Sitting of 5 December 2001

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

    Good Friday Agreement
    Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to secure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [18092]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The British Government remain wholly committed to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. We must now build on the considerable progress that we have made in recent weeks and concentrate on stabilising the institutions and moving ahead with all the remaining aspects of the agreement.
    Richard Burden: I welcome the achievements of recent weeks and my right hon. Friend's contribution to those achievements. Given that a number of paramilitary groups, including loyalist paramilitary groups, are still not on ceasefire, how realistic is it to aim to achieve full decommissioning by February? What can be done to ensure that General de Chastelain can continue his work so that we can keep in place the legal framework for decommissioning?
    Dr. Reid: It is true, of course, that General de Chastelain, whom I met on Monday this week, has made a considerable contribution through his calm endurance. I am sure that the entire House would wish to thank him for his contribution. We welcome the progress that has been made, including the historic and significant step by the IRA, but my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a long way to go. Some loyalists have not started the process of decommissioning and are not even on ceasefire, so it is extremely unlikely that the process can be completed by February. Of course, the remit of General de Chastelain does not expire then. It is a continual remit, at the behest of the two Governments, but we need the legal framework that allows decommissioning to take place, and in the very near future we will bring before the House legislation to enable that to happen.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the offence caused to
    316
    many in the community in Northern Ireland by the decision to haul down the Union flag from police stations, the decision to remove the royal title and the crown insignia from the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the only constabulary in the United Kingdom that will not have the crown in its badge—and the proposal to remove the royal coat of arms from our courtrooms. The Secretary of State recently said that there was a danger that Northern Ireland would become a "cold house for Unionists". What does he propose to do about that?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman supported the Belfast agreement, I take it that he read it before he agreed to it. It states:
    "All participants—
    which I take to include him—
    "acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
    I take it that the hon. Gentleman still accepts the agreement. Nevertheless, I recognise and I have made plain that the matter must be treated with a degree of sensitivity and a recognition of the rights not only of the Catholics and those who feel culturally Irish in Northern Ireland, but of the Protestants and those who feel British.
    I commend to the hon. Gentleman the leader in the Belfast Newsletter this morning, which comments:
    "If northern Catholics are treated as equal citizens, and their culture and identity are adequately recognised within 'the northern state'—in short, if they feel at home here—what good motive other than romantic aspiration could they have for embarking on the highly risky road towards a united Ireland?"
    In other words, through mutual respect and sensitivity on the matter of symbols, we are trying to create the conditions that the hon. Gentleman wants to see created—a continuation in Northern Ireland on the basis of consent. I recognise the sensitivity that he highlights. I hope that he will try to recognise and reflect upon the points that I am making.
    Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on securing a good vote in his party on Saturday? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the re-establishment of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, particularly the north-south consultation bodies, can offer tangible benefits to people in Northern Ireland on the economic, social and cultural fronts?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. I think that my hon. Friend is right. Obviously, we congratulate the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, on the vote that he received at the weekend. It is in all our interests that we get a degree of stability in Northern Ireland. That stability has, to say the least, been somewhat lacking in the institutions in the past six to nine months. It is important not least because there is widespread support throughout the community for the good work that the Assembly and the Executive already have done and can do. Devolution of power is not only an essential part of the Belfast agreement, but the vehicle through which an all-Ireland dimension can be given with tangible benefits for the whole community. That includes both traditions

    317
    and all citizens in Northern Ireland, and the recognition of that all-Ireland dimension, which is an essential part of the Belfast agreement.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: It will come as no surprise to the people of Northern Ireland that this decommissioning date is not going to be kept rigid and that it will probably be changed and changed again. That will not cause any ripples for the people of Northern Ireland, for they expected it to happen. As the Secretary of State has mentioned that he wants to see stability, can I ask him whether he has seen the campaign literature just issued by Sinn Fein against the Police Service of Northern Ireland, linking it with plastic bullets, shoot to kill, abuse of human rights, sectarian intimidation, collusion, obstruction of inquiries and torture? Will he condemn that sort of literature, which is put around the doors, but breaks the legislation on such literature, as it carries no printer's name or imprint?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I condemn that sort of literature absolutely. I have no doubt that, as in any other human organisation, there have been faults and mistakes and perhaps wrongs. I think that that happens in all police forces, but I have to say that, given the terrible conditions in which the RUC had to work—on many occasions, the Police Service of Northern Ireland still has to work in such conditions—the police have been stalwart defenders not only of law and order and peace in Northern Ireland, but, on many occasions, of the Catholic communities themselves. I hope that those who have been asking for many years for the right to participate fully in institutions and in the Police Service of Northern Ireland will, now that we have implemented Patten, face up to the responsibilities that always come with rights and participate as they should do, not least because all communities in Northern Ireland deserve a decent, good and effective police service.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: When military de-escalation takes place in Northern Ireland in response to the Provisional IRA starting to put arms beyond use—there may be more moves on the issue in future—what account will be taken of the growing threat that exists from the Real IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups?
