslexic. Will you fill out the form for me?", I should like to think that most people would turn around and say, "Yes, of course". That would involve reading out the questions, explaining the answers and then writing them down. It is not a big deal and may well save man hours if the right information is then gathered. I wonder how many census forms will be filled in badly because of this problem. Even with the assistance of my wife, I had enough difficulty trying to explain that my name and my title are different. What other mundane problems have been overlooked in the process?
If we are to address this problem, we must ensure that all assessment processes build in systems that take it into account and that when it comes to instructions being issued from the top level of the machine down to the bottom, that governments of any and all colours say to organisations, "Thou shalt do it this way and in a sympathetic manner". That is most important. The processes must be opened up to ensure that if someone does not conform to normal learning processes, that person then receives help to allow them to achieve, using other methods.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, mentioned her laptop computer and how she needed a little help in learning how to use it. I should like to say, first, that we are glad to see the noble Baroness in this House. Secondly, if the noble Baroness does succeed in finding good advice, I should be more than grateful if she would pass it on.
The new learning society will provide some answers, but it has been pointed out to me that the new habit of chatting via e-mail is a social nightmare for a dyslexic, who finds spelling difficult. We must try to adapt the way we work in order to address this problem.
224
All new government initiatives must bear these issues in mind because it is at the lower end of the spectrum where the real problems are to be found. If someone has already been trained in how to learn, they will have no difficulty doing it again if the training systems are accessible. However, getting people into the habit of learning presents a much more fundamental problem.
I hope that the noble Baroness, whom I know has been active in this field, will be able to assure me that these concerns are being addressed, because if they are not, there is a danger that we shall create that horrible thing—an underclass with a slightly harder core to it.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I wish to speak in particular on the subject of family learning and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for providing such a wide canvas on which we can display our individual niche interests.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I offer my congratulations on her ability to maintain silence on matters of policy for 14 years. I cannot claim such a distinguished achievement for myself—rather the contrary. Perhaps I may also offer my thanks to the noble Baroness for her service to the Open University. That is an institution of genuine world-class renown, which is reflected by the extent to which overseas countries are using it. I shall also offer the noble Baroness a little advice. I, too, have been given the perk of a free laptop computer because, perhaps like the noble Baroness, I no longer have a secretary. That in itself is a valuable learning experience for life. So I did what a good chairman of an institution called the University for Industry, a junior sister organisation to the Open University, should do: I called and asked. "Please may I have a course in how to use this computer?". I shall give the noble Baroness the telephone number when we have finished the debate. I have been given a course and I shall let the noble Baroness know how I get on.
In a few months' time it will be four years since the committee appointed by the previous government to advise on the future of higher education submitted its report. That report was entitled Higher Education in the Learning Society. The title was chosen with some care and deliberation because we saw that the big issue for this country was the creation of a learning society. The terms of reference confined the committee members to that element in society which succeeds best in learning and is therefore best equipped to become a member of the learning society for life.
I wish to concentrate on those at the other end of the spectrum. A great achievement of the Conservative government, starting in 1988, was their effort to achieve huge growth in higher education. We needed that big catch-up operation. It is good that the present Government have continued that expansion and placed renewed emphasis on further education. Furthermore, they have created the University for Industry, a flagship institution which has demonstrated its commitment to the creation of a

225
learning society and lifelong learning. I am glad to say that the UFI is up and running, and perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, who mentioned that we are a culturally diverse society, that I understand that the number from the ethnic minority communities participating in the university's programmes is twice that which one would expect from the proportion in the population.
My noble friend Lord Sandwich said that he had puzzled over how to define the learning society and lifelong learning. He mentioned that he had found a thousand or more definitions. I, too, puzzled over this, but I found only one definition—possibly because I did not consult the Internet. It came from a committee chaired by Professor Bob Fryer when he was chairman of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. I shall not read it out, but two parts particularly struck me.
He highlighted the realisation that we must harness new technology and that we must set up learning centres in order to open up this new form of learning. They should be as transforming as was the public library in the 19th century. I believe that this is something that this Government have gone about with a will and have done well. It is not enough merely to have the kit, it must also be "Mum and Dad friendly". It should be accessible to those mums and dads who shook off the dust of education when they left school, vowing, "That is the end of that". There was no hope of lifelong learning.
If we are to have a truly inclusive learning society, then we must think anew. In essence, we no longer have 20 per cent of our youngsters leaving school and continually replenishing the 20 per cent of our adult society that cannot find a plumber in the Yellow Pages. That is very much a social problem as much as it is one of education and we need to look at it in social terms. We need to succeed in involving parents in their support of schools.
I wish to exemplify my concern about this issue by giving the House a little information about my home city of Hull. For five years, the city was at the bottom of the league table for GCSE grades A-C passes. It is a city where 75 per cent of the homes are in the lowest community charge category. It is a city which has twice the national level of unemployment. It is a city which, unhappily, is ranked fifteenth from bottom in 254 communities for the level of deprivation.
Given the seriousness of its schools' performance and the recognition that that needed to be improved, the education authority—which came out well in its 1999 Ofsted inspection—arranged that each of the 16 secondary schools would write to all the parents of its pupils, inviting them in to talk about how they could lift the deplorable level of average performance in those schools. Each secondary school has between 500 and 700 pupils and therefore 1,000 or more parents. In spite of writing to each individual parent and in spite of support offered by the local newspaper, which has conducted a big campaign to lift educational standards, the average turnout was 50 parents per
226
school—and sometimes as few as 12. Is it surprising that those children, living in a city of deprivation, are not performing better at school?
We shall not succeed in cracking the problem unless we see it not only as a problem for schools, but as a problem for society and, in particular, for families. Families are failing these children. Schools are not failing them at all. They are not had teachers in Hull; they are not had schools; they are not bad kids. We have a big problem.
It has been suggested in the debate that we need new ideas—not top-down ideas but top-up support for bottom-down ideas. I have looked around. Hull has got some ideas—for example, "Achievement in Excellence", under which kids from the city, with the support of the two universities, can go on a short course when they are about 13 for the local university and are promised a place. Great. But it is not really attacking the parenting problem.
I looked a bit wider. Cumbria has a CREDITS scheme for Community Renewal Education Delivering Information Technology in Schools. Family community renewal using the school is a success. East Leeds has been mentioned. Yes, Leeds is going about it. I particularly like "Dads and Lads in Computing" because it is 90 per cent mums who are coming into the initiatives. "Keeping up with the Kids" is another Leeds initiative. Great. Kent has big areas of deprivation in its coastal towns. It has the "University for Children" scheme, aimed particularly at areas of deprivation and getting pupils in years six and seven to come in with families. There are family learning days and weekends when dads can come. Good stuff.
If this is to happen and there is to be a flourishing of local ideas, one should say to the Government, "Look, you have done a good job in creating this learning society, but look at the family issue. Make it easy. Provide funding for local initiatives. Develop the scheme that you have introduced already of providing free computers for those who cannot afford to buy them so that the kids and dad and mum can get into the game. Encourage bottom-up ideas and share them around". This is so important.
I congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches on what they have said about prisons. Parents in prison cannot engage. I could not believe it when it was said that while prisoners can, in the run-up to release, go and see about jobs and getting work, they cannot engage in education. For goodness sake, they must become learners. They need it more than most if they are not going to go back to prison within a couple of years, as most of them do. The only way to prevent that is to get them set up as learners in civvy street and at home.
I hope that the new Chief Inspector of Adult Education will be as vigorous as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons about education. I congratulate the department on setting up a joint unit with the Prison Service and getting the scheme going. It has received some £50 million. Let us have more.

227
If we are going to help children to come into the learning society we must realise that this is not a problem that we can leave to the teachers; they desperately need our help. We need very new thinking in regard to the engagement of parents in these areas of deprivation and for getting them into education themselves. They would thereby be equipped to help their children and would realise how much education means to their children's lives.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing this stimulating debate. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on her splendid maiden speech. I join in her praise for the achievements of the Open University. It is very much an exemplar of what we need in terms of continuing education.
Three themes have run through the debate. The first is: what do we mean by a learning society? The second is: is Britain a learning society? The third is: what can national policymakers do about it?
The first theme first—what do we mean by a learning society?—has been translated into meaning "lifelong learning" and that we never shut the door on learning more. For all of us there is always the opportunity to go a little further and to learn a little more from the cradle to the grave. This, in itself, is an important end.
Education can be, if you like, a consumer good because it adds to consumer satisfaction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar said, it helps a person to exploit his or her full potential for a satisfying life. Indeed, it provides ways of finding more satisfaction in life. It is an important end in itself.
It is also, of course, important from the economy point of view, a point raised by a number of speakers, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Puttnam. In today's globalising economy—and I belong to a ghastly group in Europe called the Globalising Learning Economy Group—technology, knowledge and capital are all mobile; the labour force is not mobile. This country's gross national product, therefore, depends very much upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our labour force.
In a world in which knowledge is changing so fast, if our labour force does not update its skills and its knowledge, it will create two great dangers. One danger is that we will tend to end up with the low value-added jobs instead of the high value-added jobs. However, there is an even bigger danger. If we do not understand what is going on, we cannot use leading-edge knowledge. We have all got a laptop; most of us just about manage to master Word and do very little else with it. There are all kinds of things we could do if we were better at it. If we all did the training and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has done, signed up with the UFI, we would be able to use properly our Excel
228
spreadsheets and our address lists instead of experimenting from time to time, as one does, to try and run off a list of addresses.
Exactly the same happens with technology. If firms are not employing research scientists who are at the leading edge, it is no good. We cannot buy in technology from elsewhere and use it because in our firms we do not have anyone who can understand it and receive it. We have to have those points of reception. If we do not understand it, then it is useless and we cannot use it. So the notion that we do not have to worry about technology because we can always buy it in is not correct; we have to grow from underneath people who can understand these matters.
So, from the point of view of a consumer good, it is a good thing in itself to have more education and to understand more; and, from the point of view of the economy, it is important that we participate in continuing learning. We must go on always learning and learning more.
Turning to the second theme—is Britain a learning society?—I think that it is becoming a learning society. I do not think that it was. One of the issues about which I feel very strongly is the kind of world in which I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, when I went to a grammar school. If you did not pass the 11-plus, doors were closed on what you could do; if you did not sit GCSEs, doors were closed; if you did not sit A-levels, you could not go on to university. Constantly, it was a closing-door education system.
Now, thank heaven, over the course of the past 30 years, we have begun to create an open-door education system and the Open University has done a vast amount to help. But we need to go on still further. It is an academically-based education system. A-level is the gold standard and, whether you like it or not, vocational education is regarded as being a second-class education. It is vital for our country that there is parity between vocational and non-vocational courses. Above all, it is vital that we open up opportunities for those who lose out in the early phases for one reason or another—whether because of family background, dyslexia, illness or whatever—so that they can always make up the grade.
I think that we are improving. There are still too many closed doors in our system but I think that we are improving in terms of an open-door education system. The Government have taken many initiatives to improve it—Sure Start, the Early Years programme, the numeracy and literacy standards, the New Deal for the young unemployed, the Connexions service, the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council, the bringing together of further education and the technology and enterprise councils, the Learn Direct initiative and the University for Industry—and I welcome all of them.
But one is left asking some questions. Why, for example, did the Government leave it so late to begin putting resources into the system? It is a real indictment of this Government that during their term of office spending on education has been 4.6 per cent of GDP, whereas during the Major years it was

229
5 per cent. Yet this was the Government who said, "Education, education, education"—and, God only knows, we do need education, education, education. But why wait two years before starting spending some of that money instead of, as the Liberal Democrats asked them to do, immediately putting money into the system?
Why have the Government not adopted the recommendations of their own National Skills Task Force which would entitle every adult in this country to free tuition if he or she were working for the first time to obtain a level 2 qualification, the equivalent of a GCSE? Why have they not accepted the recommendation of the CBI that there should be a level playing field between all vocational and academic qualifications, with everyone aged 16 to 24 being entitled to free tuition up to level 3, the equivalent of A-level? Why have the Government been so slow in introducing individual learning accounts? Why are they not available for those over 18? Why do not the Government begin to use individual learning accounts as a way to help open up the continuing learning process to a much greater degree than they have so far? Why do they insist on setting up separate local learning and skills councils instead of using the existing regional development agencies to develop "bottom up" initiatives which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, are so important. These questions remain in relation to what the Government have done in this area.
I want to raise a further question which has not been dealt with in the debate. All these initiatives are on the supply side of education. Yes, we are opening doors and saying to people, "Come through, come through a little further". But what if people do not come through? There is considerable evidence that Britain's problems lie on the demand side. We have far too many people who do not care about education and training, either for themselves as individuals or within their working environment. For example, almost one-third of the managers and proprietors of small businesses have no qualification equivalent to GCSE; 27 per cent of those who run small and medium-sized businesses have no formal education or training qualification whatever.
Added to that is the dispiriting finding, quoted in the final report of the National Skills Task Force, that 50 per cent of adults who left school or college over 10 years ago and who have not since participated in learning activities say that they want nothing further to do with learning. The task force says in its report:
"This lack of demand for, indeed resistance to, learning is likely to present as much of a barrier to raising skill levels of such adults as their own lack of basic skills".
That is the challenge for the Government. How do we get through to those who have no skills at all but who do not particularly want to learn?
I put forward some ideas that may be worth considering. Should we be looking at an equivalent to the French system in terms of a general remissible training levy, which it is claimed has been extremely successful in instilling a training culture among firms in France? It was rejected by the majority of members
230
of the National Skills Task Force, who were worried about the bureaucracy that it might impose on small and medium-sized businesses. The Liberal Democrats' answer is to move on a voluntary basis and to suggest that national training organisations can introduce a training levy where they want to. But given the lack of training among small and medium-sized businesses, ought we perhaps to be thinking about that?
Should we be tackling the problem from the other end and insisting that those who set themselves up in a trade, be it as a plumber or a motor mechanic, should have qualifications? The Liberal Democrats want to re-establish the grade of master craftsman—a person who satisfies minimum standards of workmanship. People could set themselves up and to some extent be acknowledged by training standards officers as possessing that qualification. In Germany, France and America, a person cannot practise as a plumber or an electrician without such a qualification. Why are people in this country allowed to set themselves up without it? Why is the biggest problem with which the Consumers' Association is asked to deal that of cowboy plumbers?
I have two further ideas. It is important that we try to "grow our own" within the public sector. Are we doing enough to encourage school meals assistants and so forth to think about acquiring educational qualifications? That is an important point.
The debate has emphasised the need for Britain, in this modern world of globalisation, to become a learning society. As I have indicated. I am not convinced that we have moved far enough in that direction. But it is important that the measures undertaken are from the bottom up. If we look at other countries, we see that such measures have been successful. As a number of speakers have mentioned, it is important to garner the community and to get people to acknowledge what their peers are doing. It is important to examine measures on the demand side, not merely on the supply side.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to engage in another debate about education; however, I think we all agree that time constraints will inhibit any attempt to do full justice to such an important debate.
I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who opened the debate with an excellent speech. Among the many key points that she made, the importance of teaching people how to learn resonated with me as a fundamental prerequisite for all learning. A further point that I picked up among many others was the importance of removing obstacles to learning.
I, too, welcomed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. We have all looked forward to hearing her maiden speech. The noble Baroness came to this House following a most distinguished career as a constituency Member of Parliament and as Speaker of the House of Commons. Having heard her excellent speech, I know that I speak for everyone in the House when I say how much we look forward to hearing from

231
her on many occasions to come. My noble friend Lady Carnegy, who is not in her place, came and whispered in my ear—as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, knows, she has an involvement with the Open University—how much the noble Baroness is revered by everyone at the university including many of the students. Just as the noble Baroness feels privileged to be chancellor of the Open University and a Member of this House, we regard it as a privilege to have her with us as a friend and colleague.
The first time I can recall the expression "a learning society" being used in relation to public policy was when Gillian Shephard, the then Secretary of State for Education, used it during a "Campaign for Learning" in the spring of 1996, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The words used by the chairman of the Campaign for Learning, Sir Christopher Ball, are as pertinent today as they were then. He said:
"In the 21st Century those individuals who do not practice lifelong learning will not find work; those organisations which do not become learning organisations will not survive; those schools, colleges and universities which do not put their students first will not recruit".
Such is the complexity of the world in which we live that flexibility within the labour market and a requirement to train and to retrain throughout one's working life will be the normal experience for most people. Even within a more stable and professional career, such is the speed of technological advances that the need to keep abreast of new techniques and new technology is equally pressing.
Companies, whether large, medium or small, must give priority to education and training. Much progress has been made by industry and commerce in developing dynamic ladders of opportunity for the education and training of their staff. However, progress is patchy. Manufacturing industry, for example, is in serious decline and scope for engaging new technology and more modern working practices with all the required capital investment and the provision of training programmes is simply beyond many manufacturing companies. Their energies are debilitated keeping their heads above water in order to survive.
Having said that, medium and small-sized companies are coming to realise that a successful future depends upon their willingness to invest in education and training and a readiness to adapt to changing market conditions. Globalisation, a much abused word, is a fact of life. Today, we see a more rapid movement of people, goods and services, as well as capital, between countries—even between continents—than ever before.
The effects of those changes—of the global economy and increasingly world-wide competition—is forcing enterprises to adapt to change. Traditional secure jobs are disappearing fast, and an increase in self-employment, flexible employment and innovative working practices is happening on an unprecedented scale. The result of all this poses a fundamental shift of many social and political certainties. Therefore, the
232
imperative is for people to become more personally responsible, more adaptable to change through education and training. The challenge for the policy makers is to balance the creation of opportunities without being over-prescriptive or too interventionist.
There should be encouragement for greater personal investment in life-long learning, and for employers to develop a vested interest in a well-trained and well-motivated workforce. Although I have linked education with training in my contribution so far, I also wish to put on record the importance of learning for its own sake—for enjoyment and for self-fulfilment. In a very interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph, Anthony Smith, who is the president of Magdalen College Oxford, refers to learning in order to maintain the practice of scholarship and the pursuit of new learning. All of this is also important.
I also support the importance of informal learning, which is a great tradition in this country. As I represented the subject in this House when I was a Minister, I should like to pick up on the theme advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the importance of education in prisons. Having been an education Minister before becoming a Home Office Minister, I must say that I regard that as almost an essential pre-requisite to enable people to understand the points made by the noble Lord. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to those working in the voluntary sector. I believe that they are almost more effective in the field of prison education than the professionals. That is often because of the nature of the relationship between the volunteer and the prisoner.
I was deeply depressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I believe that the tone of the debate changed very dramatically at that point. On behalf of my colleagues who served in the education department with both energy and aspiration, I can tell the noble Lord that I took personally the scathing criticisms that he made about the time when I was serving in government. Much was achieved; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to his involvement in many of those achievements. I should point out that the introduction—
Lord Puttnam: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords. My speech is time limited, and I do not intend to give way.
The education department throughout those years introduced the national curriculum, devolved schools management and opened up technical education, as well as developing GNVQs and NVQs. There was also the development of the specialist schools in languages, music, drama, sport, as well as in science and technology. More information and better accountability was provided for parents and regular inspection was introduced. The number of people entering university increased from one in eight to one in three, when we left office. The spending on education as a percentage of GDP in the previous Parliament was greater than that spent by the Government throughout this Parliament. Two major Acts for improving special educational needs were

233
introduced during that time, and they have since been built upon by the present Government. I simply know not what, or to whom, the noble Lord was referring when he talked about "beating" education into children.
The need for flexibility and adaptability, greater competitiveness and a highly educated and trained workforce is well understood, but there is considerable scope for addressing the problems that beset our educational system at the local level. Given the importance of serving the needs of all people, there is concern and confusion about the resources matching the aspirations of the special educational needs Bill, which is passing through Parliament at present. I have read the ministerial answers to Written Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There appears to be a lack of clarity about where responsibility lies and how competing policies will be resolved.
There is a serious teacher crisis. There are far too many temporary supply teachers covering for teacher vacancies. There are far too many children being taught subjects for which their teachers have not been trained. There are even children without school places, who have missed months of education because of the sluggishness of the organisation and development committees system that has taken over from local education authorities the responsibility for decision making in the supply of school places for the number of children in an area. We heard only yesterday that the new A-level and AS-level system requires hundreds of additional exam markers, who are proving difficult to recruit and train. There is far too much bureaucracy throughout the school FE and HE sector, which is dissipating time, energy and precious resources.
There is also a funding crisis. Although additional funding has been announced by the Government, the actual core funding into our schools and colleges is not rising. One reason for this is the unprecedented tranche of money that is held back by the DfEE over which Ministers exercise personal patronage for endless pet schemes that are the subject of numerous press releases on an almost daily basis.
Coherence is another issue. There have been so many changes and so many initiatives that many of the relationships of the new bodies require greater clarity. I have in mind local education authorities, 47 learning and skills councils (which replace the FEFC and training and enterprise councils), a network of local learning partnerships with a co-ordinating function, the University for Industry (providing direct learning through learndirect centres), local information, advice and guidance services, as well as those bodies dealing with individual learning accounts, deferred repayment career development loans, union learning funds, and the Connexions service, to mention but a few. These bodies, and many others, provide a complex and bewildering picture for young people, especially those young and more vulnerable people who require much more assistance to enable them to see their way round the system.
234
If life-long learning is to be a reality, it must be accessible. It must be free from over-burdensome regulation, particularly for business and commerce; it must also be flexible, as well as free from bureaucracy and intervention. It must meet the educational and training needs and aspirations of its students, both young and old.
5.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, as the former Master of Birkbeck, perhaps I may begin by saying just how delighted I was to hear the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Boothroyd about the Open University. I believe that every speaker in the debate will share her view about the unique value of the OU and the very special qualities of the part-time mature students who take its courses. Indeed, I recommend its courses to all Members of your Lordships' House. However, I hope that I can arrange a learndirect course for my noble friend on how to use her new laptop. Perhaps she would like to come to see me after the debate.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for raising this important matter and for doing so with great conviction—and, if I may say so, with wisdom. We have had a very good and most stimulating debate. I am also grateful to all the speakers who have taken part.
Learning is fundamental to our future prosperity. We can no longer rely on a small élite: we need the creativity, the enterprise and the skills of all our people to achieve economic growth, social justice and a civilised society. For many people this means overcoming past experiences that have put them off learning. It means recognising and developing their talent, often for the very first time.
That is the vision that we set out in our Learning Age Green Paper four years ago. Since then, I believe that this Government have done more than any other to lay the foundations for a learning society. We have raised standards in schools and have encouraged more young people to stay in learning. I believe that we have reached out imaginatively to engage adults with poor skills and qualifications and established a framework for raising standards in learning beyond education.
However, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and, indeed, with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said that what we are about here is learning to learn. We are also concerned with those other three Rs: resilience, resourcefulness and reflection.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, an understanding of international development and the global world is important. As he rightly pointed out, the introduction of citizenship in the national curriculum is important in that regard. Many link-ups are being established between schools in the UK and the rest of the world. Recently in Cambridge witnessed middle school pupils making important links with schools in Ghana. The pupils enjoyed that enormously.

235
The work of the new Learning and Skills Council will be central to the delivery of our strategy. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not support that important reform because the council integrates for the first time the planning and funding of all post-compulsory education and training outside higher education. It will have significant new resources for its work. In 2005 its budget, excluding the total for school sixth forms, will be £6.4 billion. Therefore, there will be substantial extra resources going into further education. That is just part of the extra investment this Government are making in lifelong learning. By 2003–04 investment in higher education will total over £7 billion as a result of the extra investment that we have provided. In addition, we shall invest substantially more through the University for Industry, individual learning accounts and other initiatives to promote adult learning.
I must defend my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He referred to the substantial extra investment that this Government have made in education across the board. I believe that he mentioned the additional £540 per pupil that has been provided since 1997. Of course, he is right that more is needed, but the Prime Minister has pledged that if we win the election we shall provide further increases in funding for education. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, that we are spending more as a proportion of GDP on education. The figure was 4.7 per cent in 1996–97. In 2001–02 it will be 5 per cent. It is projected to rise to 5.3 per cent in two years' time. We should acknowledge those improvements and those changes.
The Learning and Skills Council will build on achievements in our schools, as a number of speakers have rightly indicated. My noble friend Lady Massey was quite right to suggest that those who achieve most during their years of compulsory schooling are most likely to remain lifelong learners and to realise their full potential in their jobs and in the wider community. That is why our focus on raising standards in schools is so crucial. Last year primary schools delivered the best ever results in literacy and numeracy tests following the introduction of our new national strategies. More young people achieved five or more higher grades at GCSE. These are the returns on that extra £540 of investment per pupil since 1997.
We now intend to put in place new measures to promote diversity and higher standards in our secondary schools. The transformation of teaching and learning for 11 to 14 year-olds will ensure higher achievement at Key Stage 3, especially in English and Maths. However, I reassure my noble friends Lady Massey and Lord Puttnam that we are concerned with the wider aspects of learning and, of course, with support for teachers, as well as meeting our achievement targets.
We are encouraging all young people to go as far as their talents will take them. Social and economic disadvantage must no longer be a bar to learning. Over 90 per cent of young people from professional families stay in education after the age of 16, compared with only 60 per cent from semi or unskilled families. We
236
are determined to close that gap, to which my noble friend Lady Andrews referred. We have created clearer and more challenging learning pathways, both academic and vocational; broader A-level study; the new key skills qualification; and stronger vocational options from 14-plus with new vocational GCSEs, reformed modern apprenticeships and new foundation degrees. These reforms will help to make sure that we achieve our aim of 50 per cent of people going to university by the age of 30 compared with around 43 per cent today.
In driving up standards we also seek to raise aspirations and to overcome the poverty of expectation that has bedevilled so many families. That is why we are matching better opportunities with targeted support for those at most risk of dropping out or underachieving. The benefits of focused effort are beginning to show from Sure Start and our Early Excellence Centres Programme, from Excellence in Cities schools and from education action zones.
To keep 13 to 19 year-olds engaged in learning we shall provide advice and guidance through the one-stop Connexions Service. The incentive for young people in disadvantaged areas to continue learning provided by education maintenance allowances has produced a 5 percentage points increase in the proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds staying in education.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, adults who missed out on education and training earlier in life must no longer be disadvantaged relative to their better qualified peers. Our strategy to engage these adults tackles the barriers reported in the National Adult Learning Survey: low levels of prior attainment; lack of information; lack of attractive and accessible opportunities; and lack of resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, there may be no such thing as a non-learner. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, many people's expectations about putting their potential to learn into practice are still far too low.
Basic skills are essential for further learning and for many jobs. As a number of speakers have said, up to 7 million people in England have poor literacy and numeracy skills. Our aim is to eliminate poor literacy and numeracy among adults, starting with a reduction of 750,000 in the number of those with poor basic skills by 2004. Our strategy, Skills for Life, was launched last month. By 2003–04 funding for the strategy from the department will reach £403 million a year. That is a massive increase.
New diagnostic assessment tools will help to identify learners' needs. New national standards, curricula and tests for literacy and numeracy have been published. Those teaching basic skills for more than six hours a week will receive intensive training. We are testing in 10 pathfinder areas radical improvements in the quality of the training and support delivered to learners to drive up standards. We are embedding basic skills training in a clear pathway of further learning, with a targeted approach for different

237
groups. For example, for people without jobs, literacy and numeracy assessment and learning will form part of wider employment training.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on people in prison. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit will help offenders to improve their literacy and numeracy skills so as to improve their employment prospects on release. However, they also have to develop skills other than literacy and numeracy. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Dearing, also referred to the importance of improving what we do for people in prison. They are absolutely right to say that there has to be a much greater emphasis on education in the prison regime than there has been in the past. I am grateful for their welcome of our initiative in that regard. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the more specific point that he raised.
Good quality information, advice and guidance can help inspire and realise the desire to learn. We are therefore building a comprehensive system of local services and piloting free in-depth guidance services for the most disadvantaged. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we shall focus on the challenge of those with learning difficulties, trying to match their needs to good quality provision.
We also want to increase the attractiveness and availability of learning. For many people, adult and community learning is the essential first step out of exclusion. We are proud that we have arrested the decline in adult education that was seen, I regret to say, in the 1990s. In November 1998 there were 1.1 million enrolments in LEA adult education, an increase of 50,000 on the previous year. This growth will continue. We have announced a record £167 million for adult and community learning. In providing these extra resources, we have listened to what people want—both learners and providers. The family learning, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred, is being encouraged through that funding.
A number of speakers have talked about the use of IT. We are exploiting the Internet and electronic media to create opportunities for learning which are more convenient in terms of time, pace and place for adult learners with work and domestic commitments. I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the importance of those developments. We are piloting ways to close the digital divide through wired up communities in urban and rural areas. Over 1,000 UK online centres are contributing to our goal of universal access to the Internet by 2005 and of helping people to explore opportunities for learning. Around 5,000 more will be "live" by the end of 2002.
The University for Industry, whose board the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, chaired—I am most grateful to him for that—has created an e-learning network for people at home, in the workplace or at one of over 900 learndirect centres around the country. The 1.7 million searchers and 2.6 million callers to the learndirect website and helpline demonstrate the importance of information on learning opportunities and the extent of the potential interest in learning. This is encouraging for us all.
238
We are doing more than ever to provide financial support to adult learners. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested that we had not made a proper start on individual learning accounts. I disagree. Over 950,000 individual learning accounts have been opened.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned the importance of learning in the workplace. We must not forget that. It is vital. The economic benefits to employers are now well proven. The Learning and Skills Council will work with a smaller, stronger network of national training organisations and with the University for Industry. I hope that they will persuade more employers to reap the reward of a well trained workforce and to gain recognition as investors in people. With the Small Business Service, they will offer extra support to those small firms which lack in-house resources for staff development.
No one mentioned the unions, but they, too, have shown that they can play an imaginative and constructive role in helping members to develop their skills to ensure their long-term employability. Over 2,000 union learning representatives, trained through the Union Learning Fund which we have introduced, are informing and advising their members about the importance of learning and the opportunities to take it up. We shall continue support for that fund.
Our strategy is to raise participation and standards of learning for everyone at every age. We need a nation that has acquired those basic tools for further learning and self-development which will see them through not a job for life but the prospect of movement both within and between jobs which will take place more and more.
Much has already been achieved in our schools, colleges and workplaces and in wider communities. But I am the first to accept that more still must be achieved to create the learning society that we all want to see. The Learning and Skills Council will lead that growing renaissance of our learning culture in partnership with employers and individuals. As an active, enabling Government, we shall continue to drive forward this agenda to build the learning society not just for today but to meet the demands of tomorrow in the knowledge economy of the 21st century.
I conclude by agreeing with my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that, above all, we have to convince people that learning is not a treadmill but that it is engaging, enjoyable, stimulating and rewarding for its own sake.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It was a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about the growing pains of the Open University and to be reminded how small revolutions can make such a dramatic change
We have had a wide-ranging debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, the title was deceptively simple. It was a broad canvas. However, it would have

239
been difficult to define the subject in any other way. Given the range of issues, lifelong learning is a wide subject. But I have been greatly encouraged by the tone of the debate, hearing new perspectives and the call for new thinking.
We are moving towards a learning society. There is a large range of initiatives, both top-down and bottom-up. We need to bring some synergy and connection to those initiatives. There is need not only for investment of money but of thought, new perspectives and targeted investment.
I was also pleased to hear the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, towards ensuring that society values teachers. Over the years, teachers have taken a beating and it is important that we recognise that those who contribute to the learning society are valued professionals.
I hope that the debate has contributed to a broadening of our thinking and that the momentum towards creating a learning society will continue. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Motorola, Bathgate
5.28 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to a Private Notice Question in another place by my right honourable friend Stephen Byers. The Statement relates to redundancies announced yesterday by Motorola and reads as follows:
"I know that the honourable Member will share with me and I think most Members of the House the feelings of regret and disappointment caused by Motorola's decision to close its plant at Easter Inch in Bathgate. This is a bitter blow for hard working people and their families.
"In considering our response to this announcement we need to be aware of the reasons for Motorola's decision and the steps that will need to be taken to help those individuals affected and the communities in which they live.
"There is no doubt that Motorola is facing a difficult position with the sharp downturn in the market for mobile telephones and this was the reason given for yesterday's decision. As a consequence of this global decline, Motorola announced trading losses of £140 million for the first quarter of this year.
"The closure of the Easter Inch factory is part of the wider rationalisation of global production capacity by Motorola's Personal Communications Sector—that is, the mobile phones division of Motorola.
240
"Since December Motorola has announced plans worldwide to cut 12,000 jobs from this sector alone. It is closing two plants in the United States and cutting its workforce in Brazil. In Europe, Motorola has sold its Dublin facility, with a major loss of jobs.
"The Scottish Executive has been in constant contact over the past few weeks with Motorola, both in the UK and in the United States. The UK Government have backed the Scottish Executive's efforts. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made representations to Motorola.
"In the end Motorola took a decision that it believed to be in the long-term commercial interests of the company, but there is no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. It is a devastating blow for the individuals and the families of all those involved and for the whole community.
"The first priority must be to pursue with Motorola future options for the Bathgate site. We need to explore every possible future use of this excellent facility. There are a variety of options to explore with the company. One is its sale as a going concern, including to a contract manufacturer of mobile phones or to another related business. The other alternatives include new employment for a new employer purchasing the site. Invest UK stands ready to assist the Scottish Executive in that task.
"In order to assist the individuals affected, the Scottish Executive is setting-up a task force with Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, the Employment Service, West Lothian Council, the Careers Service, the Benefits Agency and the Scottish TUC.
"The task force will draw up an action plan to meet the needs of the Motorola workers. Subject to the agreement of Motorola, it is likely to include an on-site job shop, business start-up workshops and other support to help people to find jobs. The task force has already been set up and begun its work to give those individuals the help that they need. The action plan will meet the details and the needs of those individuals. The Scottish Executive is setting aside up to £10 million to help fund the action plan.
"It has been made clear to Motorola that it will now have to pay back the £16.75 million in regional selective assistance that it has received for the Bathgate plant over the past six years. This will be the largest clawback ever of RSA grant in Scotland.
"Although the Bathgate decision is a real body-blow, we must not forget that Motorola will remain a major employer—and the largest electronic manufacturer—in Scotland. The company has given assurances that its semiconductor operations at East Kilbride and South Queensferry are unaffected by yesterday's decision. We welcome that. Motorola remains committed to a software development centre at Livingston and to the planned next generation of semiconductor technology in Dunfermline. Despite the decision

241
towards the end of last year to reconsider the timing of the project at Dunfermline, Motorola has emphasised its underlying commitment to it.
"We expect that workers from Bathgate will have the opportunity to retrain and apply for those new jobs being created by Motorola. The company has confirmed that it looks forward to building on its 32-year association with Scotland and sees the Dunfermline site as the cornerstone of its future investment.
"It is clear that at a time of globalisation many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring and that there are bound to be implications due to the slowdown in the world economy, particularly in the USA. We should not overstate our difficulties. Most forecasters expect manufacturing output to grow this year. The medium-term prospects appear good, with productivity having grown at 6 per cent. Exports are also growing, with manufacturers' export volumes up by more than 10 per cent in the past year.
"No country can ever insulate itself from world economic events. However, because of the decisive action that we have taken—introducing tough fiscal rules, reducing the national debt, making the Bank of England independent and delivering the lowest inflation for 30 years—British economic policy is much better placed than it has been in the past. We are on course to continue to deliver stability and sustained growth.
"It is an extremely difficult time for individuals and communities when jobs are lost as industries restructure in the face of change. It is even more frustrating, as in this case, when such losses arise because of global managerial decisions based on financial problems in one sector despite the success and profits coming from the plant that is earmarked for closure. This will be a difficult time for all those who will lose their jobs as a result of this announcement. The Bathgate workforce are productive and highly skilled. I know that, working with local and national agencies, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government will do all that we can to assist them to find new employment.
"The closure of Easter Inch will take place over a period of six to 12 months. Motorola, the Scottish Executive, the Employment Service and this Government will work together to ensure that employees are found new employment before redundancy takes effect.
"Bathgate has suffered from job losses before. In the 1980s, unemployment reached 17 per cent. Through hard work and commitment, the situation has been turned around. As a result, the current rate of unemployment in West Lothian stands at 3.8 per cent. That is a great success story. However, I am the first to acknowledge that those figures will be of little comfort to the workers affected by this announcement. Many in this House will understand the anger and frustration that they feel. We must do all that we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together with the
242
Scottish Executive, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead and as a result offer real hope for the future to those affected by Motorola's announcement".
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place, although I was surprised that the issue has been dealt with here, because I thought that employment was a devolved matter. I gave the Minister notice of that point. Perhaps he can clarify it for me, because nobody else seems to know the reason.
The situation is a great tragedy for all the 3,100 employees who will lose their jobs. It is a tragedy for their families and for everyone in Bathgate, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. It is particularly sad that a new industry that was so warmly welcomed in the hope that it would replace the employment in coal, steel and shipbuilding that had been lost has ended in this way.
I say at the outset that we welcome the efforts that the Minister has mentioned to try to alleviate the situation and find alternative employment for the workers and an alternative use for the factory, wit h the setting up of the task force and the combined work with all the agencies. We wish all those efforts well.
However, one good thing that might come out of this is that the situation should bring vividly to the attention of the Government their role in the severe problems that seem to have beset our manufacturing industry in the past four years. Some 350,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. High taxes and the enormous burden of regulation have taken their toll. Today's press release from the CBI points out the trend of future loss of orders. I was interested to hear the Minister saying that many sources predicted strong growth. I hope that that is correct, but it is not what today's CBI press release said.
The emergency interventions by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are all very well, but Motorola will not have a change of heart unless it is in the company's commercial interests to remain at Bathgate. The announcement that the company lost 200 million dollars, or £140 million, in the first three months of this year tells its own story. Intervention, however well intentioned, cannot combat the harm done to manufacturing industry by over-regulation. That point was made by Corus after a similar intervention only a short while ago.
Apart from the general difficulties in manufacturing industry, Motorola faces a downturn in the market for mobile telephones. The same effect has been felt by Ericsson recently. As the Chancellor has said—and as I am sure that the Government will continue to say—we cannot remain unscathed by the global turndown. But at these very times it is absolutely necessary for the United Kingdom to remain competitive. Indeed, that issue was highlighted in the Statement, which said that

243
the Government believe that, thanks to their policies, they may avoid the worst scenario. We certainly hope so.
However, confidence should be tempered with a hint of caution. While, on the one hand, the IMF—in a leaked report, I believe—predicts that the British economy will grow by 2.6 per cent this year, on the other hand, the highly respected Item Club predicts that it could fall as low as 1 per cent both this year and next. And what has happened to our manufacturing industry is a warning of which we should take notice.
The honourable Member for the West Lothian area mentioned in his speech in the other place a little earlier today that Motorola has been an exemplary employer, having had a 32-year commitment to Scotland. I managed to catch his words only at the last moment as I rushed into the Chamber for the aborted Statement. However, I believe that he said that the company had provided 20,000 quality hours of employment in Scotland and that it was a model employer, having spent much time and effort on training its workforce. I certainly hope that that will prove beneficial to those who have lost their jobs and that it will help them to find employment in the future. I simply make the point that I do not believe that we can lay the matter at the door of the employer; it is an issue which concerns the general scene surrounding the company.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister just four questions in addition to the earlier one on which I have already touched. My first question is: has the slow roll-out of the GPRS (the general packet radio service) by the mobile phone operators been a significant reason why Motorola has incurred so many job losses? Secondly, is the reason why the mobile phone companies are not able to afford the infrastructure the £22.5 billion that was taken from them in the government spectrum auctions?
Thirdly, perhaps I may ask whether the slow take-up of the GPRS and WAP (wireless access protocol) is an indication that people will not want the services provided by third generation mobiles. Lastly—I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased that this is my last question—does that mean that the 3,000 job losses at Motorola are only the tip of the iceberg which could sink the United Kingdom as the best place to do e-business?
5.42 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, welcome the Minister's repetition of the Statement in this House. As did the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, we also wish to express our sympathy to the workers at the Motorola plant, many of whom have already been made redundant once and, in some cases, twice. Clearly, for them this is a terrible blow.
We obviously agree with the Government that at this stage it is crucially important that all the agencies involved at national level—the Scottish Executive—and at local level in Lothian work very hard to examine the job opportunities that may be available. However, I believe that it is worth pausing to reflect that the rate
244
of unemployment in Lothian is 3.8 per cent. If many of us who grew up learning economics in the 1960s and 1970s had been asked what was the rate of unemployment in Lothian, we should have been more likely to say 13 per cent or, possibly in some places, 30 per cent rather than 3.8 per cent.
The economy in that part of Scotland has been extremely buoyant. That is, of course, one reason why there is now cause to revise the Barnett formula. However, in this case we are not talking of a situation quite like that which appertained—to a certain extent, it still does—in the Welsh Valleys or South Yorkshire. There, whole industries have been swept away and high and endemic levels of unemployment now exist. We are talking about an area which is, or has been, close to its capacity but where, as we speak, there are skill shortages. The key issue now is not to talk in terms of doom and gloom and of an entire region failing but to look at how we deal with a particular, severe problem which affects that single plant.
Neither do I accept some of the more gloomy prognoses of the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that this is the third time since the previous general election that Members on that Bench have argued that we are about to enter a severe recession. They have been proved wrong up until now. Although clearly there are problems in relation to the world economy, I believe that at this stage it would be mistaken to talk down too far our economic prospects.
However, this closure raises a number of issues which need to be investigated and on which I should welcome an initial response from the Minister. The first is the extent to which he believes that there are features of the UK economy and the UK labour market which make Motorola and other international investors more likely to close down plants in this country than they would equivalent plants elsewhere. The noble Baroness referred to the questions of taxation and regulation. I add to that list the question of whether any aspects of our labour market legislation make it more attractive, cheaper, easier and quicker to close down a plant such as Motorola in this country than it does to close an equivalent plant elsewhere in the European Union.
Secondly, what implications does this type of closure have for the Government's cluster strategy for industries? It is all very well to group together a large number of facilities which produce equivalent or near-equivalent products when times are good. But when times are bad, the danger is that a downturn in a single sector will have a disproportionately high effect in an area. The closure of one factory and a reduction in another in the same industry can, in the short term, lead to a severe shift downwards in the number of jobs and employment levels. Taking a long-term view, does the Minister still believe that pushing hard for clusters makes sense?
Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the continuing and high level of job losses in manufacturing over recent years has been made worse by the continuing high level of the pound? Does he accept that the Government's complete failure to do

245
anything about the level of sterling has caused, is causing and will continue to cause job losses in manufacturing and, indeed, in other sectors, including tourism?
Finally, on a more general point, do the Government have an industrial policy? Do they accept that, in effect, the market rules unfettered, or do they believe that they could and should affect investment and disinvestment decisions by multinationals such as Motorola?
5.47 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the questions that have been raised. First, I turn to the question of whether this matter has been an issue of devolution. That was a point that I raised when I was asked to repeat the Statement. The answer is that the Secretary of State has made a Statement about the Motorola situation. Therefore, it was considered right that, in these circumstances, he should make a further Statement.
We need to be clear that in this case we are dealing with a very specific situation which relates to the mobile telephone market. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the strength of the pound; nor does it have anything to do with over-regulation. It has everything to do with the demand for mobile phones and how that has moved in recent years.
In relation to UK subscriber and owner figures, it is as well to remind oneself that in June 1999 there were 15 million owners of mobile phones—that is, 26 per cent of the population. In June 2000, the figure was 30 million—that is, 52 per cent of the population. The latest figure is 42 million, which is 72 per cent of the population.
I do not believe that it is totally irrational to accept that, as those figures begin to be reached, the demand for basic mobile phones will begin to tail off. I believe that that is the clear reason behind the fact that, at the end of the year 2000, the big three handset manufacturers—Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson—all revised downwards their forecasts for demand.
Here, we are dealing with a specific situation in which production was geared up in order to meet that extraordinary increase in demand. Clearly, the company counted on the fact that the next generation and the replacement market would begin to pick up that demand. That has not happened as it would have liked. I hope that the Opposition's references to the overvaluation of the pound and to over-regulation do not mean that they are making the mistake of losing touch with the fact that a specific industrial situation occurred in this case.
On GPRS, the answer is, no. It is being rolled out—companies are developing it. They wanted it to have moved faster, but it is moving. The decision does not have anything to do with the auction of GPS3 or 3G, which is also moving ahead and which was always a long-term investment. In this case, a licence lasting for 20 years—until 31st December 2021—is involved. The situation is moving forward but not as fast as the industry would have liked. However, that has no
246
relevance so far as e-business is concerned. The demand for e-business will continue to move forward. It will not go in a straight line, but that is not what happens with innovations; demand comes in spurts.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the labour market. The costs and procedures for UK redundancy agreements are in some cases higher than those in other European countries. That was not relevant to this decision, although it will he a source of great aggravation to people in this plant.
A major tax issue with the German plant, which has tax advantages of 300 million dollars, is involved. That is due to the losses that were incurred in the plant—the company has a credit for that. It would have lost that if it closed the plant. There is no doubt that that affected the decision. That is clearly a great blow to those working in the Scottish plant, which has an exemplary record for efficiency and profitability.
I turn to clusters. The Government do not impose clusters on companies; companies want to adopt them to secure innovation. Increasingly with investment, companies want to go to places where there is a skilled workforce that is relevant to the industry. That has the implication that during periods of boom those areas do well, although particular industries may get into difficulty.
The level of the pound was mentioned. That undoubtedly puts pressure on companies to increase their productivity in order to upgrade the industry. That is very difficult in some industries, especially those that are dependent on large amounts of tins killed labour and which do not have the scope of going to added-value markets. The issue was not relevant in this case; we are dealing with a specific problem in this sector.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I voice my grave concern about the situation in Bathgate and express my sympathy with the employees and their families, especially because the workforce is so highly skilled. I was glad to hear—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that Motorola will pay substantially above the minimum redundancy rate to those who will lose their jobs.
I am a little disappointed about the fact that there was political content in the Statement in another place. After all, it was after the closure of the British Leyland works near Bathgate that the Conservatives were able to bring new industry, such as Motorola, to Bathgate and to bring down the unemployment levels so dramatically.
Is it not a little counter-productive for the Government to require the repayment of the grant of £17 million? Will that not be a deterrent to new industry and incoming investment? Surely that money would be far better used if it went towards retraining and helping to re-employ the present employees.
Does the Minister agree that the German tax situation, in relation to which tax losses can be carried forward, is a substantial part of Motorola's decision to