    Dr. Reid: Any moves that I make regarding the military presence in Northern Ireland are made with full consultation and on the advice of my security advisers, who include the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, part of that consideration is, by imperative, the threat from the dissident republican groups. It is a great irony that that threat is one of the most major stumbling blocks to the removal of the presence that is manifested by the British Army, to which the nationalist and republican communities constantly object. They should look towards the real reason why we must have a more than normal military presence, which is not the will of this House, but the threat from the dissident republicans.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it true, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor says in a
    318
    magazine article today, that the Government are planning a new raft of concessions in Northern Ireland? The article refers to
    "an amnesty for former terrorists on the run … the dismantling of British security facilities … further inquiries into past British security `misdeeds"'—
    there is, of course, no mention of anybody else's misdeeds—
    "and further changes to the new police service, the successor to the RUC, on top of those reforms already agreed to make the police acceptable to nationalists and Republicans."
    If there is any truth in that statement by the Secretary of State's predecessor, will he come clean to the House and say when he proposes to bring the measures before it and to explain their justification?
    Dr. Reid: It is not true that new measures are being contemplated apart from those that have already been put before the public and the House in Weston Park. I would do my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) a disservice if I did not point out that he did not suggest that the measures were new. He said that they had already been undertaken.
    Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State has obviously not read his colleague's article, which refers to new concessions. Will he learn lessons from the serious mistakes of his two predecessors in releasing all prisoners before the IRA had made any progress on decommissioning? Does he accept that, as I put it to him and the House on 24 October at column 305, it would be sensible to make no more concessions until it is clear what final package will be required to bring about full decommissioning?
    Dr. Reid: First, I confess to the hon. Gentleman that GQ does not feature in my midnight reading. I commend him on finding the time to read such magazines; I hope that the rest of it is as interesting as the article to which he referred. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend referred to events that occurred after he was Secretary of State. I commend him on his performance as Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) asked today whether new measures would be taken. I replied no, other than those we have debated previously. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman told me that he raised the point at the last Northern Ireland questions. He could hardly have done that if the matter had not been discussed in the Chamber. He referred to concessions. I repeat that I do not regard the extension of human rights, parity of esteem, and equality of all individuals as concessions.

    Electoral Fraud
    Stephen Hesford: What steps are being taken by the Government to tackle electoral fraud; and if he will make a statement. [18093]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, will provide the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland with additional

    319
    powers to address the problem of electoral fraud there. The proposed measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters.
    Stephen Hesford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We are considering a key battle in the normalisation of civil society in the Province. Will my hon. Friend say a little more about multiple electoral registrations and what the Government are doing to make progress on that?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the importance of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland to the stability of the political institutions there. On multiple registration, he will recollect that, on Third Reading, I undertook to consider whether there should be a requirement in Northern Ireland for those seeking to register to advise the chief electoral officer whether they were already registered or had tried to register at another address. I can now confirm that I intend to give the chief electoral officer powers to ask those questions during the canvass, starting in autumn 2002. Any person who knowingly gives a false answer to that question will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Successive Governments have made a meal out of tackling electoral fraud. Has the Minister noticed that the Republic of Ireland is considering electronic voting in three counties to avoid fraud? Is not it time to deal with issues at that level, apart from pre-registration? Will he assure us that the chief electoral officer has full authority to change the method of voting?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman has made consistent and important contributions to the debate, for which I thank him. He will recollect that, on Second Reading, there was a discussion about our aspiration to move towards electronic voting. However, all parties, including the Ulster Unionist party, agreed that the objective should be to put in place measures that would interdict the sort of fraud that had been identified and suspected. That is my priority, but it does not alter the fact that my long-term objective is to move towards electronic voting, which will help to tackle fraud.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point, he can rest assured that the chief electoral officer has all the powers, support and assistance that he needs to address this issue. In addition, I have started holding a series of regular meetings with him to ensure that I am kept up to date with progress on addressing the issue of electoral fraud.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that the improvements contained in the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill will do much to eradicate electoral fraud in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that the proliferation of electoral fraud could jeopardise the democratic process there? Above all, does he agree that one of the outstanding remaining ways of tackling such fraud would be to introduce proportional representation for elections in Northern Ireland? As the House knows, we use proportional representation for local government elections and European elections, so why not use it for the elections to this House?