247
leave Scotland? As he rightly said, however, we should bear in mind that Motorola will continue to be a large employer in Scotland.
Lastly—this point was made by my noble friend Lady Miller—the fact that we have had a Scottish Statement in another place and in your Lordships' House must surely have created a precedent by which we can ask questions about Scotland in this House.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there have to be clear rules on regional selective assistance. Those clear rules must be that if one receives regional selective assistance, one pays it back if one closes the relevant factory. It is for the government to make money available for retraining and other activities, but that should be seen as a separate exercise from the payment back of regional selective assistance. If we said, "You can have RSA and if you close the plant and go, you can keep the grant", that would send precisely the wrong signals.
On the carry-forward of losses in relation to the German tax system, the situation is no different from the British approach to carrying forward tax losses. The difference in this case is that the plant in Germany has already made those losses, which is what makes closing it down particularly unattractive. That is a wrinkle in this case but it does not, so far as I understand the situation, involve differentiating between the British and German tax systems.
We must be clear about the fact that the decision is a body-blow to people in the company. Equally, however, we must be clear about the reasons why the decision was taken. It was due not to the failure of the plant or the workforce, which has performed extremely well, but to particular factors. There was a very rapid decline in this relatively high-tech sector, which meant that the company, in the face of rapidly mounting losses, had to cut back.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and the Minister about the RSA—the situation is rather like the question about the chicken and the egg. Will the Minister explain how the money will be repaid? Has he made it abundantly clear that it has got to be repaid?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no particular complexity about the matter. A cash payment was made to the company and the company will have to pay it back. I do not know whether discussions have yet taken place about the relevant time-frame.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in view of the terms of the Scotland Act, it is excellent that the Department of Trade and Industry is still able to help Scotland, as it is currently doing. There is great anxiety in Scotland about the possibility that the industrial situation there is somewhat different from that in the UK as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked
248
the Minister various questions about the UK's industrial position compared with other parts of the world.
In their discussions with people in Scotland, have the Minister or his right honourable friend heard any whisper from Motorola about whether doubts about the future level of personal taxation in Scotland affected its decision? The anxiety is that doubts about the tax that employees may have to pay, and what they would expect in their salaries, may have affected the decision.
There is pressure from some people in the coalition in the Scottish Executive to put up the basic rate of tax. The pressure from Westminster is apparently growing somewhat in favour of altering the Barnett formula so that Scotland receives less money from Westminster. That would also possibly mean tax going up in Scotland. The Minister will not want to comment on what the Scottish Executive might do, but has he heard any whisper that doubts in that regard in Motorola have had anything to do with the fact that it is in relation to the plant in Scotland, as opposed to anywhere else, that the closure decision has been taken?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Motorola has been absolutely clear about its reasons and has discussed at great length with the Scottish Executive and with the UK Government why it is making that decision. As I said, it is faced with an extremely difficult situation in one specific part of its business. It is extremely noteworthy that it has confirmed that it is going ahead with the higher value-added investments which it is making in the Scottish economy. Clearly, if the company had doubts about the economic climate in Scotland, it would not be making those investments.
It is those investments which are most important in this situation. The Scottish Executive are seeking to ensure that there is more of an upgrade in the design areas—the sales and marketing areas—of those industries which are more value-added. They are seeking also to make arrangements to train people to go into that higher value-added sector. But the fact that Motorola is continuing to make those very important long-term investments indicates to me that it is continuing with its position of being a long-term and very good investor in Scotland.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and, indeed, earlier by the principal spokesmen from both the opposition parties; namely, that one of the reasons for closing the Bathgate plant rather than a less successful plant in Germany was the fact that losses had been made in Germany and they can be carried forward. Therefore, there are good commercial financial reasons why one plant rather than another should be chosen for closure.
The Minister has very fairly said that our tax laws relating to carried forward losses are rather similar. My question is slightly different but on the same point. When it is determined that selective assistance be given on a regional basis and when other forms of assistance

249
and encouragement are given to a global company to start a plant in the UK, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, are such matters taken into account? What knowledge do we have at that point that there are other plants of the same company in other countries which may not be doing very well? If there is a global down-turn, we should perhaps know in advance that our plant may be the one which is closed down.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one must have a reasonable approach to those issues. When one is trying to attract mobile investment to come to this country, to ask those concerned to tell us about the financial arrangements of all their plants around the world and what their tax losses are so that we can judge, in a down-turn, which particular plant decisions would be made is, frankly, unrealistic as a way of approaching the situation. It is quite unrealistic also in relation to forecasting the position in five or 10 years when those businesses are faced with decisions about having to close plants. That is not a realistic way forward.
It is a bitter blow to the people involved in the company. When a decision is made on those grounds, I believe that anyone working in the plant concerned, which has been highly successful, would be extremely bitter about it. But I doubt that it is a sensible approach to try to forecast the future tax-loss position of different plants.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, whatever the extent of devolution of industrial policy, it is, nevertheless, a fact, as the noble Lord said, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself were all involved. That is perfectly understandable in view of the severity and painfulness of that major closure. Nevertheless, can the noble Lord give some indication of the helpful lines which I am sure the Prime Minister and his colleagues pursued with the company?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Prime Minister became involved because, in the final analysis, it appeared to be a rather close decision and he was keen to see whether his personal intervention could change it. A plant had to be closed and it was a question of which plant should be closed. It was also a matter of seeing whether anything could be done in relation to tax or assistance which would weigh in the balance of that decision. In the event, it was not possible to do so, but it was wholly right and proper that, at the very highest level of government, an attempt should have been made to see whether there was any way that we could put factors into the balance which would redress the balance in favour of the Scottish plant, which, as I say, was accepted to be more efficient and more profitable than the German plant.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. Does the Minister agree that a major cause of the closure of the
250
Bathgate plant was Motorola's worry over the future of 3G? We all wish 3G well, but it is not without its element of risk, with the sums of money involved
Secondly, the Minister will be aware that there has been a fair amount of speculation that the terms of the £22.5 billion auction of 3G licences is being renegotiated. Will the Minister comment on that, with particular reference to some of the noises off from the European Commission on those lines?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation on 3G, as I said, is that it is going ahead and clearly it is going ahead faster rather than slower, given the very heavy prices which have been paid in the auction. Companies make commercial decisions, which they are perfectly entitled to make. However, other companies make other decisions and then do not get the licences. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for government to turn round and say that they will change the rules and undertake the matter on a different basis. Leaving aside any other considerations, one would come under legal attack if one started to roll back on that situation. However, I do not believe that that is a major consideration in this decision. As I said, it is due to the fact that there has been a very sharp decline which has caught many companies unawares and which has forced them to cut back their forecasts for the future.

Iran
6.9 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolrose to call attention to the violations of human rights in Iran and to the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Iran; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 27th March, in a debate in your Lordships' House, considerable dismay was expressed by noble Lords about the decision to place the Iranian resistance movement on the list of proscribed organisations. In moving the Motion on the Order Paper today, it is not my purpose to revisit those arguments, to which we shall doubtless return via the appeals procedure and the courts in due course.
Some months ago, and prior to the Home Secretary's order, I first sought to raise the abuse of human rights in Iran and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards that country. I am glad to have secured a place in the ballot, enabling me to do so today.
This is a timely debate, especially in the light of the decision last Friday by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to keep Iran under annual review for human rights violations and also in the light of the assessment by the Special Envoy, Professor Maurice Copithorne, that there are,
"continued executions … in particular public and especially cruel executions",
and that the regime uses,
"torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment".

251
In his report to the 57th session of the commission, Professor Copithorne said:
"breaches of human rights are in large part as egregious today as they were five years ago".
He added:
"In some key areas, it seems hard to accept that there has been any substantive and quantifiable improvement since Khatami took office".
He also said:
"Torture in Iran is practised in its most primitive form".
Today's debate takes place just days after Iran fired 77 scud missiles at camps occupied by members of the Iranian resistance, some of which missed their target, killing civilians nearby. I place my remarks in the context of a statement made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Wednesday 28th March, when he took as his theme human rights in foreign policy. He said:
"When I made our commitment to human rights"—four years ago—"I was criticised in some quarters for sacrificing the national interest for principle. There is something odd with a national interest that is in conflict with principle. I would robustly argue that the British national interest is promoted, not hindered, by a commitment to human rights".
Taken at its face value, I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments, but measured against Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iran—a country that intriguingly and perhaps oddly, to use the Foreign Secretary's word, is not referred to at all in Mr Cook's statement—I argue that we have been too concerned with normalising relations. Concern for commercial gain appears to be greater than concern for continuing violations of human rights.
Nor is it the case that we are impotent in the face of such abuses. Mr Cook rightly observed that the reality is that we cannot do everything, but that does not free us from our duty to do what we can. Even if we were to set aside questions of duty and principle, I do not believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the United Kingdom to hitch ourselves to the present religious dictatorship that, as in the time of the Shah, will ultimately be the losing side.
Contrary to what is frequently said, dialogue with the Iranian regime has not improved the human rights situation—quite the reverse. A few weeks ago Abbs-Ali Alizandeh, a senior judicial official, was received at Geneva. On his return to Iran he was even more emboldened in defending the so-called retribution law, which involves punishments such as amputation and eye gouging.
Mr Khatami gave the lie to the notion that he favours deep-seated reform. Last year he said that,
"talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery".
On another occasion he said:
"Let me remind you that I did not come in the name of reform".
I want to place before your Lordships' House examples of past and present atrocities which throw considerable doubt on the claim that this is a regime that we should encourage or one with which we should
252
conduct business. That there may be reformist elements within the Marjlis, the Iranian parliament, I do not dispute, but to confuse those elements with the regime itself and its declared policies and practices is self-deceiving.
Perhaps I can illustrate my argument with examples of persecution against political dissidents, religious minorities and women. I am indebted to the BBC World Service which states in a briefing note that,
"since the general elections of February 2000, hard line conservatives have reasserted their grip on all the levers of real power which they command".
The BBC has reported on the move by the judiciary to ban over 20 newspapers and journals. It says:
"It appears that his opponents have all but wiped out reforms introduced by him"—
that is Khatami—
"in the past three years, especially freedom of speech. For example, pressure on liberal clerics has increased and a special court to prosecute members of the clergy has been very active. The vice police have suddenly become active in the past few weeks by arresting women for improper clothing or raiding parties attended by young people".
The BBC also reported:
"An Iranian court has delivered harsh sentences against a newspaper editor and 6 other defendants, ranging from 4 to 10 years, for taking part in a controversial conference in Germany. For western policy-makers, this sends two negative signals. First, it shows the further erosion of human rights and basic freedoms in Iran. Secondly and even more worrying, is that ahead of a crucial general election in June, President Muhammad Khatami and the reformist camp are under attack by the conservatives, who have blocked reformist legislation, closed down dozens of reformist newspapers and magazines, and imprisoned reformist journalists and intellectuals".
The BBC's Iranian affairs analyst, Sadeq Saba, also recently reported on what was described as "horrifying stories" of political dissidents jailed in the notorious Evin prison, north of Tehran. One such account concerned the feminist lawyer, Mehrangiz Kar, who spent 53 days in Evin prison for taking part in the German conference, to which I have referred. Mrs Kar describes how filthy her solitary cell was:
"The floor of the cell was covered like a carpet by dirty pieces that carried the sign of the dried vomiting of the previous prisoners. The metallic toilet with its large opening and small base and a movable lid was infectious and dried dirt was stuck to its inner walls".
In Mrs Kar's experience, the most intolerable torture was sleep deprivation.
Another feminist campaigner and publisher, Shahla Lahiji, who spent about two months in Evin prison gives a macabre account of life inside the prison:
"The door is closed with a dry sound and I am standing in the middle of the cell. There is a feeble gray light illuminating the space. My feet are swollen. I lean against the wall … The water is warm and smells of white spirit … I force myself to drink the water … A black large cockroach is moving down the wall of the toilet bowl. I don't even bother to kill it. I follow it with my eyes as it crawls beneath the blanket and disappears. I can't think. I don't feel the passage of time. While still standing I lean against the wall and close my eyes".
The investigative journalist, Emaddin Baqi, who is serving a five-and-a-half year prison sentence on charges of endangering national security, describes Evin prison as a graveyard for the living. He says that

253
prisoners are deprived of some of their basic human rights and complains about widespread corruption among the prison staff.
The dissident cleric, Mohsen Kadivar, has recently served an 18-month prison sentence for criticising the Iranian supreme leader. He says that prisoners are subjected to the cruellest types of treatment. He believes that the worst psychological torture for a political prisoner is when he is put in a cell with common criminals. But he is optimistic about the future. He says:
"Evin should not he feared. It should be welcomed. It seems that there is no other way for freedom and democracy in Iran than going through Evin. But we should hope that one day Evin will be turned into a recreational park or a playground for children. And that day is not very far away".
The suppression of free speech by alleged reformers has led to the closure of 23 publications and to the jamming of the satellite television programme "Simayeh Azadi". That censorship is totally contrary to international agreements, but it has occurred with barely a murmur of protest. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether we have made a démarche or raised these violations in any international forum? I hope in reply that she will spell out the specifics of any remonstration or protest that we have made.
Perhaps the journalists condemned to prison may in one respect be regarded as fortunate. Last month, on the eve of the Iranian new year, the Mullahs' regime publicly hanged five people, bringing to 75 the number of people executed or sentenced to death since January 2001. At least 13 of those victims were publicly stoned to death. That is double the number for the same period last year, so any argument that the situation is improving is clearly erroneous.
As many Peers know, in one year alone, in 1988, 30,000 political prisoners were butchered, an atrocity that has never once been condemned by Khatami. Indeed, as the Sunday Telegraph reported on 4th February, it is alleged that he was complicit in the massacre. It also begs a question, which I put to the Minister, as to whether we are pressing for those responsible to be tried for crimes against humanity. Amnesty International points out that under President Khatami, the reformer, there have been 800 executions. The question for us is whether such a regime is one in which we should be investing morally and politically.
Last week, I received a beautiful and moving card from Laila Jazayeri, the director of the Association of Iranian Women in the UK. The card was designed and painted by a political prisoner who spent 12 years in Iranian goals. He had been a talented university student studying physics. His time in prison has left him paralysed, able to use only his hands and parts of his upper body. The tragic personal story of Behrooz is the story of continued suffering and pain of countless numbers of Iranian people.
I said that I would refer also to the persecution of religious minorities. Since the Khomeni revolution seven Christian leaders have been martyred; churches have been closed down; bible printing and Christian bookshops are banned; evangelising is illegal; and the
254
human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign, reports that Christians are watched and are often called in for questioning. In one case of apostasy, the convert was executed. I shall happily make available evidence from the Jubilee Campaign to any Member of your Lordships' House who would like to see it.
During the past decade, the execution of Mehdi Dibaj, the murder of the Reverend Tateos Michaelian who was the President of the Council of Protestant Churches in Iran, and the assassination of Bishop Haik Hovespision-Mehr have traumatised this very vulnerable minority. Human Rights Watch reported that,
"churches have been shut down, scores of young Christians have been imprisoned and tortured".
Others who have been killed include the Reverend Hossein Soodmand, who was hung, and Mohammed Bagher Yusefi. The Anglican priest in Shiraz, the Reverend Sayyah, had his throat cut and Bahram Deghani-Tafti, the son of the Anglican bishop, was shot dead.
Christians are not the only ones who have suffered. There have been reports of the persecution of Baha'is, of Suni Muslims and of Zoroastrians. Yesterday I received a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It has drawn attention to the plight of Iranian Jews. A letter from Simon Plosker, Public Affairs Officer, concerns 10 Iranian Jews now in goal. Thirteen were originally held on charges of espionage on behalf of Israel and the United States; charges which both those countries have consistently refitted. However, the fact is that under Iranian law any contact whatever with Israel is defined as "espionage" and the maximum penalty is the death penalty.
The spurious nature of these charges and their possible anti-Semitic basis are borne out by the professions of the accused; Hebrew teachers, Jewish community leaders, circumcisers, ritual slaughterers, a Jewish cemetery attendant and a 16 year-old boy. Concern regarding the fate of these Jews was acute in the light of pervious experience. After all, two Jews were executed in 1997 on espionage charges and in 1998 a 60 year-old man was executed on vague charges of being a Zionist agent.
On 21st September 2000, Jewish prisoners who had been imprisoned were taken to the Shiraz Court of Appeal and the verdict was given. The outcome was that they are to remain in prison for terms ranging from two to nine years. The Board of Deputies comments that despite claims by Iranian officials that Iran's judicial branch was "independent", in early September the judiciary announced a delay, reportedly to provide a reprieve to President Khatami during the trip to the United Nations where he was attempting to portray Iran's regime as one that respects the rights of its citizens.
The verdicts raise many questions as to the appropriate Western response. Western governments must surely give thought as to whether they can rightly carry on with business as usual, given the clear violations of the human rights of these Iranian Jews.

255
The Board of Deputies wants to know whether it is to be "business as usual" with the regime. That is the question at the heart of this debate. It is about Mr Cook's pledge that national interest and principle are two sides of the same coin.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, who has done so much to keep human rights to the fore, who recently voiced her frustrations about the international funding and commitment of national governments to human rights, has, because of her frustrations, alas, decided not to seek a second term. That decision should enliven and stimulate our determination to become a standard bearer in promoting and upholding the principle of human rights. In the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, we have a diligent, competent and articulate advocate and I would like to see her given greater authority and a wider ranging mandate to concentrate exclusively on highlighting these issues. Their importance is central to the pursuit of our foreign policy.
Mary Robinson has remarked that
"today's human rights abuses are the cause of tomorrow's conflicts".
That is most certainly the case in Iran. The Mullahs are facing a collapsing economy and have responded with intensified oppression. Focused aid as a quid pro quo for a national minorities policy and for fundamental democratic and judicial reform would at least be a more logical policy for Her Majesty's Government than the one we are pursuing today. Collaborating with a regime which last month publicly executed five people, one of them a woman, by hanging them from a crane in east Tehran, which has already hung or sentenced to death some 75 people, and which stones people to death, gouges out eyes, amputates limbs and publicly flogs is neither ethical nor principled. It will be, as Mrs Robinson observed, merely sowing the seeds of tomorrow's conflict.
To answer the Board of Deputies, we should have no business collaborating with such a regime, and no business interests can justify such involvement. I hope that today's debate will bring these issues to a wider audience and encourage the Government to reassess this policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for providing us with the opportunity to voice concern at the continuing abuse and denial of human rights in Iran.
Almost every day information becomes available that confirms that the regime in Tehran continues to rule by what can only be described as a policy of fear and terror. There is no scarcity of information about the human rights situation in Iran. The information comes from members of the Iranian community here in Britain and Iranian communities in other countries. The information comes from our own media, from human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and, as recently as last week, from the
256
UN Human Rights Commission following its meeting in Geneva just a few days ago, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
The meeting of that commission voted in favour of a resolution to continue its annual review of the human rights situation in Iran. At the meeting, the Iranian Ambassador, Ali Khorram, had requested that the mandate of the UN special envoy on Iran, Maurice Copithorne, should be ended. The reason the Ambassador gave to the commission was that he considered,
"that the 18-year long process had proved to be ineffective and fruitless".
The UN Human Rights Commission rejected the arguments put by Ambassador Ali Khorram and carried a resolution that called on the regime,
"to continue its efforts to consolidate respect for human rights and the rule of law".
I have no doubt that there are those who will draw comfort from other references in the resolution which acknowledge,
"some improvements in its record, particularly concerning women and children".
Such crumbs of comfort do little to relieve the fear of those both inside and outside Iran whose lives are affected by the brutal system. That brutal system is also recognised by the UN resolution. I refer specifically to the part of the resolution which,
"deplores the continued executions, in particular public and especially cruel executions",
already mentioned.
Additionally, the United Nations has again called upon Tehran to,
"take all necessary steps to end the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. particularly amputations".
During the debate in your Lordships' House on the 2001 order relating to the Terrorism Act 2000 on 27th March, I drew attention to the report of the United Nations special envoy in Iran earlier this year (col. 162). The quotation from Professor Copithorne has already been mentioned but it is worth repeating. He said:
"Breaches of human rights are in large part as common today as they were five years ago".
Again, where is the progress towards a better system of justice in Iran?
Professor Copithorne reported that 200 people had been executed so far this year and that a further 75 people have been sentenced to death, including eight women. Some of the sentences included death by stoning.
No resolution, however diplomatically it is drafted, can deny the fact that the people of Iran live in fear. Recent punishments in Iran, some of which have been mentioned, serve only to underline and confirm the brutality of the regime. On 11th January of this year the French press agency reported that the official