    Mr. Browne: I agree with two thirds of the hon. Gentleman's observations. First, he is perfectly correct to
    320
    recognise the importance of the Bill as a measure for tackling electoral fraud. Secondly, it is important to reinforce the view that I expressed earlier that the stability of the political institutions of Northern Ireland is to a large degree dependent on the confidence that people have in their votes. The issue of proportional representation—other than in the circumstances in which it is already exercised in Northern Ireland—is reflected in a recommendation in the draft Bill of Rights by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should direct his contributions on that debate to the commission in the first instance.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: How can the Government's commitment to tackling electoral fraud in Northern Ireland be taken seriously when every party in the House but their own has argued for the inclusion of national insurance numbers on the electoral register?
    Mr. Browne: I think that the hon. Gentleman was present for the final stages of the Bill, although he might not have been. He will, however, recollect that there was cross-party support for the use of national insurance numbers as an identifier. He will also recollect that I opposed those proposals because I considered that they were disproportionate, that they made unreasonable demands on voters, and that they were opposed by the chief electoral officer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are being very noisy. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Browne: I also opposed the proposals because data protection implications were involved. The hon. Gentleman will also recollect that I undertook to reflect on the issue, and I have continued to do so. I continue to have discussions with the chief electoral officer, and I have had interesting discussions with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on these matters. I am still in reflective mode on them, but as soon as I come out of reflective mode, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets to know of my decision.

    Organised Crime
    Mr. John McFall: What recent initiatives the Government have taken to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [18094]
    Helen Jones: What recent progress has been made in the fight against organised crime in Northern Ireland. [18096]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I chair the organised crime taskforce, which has been in operation for just over a year. There have been a number of successes: on 8 November this year, 42.5 million cigarettes were seized at Warrenpoint harbour—the largest ever such seizure in the United Kingdom. In September, 26,000 litres of illicit liquor were recovered in Coalisland. Only this morning, a series of multi-agency operations in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been carried out to tackle fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and associated money laundering. Customs, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and agencies in the Republic of Ireland have

    321
    searched 31 premises, 10 people are assisting those agencies with their inquiries, and the investigation is on-going. This is exactly the type of multi-agency operation that the Government wish to see.
    Mr. McFall: Alongside the welcome peace initiatives taking place in Northern Ireland lies an increase in criminal activities involving drugs, alcohol and counterfeit goods. As the Minister knows, the profits from those activities go to terrorist organisations as well as lining the pockets of criminals. What is the organised crime taskforce doing to eliminate such activities, particularly at this sensitive time around Christmas, when many people are out shopping, and organisations such as the Co-op and other retailers are very concerned about counterfeit goods?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend, who is a long-time supporter of the co-operative movement, knows very well how the sale of counterfeit or adulterated goods undermines legitimate traders. Only last week Sir Reg Empey, the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I went on a shopping trip in Belfast city centre as part of a joint effort to publicise the need to tackle the sale of counterfeit goods. That is a good and practical example of the way in which everyone can play a role in fighting organised crime.
    My hon. Friend is right, and members of the public should take note of the message: do not line the pockets of criminals this Christmas.
    Helen Jones: In the context of tobacco and alcohol smuggling, what is my hon. Friend doing to make people aware that when they think they are getting a cheap bargain on the doorstep, they are actually putting money straight into the coffers of criminals and terrorists? In particular, will she ensure that communities such as mine which have experienced terrorist attacks in the past are made clearly aware that they should not be funding those who want to perpetrate similar atrocities elsewhere?