257
Iranian news agency had said that Iran's Chief Justice, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Sharrudi, had confirmed,
"that 800 drug traffickers were on death row and called for further harsh punishment. Eight hundred cases imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers have been looked at by the remission panel, but no sentences were commuted".
The report also quoted the head of Iran's judiciary as saying that it was,
"important to take firm action against drug traffickers. Harsh punishments must be considered and applied in public to strike fear amidst the groups of traffickers".
This is the same head of the judiciary who last November underscored the need to carry out "retribution verdicts in public", such as hangings, the amputation of limbs and the gouging out of eyes. We have heard about that.
It is also worth looking at the footnote to that report by the French news agency, which comes from a Marjlis Deputy, Ali Mir-Khalili—someone from inside the Iranian Parliament—who said:
"The State Security Forces are putting pressure on the people on various pretexts. They murder people and then justify the killings by just saying that the victim was a drug trafficker".
The rest of the world can draw its conclusions as to what is going on from that comment.
A further example of the brutal regime is the public lashings of three young men, all in their 20s, who had been accused of drinking alcohol and having illicit sexual relationships. In February this year the three young men, two brothers and their cousin—Ismail, Majid and Mahammad Rahimi—staggered away between their police escort, each having received 180 severe lashes. In the wonderful civilisation that we enjoy in this country it is difficult to understand how any civilised government can have dealings with a regime that publicly executes, lashes and stones its own people.
The list of acts of brutality since the beginning of this year includes 24 youngsters accused of dancing in a disturbing manner, whatever that may mean. The 17 boys who were arrested received 58 lashes and each of the girls was sentenced to 28 lashes. All of the youngsters were sent to Adelabad prison in Shiraz. In another case reported in the Kayhan Daily on 15th January, men received lashing sentences in Qom, the verdicts to be carried out in stages over three days. Six were given between 50 and 74 lashes in six districts. In February of this year a man charged with theft had four fingers amputated, plus two years in prison and 74 lashes.
These illustrations of justice in Iran indicate how right Amnesty International is to draw attention in its July report, under the heading "More Failures of Iranian Justice"—I obtained that document as recently as Monday of this week—to the failure of the regime in Iran to deliver the promised reform to its judiciary. It is worth mentioning that the promise was made in 1999 by the same head of the judiciary who in January of this year had advocated the carrying out of "retribution verdicts in public", such as hangings, the
258
amputation of limbs and gouging out of eyes. The same man who made that promise said exactly the opposite two years later.
Last Wednesday the world recoiled at the news that Iran had fired scud missiles at camps inside Iraq belonging to an Iranian rebel group. The report said that the Iraqi Government were furious and reserved the right to respond with suitable means to the attack on their country. When I heard Channel 4 News I thought that somebody had gone completely mad, given the present situation in the Middle East. The Mojahedin said that one of its members was killed as a result of the attacks on its camps closest to the cities of Kut and Khalis in Iraq. Channel 4 News also said that, according to reports, some of the missiles missed their targets and landed on residential areas. Other reports put the number of surface-to-surface scud missiles launched at 77.
The missile attack lasted 10 hours. The Mojahedin camp at Habib to the north of Basra was hit in two series of attacks with 27 missiles. Twenty-four missiles hit the city of Jalawla, killing a 33 year-old mother and her daughter aged six and wounding dozens of other people. Two missiles landed near Jalawla's mosque and the rest landed on residential areas. Thirteen missiles hit Khalis about 100 kilometres north of Baghdad, while five hit Meqdadiah. In Kut, some of the craters left by the impact of these missiles measured up to 12 metres in diameter and up to 5 metres in depth. At about seven o'clock in the morning three more scud missiles landed near Kut, one of which hit the city's technical college.
As would be expected, there was a reaction. A Reuters report last Wednesday referred to a statement issued by Massoud Rajavi, the Iranian resistance leader, following the scud missile attacks. In his statement he urged the UN Security Council to condemn the attack and take a stance immediately against the Mullah's outlaw action in breach of international law. I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will give support to that call by Massoud Rajavi.
The damage inflicted by the unprovoked at tack on innocent civilians has been seen by reporters from western news agencies and television networks. Those reporters have visited the scenes of destruction in Jalawla, Kut and Khalis.
On the day following the attack, not unexpectedly, Iranian exiles, refugees and supporters of the resistance took part in rallies in 18 cities across the world, including Oslo, Melbourne, Washington, Ottawa, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Berlin and in at least six other cities in Germany.
The dangers and the threat to stability in the region by the scud missile attacks that have caused civilian casualties and damage to property are obvious. The

259
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris summed up the reaction of many who can see where such unwarranted attacks could lead. In a statement it said:
"Whatever action which could jeopardise the region's stability must be avoided".
It added:
"In this spirit, we deplore the missile attack by the Iranian regime".
I should like to return to the question of the brutality of a regime that includes death by stoning. I quote an appeal by Amnesty International in January of this year. The appeal was for interested people and organisations to protest at that time against the imminent execution of a number of young people. I shall not quote all of the appeal, but by way of illustrating the brutality of the Mullah's regime I simply quote Amnesty's description of how the sentence on a 31 year-old woman (Maryam Ayoubi) was to be carried out:
"Maryam Ayoubi had reportedly been facing 15 years' imprisonment followed by stoning to death … However, new reports indicate that she will simply be stoned to death".
I quote this go give your Lordships a description of how the sentence is carried out:
"Stoning to death is prescribed for certain offences under the Iranian Penal Code. According to the Penal Code, men should be buried in a pit in the ground up to their waists, and women buried up to their chests. Individuals who manage to dig themselves out and escape from the pit while the stoning is being carried out have their lives spared. Article 104 of the Penal Code states that 'the stones should not be too large so that the person dies on being hit by one or two of them', so is designed to cause grievous pain leading to eventual death".
Amnesty International commented at the time that in the unlikely event that this poor, unfortunate woman was able to dig herself free before she was killed, she would then start her 15-year sentence.
The time for making excuses for dealing with these people is long passed. Constructive dialogue is acceptable if it has any promise of bringing about change. In the words of the head of the Iranian judiciary, who only last week sought to end the UN monitoring of human rights abuses,
"the 18-year long process had proved to be ineffective and fruitless".
Perhaps the time has come when we should recognise that constructive dialogue with the regime is not bearing fruit. It is not crumbs of comfort from diplomatic resolutions that the people of Iran need and deserve; they want the free world to speak out loudly and firmly against the barbaric methods of justice that the regime routinely uses in its endeavours to cling to power.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Clarke, have both referred to the resolution passed last week in the Human Rights Commission and to the report of the special rapporteur, Dr Maurice Copithorne, who, among other things, regrets that the Government of Iran have ceased to co-operate by allowing him to visit the
260
country. Fortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, told us, there is enough evidence available to build up a detailed assessment, something which I suggest the thematic rapporteurs of the Human Rights Commission should bear in mind when they are refused invitations. Dr Copithorne says that freedom of expression is a matter of despair and many people feel that the president has lost his struggle to create a more tolerant society operating under the rule of law.
The rapporteur says that the legal system, particularly the judiciary, is in desperate need of repair. The status of minorities remains a neglected area of human rights. The murder and disappearance of intellectuals and political dissidents is a stain on Iran and will remain so until all the outstanding questions are answered and the perpetrators brought to justice. The trials of those who attended a conference in Berlin—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—have the strong appearance of farce, he says, except of course for those who are going through this unreal experience.
The rapporteur's report was completed in December. Since then, as Dr Copithorne told the commission, there has been no improvement in the state of freedom of expression and of the press. He said that the revolutionary courts and the special court for the clergy make frequent use of pre-trial detention, particularly of journalists, students, intellectuals and political dissidents. The detainees are often held incommunicado in secret places of detention, a practice which is conducive to torture, and, as might be expected, many cases of torture have indeed been reported to the rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, of which I give two examples.
First, Mr Abbas Amir-Entezam, deputy prime minister and spokesman of the 1979 interim government of Mehdi Bazargan, was arrested in 1998 at his home in Tehran. He is one of the unfortunates held in Evin prison. He is said to be in urgent need of appropriate medical attention for kidney failure and a ruptured eardrum and loss of hearing in one ear, allegedly as the result of his long detention and repeated subjection to torture. He is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience.
Secondly, Mr Akbar Ganji, an investigative journalist, was hung upside down in a cell while four guards kicked him in the head and stomach. He was punished with 80 days of solitary confinement when he started a hunger strike to protest against his treatment. Ganji had written a series of articles implicating former President Rafsanjani in the murders of dissidents and intellectuals carried out by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence.
At the end of 1999, as your Lordships may recall, four well-known opponents of the regime were savagely murdered and a number of people were arrested for those crimes. They all turned out to be agents of the Ministry of Intelligence. The principal accused, Sa'eed Emami, was a deputy Minister of the Ministry of Intelligence. He died later on in Evin prison after he was said to have drunk a bottle of hair-remover containing arsenic while he was in his bath

261
and was momentarily not observed by the guards. Most people believe that he was eliminated by the regime because he knew too much and would have lingered several top people if he had appeared in court. Emami's boss was Ali Fallahian, the former Minister indicted in a German court for the murder of the Kurdish leader Dr Sadegh Sharafkandi and his three companions in a Berlin restaurant in 1992. But there were certainly other high-ups in the regime who knew and approved of the assassination of political opponents, some of whom are still there. Mr Fallahian is standing as a presidential candidate in the elections. But others named as part of the conspiracy have included—I have mentioned former President Rafsanjani—Fallahian's successor at the Ministry of Intelligence, Mr Qorhanali Dorri-Najafabadi, and Ayatollah Ahmas Jannati, the head of the Council of Guardians, and many others.
Emami was said to have made a confession on videotape. But it was never made public in spite of assurances that it would be shown on television. The trial of the other 18 defendants linked to these four murder charges was finally held in camera at the end of last year. No attempt was then made to link these particular murders to earlier killings by Ministry of Intelligence agents, some of which I described in my book Iran: State of Terror published in 1996. I also analysed the available evidence on the more recent killings, which were known as the "chain murders", and the way that they fitted into the pattern of state-sponsored murder in my book Fatal Writ, published a year ago. In his current report, the rapporteur says that he reiterates his deep concern over this tragic abuse of the human rights of the victims, and his dissatisfaction with the way the government have handled the investigation over the prolonged period of two years.
Why should not the rapporteur undertake an inquiry into the regime's use of murder to silence its opponents? if he announced that he was going to collect and analyse evidence on the phenomenon, including assassinations committed abroad and attempts to kill the author Salman Rushdie and many other people associated with his book, a great deal of fresh material might become available. It would serve to underline the international community's abhorrence of the gang which master-minded the killings of the Christian priests mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Alton, and of a former prime minister, Kurdish leaders, political opponents, intellectuals, and all the people associated with the publication of The Satanic Verses.
The recent wave of arrests of members of the nationalist Iran Freedom Movement and others has been described as a "creeping coup" by Joe Stork of the Washington-based Human Rights Watch. Twenty people were arrested in March and another 40 earlier this month in what Mr Stork said looked like a coup designed to stifle free expression and activism for reform in the run-up to the forthcoming election. As has been mentioned, already 30 independent newspapers have been closed down and hardly a week goes by without news of further arrests of journalists. Among those detained in the latest sweep was
262
Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, leader of the newly formed Democratic Front of the Iranian People, and all the people who were attending his weekly lecture at that time. Mr Tabarzadi is editor-in-chief of the daily Hoviyat-é-Khich, and, according to Reporters Sans Frontières, his arrest brought the number of journalists in custody in Iran up to 21, the largest number for any country in the world. Last Saturday that rose to 22 with the arrest of Amid Na'ini, editor-in-chief of Payam-e Emrooz magazine, who was said to have confessed to publishing two sacrilegious articles, one of which said that the Angel Gabriel was an "imaginary creature".
On Monday, Mohammad Salamati, a close ally of President Khatami, went on trial, accused of spreading rumours of a conservative-led impeachment motion against the president. He is managing editor of the weekly Asr Ma, Our Age, and also secretary-general of the Islamic Revolution Mujahedin Organisation, and an important member of the Second Chord Coalition which supports the president. Mr Salamati came before the notorious judge Sa'id Mortazavi, who has been responsible for the decimation of the press and journalists. He was accused of questioning the reliability of state-controlled TV reports about the conference held in Berlin, mentioned earlier, to discuss reform in Iran.
Yet another senior figure belonging to the president's faction, Mostafa Tajzadeh, the deputy interior Minister who is supposed to be supervising the elections on 8th June, appeared in court in relation to his alleged role in the violent unrest which arose at a pro-reform student conference in Khoramabad last August.
Finally, another newspaperman, Gholamheidar Ebrahimbai-Salami, managing director of the daily Hambsategi, has been summoned to appear in the administrative court on charges which are not yet known.
I can understand the Government wishing to believe that President Khatami would be able to liberalise the regime, to end arbitrary detention, reduce the number of executions, extend freedom of expression and widen the political space to allow democratic pluralism. However, it has to be recognised that none of these have been achieved during the four years of his presidency, and there is no prospect that the forthcoming election will lead to any amelioration. It is not even certain, with just over a month to go, that Mr Khatami will stand as a candidate. But if he was genuinely committed to reform, he must be bitterly disappointed at having been able to achieve so little, and he will be reflecting that within the straitjacket of the velayat-e-faqih, the doctrine laid down by Ayatollah Khomeini of the supremacy of the spiritual leader, the elected president and Majlis have about as much say in national affairs as your Lordships do in this country in our affairs. Three years ago, the BBC' hailed Mr Khatami as Iran's Gorbachev, and Foreign Office experts were convinced that somehow, miraculously, he would transform the regime into a

263
participatory democracy. In fact, as the BBC now says in its evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,
"since the general elections of February 2000 (convincingly won by the reformists), hard-line conservatives have reasserted their grip on all the levers of real power which they command, and have struck back in every way possible".
People may still support Mr Khatami, if he decides to stand, because he is perceived to want change, and not because he can actually deliver it. But I doubt whether it is possible to sustain indefinitely a political system which is incapable of producing what the electors demand. A theocratic dictatorship with a democratic veneer is unworkable and unstable, but for as long as it lasts, the governing mullahs have to trample on human rights, to counter the growing opposition to their rule.
Our policy should not be to rely on the process of reform gathering momentum but should take account of the possibility that the extremists will come out on top, whatever may happen on 8th June. If human rights are under greater threat than ever with a so-called reformist president and a would-be reformist Majlis, why should it be assumed that 8th June will make any difference? With the reactionaries in control of the judiciary and the Basij militia, which is to recruit another 2 million new members this year according to its commander, as well as the Revolutionary Guards Corps, they are in a position to stamp out unrest and dissent. Our policy for the period after 8th June has to take account of that; otherwise, we shall fail.
6.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I share with others in the House a concern about the violation of human rights in Iran. I do not doubt the figures and the stories quoted this evening and also in the debate in the House on 27th March on proscribed organisations in relation to the Terrorism Act. Concern is perhaps too weak a word; there is sadness, anger and sometimes a sense of horror. Nevertheless, I did not sign the letter on human rights in Iran circulated by some Members of your Lordships' House for a reason I should like to explain and why I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate.
Iran is an Islamic state and Islam is a fundamental part of its life and culture. If it is to move in the direction that we all want to see, with genuine democracy, greater respect for civil liberties and less abuse of power, then it will do so, I believe, in Islamic terms. The problem with the letter and some of the language of this debate is that they are couched in Western human rights language. Human rights are, I believe, of universal validity and are not simply an invention of post-World War II Europe. But we need to pay attention to the Islamic context in which that language has to become a reality. In short, my contention is that there needs to be a greater appeal to the fundamental principles of Islam and Islamic civilisation, which properly understood can underpin and reinforce the values which we share and support from a secular, Jewish or Christian perspective.
264
Like other noble Lords taking part in the debate, I have received a wodge of papers from the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It is, as we know, particularly critical of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in the debate on 27th March. In response to that speech it asserts:
"Fact. If 'standards of Western European democracies' mean the principles stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right of life, freedom of speech … then according to which logic can one argue that the Iranian people are not entitled to them?".
They are entitled to them. But in speaking about them I suggest that it would be most helpful if we could appeal to those fundamental principles and values which are already enshrined in Islam as a religion and in Islamic culture and civilisation.
Take religious toleration, for example, which is of such crucial importance to the beleaguered Baha'i community in Iran. Sura 2:256 of the Qur'an says:
"There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error".
Then there is human dignity, which is always violated when there is not due process of law, and cruel or degrading punishments, which have been referred to in the debate today. Sura 15:28–29 of the Qur'an says:
"And when thy Lord said to the angels 'See. I am creating a mortal of clay of mud moulded. When I have shaped him, fall you down, bowing before him!'".
The angels, according to the Qur'an are called to bow before human beings, the respect we owe our fellow sister and brother human beings cannot be less. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is to take part in the debate. I hope that he will be able to elaborate on and reinforce these principles.
Within the Islamic world at the moment there is a great debate about the relationship between democracy and Islam. We have to recognise that some, both governments and extremist opposition parties, believe that they are incompatible. But others argue that Islamic values demand a democratic system. The concept of Shura or consultation is fundamental to Islam. There is also the tradition of independent reasoning, Ijtihad, and consensus, Ijma. On this basis some leading Muslim thinkers argue that democracy is not only compatible with Islam but is required by it. So as one prominent writer has said:
"The legislative assembly—majlis al Sura—must be truly representative of the entire community, both men and women. But a representative character can be achieved only through free and general election; therefore the members of the majlis must be elected by means of as wide as possible suffrage, including both men and women".
We all know that the basis of political power in Iran at the moment is complex and not always clear, but obviously the role of the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians is crucial. Nevertheless, there is an elected president and an elected majlis or parliament. Another leading Muslim writer on human rights in Islam has written:
"An integral part of this vision"—
the Islamic vision of human rights—
"is an insistence in freedom of expression, encompassing the right to criticise government at all levels, and especially to protest against tyrannical action, stemming from the Qur'anic injunction

265
to 'enjoin good and prohibit evil' (Qur'an 9:71). Alongside freedom of expression, the Islamic system also upholds political pluralism; the Prophet observed, for example, that difference of opinion within the Muslim community was 'a sign of God's mercy'. Indeed, the jurisprudential doctrines of difference of opinion (iktilaf) and reasoned thinking aimed at arriving at a level of opinion (ujtihad) have long informed a pluralistic intellectual tradition in Islam. The general Qur'anic exhortation to justice has important implications in the affairs of state, as in the criminal justice system; the Islamic vision insists that all accused enjoy the right to due process of law in open court, and hence to freedom front arbitrary imprisonment".
That is a devout Muslim writing about the tradition of human rights in Islam.
We know that there is a democratic element in Iran at the moment and I should like to suggest that we should do all we can to encourage the development and growth of that democratic party within a culture which is and, so far as one can tell such things, will remain essentially Islamic. Despite the tensions and struggle between those who want to change in a more democratic direction and those do not, things have changed for the better.
Last year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester led a Church delegation to Iran. He wrote of his trip:
"Change is certainly very visible … in some respects the position of women is better than before 1979 and they are socially very confident. Religious and ethnic minorities are also a little more relaxed and appear to be freer today than in the early years of the revolution".
He thought that there was a recognition that change would come more cautiously and gradually than originally had been imagined. I myself was recently in Iran on holiday and found people to be remarkably cheerful and open. In the papers we received from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, reference is made to many of the atrocities that have taken place over the past year and concludes from this that:
"This stems from a simple reality of the regime ruling Iran. The government in Iran is based on a theory of government called velayat-faqih, or the absolute rule of the religious jurist. By understanding this underlining concept, it becomes quite evident that any change to this principle is tantamount to the collapse of the whole theocracy rule in Iran. That is why this system is absolutely incapable of any reform and moderation".
I would suggest that that is an unduly pessimistic assessment. There are forces for change in Iran at the moment and I believe that there are principles and values in Islam itself which can reinforce and carry forward this process of change.
The non-Islamic religions in Iran have suffered very badly since the revolution, above all the Baha'is, whom I have already mentioned, but also the small Jewish community, some of whom were tried and imprisoned last year, and the Anglican Church. On the positive side, the Anglican Bishop in Iran has now been officially recognised by the state. On the negative side, the property that was seized after the revolution has not been returned and the resolution of the 1988 Lambeth Conference respectfully requesting the Islamic Republic of Iran to respond positively to the claims of the Anglican Church in Iran has not yet happened.
266
While in no way glossing over the abuses which continue in Iran and continuing to draw attention to these, as other noble Lords quite properly have done this evening, I believe that we should welcome and affirm the process of change which has taken place there. Above all, we should see that process and its future possibilities within its Islamic context and do all we can to bring to the fore those Islamic principles and values which resonate with our western human rights language.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Iran is an extraordinary country with an extraordinary history and a no less remarkable present. In his report on the human rights situation in Iran to the United Nations Human Rights Commission on 16th January this year, Mr Maurice Copithorne, the Special Representative for the commission, put it this way:
"Iran is going through a period of critical turmoil. The struggle is for the soul of Iranian society, for certain values such as justice, one of the oldest political values going back, scholars say, to the Achaemenian period"—
that is over 1,000 years ago—
"and for the more modern ones of accountable governance and the welfare and dignity of all citizens".
Mr Copithorne went on to say that he,
"believes that change is clearly underway and that given certain foundational improvements that have taken place—
I emphasise those words—
"in areas such as women's education, democracy and health, the trend is now irreversible".
I draw special attention to that judgment on the part of Mr Copithorne.
However, in the same report the Special Representative quite rightly identified various serious failings, one of which is,
"the currently successful mass suppression of two fundamental human rights, the right to the freedom of expression itself and the right to be free from detention for seeking to exercise that right".
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to that.
However, I would add that, despite the closure of over 30 reformist papers over the past year or so, invariably without any open process or clear legal justification, the Canutes of the reactionary Iranian clerical establishment cannot keep the genie of free expression in a bottle of their choosing. Just before we debated the Terrorism Bill in relation to MKO/MeK/NCRI in this House on 27th March, I asked the British Embassy in Iran to let me know how things then stood in terms of reformist newspapers. Although it was only six weeks ago, the embassy reckoned that at least 10 such national newspapers were in circulation, each with readerships in excess of 60,000.
As recently as this month, more than 150 of the 290 deputies in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, sent a formal letter to the head of the judiciary, Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, demanding an end to what they called the illegal and unwarranted arrest of liberal and reformist figures. This followed the recent banning of the liberal opposition group, which again has already