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Shoppers in Warrington ought to be aware of an element of organised crime in Northern Ireland that has direct links with paramilitary organisations. They ought to be aware that when they buy cheap cigarettes and alcohol, and other counterfeit goods, they are providing funds for organisations that go out of their way to seek to kill, to maim and to lay the bombs that we saw in Ealing and Birmingham very recently.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Does the Minister accept that one reason for the difficulty in tackling organised crime is the rundown of police numbers in Northern Ireland? While the numbers are on the increase elsewhere, in Northern Ireland the number of regular police officers is being reduced. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the full-time reserve in Northern Ireland will be maintained? Will she also give an undertaking that measures aimed at demoralising the police will be reversed? I refer to the issue of the name, the symbols, and the flying of the Union flag at police stations.
    Jane Kennedy: My overriding concern is to ensure that the Police Service has all the resources it needs, and that Government continue to be guided by the Chief
    322
    Constable's assessment of his resourcing requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions on the full-time reserve will be made next year, in the light of the security situation prevailing at the time. I can say no more at this stage.
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Does the Minister agree that the best way to reduce organised crime in Northern Ireland is for all political parties to participate in the new policing board? That would replace vigilante activity with legitimate policing. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must be heard.
    Mrs. Calton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I had finished. Would you like me to repeat the question?
    Mr. Speaker: No, it is all right.
    Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) on her appointment to the Liberal Democrats' Front Bench. It is a pleasure to be joined by another lady.
    The hon. Lady asked about political support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right. It is important for the establishment of the service to be recognised for the watershed that it was. It was supported by the Catholic Church, the nationalist community and the Social Democratic and Labour party, and it marked an historic moment. The police deserve the support of everyone in the Northern Ireland community, as we take up the fight against organised crime and the associated links with paramilitary organisations.
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: I commend the Minister on her public statements in support of the Northern Ireland police during recent civil disturbances, in which 800 police officers have been injured since June. May I press her, however, on the subject of the full-time reserve? Will she comment on the fact that the reserve supplies a significant proportion of the active police manpower in Northern Ireland, amounting in certain districts to a quarter of those available for active duty? Does she accept the view of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary that, in view of the situation, the full-time reserve needs to be retained in existence for at least the next three years?
    Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend knows certainly better than I do the issues facing the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the enormous changes that it has been undergoing to win the support of all the community in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will be encouraged when I tell him that we have been able to recruit 66 per cent. more recruits than had been envisaged. We are making every effort, and we stay in constant touch with the Chief Constable to ensure that he has the resources that he needs to police Northern Ireland as we expect it to be done.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What an extraordinary coincidence that, two weeks ago, six of the 27 questions tabled by Labour Back Benchers happened to be on organised crime and that, this morning, we had an announcement on a successful operation against organised crime. Although the Government lost the benefit of doubt

    323
    on coincidence long ago, we must welcome that operational success. However, will the Minister take it from me, and confirm, that fuel smuggling in South Armagh is an industrial-scale racket that is worth hundreds of millions of pounds; and that, in an area where police cannot operate without Army protection, Customs and Excise must be able to operate with all the assistance of the Army and police in dealing with an appalling threat that provides funds to future terrorism in Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has demeaned himself in the way in which he asked that question. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Customs and Excise officers who were involved even in today's operation daily risk their lives in the work that they undertake, and they deserve our full support.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1.[18122] Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 December.
    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.
    Dr. Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, although there are indeed good news stories in our health service, we have much to do to raise the morale of workers in that service. Will he ensure that the national health service remains just that—national; that it continues to deliver health care free at the point where it is needed; and that it is funded from our taxes and not according to ideas of private health insurance which have been described as aggressive and inequitable?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the many achievements in the national health service, not least the new, 953-bed Norfolk and Norwich hospital in his constituency, which is part of the largest hospital-building programme since the national health service began. He is also absolutely right to say that we want to get more resources into the national health service, and that we want to retain and not abandon the principle of the national health service being free at the point of use—whereas Conservative Members want to abandon it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The very serious claims made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are rightly matters for the House to investigate. As leader of the largest party in the House, will the Prime Minister back our call for a full inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: No, I think that the matter should be dealt with by the House in the proper way.
    324
    I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you will make a statement on it at 3.30 pm. I think that it is best left to the House authorities.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Parliamentary Commissioner also makes some quite specific allegations to which I draw the Prime Minister's attention. She said that there were
    "whispering campaigns and hostile press briefings … executed by named civil servants".
    As civil servants are clearly a Government responsibility, will the Prime Minister perhaps undertake to investigate that specific allegation?