267
been referred to, the Freedom Movement, and the detention of more than 40 of its activists. Yet in the very aftermath of that banning, a new reformist paper, Nowruz, went on sale, run by one of the reformist MPs, Mr Mirdamadi. I suggest to noble Lords that all this is not nearly as a black a picture as so far has been painted tonight.
Students continue to hold demonstrations and conferences which thousands enthusiastically attend to express their views. On the anniversary of the 1999 student riots—I was there with a parliamentary delegation the following week—the Tehran university students were back on the streets, publicly making their views felt. In August of last year a massive conference took place at Khorramabad, to which various speakers were invited and which the revolutionary guards did their best to prevent and upset. No fewer than three inquiries have taken place since the disturbances in Khorramabad. Two of those inquiries have come to the clear conclusion that the revolutionary guards were responsible and must not be allowed to undertake such disruptive activity.
Of course, producing reports and coming to conclusions is not the same as achieving results, but it is all part and parcel of a vigour of democratic expression and activity in Iran which, I venture to suggest, has not been fully or indeed fairly expressed so far in the debate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. Can he explain why, if the revolutionary guards were responsible for the injuries and destruction of property which took place in Khorramabad in August of last year, the deputy minister of the interior—who is supposed to be responsible for the arrangements for the elections due to be held on 8th June—has now been arrested in respect of those events?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall be perfectly frank and say to my noble friend and colleague that I do not know the answer to that specific question. However, I shall find out and communicate with him further.
Student organisations are thriving and active, although both they and, of course, the Majlis, are under sustained pressure. There is no denying that and we have heard of that tonight. The battle for the soul of Iran is real and harsh. It is difficult for those who have not recently been to Iran to recognise, from this distance, the sheer buoyancy and indefatigability of life and debate in Iran. The right reverend Prelate referred to that when recounting the visit of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.
Despite all the woeful and sometimes wicked attempts to suppress free debate, despite the continuing extensive human rights abuses—although the more brutal aspects of them seem significantly to be on the decline (I, too, have been in touch with Amnesty on this point) the Iranians will not be stopped from conducting public debate and from putting over their point of view.
268
I warrant that everything said in the House today will have been said and will be reflected endlessly by Iranians themselves in towns, cities, villages, squares and universities. They will not be prevented from pursuing the democratic debate that is now unstoppable.
I say this not because of any complacency—there is no room for that. The struggle for the soul of that remarkable country is still being fought out. To ensure the successful outcome of that struggle, it is essential that we here do not misconstrue what is happening there; do not fall prey to defeatism; do not simply concentrate on the failings; do not underestimate the courage, vigour and persistence of the Iranians themselves, particularly among the young. This is a real 21st-century Pilgrim's Progress.
At the end of November, President Khatami addressed a huge students' rally in which he, inter alia, criticised the press violations and stated that, as the constitution stands, he did not have enough power to intervene where and when he should. He also urged the students, none the less, not to become demoralised; not to give way to despair. That theme has been persistently taken up and pursued by the student leaders themselves because they know that giving way to despair and losing patience will play into the hands of the reactionary clique.
In the same month, President Khatami made a similar critique to a special commission set up to monitor implementation of the Iranian constitution, the chairman of which also issued a hard-hitting report attacking the press laws and their implementation. The point, however, as the BBC reported at the end of last year, is that everyone on the reformist side—and it is much the biggest side, as the presidential, city council and Majlis elections made abundantly clear—realises that the clerical provocations and judicial assaults to which reformists have been subjected, particularly over the past year, must not be met by extremism or violence. It is in this context that President Khatami's cat-and-mouse tactic of holding up the announcement of his own candidature for the 8th June presidential elections must be assessed.
I now turn to the constitution of Iran. It is easy, with our centuries old constitutional evolution, to underestimate the turbulence which inevitably has gone with a switch from thousands of years of autocracy—often bloody autocracy—via a bloody civil war, to democracy in a mere 21 years. The constitution itself, in my view, is overburdened with checks and balances. Certainly it has far too many lacunas and ambiguities to avoid the uncertainties and the possibilities of reactionary interpretation which Iran is experiencing now.
There are unresolved conflicts as to the division of powers between the Supreme Religious Leader and the elected President, and between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians. There is a body of experts—rather aptly called the Expediency Council—which has the task of adjudicating on disputes between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians. There is a body of clergy—a clergy court—established in very

269
uncertain constitutional circumstances in 1987, and there are various revolutionary entities in place, usually hostile to any laicisation of Iranian life.
Certain it is that, as Mr Copithorne correctly diagnosed, a dangerous amount of scope is given within the constitution to repressive action on the part of the state which we would consider contrary to normal freedoms by reason of its laws on dissemination of false news, insulting of religion, incitement of public opinion, propaganda against the state and actions likely to weaken the state, as well as blasphemy and defamation laws. Those areas of law are, to our view, unacceptably wide and unacceptably susceptible to reactionary interpretation.
Having said that, there has been some sign recently of an awareness on all sides, including the reactionary clerics, of the need to mollify frictions between the different power centres. Even the hardliners have to have regard to the messages at the polls and the pressing need for foreign investment.
One of the things that we must do our best to encourage—and I mean encourage rather than simply denounce—is the evolution of the judiciary in Iran so as to buttress the independence of judges and make for a better separation of powers than is presently the case. I also believe that the independence of lawyers is a crucial issue in Iran. The independence of its bar is also vital. At present, the head of the bar is appointed by the judiciary. That is plainly unacceptable.
Indeed, the question of vetting generally—ostensibly to ensure compliance with the constitution—is far too easily an instrument of subversion of true democracy and is used as an instrument of reactionary conformity. That aspect of the candidacy for the Majlis is well known.
I must say in passing that there are a number of Iranian lawyers who have shown heroic independence and courage in upholding the law and due process. Some of the grisly tales that we have heard today have attached to them brave lawyers, who do their duty at great risk to themselves.
We need—I am running swiftly out of time—to have regard, none the less, to our own status in Iran. We are viewed in a mixed way. Sometimes as lackeys of an incurably hostile USA; sometimes as the basest of hypocrites. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the recent missile attack on the MKO/MeK bases in Baghdad are rather similar to the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah bases in the occupied territories.
The MKO/MeK/NCRI, which provides much of the information—although much of it is not true information—to Members of this and other Houses, is a Marxist/Leninist organisation paid for by Saddam Hussein, quartered outside Baghdad and used ruthlessly by him as an instrument of general nuisance making, particularly in the light of his grappling with Iran in that atrocious eight-year war which ended only the year before he occupied Kuwait. The difference was that whereas we got on a mighty high horse over Kuwait, when he attacked Iran we did nothing except supply him with his arms, including chemical weapons.
270
Despite all this, the Majlis has since last May, when it was elected, passed laws or resolutions to lower the voting age, to allow single women to study abroad, to instigate an independent inquiry into the national prison system, to protect newspapers, to limit vetting of parliamentary candidates, to prevent security forces entering university campuses and clerics' houses, to give MPs immunity from arrest and to reduce the funds available to the state-controlled media. Much of this, of course, remains blocked by the Council of Guardians, but the struggle continues. The presidential election on 8th June—Khatami or not—will deliver another resounding verdict for change. These are the real straws in the Iranian wind.
The ground is shifting irreversibly under the feet of the conservatives. The future is with the young and the young are the future. Whether that is within a theocratic state is for the Iranians to decide, just as it is for the Israelis in terms of their theocratic state.
Our problem in looking at Iran is to realise and accept, as the right reverend Prelate made clear, that it has a profoundly different history, different culture, different religion. It is a proud nation; it will not be patronised. Iran will, in the cliché, do it its way. Indeed, given the ineffectiveness of many constitutional transplants, vividly illustrated from virtually every continent in the world, we ought in this House to understand and support Iran's own gradualist, painful, agonising evolution of democracy and the rule of law.
Ultimately, what is at stake in this debate is not whether there are human rights abuses in Iran—there are; many of them are atrocious and there is no defending them—but whether this is the moment to bale out; whether this is the moment to abandon the vast majority in Iran who want reform and progress. I believe that it is precisely because, as Mr Copithorne said, the ground is irreversibly moving that we must remain firm in our support for the reformist forces; we must remain in contact; we must persevere along with the Iranian people themselves.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to a number of highly expert speeches. As a newcomer to the subject, I admit to being befuddled. I am very clear in my mind that things are appalling in Iran—frightful things are happening—but are they going to get better? Having heard these experts, I am afraid that I cannot make up my mind. No doubt the Minister will straighten it out when she responds.
Leaving that aside, I wish to explain my excuse for speaking. It is partly, of course, because when the noble Lord opens a debate I feel bound to toe the line. The future of the House depends on people like him and on the gifted Minister who is to reply. That is a minor excuse. My main excuse for taking part in the debate is that I have recently acquired a new friend, a good Muslim who served with distinction for nine years in the Iranian navy. For a number of years he has run a very successful car agency which I use several

271
times a week. Most of his drivers are also good Muslims. I have many talks with them about Iranian affairs as seen from a Muslim point of view.
My friend served under the Shah and has both good and bad things to say about him. The regime under the Shah was a great deal better than the present one. After serving under the present regime for a number of years, my friend came to this country. He could no longer bear what he calls the awful injustices—which in his view have not diminished. I am open to the argument that matters are slightly better, but I do not find it easy to believe. My friend tells me what the present regime is like from his point of view.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would give way. I simply want to ask whether he is in any way correct in relying on one person's statement that the human rights circumstances under the Shah were better than they are under the present regime. I travelled in Iran during the time of the Shah and was arrested three times by SAVAK, his brutal secret police. They had a reputation of which the noble Earl may not be aware. Is he sure of his ground in making that statement?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am pretty sure of my ground. I have a friend, a distinguished man who did good work under the Shah and under the present regime, and who found the present regime intolerable and decided to leave Iran. That is fact. There is no further argument. He is a successful and reliable man who is much admired in this country, and that is his testimony. If I may say so, it is even more reliable than the always reliable testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Leaving aside the personal issue, I rely on what my friend says. The present Muslim regime in Iran is one of extreme religious fanaticism.
Fanaticism has its merits. We usually call the Reverend Ian Paisley a fanatic. Nevertheless, he called for a prayer in Parliament the other day. I wish that I had been there when he was last elected. I should have voted for him. But the Reverend Ian Paisley is not like one of the mullahs. He once gave me a little book on the Epistle to the Romans. No one could think that he would be a cruel man or that he would do anything harsh like the mullahs.
As I said, according to my friend, the present regime is one of extreme religious fanaticism. He is not my only Iranian friend; most of his drivers come from Iran and they say the same: that the present regime goes altogether too far. It is not based on sound Muslim teaching.
That brings me to the important speech made by the right reverend Prelate. It was far more important than anything I can say. He said so many things so well that I can do little more than say, "Ditto". I am sure that we must approach the question as though it were in large measure one of religious fanaticism. The situation is not the same as it is in Iraq, where there is a military dictator; it is not the same trouble as under the Communists; it is a religious question. The right reverend Prelate explained it very well.
272
I have little more to say save that we are dealing with a religious problem. I look to religious leaders, including the right reverend Prelate, to show us the way forward.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this important and timely debate. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for his generous words about Islam and for his reference to the Koran.
Your Lordships will be aware that I have spoken on human rights in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, the Balkans and in northern African and Middle Eastern countries. At the outset, I remind the House that human rights were first established in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—in his famous Mount Arafat sermon 1,400 years ago. Rights were given to men, women, children, prisoners and refugees, and even environmental rules were established.
One must never confuse that with the political situation in Islamic countries where things appear to be done in the name of Islam and yet have no relevance to Islam. Of course, Islamic rules are interpreted by different governments and institutions. However, in Iran we have seen considerable improvements in legislation, human rights and the education of women. Reference has been made to the resolution passed last week by the United Nations Human Rights Commission welcoming the report of the special representatives on human rights. In relation to the areas I mentioned earlier the report noted that,
"certain foundational improvements have taken place".
The report refers to the efforts of the Sixth Majlis to improve the status of women and girls, in particular the project of a Bill aiming to raise the marriage age and a Bill to remove the existing ban on unmarried women studying abroad. However, the report expresses concern at the delay on the part of the Council of Guardians.
While no one can defend the abuse of human rights, I should like to draw attention to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the Islamic republic of Iran in the past five years. Despite strong resistance from the hard-liners and the conservative element, President Khatami and the Majlis have opened up Iran to the outside world. I had the pleasure of visiting Tehran 18 months ago. I spoke with many young graduates, including young women students, who were staunch supporters of change and supporters of President Khatami.
It is absolutely imperative that we understand the complex nature of the struggle that is taking place within Iran between the moderates and the conservatives. In this debate we should not provide any reason for the hard-liners to criticise the reformers for not securing any support from the West. Here I should like to point out, as was mentioned earlier, that one organisation based in Iraq claims that it is fighting for a change inside Iran; however, I saw no evidence for supporting that organisation. It is most hated for

273
its terrorist activities inside Iran. It is seen as an instrument of Saddam Hussein rather than as a legitimate opposition group. Even the British ambassador in Iran told me that the popular support in Iran was for the modernisers and for Mr Khatami, and that there is no support for any external organisation.
I am also deeply concerned about the banning of many newspapers and journals by the judiciary, as mentioned earlier. Your Lordships will understand that this is part of a power struggle and I am pleased to announce that two-thirds of all newspapers are still pro-democracy and pro-modernisation. Iran's intelligence services have also gone through some change. As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, two years ago the head of operations was arrested for ordering the killing of dissidents and later committed suicide in prison. Although reformers have the backing of the majority of the population, unfortunately since last year's elections hard-liners have reasserted their grip on the judiciary and on other institutions—a point made by almost every speaker.
I congratulate the BBC and the World Service on providing an excellent news service to the Iranian people, with balanced news and views. The BBC World Service radio (Persian language) has a regular following in Iran, including the president, politicians, decision makers, young people and intellectuals. The BBC has made an enormous contribution to the process of democracy in Iran. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Robin Cook, and our Government on the strong stance they have taken with the Government of Iran regarding women's rights, minority rights and human rights, including the resumption of diplomatic relations at ambassador level.
Therefore, I do not believe that condemnation from the House will help the democracy and change that is taking place in Iran today. We should follow the lead of the UN Human Rights Commission and acknowledge that a change is taking place in Iran. In the words of the executive summary of the United Nations Human Rights Commission report:
"Certainly every shade of opinion seems to make itself heard, despite the massive repression of the reformist press. Democracy in the form of popular elections continues to make progress. Some argue that the point of self-sustaining take off has been reached".
I am pleased to hear that positive steps have been taken regarding the situation of the Baha'is in Iran. I call upon all those in powerful positions inside Iran to ensure that minority rights, women's rights and children's rights are safeguarded in accordance with the UN declaration of human rights and other international human rights agreements.
Finally, as the oldest parliament in the world, we have an opportunity to help in the process of change that is taking place in Iran by having a serious dialogue with the elected Iranian representatives and exchanging visits rather than condemning and strengthening the hands of the conservatives. Iran has a strategic position in the region, with Afghanistan in the north-east, Iraq to the west, and the largest natural
274
resources in the region. Iran is also an influential and active member of the OIC, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
When the presidential elections are only six weeks away, we cannot afford to isolate Iran at this crucial time by condemning the growing democratisation that is taking place. We should continue to encourage democracy and progress in Iran where over 50 per cent of the population is under the age of 20 and 52 per cent of university students are female. Such a country has a vast potential.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this important debate from which I believe many of us have benefited a great deal. We have heard some extraordinarily interesting and perceptive speeches. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I should like to associate myself with the condemnations made of human rights abuses in Iran. It is perhaps particularly difficult for a woman—or, for that matter, for a Baha'i or a Christian—to accept some of the dreadful things that have happened to women and to minorities in Iran. I defer to no one in agreeing that such matters must be condemned. We must persuade the regime in Iran that the road to a civilised modern world lies through respect for human rights. All of us, from whatever country or part of the world that we come, recognise that fact. It is interesting that the next topic for debate tonight is precisely the issue of human rights and discrimination on religious, racial and gender grounds.
I suppose that this debate has turned in many ways not on any question about the outrage of human rights abuses in Iran but on whether our view about the Khatami experiment is an optimistic or a pessimistic one. I believe that that division has run through the speeches made from all Benches in the debate tonight. The arguments for the pessimists are unquestionably strong. In 1997, when President Khatami was elected, there seemed to be a real opportunity for rapid development in Iran towards a democratic state. Although the election of the president was not completely clear of doubt, it was conducted in a pretty transparent and acceptable manner. The more recent election of the Majlis, which led to a clear majority of moderate reformers, appeared, again, to be a most encouraging step forward.
However, in the past few months, the closing of reformist newspapers and journals and, above all, the detention and imprisonment—indeed, in some cases, torture—of scores of dissident reformers has filled many of us with some discouragement. The essential question is: what line should we take? Despite the fact that the sky has clouded since that bright dawn of 1997, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the right reverend Prelate that there are some real signs of hope.
One of those signs of hope is the sheer courage of the reform element both within the Majlis and outside it in the universities, and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord

275
Ahmed, and my noble friend Lord Phillips both referred to the very courageous statement made by the 150 members of the Majlis only a few weeks ago about the detention of the members of the freedom movement. Since then—indeed, only today—there has, again, been an extraordinarily courageous manifestation with 109 university professors signing a letter to their president drawing his attention to the effect on universities and on the intellectual climate of the detention of dissidents who, at no point, have ever turned to violence as a way of expressing their opposition.
Therefore, the first hopeful point is one that I believe the whole House should express; namely, our profound respect for members of the reform movement in Iran, who, at huge risk to themselves—risks that most of us, thank God, have never had to contemplate—have continued to bear witness to the need for democratisation in Iran.
The second sign of hope was the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed: half of the population of Iran is aged under 20. The evidence, which is overwhelming, shows that the younger elements in the population of the country strongly support President Khatami and the movement towards a more democratic regime. In short, as time passes, the situation should inevitably improve not worsen. However, it is also important to point out that 40 per cent of those same people of Iran live in either abject or extreme relative poverty. Relative poverty is not the best seedbed into which to plant the seeds of democracy.
That brings me to my third point, which is one that needs to be most clearly made. The present condition of Iran has made possible the establishment of an illiberal and totalitarian theocracy. I should add that we, too, remember theocracies in our history that behaved little better in their own day and in their own time. However, that theocracy is, in part, a reaction to the intervention by Western powers who established a Shah, against what was clearly strong, popular feeling in Iran. Those powers supported him in what was a cruel policy; namely, of literally seizing and confiscating a large number of small peasant holdings in Iran in order to sell them to large agro-businesses, with no compensation whatever in many cases to those who had owned, admittedly, infertile and rocky land. However, it was land which belonged to them and which underpinned a powerful conservative view in Iran. The regime forbade the worship of Islam, and did so to such an extent that it actually detained people who had a copy of the Koran in their homes.
I saw evidence of this in 1970s when I travelled around Iran, during the time of the Shah. Those powers subsequently provided weapons and support to Iraq in the most cynical way for one of the most dreadful and painful civil wars that we have seen since our own Second World War, and which led to deaths on a scale equivalent to that experienced in the First World War in Europe. Perhaps we Europeans, Americans and other Western powers ought to make it plain that we accept some responsibility for a reaction
276
back to medieval values, given how hypocritical and, in many ways, self-interested modern politics must have looked to many Iranian citizens.
The fourth point I want to make, which has not been touched upon so far, concerns the reasons why the West sometimes changes its attitude towards a particular Islamic state. Even now the Energy Committee under Vice-President Cheney in the United States is discussing the possibility of lifting the present economic sanctions on Iran. So far as we know President Bush has said that the time is not ripe. However, we should not pretend to ourselves that one of the major reasons for even considering the lifting of sanctions is directly connected to the huge recent oil discoveries in the Caspian Sea and to the possibility of pipelines passing through Iran or, alternatively, through Georgia and Turkey. We should not be too noble in not regarding our own economic involvement with Middle Eastern and Islamic states when we consider issues of human rights. Let me make it plain that that in no way forgives for a moment abuses of human rights, but it does at least recognise that we have been complicit in some of the abuses of human rights in other Middle Eastern countries.
My final point relates to what we might do now. We have heard some constructive suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggested—I am sure that he is right—that there should be closer interchanges and relations with the Iranian Majlis, which badly needs the support and encouragement of old democracies such as those of the United Kingdom, Germany and others. I believe that such exchanges could strengthen and increase respect for the Majlis. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right to suggest that there is room for a deeper and more profound interchange of religious views and values between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I defer to his knowledge which is infinitely greater than mine in that regard. I too have come across in Malaysia, Pakistan and elsewhere the profound divisions with regard to the interpretation of Islamic holy writ between the more modern members of the faith and those who are wedded to more ancient and traditional attitudes. As a Roman Catholic, who am I to suggest that there are not similar tensions and differences among Christian religions, as anyone who is familiar with Vatican Two and its aftermath is bound to accept?
We must try to meet the huge challenge of how we live with Islam not by reverting to the view that this is a clash of civilisations which will lead to a kind of new crusade, but rather by recognising that on every possible level we need to encourage the more liberal, modern minded, tolerant and, in the widest sense, religiously credible members of Islam, Judaism and Christianity to develop many dialogues between ourselves in which we all accept that the recognition of human rights is a fundamental element that binds us all together. We should hesitate just a little before condemning a whole people and rather recognise that there is a real opportunity that out of Iran may grow a regime with which we can live much more comfortably than with the theocracy of today.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, your Lordships' House clearly owes a singular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for promoting the debate and raising issues at a very appropriate time given that the Iranian presidential elections will take place on 8th June. I assume that that will occur the day after our general election. He initiates the debate at a time when great changes are afoot in the whole Gulf area and in American foreign policy. However, we are obviously concerned centrally with the question of human rights.
I propose to confine my remarks to four subjects: first, whether reform is or is not going forward, which constitutes the central theme of the debate; secondly, our interests in relation to Iran in its present state; thirdly, the specific question of human rights abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred and to what extent that remains an internal matter; and, fourthly, what, if anything, we can do about it all.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, rightly said, with her usual accuracy and eloquence, there has run through the whole discussion the central question of whether the Khatami regime is a reforming regime. Are things getting better or has nothing much changed at all? Are we talking about the same people who were previously involved in the most hideous atrocities and are still presiding over a country in which atrocities continue but who are using slightly different words?
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it is impossible for most of us to reach a judgment on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, speaks on the matter with great authority. If one listens to him or to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, one hears an unqualifiedly grim tale of atrocities carried out in a sinister and sick country. However, if one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, or to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, it appears that the situation, although difficult, is getting better. On listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I had the familiar feeling that I wished to Heaven I was as certain of anything on these matters as he seems to be of everything. I cannot reach a judgment on whether his confidence is soundly based and how one weighs that against the evidence of the most hideous things that are still happening. The layman must have grave doubts about the matter.
A ministerial statement from the British Government to Iranian Ministers contained a phrase about respecting each other's cultural identities. One has to ask oneself what kind of culture is reflected in conducting mass hangings, stoning people to death, amputating limbs and imposing extrajudicial death sentences, let alone, on a lesser scale, in the suppression of the media or in other acts of cynicism and hatred and certain police action. Just as our views and the opinions expressed in the debate differ, so Iran itself is a country with deep divisions of view and with a completely dual power structure. There is the power structure of President Khatami, the police and the official state forces and that of the revolutionary courts, the Council of Guardians and its guards, who
278
hold people under arrest without trial and conduct their separate system of law, hate and violence. Against that background, to reach a judgment as to whether the situation in the country is improving or going backwards is even more difficult.
My instinct is that some progress is being made if one looks very hard. However, there is also clear evidence that even in the past few months, and perhaps even while we speak, horrific things are happening which cannot be condoned by any stretch of the imagination in any context, Islamic or any other. To turn a blind eye to those events is not to serve the cause of democracy and stability, let alone to support the values that we do support and try to include in our relations with the rest of the world as we should. As say, perhaps matters are improving a little, but it is hard to tell. There are certainly some evil and bad elements in Iran and among those who govern it at present.
I shall discuss human rights abuses in a moment. As regards our broad interests in this matter, as a responsible power we want to see stability and security in the Gulf region. We are uneasy about regimes 'which spend much money—however, all kinds of regimes do this—on the development of new missiles—we have to ask why they need those missiles—and which trade in the dark world of the arms markets and which perhaps dabble in weapons of mass destruction. We have an open fear about Iraq in that regard, but we are also fearful about Iran's intentions. Those countries appear to be unreliable. One is not sure whom they will bite next. However, we must have security in the Gulf. Some 65 per cent of the world's oil reserves are to be found in the Gulf region, whatever may be found in the Caspian Sea. But I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that I understand that it is not nearly as plentiful as was thought. Vast reserves are to be found in the Gulf region which will dominate world oil markets for years to come.
It must be true, too, that it is in our interests to see a prosperous Near Asia and Middle East. If only Iraq could develop a democratic regime, and if only Iran could develop a democratic, prosperous regime, what wonderful prospects there would be for the entire Middle East. Here are two sets of people—the Iranians, in particular, are brilliant people, with a fantastic history, and full of talent: think what the possibilities would be if it could open out as a free, lively and vigorous society.
We are right to long for that and to want to use our policy leverage, such as it is, to break open this sad little world. As the Financial Times reminded us in an article yesterday, 40 per cent of those living in Iran are in absolute or relative poverty. That is a colossal percentage. It demonstrates what a miserable and sick society it is.
Then there is the question of the Middle East peace process and the role of the Hezbollah. If there are to be better relations with Iran, if there is to be business with Iran, it must be accompanied by efforts by Iran to play its part in the peace process far more than it has been prepared to do so far. If people say that the Israelis go

279
over the top and attack when the existence of their country is threatened, the same criticism has to be applied to the Hezbollah, the so-called "army of god", and some of its atrocities and attacks. There must be give and take in that area; and there is little sign of any give whatsoever in condoning the actions of the Hezbollah terrorist groups.
Then we come to the real focus of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, wanted us to consider the human rights issue. There used to be a time when the argument that these were internal issues was the end of the matter. One was told not to interfere. Just as the Chinese Government tell us that we must not comment on many of their affairs and self deceptions as they are internal matters, so we are constantly told by the mullahs that how they govern their country is an internal matter. But that is no longer the world in which we live. We now live in a world in which human rights issues are taken into the heart of nation states. The concern with human rights is linked directly with the stability of the globe. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, quoted Mary Robinson saying that,
"Today's human rights abuses are the cause of tomorrow's conflicts".
The Foreign Secretary reminded us of that in his speech on 28th March. It was in some ways a strange speech. It did not mention Iran or Iraq, which I found a little strange. It mentioned Burma and other countries. But that is the new order of things: that today we feel justified in carrying concern for human rights right inside nation states. In doing so, one must realise an even greater responsibility in commenting on these issues and a greater need for accuracy and transparency than has existed in the past.
The fourth matter involves what to do. Whatever we have heard about the horrors of Iran, the way it is governed today and has been governed in the past—there may have been unqualified horrors—it is, as always, a matter of light and shade. The Iranian nation has had to contend with an appalling refugee problem: 1.4 million Afghans have been driven out by the maniacal Taliban—in many ways it committed the same kind of atrocities, or worse; we do not really know—and have come into Iran. There are half a million refugees from Saddam and his hideous activities, and many other refugee problems. My impression from past experience with the Iranians is that they have been dealing with these refugee problems with great care and competence, and deserve some support, which in a substantial way the British Government and other governments have sought to give them. So one must understand that in making judgments from far away.
What do we do? Do we encourage closer links? Do we let businesses, which are always looking for ways to get into areas, become more closely involved? My judgment is that a general policy of isolation, having nothing to do with Iran, is probably wrong. I think that one has carefully and gingerly to see whether some contacts can be opened and maintained. If the Americans aim to remove their sanctions—I agree with those who suggest that they do—I think that that
280
is probably the right way forward. They will have to keep a close watch on the armaments trade. But I do not think that the sanctions have been very effective. And the Bush administration is an energy administration. They are all energy men; they think entirely in terms of oil. They note that America now imports 60 per cent of its oil supplies. When I had some responsibility for these matters 20 years ago, it was 20 or 30 per cent. That makes America very vulnerable. They are concerned about all aspects of oil, and that will drive their policy in the Gulf and the Middle East, as it will drive their policy elsewhere.
I do not agree with a total cut-off: that no businessman, even if he knew the risks, could go in. When applied by this Government to Burma—they tried to pressurise Premier Oil to get out of Burma—that policy was totally wrong. It is pathetically misplaced and misunderstands the way in which openness and democracy are helped.
What do we do about the declared opponents of the theocratic tyranny—the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq—which has been made a proscribed organisation, to its great indignation? I appreciate that it is a difficult issue for the Government to decide. We cannot provide a nest for terrorist, violent organisations. But we can provide, and have often provided in our history, a home for exiled governments pleading for freedom to return to their land. So the judgment has to be made; and I appreciate that it is very difficult.
My heart does not go along with the broader proposition that somehow we can excuse the mass hangings, killing of children, murder of the Baha'is, and so on, because it is all part of understanding Islam and seeing issues in an Islamic context. I listened with as much sympathy as I could to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I note the point he makes: that we have to see things through Islamic eyes and that we must understand Islam. But let us understand the right kind of Islam. Let us think back to Islam and Christianity, which lived together in the early centuries after Christ, up to the 1500s and later. The gentle Islam is a wonderful thing. Christians, Islam and Mohameddans lived in peace and worshipped in each others' churches in syncretic symbiosis. That went on; it can go on again today. But not if we are dealing with this extreme, horror-filled, tyrannous theocracy which does things in the name of Islam and I think insults the name of Islam in doing so.
My plea would be that we should understand the right kind of Islam and not this sick mutation of it; that we should look hard for signs of opening up in Iran and work with and respond to them. But we should not let out of our minds for one moment some of the facts which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and others have placed before us. They should be constantly in our minds in dealing with this once great country—as I hope that it will again be one day.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord

281
Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this debate and to all noble Lords who have participated in it. I thank the noble Lord for the far too generous, fine compliments he so graciously paid me; and for the compliments paid me by my noble friend Lord Longford.
Her Majesty's Government share many of the concerns which all noble Lords have rightly expressed about the human rights situation in Iran. As so often, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, put her finger on the issue with skill and elegance. The balance is between the optimists and those who are pessimistic about the future for Iran. The noble Baroness also reminded us of the risks faced by all those who are committed to democracy in Iran. I cannot but agree with her on that.
With the cautious acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that some progress is being made and that it would be wrong to withdraw, the balance of the debate has tipped slightly in favour of those who are cautiously optimistic about change, lodged as it is in the hopes and aspirations of the young people of Iran and the reformers.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we do not and will never put commerce before human rights. That is why only last week we and our EU partners put the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights to the vote—and won. We have consistently co-sponsored that resolution and the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Iran, the last of which was adopted on 4th December last year. Those resolutions underline the continuing international concern about certain Iranian human rights policies. A significant part of the process of improving UK-Iranian relations is to raise our concerns over such issues. Ongoing EU-Iran dialogue also contains a substantial human rights element.
We remain particularly concerned about the discrimination practised against some religious minorities, most notably the Baha'is, who are still unrecognised by the Iranian constitution. They were mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The harsh prison sentences handed down at the trial on espionage charges of a number of Iranians, including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, are also a cause of concern. We continue to urge the Iranian judiciary to show clemency in that case. The sentencing of 10 representatives of the academic and intellectual community in Iran for attending a conference in Berlin in April 2000 was another affront to human rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly referred to the conviction on 27th January of 15 intelligence officers for their involvement in the serial murders of liberal intellectuals in 1998. That represented a significant victory for President Khatami. It was the first time since the revolution that officials of the system had been tried and prosecuted for extra-judicial killings. However, as noted in the Commission on Human Rights resolution passed in Geneva on 20th April, we regret that all the circumstances surrounding the killings are not fully clarified. The resolution urges the Government of Iran to continue
282
the process of investigation and to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice in accordance with the due process of law.
The violations of the legal rights of prisoners and the high number of executions remain important issues. There is also continuing discrimination against women in the courts and in society generally. We regularly raise a broad range of human rights concerns, including those on specific cases. Only last week, the permanent under-secretary raised such issues vigorously with the Iranian Foreign Minister and his officials. We and our EU partners have also démarched the Iranian authorities on a number of specific cases, including the trial of the Shiraz Jews and the sentencing of those who attended a conference in Berlin. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we continue to be vigorous on such issues.
The use of capital punishment has been referred to several times. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, we are implacably opposed to the use of the death penalty and we shall continue to lobby with vigour in all forums with all our partners to have that form of punishment expunged from the systems and statute books of the world. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the Government wholeheartedly share the distaste that he so graphically demonstrated.
However, it is important to recognise that since the election of President Khatami in May 1997 there have been a number of significant improvements in Iran's human rights record, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and, most potently, my noble friend Lord Ahmed said. We welcome the Iranian Government's commitment to developing an Islamic civil society based on respect for the rule of law. Engagement with the outside world will help to speed up the process of change and democratisation. In February 1999, local elections were held for the first time in Iran's history. They put local power in the hands of the people. The mass participation in those elections reaffirmed the Iranian people's support for the reform process.
The subsequent Majlis parliamentary elections in February and May 2000, in which 190 of the 290 seats were won by reformers, were further evidence of a more open and vigorous electoral system, as a number of noble Lords have said.
There have also been some modest improvements in the situation of women, notably with the appointment of Iran's first four women judges and its first woman vice-president. The efforts of the Iranian president and other senior figures in the executive to press for a change in attitude towards women and women's issues are particularly welcome and have been recognised by the UN special representative on human rights, Maurice Copithorne.
An increasing number of Iranian women now take part in politics and go on to higher education. More than 50 per cent of the university intake in Tehran is now female. That is a positive development that has been commented on tonight. One of the changes brought about by the Islamic revolution in 1979 was

283
better education for women. Many of the women who have received that education now work and expect to do so as a right.
None the less, there is still strong evidence of continuing discrimination against women in the courts and in society generally in Iran. Recent UN resolutions on human rights in Iran sponsored by the EU have called on Iran to take further measures to eliminate discrimination against women.
We also welcome President Khatami's affirmation last year that Iran's constitution forbids any pressure on any person for their ideological convictions and grants all citizens their rights. We also welcome his comments that, as a president elected by the people, he is committed to defending the rights of all citizens as nationals of Iran. We hope that that will extend to all groups in Iran, including minority religious groups such as the Baha'is, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I greatly welcomed his sensitive and balanced approach and wholeheartedly agree that such sensitivity is needed.
Of course, Iran could do more. We continue to urge the Iranians to allow the special representative of the Commission on Human Rights, Maurice Copithorne, to visit Iran soon. In his latest report, published in January 2001, he welcomed some progress, but regretted that it had been overshadowed by regression in other areas, notably freedom of expression. It is right that noble Lords have noted the range of negative developments that he noted in his latest report. We share those concerns. That is why we have supported his work in its entirety.
Maurice Copithorne gave a clear welcome to the progress made in other areas, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He has assured us that he believes that we should remain engaged with the Iranian authorities. I agree with the exhortation and caution of my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, among others, about the need not to give negative indications to those who wish to diminish the importance of the reformers in Iran. We believe that those issues can best be addressed within a policy of constructive critical engagement and dialogue. Face-to-face discussion of those difficult issues has real value. We would be loath to abandon them at the first sign of difficulty.
The recent arrests of religious nationalists provoked passionate debate in the Iranian parliament. The security and foreign policy committee summoned the intelligence Minister to answer questions about the arrests. He stated that his ministry had not been involved. Nevertheless, clearly there remain in Iran forces which are resisting democratisation and the development of an Islamic civil society.
However, we should also recognise that there exists in Iran a strong movement for change and democracy. We agree with noble Lords who, during the debate, have made that plain. President Khatami has spoken of the importance of that. He said:
"There is no threat more serious to our popular system than a situation in which the rulers of the country cannot justify their conduct to the people".
284
Of course, the arrests show the limitations on the freedom of speech. But the extent of the debate and controversy which the arrests provoked demonstrate that legitimate opposition is possible in Iran. We know that the MeK claims that the resort to arms is the only option. It issued the following statement:
"First, the viper never gives birth to a dove and the Mullahs' regime lacks the capacity for reform. Second, the only language the criminal Mullahs understand is the language of armed resistance".
That is clearly not true.
While perhaps not yet as far reaching as we might hope, change for the better is taking place in Iran through debate and discussion led by people who have chosen to stay in their own country rather than by those who have based themselves abroad and resorted to armed attacks and terrorism.
That process has met with many difficulties and setbacks. The proliferation of the press and the relative freedom of expression in recent years were seen as major developments in Iran's efforts to reintegrate itself into the international community. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable that over 30 newspapers and other publications have been closed in recent months and that a number of journalists and editors have been arrested. However, there is still a wide range of newspapers and critical commentary, and new publications still appear on the streets.
As did my noble friend Lord Ahmed, I pay tribute to the sterling work carried out by the BBC World Service. It not only has journalists posted in Iran but also has expert analyst teams based in Bush House, some of whom have played an incredibly important part in the wider debate. Some of them were also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the jamming of the TV station. We understand that SIMA TV is currently under investigation by the Independent Television Commission for broadcasting incitement to violence and for biased reporting of the situation in Iran. Therefore, it is not quite as straightforward as it might appear at first blush. I cannot but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the overall picture in relation to such journalistic activity is not entirely bleak.
The result of the presidential elections in June will be important in determining the direction of progress in Iran, including that in relation to human rights. Many challenges still lie ahead. Some people claim that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran—also known as the MeK—is fighting for freedom in Iran. Although the MeK claims to be seeking to advance a legitimate struggle for democracy, such a claim is difficult to reconcile with its history of violence and authoritarian nature.
The group alienated the Iranian people and lost any popular support it may have had in Iran when it sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. It maintains a standing army of several thousand fighters in Iraq, supported and armed by the Iraqi regime, from where it launches cross-border attacks into Iran, including terrorist attacks.

285
Despite claims that it attacks only "legitimate targets", the indiscriminate nature of some attacks means that civilians have been killed or put at risk. In February last year, a mortar attack on government offices in Tehran killed one person and injured five others. The MeK has assassinated senior Iranian officials and launched mortar attacks against government buildings in Tehran and elsewhere. Over the past year, the group has claimed responsibility for a series of mortar bomb attacks in central Tehran and other Iranian towns, such as Karaj and Ilam, resulting in death and injury to both civilians and servicemen.
We understand that the Iranians have launched attacks against MeK camps inside Iraq, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We note, too, that Iran describes those attacks as limited and defensive operations aimed at halting MeK terrorist activity inside Iran. Iran claims that they are in accordance with Clause 51 of the UN Charter. I believe that that leads us to another debate as to where the rights and wrongs of that situation lie. However, those are the claims that have been made by the respective parties.
The MeK and the National Council of Resistance in Iran, of which the MeK is the dominant group, have a very effective publicity machine. They are also aware of the bad image of Iran created in the West by the country's poor human rights record. However, that does not mean that the MeK or NCRI would improve the situation in Iran. The MeK has called for new elections to be held under the auspices of the UN. That ignores the fact that the majority of Iranians voted for the present government. We may question some aspects of the process, but the Iranian people elected President Khatami, who was not the favoured candidate, and later elected a parliament in which the majority of the members are reformists who are willing to challenge what is going on in Iran.
The MeK had their roots in times of repression. At that time, its campaigns of violence may have seemed the only solution. But the political situation in Iran has moved on. The election in 1997 of President Khatami marked the beginning of this change in direction. We should respect the wishes of the Iranian people.
The situation is fluid. It is right that we should keep it constantly under review. However, there is hope that out of Iran may emerge a well-run, diversified and dynamic market economy, fully integrated into the global economy, which will be capable of contributing to a healthy bilateral economic relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to refer to the noble and good history that Iran had in the past and to say that this is a joint aspiration for Iran's future.
I know that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate wish there to be a peaceful transition and the emergence of a full democracy in Iran with a civil society based on the rule of law. At present, it appears that those aspirations are shared by President Khatami and—much more importantly—by the vast majority of the Iranian people who elected him. Iranians have hope. Their courage has already been commended, and I join those who commend the courage of the reformers.
286
At present, it appears that the aspirations are also shared by others outside who might strengthen them. The evidence thus far suggests that the president and his government remain genuinely committed to this course. President Khatami has stated his commitment to an Islamic republic. We hope that he will honour that commitment and the commitment to a civil society based on the rule of law. If he does so, he will satisfy the wishes of the vast majority of the Iranian people.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, this has been a well informed debate in which every speaker who has contributed has done so from the basis of knowledge and conviction. I am extremely indebted to everyone who has participated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, described the fault line that has run through the debate as a difference between optimists and pessimists. That remark was echoed by the Minister. It was once suggested to me that a pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history. Those of us who put perhaps too much faith in people who caricature themselves as reformists are sometimes bitterly disappointed in the end. One figure that should cause us at least some concern is that last year there was a 300 per cent increase in the number of refugees from Iran seeking asylum in this country. There was a similar trend throughout the rest of Europe. That is an interesting insight into the way in which Iranians perceive the situation in their country.
We in this place are extraordinarily fortunate to have the opportunity to speak freely about human rights questions and our liberties and freedoms. It is right that we discussed the questions that we raised today. We should remember that those who have been suffering acutely—whether in prisons, by being stoned to death or being subjected to the most terrible privations—will be grateful to us for having done so.
I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that those who have been suffering are Muslims, too. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who sensitively drew out an understanding of Islam. That must not cloud, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, our over-riding concern for the universality of human rights. Those rights must be applied to all, whatever their state or denomination. We in this place have a duty to work towards that objective. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Discrimination
8.21 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking tow arc's the comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom. Particularly

287
regarding discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Question is to seek to discover the Government's approach to the reform of our anti-discrimination legislation.
A quarter of a century ago, I was special adviser to the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and helped to develop government policy on legislation to tackle sex and race discrimination. We introduced radical and controversial measures. The government had both the political will and the skill needed to design and to enact what became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, together with a half-measure, known as the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, which combated discrimination based on religious belief and political opinion.
I take pride in what we achieved. However, with the benefit of 25 years of practical experience, I share the belief of the equality agencies, of senior judges, of independent experts and of employers and trade unions that the time is over-ripe for the comprehensive, rather than the merely superficial, reform of that body of legislation. The approach of successive governments to the increasingly complex, opaque and anomalous state of British anti-discrimination law has been piecemeal and minimalist. It has involved the addition of new layers of legislation in bits and pieces, be they to implement European Community law, to introduce half measures on disability discrimination or to strengthen law enforcement only in Northern Ireland, not in Great Britain.
The complexity of the existing legislation makes it unnecessarily difficult for employers—in particular, for small businesses—to comply with their legal obligations. That complexity hinders victims in their access to justice. Compliance is too dependent on the willingness of individuals to take a case to a court or tribunal. Entrenched patterns of systemic discrimination remain and, except with regard to racial discrimination, British law does not yet require public authorities to perform positive duties to promote equality of opportunity or to eliminate unfair discrimination. The present defective state of the law helps no one.
The defects in the legal regime and the options for reform are lucidly analysed in the independent review by Professor Bob Hepple QC, Mary Coussey and Tuyfal Choudhury entitled Equality: A New Framework. We need a coherent, user-friendly joined-up framework that covers all the main grounds of unfair discrimination throughout the United Kingdom. The concepts need to be rationally and consistently applied. Indirect discrimination against the disabled needs to be forbidden, as do all of the examples of unfair discrimination contained in the EU employment equality directive, including religious discrimination, age discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Moreover, there needs to
288
be equal protection against each type of discrimination, with assistance from an equality commission, to enable everyone to be treated equally within a workable and user-friendly legal framework.
The right to equal treatment is a fundamental human right. It should be recognised as part of our constitutional birthright everywhere in this country. It is unacceptable that religious discrimination is forbidden in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. There needs to be equal protection of the right to equality and equal access to speedy and inexpensive remedies everywhere. A major step towards the recognition of the importance of that right to equality would be for the Government to ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which places that right on a par with other basic human rights that are listed in the convention. I am very disappointed that so far the Government have not even been prepared to sign, still less to ratify, Protocol 12.
The legislation needs to implement European law properly. The present hotch-potch of piecemeal statutes does not achieve reasonable legal certainty by informing the citizen of the true state of the law. It needs to set out the principles on which the legislation is based, while avoiding undue specificity and technicality. It needs to provide only for necessary exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination in accordance with EC law. It needs to encourage a non-adversarial approach, which avoids unnecessary bureaucratic requirements but secures the effective enforcement of the law.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has created a powerful authority with strong regulatory powers in place of a weak and divided regulatory scheme. The reformers had the huge advantage that their reforms were driven by the most powerful government department, the Treasury. The same political will and intellectual energy should be devoted to re-making the system for regulating and enforcing the equality legislation, which would overcome the difficulty that its subject matter is the responsibility of a balkanised bureaucracy that is spread across five different government departments.
It makes no sense to continue to create more equality agencies to tackle the different types of discrimination that are made unlawful by successive parliaments. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 replaced the equality commissions, working side by side with a human rights commission. The reforms are working well in practice and do not appear in Northern Ireland to be resulting in a hierarchy of rights, by which some would be given a higher priority than others. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland works well.
Those innovations in Northern Ireland should be implemented in Great Britain. An equality commission is required that has as much professional expertise in monitoring and law enforcement as has the Financial Services Authority. It should be committed to strategic law enforcement and to promoting voluntary compliance and respect for the law.