    The Prime Minister: Of course if named civil servants were alleged to have done something improper it would be the Government's responsibility, and of course I would look into it, but I am not aware of any such specific, named allegations. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of named individuals who have, it is suggested, briefed against the Commissioner in some way, perhaps he will now state who they are.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is just as aware as I am from the letter that I am sure he has also seen. He knows very well, just as much as I do, that we all in this House have a responsibility to ensure that our proceedings and the way we behave are above reproach. I simply ask the Prime Minister to ensure that he investigates those elements for which he is responsible. Will he undertake to do that?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware that the letter names individual people. If it does, I will certainly look at it, but I thought that it did not. It is difficult to investigate allegations against unnamed people. My understanding is that the matter is dealt with by the House of Commons Commission, and it should be dealt with by the House of Commons Commission, which has on it some people from the right hon. Gentleman's party. If there are issues they want to raise, they should be raised in that way, but this is a matter for the House and the House has the absolute power to do whatever it wishes in respect of it.
    Paddy Tipping: Will the Prime Minister welcome and give details of this lunchtime's agreement in Bonn, which paves the way for future stable government in Afghanistan? Will he also outline the further measures he intends to take to take the process forward?
    The Prime Minister: It is a remarkable achievement in Bonn. When we think that a few weeks ago, when we embarked on the action in Afghanistan, people worried whether that action would be successful militarily and whether what would take the place of the Taliban regime would be worse, or indifferent to, for example, the appalling oppression of women in Afghanistan, it is clear that what has happened today is remarkable in the sense that people have come together from all ethnic groupings in Afghanistan, agreed to the provisional Government and to a process that will increase dramatically the democracy, justice and basic representation of the people in Afghanistan. I hope that those people who had doubts about the wisdom of the action that we are undertaking will look at what has been achieved and see that the future

    325
    is bright not simply for the war against international terrorism but—not before it is due—for the people of Afghanistan.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To return to the issue of the national health service and the question that I raised with the Prime Minister this time last week, can he for once and all simply clarify for all of us whether it is the policy of his Government to raise NHS spending to the European Union average by 2005, or does that now become an aspiration in the broadest terms, as he sought to describe it on Sunday?
    The Prime Minister: Not merely do we stand by that, but it is in our manifesto that we will raise spending to the EU average. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the real issue is whether the health service needs more money in it. We say yes. We also say that it should be provided to the NHS and I think that all other political parties that want to engage in this debate should now state what their position is.
    Mr. Kennedy: The position is very clear and widely recognised by all parties. Of course, the health service requires more support, but how does the Prime Minister explain the evidence that the Chancellor's Treasury officials gave yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee? Since the Prime Minister is asking questions, I shall tell him what they said. First, they had no idea what the current level of health expenditure in the European Union is; secondly, they did not know what it would cost in 2005; and thirdly, they did not know how much it would cost to match it. If that is the case, should not the Prime Minister get the Chancellor and the Health Secretary together and give us a coherent policy to give the people the health service that they deserve, not a shambles?
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. What cannot be predicted is what other countries spend on their health care system over the next few years; but what we do know is that the European Union average has remained roughly around 8 per cent. over the last decade. In fact, there is one major country in the world which is increasing public spending as a proportion of national income on both health and education, and that is Britain. We are able to do so because of the strength of our economy. If we had taken Liberal Democrat advice over the past few years on our spending plans, we would have interest rates through the roof, we would have national debt doubled again and the country would be in a mess.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the Prime Minister review this country's relationship with Iran, following its continued material and financial support for Hamas, which carried out the mass murder of so many Israelis on Saturday and Sunday in Jerusalem and Haifa? Does he consider that having good relations with a terrorist state is an objective with which the Government should not be associated?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of our relationship with countries such as Iran, and I shall tell her exactly what I think. I think it is important that we engage in a process of dialogue,
    326
    but that dialogue should be based on one clear understanding—that, in the end, there can be no new relationship with countries which, for a variety of reasons, have had a very poor relationship with the western world over the past few years. We want matters to improve, but there can be no new relationship with those countries except on the basis that they cease supporting activities of terrorism.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Has the Prime Minister yet reviewed the ludicrous arrangement that means that nurses in the high-cost areas of Kent and Essex are not entitled to the cost-of-living supplement that applies in Hampshire or Wiltshire? As a result, our hospitals must meet the extra costs of paying for agency nurses and recruiting abroad. Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to have reduced the NHS to the point that hospitals have to fly nurses in, at exactly the same time as they are flying patients out?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that we have been able to introduce this new allowance only for people in certain areas. I well understand that people in other areas feel that they would like the same allowance, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, before this Government came to office, no additional financial help was available. It is true that we need to make more financial help available to nurses and others, but I am afraid that that once again returns us to the central difference between the Labour and Conservative parties. We believe in investing in the national health service, but the Conservative party's position—very apparent in the debate earlier this week—is to take that money out.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Children's Society's decision to withdraw, without any consultation, from all its work in Wales, even though it is the largest provider of advocacy services for the most vulnerable children in Wales? Will he join me in condemning the society's action, and will he ask it to reconsider its decision?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concern raised by my hon. Friend. It is a disappointing decision, and I know that discussions are on-going about it. I hope that those discussions can reach a successful conclusion.