289
Such an equality commission will combine the expertise of specialist skill in tackling each form of unlawful discrimination and avoid wasteful duplication of resources. At present, the CRE and the EOC face difficulties in co-ordinating their work in cases of multiple discrimination on several grounds. A single commission would not face those problems and would be well placed to deal with discrimination on related grounds, such as gender and race, or race and religion. Eventually, it could take over the work of the new-horn Disability Rights Commission as well.
The reforms should apply to public authorities a positive duty to promote equal opportunities and to eliminate unlawful discrimination. Such a duty has been imposed in respect of race by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, and should now be extended to gender and other grounds of discrimination. Such a public sect or duty will serve to encourage the spread of good practice and oblige policymakers to assess the impact of their policies and decisions on equal opportunities.
Legislation must be enacted by December 2003 to implement the EC race directive and the framework equality directive. Those require measures to be enacted prohibiting discrimination not only on grounds of sex or race but also on grounds of sexual orientation, age and religion or belief, in employment and training. By December 2006 at the latest, there will have to be legislation to combat age and disability discrimination.
There is concern that the Government will take a narrowly restrictive approach both to the implementation of those directives and of the proposals made by the equality commissions. There is a serious risk that the Government may seek to tackle the new grounds of unlawful discrimination only in the employment field, excluding discrimination in access to goods and services, including education and transport services, and even denying the victims of employment discrimination based on age, sexuality and religion the protection and support of an equality commission.
Such a minimalist approach would be in breach of the United Kingdom's international obligations. It would make the existing patchwork of legislation even more incoherent, inconsistent and unworkable. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that those fears are unfounded; that the Government's measures will clarify and simplify the law, introducing greater coherence, and ensuring the equal protection and enjoyment of the fundamental right to equality. I hope she will be able to tell the House that the Government intend to impose positive duties on public authorities generally to promote equal opportunities. And I hope she will be able to say that the scattered pieces of legislation will be combined, as we on these Benches believe it should be, in a single, comprehensive equality Act, with an equality commission to tackle the new grounds of unlawful discrimination as well as the existing grounds.
The time is over-ripe for a bold and imaginative approach. The opportunity should not be squandered. I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords,
290
with their great experience and expertise. I am only sorry that the Conservative Benches, for a second night running, are denuded of everyone except the luckless noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who sits alone in unsplendid isolation. I very much hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming in her reply as I have suggested.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for bringing this debate to the attention of the House. His tenacity is to be admired. He has consistently been at the forefront, over many years, in fighting discrimination. I listened attentively to his presentation and was almost persuaded by his well-founded arguments. However, I believe that Her Majesty's Government must give much thought to this issue and that is why I welcome the debate and look forward to the contributions by all noble Lords this evening.
I believe that there is an argument to be made for harmonising what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to as the complexities and inconsistencies of existing anti-discrimination laws which hinder complainants and public authorities and make legislation cumbersome. That harmonisation would indeed augur well for employment issues. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that employers, advocates and trade unions need a clear framework—one which is easy to operate and to apply.
However, we need to be aware of the different kinds of oppression which different groups experience. My days of doing case work give me the experience to assure the House that institutional racism demonstrates itself differently for different groups. There is no empirical data that women or disabled persons have been stopped and searched because of their gender or disability. But we all know that the statistics as regards black young people stopped for that reason are quite amazing.
The changes in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 were critical to black people. They were the ones most vulnerable to discrimination and disadvantage by the arms of the state—those who were specially empowered to intervene in citizens' lives. Different kinds of discrimination impact on women, gays, lesbians and people with disabilities and I should not want to minimise those in any way. But I believe that we need to learn from the way in which the amended Act 2000 impacts: the way that it is changing the thinking and practices across the public sector, and to evaluate whether even stronger measures are not needed before we embark on the type of harmonising legislation suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
It needs to be the right legislation. It needs to be able to assist those whose responsibility it is to enact changes; but more importantly to assist those for whom the legislation is needed to protect from discrimination.
There has been a range of community-based organisations which played a role in tackling single-issue discrimination at local level. Most of those have

291
been in relation to race discrimination and they all maintain that race discrimination stands in a class of its own. Our objective must be to put in place the right machinery for dealing with prejudice in its different forms. It cannot be appropriate at this time to produce legislation through a single mould. The different structures, although not perfect, have owned merit in their own right. The Commission for Racial Equality itself has recognised the need to simplify the workings of the Act and has put proposals before the Government which are awaiting government programme time.
I can understand that, in relation to the European directive, there is an urgency for harmonisation. But the greater need is to be sure that the legislation serves the most vulnerable in the different ways needed to tackle discrimination.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, it is now over 35 years since the introduction of the first race relations statute in this country. Much has changed in those years both in the character of race relations and the general understanding of the issues and problems involved. The working of the legislation has been evaluated time and time again and found to be wanting. It is for that reason that we have had the 1965, the 1968, the 1976 Race Relations Acts and now the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. No one in their wildest imagination in 1964 could have imagined that this country would put on statute four separate Acts to deal with racial discrimination and promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations. But that is the reality today.
Equally to the envy of the western world, it has been a positive framework for a successful multi-cultural Britain. Much of the credit for that goes to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In his capacity as special adviser to the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, he was instrumental in shaping our race relations legislation.
We now have the Human Rights Act, which has significant implications for women, disabled people and ethnic minorities. We still need to address matters of age, religion, sexual orientation and discrimination or other improper grounds. The Human Rights Act has opened up a debate as to how equality and discrimination issues should be tackled. It has made existing agencies broaden their focus to consider the way in which differing equality and human rights legislation could address the complexity and inconsistencies of existing legislation inherent in agencies and ably identified in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester.
There is no dispute that the essential educational, promotional and law enforcement work requires an independent body—a human rights commission. Also, complexity and inconsistencies in present law would best be eradicated by an equality commission, which will bring the EOC, CRE and DRC together. We need to demonstrate, as we have done in Northern Ireland
292
that the factors that unite them are strong. The Human Rights Act, which brings the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK domestic law, provides some additional protection against discrimination. We need to examine that to see its significance in relation to the provisions of existing equality legislation, but more importantly to see the effect on those groups excluded from it.
We welcome the setting up of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights. It would be wrong to confuse that with a human rights commission. The Government have already stated that they retain an open mind on whether a commission is needed. I come back to the arrangements ably identified in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement of April 1988 brought into being a Human Rights Commission and a separate Equality Commission. The Equality Commission will take over the existing roles of the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission which covers religious and political discrimination, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission.
The Equality Commission will have the additional role of supervising the duties to promote equality on grounds of race, religion, political opinion, age, sexual orientation, disability and marital status. The HRC has a wider mandate on human rights issues. The model is just one example of new thinking on discrimination legislation. I believe that after 35 years changes are appropriate. Comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation is long overdue and I support the case made out by my noble friend Lord Lester. It is better to prepare for a change now than to be forced into introducing changes by circumstances outside our control.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for instigating this important and timely debate. I cannot support his proposal for one equality commission, although I believe in the harmonisation of legislation. There have been important changes of attitudes to equality rights since 1997 and they are reflected in government policies. However, we all recognise that there is still a long way to go.
While recognising the importance of anti-discrimination legislation across the board, I want to concentrate on two aspects relating to anti-discrimination in relation to women and to sex legislation: a public sector duty to promote sex equality and consistency—on which the noble Lord and I may agree—and enforcement of legislation. Here I declare an interest as a former equal opportunities commissioner serving on that body from 1991 to 1998. I was originally appointed by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. Therefore, I have worked on changing equality legislation through that body.

293
In many important respects the sex equality legislation did not bring about, as many of us hoped, equality in working practices and service provision. That is why discrimination laws need to be reformed and made more consistent.
The Sex Discrimination Act is based on the principle of the right of the individual, not to be discriminated against and it has introduced penalties on those who breach those rights. However, the law does not require organisations to put in place systems to address the underlying causes of sex discrimination. I believe that the time has come for organisations to be closely scrutinised and in particular for their promotion, recruitment and evaluation of performance practices to be examined in detail to eliminate discriminatory practices between men and women.
During the debates on the Race Relations (Amendment) Act last year, Ministers acknowledged that institutional practices may lead to racial discrimination, rather than simply the acts of a series of individuals. That analysis is fine, but just as it applies to race discrimination I believe that it should also apply to sex discrimination.
Now may not be the time for organisations in the private sector to be subjected to a statutory duty to promote sex equality, but as a first step a duty should be placed on public services to promote equal opportunities between men and women. A public sector duty has been introduced into race discrimination and the time is right for such a duty to be applied to sex discrimination also. Over the years, across government departments, consideration of gender equality in the planning and delivery of services has been sporadic. Now is the time for action to ensure consistency.
The passing of the European directive on discrimination in employment is a welcome step in providing legal rights for groups who have previously had no legal protection against discrimination under British law. As has been explained, that has, unfortunately, further contributed to the legal inconsistencies in discrimination law. It brings in a new test for indirect discrimination on the grounds of everything except gender. Having two indirect discrimination tests, as the noble Lord said, will be extremely confusing, especially for employers.
The Better Regulation Task Force review of anti-discrimination laws has called for greater consistency throughout legislation. Therefore, a golden opportunity is before Government to change the discrimination laws to bring them into line with each other and to produce a consistent legal framework. A vital element to that approach must be that any new rights are properly enforceable.
The Government rightly emphasised the need to provide disabled people with enforceable rights under the DDA. A recent survey has shown that 86 per cent of firms have developed or revised their employment policies as a direct result of that Act. The EOC, the CRE and the Disability Rights Commission are statutory bodies that have strategic law enforcement
294
powers to tackle non-compliance with the non-discrimination law. The fact that government granted those powers to those bodies shows the significance attached to enforcing non-discrimination law.
Therefore, I urge the Government to devise a planned programme of change to ensure that all anti-discrimination legislation is both consistent and enforceable and to consider seriously the introduction of a public sector duty to promote sex equality.
8.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I am grateful for this brief chance to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, not only as a bishop, but also as a co-founder of the Interfaith Network UK.. That organisation engages in the essential task of developing relationships and understanding between different faith communities. It has had encouraging dialogue with the Government to help it on its way. We hope that such positive consultations will continue after the election. As the Cabinet Office Minister said in February,
"The Government is determined to tackle religious discrimination once and for all by cracking down on prejudice and reshaping our thinking to foster a culture of tolerance and mutual respect and to celebrate the contribution of Britain's many different faiths to the stability and prosperity of British society as a whole".
In addition, we have the EU directive, which is to be implemented by 2003, to which reference has already been made. Much can be done through information, sensitivity and respect for peoples' prayers, their moral teachings and the need for support and representation for faith communities. Much can be achieved by a change of attitudes; for example, there could be a shared chaplaincy in hospitals, in work places and in prisons, giving space and time for worship and festivals. Many things can be done to resist harmful, excluding religious discrimination.
On the other hand, as we have heard from the previous speaker, it is clear to me that legislation could strengthen this purpose enormously. At the same time—this is the difficulty that I want to highlight—there must be protection for the identity of faith communities and their distinctive organisations. It is quite difficult to see how all those matters can be fitted together. Muslims will want to appoint their imams and I guess that Christians will want to appoint Christian bishops.
As chairman of the Children's Society, I believe that we have a distinctive contribution to make to social justice. That distinctiveness is sustained by having a Christian Society management team. There are also schools and colleges that give tremendous service to our society. Some see the pluralist society as demanding that all children should be educated together, and I can see places around the world where that would be true, although some religious schools are divisive. However, almost every day I see how schools can provide a broad sense of belonging and a sense of moral and spiritual values according to the faith of the school that the children attend. For that we need the context of a strong idea of citizenship.

295
I believe that problems arise when the identity and the distinctiveness of the Christian organisation or the organisations of other faiths are made into divisive creations. However, to encourage the celebration of the variety of communities, to which the Minister referred, within our whole society requires a great deal of skill in terms of legislation.
If we can find a way of strengthening the resistance to discrimination and yet give space for distinctiveness, we will do not only a service to our own nation and society but, as we heard today in an earlier debate and as we know from other experience, to many countries of the world where discrimination amounts to persecution. Perhaps we have a chance now. When I was chairman of the Interfaith Network, I heard a most moving speech by a doctor who said that he thought such an organisation could exist as it does only in the United Kingdom.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend. His great experience in these matters and his persistence in putting across his point of view, because he knows it to be an important one, are well known in this House.
My comments reflect my increasing interest in the difference between being a subject rather than a citizen, but they also chime with the comments of my noble friend Lord Lester on the ad hoc, piecemeal and inadequate nature of equality legislation in the United Kingdom.
There are some curious oddities in the system. Public authorities have a duty to promote equal opportunities and to eliminate racial discrimination but no such duty in respect of women.
Older people, who all their adult lives have been able to choose with whom they live and whom they invite into their homes, can find themselves confined in a so-called home with people with whom they may have nothing, except their age, in common. What is more, unless the Government comprehensively change the situation, they will be obliged to pay for care which, were it given in hospital, would be free. That is a unique penalty.
At present, political parties may be legally inhibited from positively promoting the candidature of women as MPs so as to address the balance in the House of Commons. There is legislation against religious discrimination in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK. There is, education apart, little or no equality legislation in respect of access to services or to the quality of services provided. Voters are not of equal value in the ballot box. I could go on but time is short.
How has this happened? My feeling is that the fundamental cause is the absence in this country of a generally accepted theory of citizenship. We have had continuous constitutional change from the beginning of history. We even had a revolution, but one could argue that we had it too early, before the Age of
296
Enlightenment and the ideas of universal rights of man, of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, of the citizen as the building block of democracy.
Speaking very broadly, from the early Middle Ages up to the time of the Glorious Revolution, constitutional change consisted in essence of the sporadic wrestling of rights and powers from the monarchy in favour of certain, often quite small, groups and of the growing concept and reality of Parliament. That process of the transfer of powers from the Crown to Parliament, interrupted by the Civil War, was acknowledged as irreversible from the draft Declaration of Rights.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the right to vote was gradually granted to the masses and to women, the nation's two inferior types of people. But even the process of broadening the franchise left untouched the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament rather than the sovereignty of the people.
It seems to me that it is this uniquely pragmatic and ad hoc attitude to our fundamental constitution which has led to the jungle of legislation in the field of equality. It is as though whenever someone notices something is wrong a law is passed to correct that wrong but nothing is done to deal with wrong as a whole.
The same attitude made the European Convention on Human rights seem so foreign in the eyes of many Members of this House when we discussed its introduction into our law. But is it too late to change? Could we look forward to a reforming government who use our acceptance of the convention into British law as an opportunity for a root and branch reform of our equality legislation? Could we start with an assertion of the equal right of every citizen, regardless of age, sex, ability, sexual orientation, race, colour or creed, to fair treatment at work, equal access to appropriate services and equal life chances—not minimalism but a new version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the debate, especially for having chosen the first anniversary of the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the body which has given teeth to our Disability Discrimination Act and for which the Government can be justly proud.
The issue which I wish to raise may be seen as minimalism according to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but it is one which I believe will become increasingly important in the 21st century. It is the use of genetic technology and whether new legislation is now necessary to outlaw discrimination resulting from genetic screening.
Since Dolly and Polly were launched upon the world—one a cloned sheep and the other a sheep with human genes—the disability community has been raising concerns about the fast pace of developments in genetic science. Disabled people have been in the spotlight of media and public interests as our

297
impairments are the reason given for pushing back the frontiers of what is acceptable. Organisations such as the British Council for Disabled People and RADAR have been highlighting concerns that while there is new hope of treatment for rare disabling conditions, this may go with new danger for disabled people and others, such as increased discrimination in employment, insurance and healthcare.
Despite the Government's plans for the fast expansion of genetic technology in the NHS, they have shown themselves to be aware of these issues. On 19th April, the Secretary of State for Health announced the Government's intention to legislate to outlaw human reproductive cloning. He also said that, subject to the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's recommendations in mid May, the Government plan to issue a moratorium on insurance companies' use of genetic profiling tests to predict which of their customers were likely to die prematurely or suffer chronic disease.
However, it is in employment where perhaps there has been least discussion of the discrimination threat posed by genetic testing. While there is no evidence that genetic screening is currently practised in the UK, its use in the US is, however, extensive. A 1999 survey by the American Management Association found that 30 per cent of medium and large-scale companies sought some form of genetic information from employees.
There is also significant evidence of genetic information being used to discriminate. A survey by Dorothy Wertz of 1,500 genetic counsellors and physicians found that 785 patients had reported having lost jobs or been denied insurance because of their genes.
Employment practices in the United States are frequently adopted here, the most recent example being drugs testing. This becomes more likely as genetic testing for employment purposes becomes cheaper and more readily available. Multinational companies with UK premises are likely to introduce such screening and strict controls should be put in place before this happens rather than afterwards.
The current legal position in Britain is that an employer may require an applicant for employment to take a genetic test and the employer may discriminate on the basis of such a test—that is, unless the test relates to an existing disability covered by the DDA. The Disability Rights Commission agrees with the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's recommendation that employees should not be obliged to take a genetic test for employment purposes. However, it disagrees that an employer should be able to ask for access to existing genetic information if the test relates to a condition that will directly affect the individual's ability to do the job in question or his susceptibility to a particular workplace health risk. The DRC's view is that excluding or removing people from the workplace just because they might develop a genetic condition is unacceptable.
An increasing number of European and other countries have legislated to restrict the use of personal genetic information in relation to employment and
298
insurance. For example, in Austria insurers and employers are barred from obtaining test results; in the USA federal employees are protected from genetic discrimination; and in Norway and France genetic testing for employment purposes is illegal.
This is an issue which affects us all. The discrimination currently faced by people with impairments might soon be faced by those with no symptom of disease and no apparent difference from the idealised average. In a 1999 survey on genetics and disability, RADAR found that 85 per cent of those surveyed believed that legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination based on genetic status was now necessary. In responding to this debate, will my noble friend the Minister give an indication whether the Government have any plans to include discrimination on the basis of such genetic screening within any possible reform of anti-discrimination legislation in the UK?
9.1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I initially added my name to this debate for the simple reason that the assumption of my noble friend Lord Lester that all forms of discrimination should be treated equally is one that I find almost impossible to resist.. The discrimination legislation with which I have been most closely involved has dealt with disability. When my noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to a number of matters in the field of racial discrimination, I started to think of the number of Bills on which I had spoken specifically in relation to disability legislation, or discrimination, equality and inclusion in the field of education. I gave up because such Bills are virtually without number.
We try to bring about full inclusion and rights for groups and bodies but we always run back to stick in bits of legislation; we think that it should be there and we should deal with problems, but we have absolutely no standard. We are always plugging holes and making the same points. All of the bodies in the world of disability will always claim that their case requires special attention. That is the way that the disability field works. But those bodies are most effective when they join together. Generally speaking, they join together when they have to and they believe that something may be done. I say that in the full knowledge that earlier today the noble Baroness heard me talking about one particular disability. I would have liked it if the noble Baroness's answer had been, "Yes, according to one overarching guideline", or some guidelines that already exist. In that case it was dyslexia. I should have declared an interest at that time, but I rather assumed that in my case that was already on the record. That would then be conformed to as the gold standard, whether it became a universal standard or one particular standard.
There is an absurdity here which cries out to be dealt with. We can jump around as much as we like, but if we believe that people deserve to be treated on equal terms whenever that is possible, we must go some way to bring them on board together; otherwise, there will be the faint suspicion that it is all right to discriminate

299
against someone for one reason but not for another. I do not believe that there can be any conclusion other than that if we do not follow the path set out by my noble friend Lord Lester.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on securing this debate. The fact that so many speakers are listed clearly demonstrates how strongly many noble Lords feel about discrimination. Just over a year ago when I was still director general of Age Concern I gave oral evidence to Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' European Union Committee in its inquiry into the EU's proposals to combat discrimination, including age discrimination. Shortly afterwards, I was privileged to take my place as a Member of this House. I was able to speak in the debate on that committee's report held on 30th June. Rather appropriately, it was the day of my retirement from Age Concern. I am, therefore, living proof that this House does not practise age discrimination. I hope that it continues to behave in that way.
I am now a member of Sub-Committee F whose report on migration and the need for a European policy on it was published today. The report touches on attitudes which unfortunately often result in discrimination against people who seek a better life in this country or escape from persecution. My views on age discrimination are probably known to some Members of your Lordships' House from my time with Age Concern and heading up Eurolink Age, a pan-European NGO. Age discrimination is an unacceptable and very pernicious form of discrimination which is still largely unrecognised. Therefore, I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that it is a real problem and one that must be tackled. However, I am aware that it is difficult to do that through legislation alone.
The competence of a person should, however, be the criterion on which that person is judged as capable of doing any job. Chronological age is not a reliable marker of anything; it is totally arbitrary. We all differ, whether we are five year-olds, 25 year-olds or 65 year-olds. We differ from each other even if we share the same date of birth.
The EU framework directive on discrimination, despite problems with its text and the ability of this House properly to scrutinise it, is a defining moment for those who campaign against any form of discrimination and want it to end. But for those who campaign against age discrimination this is the first fruit of the Treaty of Amsterdam which states that the EU,
"may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on age".
I am aware that there are serious concerns about its drafting and the delay until 2006. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will not use that as an excuse for inaction. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's thoughts about the EU Charter of
300
Fundamental Rights which was recently adopted and appears to go further than the equal treatment directive. It includes, for example, an article that,
"everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation".
For those who campaign against discrimination more generally, the fact that the directive seeks to tackle discrimination on the grounds of religion, disability, sexual orientation and age in employment and occupation is unusual. Normally, these issues are considered separately. I am aware of the split view, both within this House and outside on whether this directive is a good or bad thing, and that the Government were doubtful when the draft directive was first published in 1999.
However, I am very much committed to the idea of an equality commission which would eventually cover all areas of discrimination, including race, nationality and gender. I was interested to read the excellent independent report produced by the Judge Institute. It argued persuasively for the matter to be considered, not just on grounds of administrative convenience or to save a little money on bureaucracy, but because there are sound policy arguments for giving it serious consideration in the near future. It is not only our economy but our society, in its broadest sense, that needs this to happen.
I therefore hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the Government are considering a comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation rather than just piecemeal action, department by department or issue by issue. Discrimination is a cross-departmental issue. It should be at the heart of government thinking, policy and action.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, in Northern Ireland we already have the mechanisms for considering discrimination across the board. The public authorities are required to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religion, race, age, gender, political opinion, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability and family size. Every authority has to produce an equality scheme stating how it proposes to fulfil those duties. The scheme then has to be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The commission has the power to issue guidelines as to the form and content of the schemes. I suggest that the Northern Ireland model is one that we should consider very seriously in framing our own legislation in Great Britain.
As my noble friend has pointed out, in Britain the positive obligation on public authorities applies only to race under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. That extends to the removal of any indirect discrimination which may be found to exist. However, in Britain the public authorities are not required to produce equality schemes, although it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make an order requiring them to do so under new Section 71(2) of the

301
1976 Act. Perhaps the Minister in her reply can say whether it is the Government's intention to exercise their powers under that provision.
Northern Ireland is also ahead of the rest of the UK in that promoting social inclusion runs as a theme through the policy of all departments instead of being segregated into an under-funded office directed by the Prime Minister, as the Social Exclusion Unit is here. Psychologically, there is something to be said for the positive idea of promoting social inclusion as opposed to the negative concept of preventing social exclusion. I ask the Minister whether that might be taken into consideration in the framing of any legislation, because the Social Exclusion Unit would obviously need to be merged within the new commission which would be created by any legislation.
I want to give an example of how this policy works in Northern Ireland. Travellers benefited from a new policy on accommodation launched in August 1999 by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and a report by the PSI Working Group on Travellers in June 2000. In Britain, by contrast, since the Government came to office they have taken no policy initiative to promote the social inclusion of Gypsies. Their needs have been ignored by the Social Exclusion Unit, although everyone acknowledges them to be the most disadvantaged of all minorities in terms of access to education, healthcare, social services and accommodation.
I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Chapman v. UK in the European Court of Human Rights. That court said that special consideration should be given to the needs of gypsies, both in the regulatory planning framework and in arriving at decisions in particular cases. There was a positive obligation imposed on contracting states by virtue of Article 8 of the Convention, which deals with respect for family life and facilitating the gypsy way of life. That extends beyond the immediate issue of planning.
The comprehensive legislation to promote equality which we hope to see must include a unified equality commission with powers to consider representations from and on behalf of disadvantaged minorities, and to highlight failures of policies such as these, which are still failing to deliver the Government's promises on equality.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this debate and for drawing attention to the report Equality: A New Framework. It is a mark of his commitment to equality and his pioneering role in the development of anti-discrimination legislation. This is a significant review for it paves the way for a co-ordinated reorganisation of a highly disjointed and fragmented area of law.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, concentrated on the legislative framework. I want to say a few words about the parts of the report that deal with the promotion of equality of opportunity within institutions. As someone who for the past 25 years has spent a great deal of time, in one capacity or another, trying to persuade and cajole
302
institutions to adopt policies to tackle institutional barriers which impede equality, I cannot tell the House how delighted I was to see the report's recommendations. The recommendations are aimed at changing organisational policies and behaviour. Anyone committed to eliminating under-representation and institutional barriers to equality cannot afford to ignore the rationale and logic of the recommendations. The rationale for change is compelling.
As we know, discrimination and exclusion are now more complex and covert than they were three decades ago. Eliminating institutional barriers now requires greater emphasis on changing organisational culture and must be internally driven. The present framework places too much emphasis on state regulation and too little responsibility on organisations and individuals. It adopts an incoherent approach to different manifestations of inequality. Consequently, the initiatives which have been adopted are reactive and separate from each other. I can say that because some years ago I chaired a panel that was designed to increase the representation of minorities and people with disabilities in the senior Civil Service. My assessment was that the main barrier was the externally driven initiatives and the disjointed and competing factors among different groups.
The present framework was derived largely to deal with hierarchical, vertically integrated and centralised organisations. That is no longer appropriate for modern, flatter organisational structures in which equality depends not simply on avoiding negative discrimination but on the active participation of all concerned—I refer in particular to middle managers—in terms of training and improving skills, Learning, developing wider social networks and encouraging adaptability.
If we want a step change in promoting equality of opportunity, we must break away from the mind-set which relies on externally imposed detailed regulations. We must move our focus to shifting responsibility for change on organisations and individuals themselves if we want what I call sustainable cultural change in institutions and not merely cosmetic tinkering, which is based on externally imposed targets.
The report's recommendations are as compelling as its rationale and they resonate with my practical experience. They offer a model which starts from a base of persuasion, information and voluntary action plans. If those fail, only then does one move to investigation, compliance notice and judicial enforcement. That will encourage a proactive, non-adversarial approach. Voluntary, internally-driven initiatives are far more effective than externally enforced regulations.
The progress in institutions has been frustratingly slow because initiatives have been marginal. I was delighted when the positive duty to promote equality was enshrined in our race relations legislation. But we need to go further by creating a comprehensive framework for all types of inequalities. It is necessary

303
to take early steps to introduce this new framework. We want to make equality an integral part of our institutional consciousness. We have been offered an effective way ahead and we should grasp it. If we do not, we will be flying against the force of our experience.
9.18 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. Like him, I abhor discrimination of every kind, but as the President of Women Liberal Democrats, I think it appropriate that I confine my remarks to discrimination against women.
It is many years since the Treaty of Rome established the principle that men and women should have equal pay for equal work. However, equal pay is still not a reality in Britain today. Women who work full-time earn only 80 per cent of the average hourly pay of full-time men. Women who work part-time earn only 60 per cent of the hourly pay of full-time men. The mid-skilled childless woman earns £241,000 less over her lifetime than her male equivalent and, if she has two children, she will lose another £140,000. Retired men receive an average income of £174 per week while women receive only £94. The pay gap is caused by a complex combination of factors, including women's over-representation in poorer paid jobs, the undervaluing of jobs traditionally done by women and the high percentage of women in part-time employment.
The new regulations on equality in part-time pay will certainly help, but that is not enough. The Castle awards and the "fair pay champion" idea unveiled recently by the employment Minister are all very well, but the companies which are doing the least are the ones that should be forced to act, not the ones which are doing well enough to be nominated for an award. I ask the Minister what else the Government plan to do to ensure that women are treated equally in the workplace.
The Liberal Democrat proposal for an equality Act would do much to address the problem of unequal pay. The historical underpayment of women has resulted in millions of female pensioners living in poverty. Many married women paid the reduced national insurance stamp and the consequence is a tiny pension. While I am on the subject, can the Minister tell me exactly what women who choose to pay the reduced stamp get for their money? The Liberal Democrats want to make pensions fairer to women by abolishing the contributory principle and having pension rights based on citizenship and UK residence. This would help women with incomplete contribution records as a result of their caring responsibilities.
The problem with the current law is that the onus is on individual workers to prove discrimination rather than on employers to demonstrate equal treatment. What is needed is a change to allow group or class
304
actions to be taken to industrial tribunals, since many tribunal decisions are relevant to large numbers of workers. Tribunals should be able to make general findings which would have a wider effect than just judgments on single cases.
I turn now to the benefits system and I should like to highlight one particular discrimination against single working mothers. If they are receiving working families' tax credit, they have to receive it in their pay packet. Couples receiving the same benefit can collect it at the Post Office, but single mothers cannot do so. When my colleagues in another place tried to amend the Act to remove this anomaly, the Government refused, saying that single mothers should be taught the value of work. If those women are managing a family single-handed and still holding down a job, they need no sermons from this Government about the value of work.
The effect of this anomaly was demonstrated recently by three single mothers in Stoke-on-Trent. Their employer changed from paying in advance to paying a week in hand and the women lost a week's worth of WFTC. In the same situation, a couple would have been able to collect their benefit each week from the Post Office. If that is not discrimination against single mothers, I do not know what is.
Finally, I urge the Government to get on with the promised study into the recommendations of the Constitution Unit on changing the law to allow special measures by political parties to improve representation by women and ethnic minorities. From these Benches, we have assured the Government of our support for such a study. European law is clear. Commissioner Flynn has emphasised that Community legislation is no impediment to national measures to improve the representation of women on elected bodies. It is therefore time that the UK Government caught up with those of our European partners who have shown us the way on this very important matter.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this debate, which has attracted an extraordinary degree of interest and knowledge from Members of your Lordships' House. In the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I intend to deal with the issue of sex discrimination and to express my support for the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place during the last Session of Parliament by Robert Walter MP which was designed to prevent private clubs from admitting women on different terms from men.
Three kinds of club would have been covered. The first group is sports clubs, in particular golf clubs, which allow women restricted membership or allow them to play only at particular times. Many allow women only associate membership and deny them full voting rights and the use of the club rooms at evenings

305
and weekends. One example I found in the press cuttings is that of the Gay Hill Golf Club, at Wythall near Birmingham, which was described as,
"the most backward golf club in England",
by Bridget Malin, one of two women members who gave an interview to the Observer newspaper.
Included in a catalogue of discriminatory practices, all of them perfectly legal, were the rules which applied to the so-called "public room"—the one to which women were admitted. While that was being refurbished, a white line was painted on to the floor to stop women from going more than half-way into the bar.
The second kind of club where change is needed is working men's clubs which allow women to use some facilities but not others. Take the Sunnybank Social Club in Silsden, near Skipton. According to the Independent on Sunday:
"The club's problems began when a group of young women were caught playing snooker and told that they had no business there. When two men came to their aid, arguing that women should have full status, they were charged with 'bringing the club into disrepute'".
The report states that out of 3,000 clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, some 60 per cent deny women full rights.
The third group is the so-called gentlemen's clubs which allow women only restricted membership or keep them out of certain bars or dining rooms. Here I should declare an interest as a member of the Reform Club, which changed its rules to admit women on equal terms with men 20 years ago in 1981. Not so, however, the Carlton Club, where there have been three attempts in the past two years to change the rules to allow women to be full members. Before the last vote in November, Mr William Hague said that he would resign if the change were not made. It was not—and he has not.
In The Times yesterday, Theresa May, MP, was quoted as saying that she and several women were considering leaving. She said:
"I dislike the fact that lady associate members are treated as second-class citizens".
If the provisions of the Private Member's Bill, the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, were adopted, these difficulties would be resolved. The Bill was in line with what the Equal Opportunities Commission proposed in November 1998 and had the support of the Fawcett Society. I understand that the DfEE hopes that change will come naturally and that legislation may not be necessary. May I ask my noble friend to indicate when she replies whether the Government are monitoring the situation and at what point they would support legislation if change is too slow.
There is some evidence that golf clubs in particular are prepared to forgo lottery grants—which are offered on condition that there is no sex discrimination—rather than change their ways. So surely we need a new sex equality Act to update the Sex Discrimination and the Equal Pay Acts and to change the law so that if a club chooses to admit women, it must admit them as equal members.
306
This issue has nothing to do with political correctness; it is about civilised behaviour. Private clubs are prevented by law from discriminating against people on grounds of race, creed or colour. Any decent person would be affronted if they tried to exclude people because they were Jewish or black or Asian or Welsh. Discrimination on grounds of gender is equally offensive and must come to an end.
9.28 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. He may have explained to us why, regrettably, there is only one member of the Conservative Party on the Benches in the Chamber. That may be because of the discriminatory practices of the Carlton Club.
I have to admit that I remember still, as a junior Minister, having to walk through the central heating system of the Reform Club, owing to the thought that, as a female, I would have in some way polluted the halls of the Reform Club by passing across them in order to chair a study group on early forms of genetic manipulation. It just goes to show that we have moved on a little.
I, too, should like to add to the many tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Lester and, for reasons of time, simply say that at some time in the future, when history is written, it will be recognised that the introduction of a culture of human rights owes probably more to him than to any other single person, not only in this country but throughout the whole of Europe. That is something that most of us would very much wish to be written as a tribute about ourselves at the end of our careers.
As to the common equality commission, the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen—a relatively new Member of our House—have drawn attention to the anomalies, as has my noble friend Lord Addington, which arise as a result of having a large number of split commissions and split bodies; there are some four commissions at the present time. It does not make for effective action in cases of the less widely recognised forms of discrimination.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to discrimination on grounds of age, and my noble friend Lord Addington referred to discrimination on grounds of disability—neither of which have received the kind of attention that race and gender have received up to now. That should not in any way diminish the importance of non-discrimination on grounds of race and gender, but it shows that we have a further step to make in order to treat our citizens equally.
That brings me to the thoughtful speeches of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Citizenship should be about the acceptance of the equality and respect that we all owe to one another. It should go beyond simple negative anti-discrimination to a positive statement of what citizenship should mean in a multi-cultural and

307
multi-racial society. We believe that an equality commission would enable us to take that final and more positive step.
I now turn to a recommendation in the Hepple report, based on the findings of a review conducted by the University of Cambridge Centre for Public Law. Perhaps I may quote one sentence from the report:
"The present framework places too much emphasis on state regulation and too little on the responsibility of organisations and individuals to generate change".
That elicited eloquent statements from the noble Baronesses, Lady Howells and Lady Prashar, about the importance of positive action.
We are looking at a situation where, even now, after 30 years of anti-discrimination legislation in respect of both race and gender, there are still huge inequalities. Some of them were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Walmsley in the case of gender. One might add to that the absence of members of ethnic minorities from the highest positions in the land, including in the Civil Service. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on becoming the first Civil Service commissioner. I hope that she will introduce positive action to produce in the Civil Service a more anti-discriminatory view of its duties.
An interesting point was raised about citizenship and the possibility of scientific change. Perhaps I may conclude by saying something about each. In regard to citizenship, it is appropriate that the Minister of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is to reply to the debate. One area where a much more positive position should be taken in regard to human rights and the recognition of the equality of all citizens is the national curriculum. In this country we have been neglectful, frankly—across all parties and over a long period of time—of the training of our young people in the whole field of the recognition of equal rights and respect for all citizens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, raised a fascinating point. She spoke eloquently about the dangers of genetic testing establishing differences between people which might affect, for example, their insurance liabilities. I should merely like to add one thought about the future. If we get into a situation where it becomes possible—and that may be very close now—for people to select the genetic traits of their children, including such traits as the colour of their eyes or even the quality of their IQ, it will be essential to have a single body, an equality commission, that can legislate in a field that could present us with huge problems the like of which we have only just begun to envisage. I suggest that one of the areas that an equality commission could examine closely is that of the effects of scientific advance in terms of being able to reinvent inequalities which, after so long, we have tried to legislate against.
9.34 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this
308
debate. I am sorry that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are disappointed that I have a certain scarcity value.
My party's policy is that we support any sensible action to enhance anti-discriminatory legislation but without overburdening public services or business with excessive regulation. I fear that the admittedly persuasive suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of an equality commission may suffer from that drawback.
On the whole, we would be against a general reform of the anti-discrimination laws, as we believe that the current framework, particularly after the passing of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which we supported, offers significant protections. We should certainly not oppose sensible reforms where these are believed to be necessary. There is one area within which there is possibly room for further legislation; namely, on the grounds of religious discrimination.
Therefore, in the short time available I want to concentrate on religious discrimination. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is a particularly complex subject on which to attempt to draw a line in the sand. What is a religion, what is a faith? Current race relations legislation covers religious groups, but only where these can be classified as religious groups; for example, Jews and Sikhs. But what of the many Muslim adherents, which comprise many different ethnic groups? The report from the University of Derby concludes that religious discrimination is a significant problem, particularly for the Muslim communities. But among Christians, too, there is, sadly, evidence of discrimination against black-community Churches and against non-mainstream Christian bodies such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
There are two further points that I should like to make on the matter of religious discrimination. We have particular concerns that religious groups, and charities associated with them, must have the freedom to engage as employees members of their own persuasion. The right reverend Prelate referred to the need for bishops to be Christians. On a less exalted level, I am not thinking of vergers and sacristans only but also of the ability of faith-related charities to employ people of their own faith or persuasion.
I was interested in the right reverend Prelate's point about the delicate balance between diversity and discrimination. I am reminded especially that we are fortunate in many ways in this country; for example, Muslim girls can wear the veil to school with impunity, whereas they cannot do so in France: they must conform.
A particular concern is the discrimination that many faith-based groups face when applying for grants from the public sector. I shall give your Lordships the specific example of the awarding of broadcasting licences. My party's case was set out unequivocally by

309
my right honourable friend Mr William Hague in his speech to the Muslim Council of Great Britain on 20th March of this year, when he said:
"In the boldest initiative for a generation we will establish an office of Civil Society within the heart of Government. Charities, faith communities and family groups will staff the office. The office will encourage Britain's voluntary sector to take a greater role in schooling, housing and regeneration. It will help us remove discrimination against those voluntary bodies to apply for funding and remove burdensome regulations".
So, in conclusion, can the Minister say whether it is the Government's policy, as it certainly is of my party, to take steps to inhibit the practice of discrimination in the awarding of grants in the public sector, albeit that it is so often indirect and more difficult to identify?
9.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for raising these important issues tonight. He has made a major contribution to the development of anti-discrimination legislation in this country, and his views on how further progress might be made to achieve equality of opportunity are both extremely valuable and most interesting.
Given that there have been 16 speakers in this short debate and I have but 12 minutes within which to try to respond, I think it would probably be most sensible for me to write to noble Lords who have asked particular questions. Otherwise, I might spend the entire time trying to respond to different detailed questions which I do not believe would make a lot of sense.
At the beginning of my remarks, I have to say that I have similar memories to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on private clubs that restricted membership to men. I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Faulkner that the issue is still under review, and we shall continue to keep it so.
This Government share the firm commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to equal opportunities and eliminating discrimination. Economic competence and social inclusion are not competing objectives; but they are interlinked ambitions that we should all have. We want to remove the barriers that prevent people from fulfilling their potential and create the conditions whereby every member of British society is treated fairly and is not hampered by stereotypes and false assumptions. We have taken steps, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that an effective legislative framework is in place. Indeed, legislation provides the floor; it is essential. However, it is not enough of itself to achieve the change in attitudes and preconceptions that lead to discrimination.
We have seen radical changes over the past 30 years and the pace of change is likely to continue; indeed, I hope that it will. We must build on the framework already in place and ensure that individuals and organisations are aware of their rights and responsibilities and are able to take on the new responsibilities that befit a just, fair and diverse modern society.
310
Where we do regulate, our challenge will be to strike the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals and reflecting the legitimate interests of business and other employers.
Let us be clear. Discrimination is in no one's interests in the long term. But legislation must be workable. We have no wish to impose unreasonable burdens on business. I agree with the noble Viscount that it makes no sense to do so. However, some of our most innovative companies have already discovered the benefits which inclusive and flexible approaches to the recruitment and management of their staff can bring. On some issues the best way forward will be to build on current best practice, offering informed advice through both central and regional services and preparing down-to-earth practical guidance.
If attitudes are to change, people need to be aware of the issues. Initiatives such as the "See the person" campaign have had a major impact in making some people think twice, or even think for the first time, about assumptions that they have long held but never questioned. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the importance of education and the value of the introduction of citizenship in the national curriculum. We must address these issues with young people and try to shape their attitudes to make them non-discriminatory and tolerant.
There is, of course, a clear need to modernise the framework, for example, to ensure protection in relation to all the grounds of discrimination which society now recognises need tackling. That is why we were pleased to secure agreement on the new EC employment directive, about which I shall say more later. I first touch on what we have done so far.
The Government have been pressing forward on a broad front taking action through legislation and other means to promote a fairer and less discriminatory society. In our 1997 manifesto we made clear that we would support comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. We quickly set up the Disability Rights Task Force. Its first task was to report on the role and functions of a Disability Rights Commission, for which the disability lobby had fought for 18 years to no avail under the previous government. The DRC opened its doors to the public a year ago today. Therefore, we celebrate its first anniversary.
Access to education at all levels is something which many of us take for granted. The exemption of education by the Conservatives from the Disability Discrimination Act was a serious blow for those campaigning for comprehensive civil rights for people with disabilities. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill will plug the gap left by the DDA and is a major step forward in increasing opportunities for disabled people to fulfil their potential.
On 5th March we published our response to the DRTF. In it we propose a number of legislative changes to improve disabled people's rights. The total number of jobs brought within the scope of the Act by the changes we propose will be nearly 7 million, including around 600,000 disabled people.

311
On race, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 delivers a government commitment to extend the full force of race relations legislation to the police and goes further. The Act also imposes a general duty on listed public bodies to ensure that they carry out their functions with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, on sex equality one of the key issues is the gap between women and men's average pay. We welcomed the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission's Task Force on Equal Pay as an authoritative contribution to understanding how best to secure further progress. There will be a comprehensive review of women's employment opportunities and pay to be headed by Denise Kingsmill, the Deputy Chair of the Competition Commission who will report back her findings later this year.
On age, we are already tackling age discrimination by vigorously promoting the code of practice on age diversity and the benefits to be realised. Evaluation of the code of practice shows that a third of employers are aware of the code and that since its launch the use of age in recruitment has halved from 27 per cent to 13 per cent. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we have to go much further to ensure that all employers understand the benefits of age diversity.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has set out his vision of what the anti-discrimination law should look like. We need to consider seriously the case for a single equality statute and a single equality commission. Calls for a single system have been accompanied in some cases by analyses of how equality legislation has evolved into its current form and its strength and weaknesses. Such analyses have added great value to the general debate. Among the best and most comprehensive is the report of Professor Hepple on Equality: A New Framework to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. The Government recognise the validity of many of the arguments for comprehensive reform. We shall consider them seriously. For example, it has the potential to bring benefits for business, offering greater consistency of approach and improved coherence of advice and guidance. It might indeed embrace a more proactive approach to promoting equality in both the public and private sectors, bringing a shift from reliance on individual cases, with enforcement very much as a last resort. There would be benefits, too, for individuals—a single avenue for advice on rights and, if need be, redress.
Of course, there are counterbalancing arguments too. I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Gibson said about a single commission. Some would argue that a single commission might weaken the emphasis that needs to be placed on tackling particular types of discrimination. We have to take those views seriously.
312
On disability, we have had it as our highest priority to ensure sufficient focus on closing the gaps in legislative protection and ensuring businesses meet their obligations under the DDA. As part of this it has been, and remains, essential that we do not undermine the effectiveness of the only recently established DRC.
With regard to age, we are only in the early stages of identifying with interest groups the critical issues that need to be addressed. Matters of religion and sexual orientation also raise very different issues. When one starts to analyse them it becomes clear that "one size does not fit all". So we would need to look carefully at other practical, transitional implications of moving to a single statute. It would take time for case law to develop and provide a clear, common understanding of employer obligations and best practice. We would want to be very clear that the long term benefits outweigh the short-term costs.
That said, we shall watch with great interest the developments in Northern Ireland, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, where there are different equality laws and structures, including a single equality commission. The executive there is committed to taking forward work on a single equality Bill to harmonise existing legislation. We shall see how they incorporate new grounds including age and sexual orientation.
In the interim, we do not need to wait for definitive conclusions on the questions of a single statute or single commission to secure some of the practical benefits. As I have said, we want to harmonise and improve the consistency of legislation when the opportunity arises. We are moving forward already to secure some of the benefits of joint working by the equality commission.
We have encouraged close collaboration by the commissions through co-location (in the case of the EOC and the DRC) and the production of joint publications. The three commissions have been key partners with the DfEE in ensuring the successful development and launch of the Equality Direct service, which offers practical advice on equality to small and medium-sized companies.
Against that background, we are starting to consider the implementation of the Article 13 employment directive. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made a powerful case for grasping the opportunity for comprehensive reform. We recognise the arguments for a single equality framework incorporating a single equality commission, but we have to think about how such a framework would be constructed in practice.
I have run out of time and cannot take the issue any further this evening. A variety of views have been expressed during the debate. I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.
The key to fair treatment lies in the way in which individuals in society behave towards one another and the attitudes that inform that behaviour. We need to strike a balance between refining the legislation and further reinforcing sensible, practical action within the current framework to assist those who, for far too long, have suffered unnecessary discrimination in this country.
House adjourned at eight minutes before ten o'clock.

  Palestinian Prisoners: Human Rights
  Palestinian Prisoners: Human Rights
  Nepal
  Nepal
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
  Prison Service Boards of Visitors
  Prison Service Boards of Visitors
  Employed Barristers: QC Applications
  Employed Barristers: QC Applications
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Risks from Disposal of Carcasses
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Risks from Disposal of Carcasses
  Foot and Mouth Disease: London Marathon
  Foot and Mouth Disease: London Marathon
  Osborne House
  Osborne House
  Foot and Mouth Vaccine
  Foot and Mouth Vaccine
  Farmers: Price Stability
  Farmers: Price Stability
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination and Slaughter
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Vaccination and Slaughter
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Regional Operations Directors
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Regional Operations Directors
  UK Trade in Meat and Livestock.
  UK Trade in Meat and Livestock.