    Patrick Mercer: Violent crime in Newark and Retford has increased disproportionately recently. Will the Prime Minister explain, therefore, why the funding for Nottinghamshire constabulary is to be cut in real terms by £3.1 million?
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly the situation with regard to funding, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is sitting beside me, tells me that the situation described by the hon. Gentleman is not the case. No doubt there is a point there to be elucidated. In general terms, however, the Government have put substantial extra resources into police authorities up and down the country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was part of the last comprehensive spending

    327
    review settlement. We outlined that settlement at the time and put in the extra resources, but the Conservative party called that dangerous and irresponsible.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: The latest league tables show that average performance in primary schools in my constituency has improved by 14 per cent. over the past three years. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff and pupils on that achievement? Does he share my view that the £1.9 million allocated to Warwickshire solely for literacy and numeracy will enable those schools to continue that progress in the future?
    The Prime Minister: There is massive additional investment going into education. Perhaps one of the most important reports of recent times was the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on educational standards and achievements across the world, which found British educational achievements to be among the highest anywhere in the world. The fact that we are very near the top of the table in areas such as literacy and numeracy is an enormous tribute to the hard work of teachers up and down the country. It also vindicates entirely the strategy of investment and reform in our education services. The Labour party will certainly continue that strategy in government.
    Mr.Iain Duncan Smith: Last week, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, the Prime Minister said that he had a commitment to spend at the European average of health spending. Over the weekend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are shouting down the Leader of the Opposition. That cannot be allowed.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: On Sunday, the Prime Minister said that it was a broad aim; today he says that it is a commitment. If it is a commitment, he must know exactly how much it will cost. Will he please tell the House what the extra cost is?
    The Prime Minister: It has come to something when the right hon. Gentleman has to recycle his questions from the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party. Yes, it is important that we meet the European average which, as I said a moment ago, over the past decade has remained at roughly 8 per cent. We are committed to raising our health service spending to that European average. I am committed to raising it to that European average which, as I have just said, has been about 8 per cent. over the past decade. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is committed to it.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: People out there do not pay their tax as a percentage; they pay it in real money. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House—[Interruption.] Well, it is clear that the Prime Minister makes it up as he goes along. It is a commitment today, a possibility tomorrow, now a percentage; but people on low earnings have to pay for it. Will the Prime Minister please tell us exactly how much this commitment really is, or does he not know?
    The Prime Minister: I have just said that we will reach the European average, which is 8 per cent. The difference
    328
    between us is very clear—we believe that this money should be put into the national health service. Let me tell the House what the shadow Chancellor said about the national health service in a debate this week. He said:
    "The NHS is indeed a Stalinist creation."—[Official Report, 3 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 89.]
    Conservative Members are all nodding their heads. I assume that it is not a compliment. Later he was asked whether he still guaranteed, as the Conservatives said in their manifesto, a fully comprehensive service, free at the point of use. He said "fully comprehensive" but refused to say that it would remain free at the point of use. We believe in the national health service, free at the point of use. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he does.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: We do not need any lectures from the Prime Minister. He is the leader of a party that introduced charging into the health service and he still has charging in the health service. The reality is that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have spent their time rowing about this over the past week, and the Prime Minister does not have a clue. The Chancellor attacks the Secretary of State for Health when he calls for a hypothecated tax—the Chancellor says that it should not happen. Where does the Prime Minister stand? What is the Prime Minister's view? Will he tell us whether tax will go up, whether spending will go up and by precisely how much?
    The Prime Minister: I am not writing the comprehensive spending review, but I can certainly say that it is important that we raise more money for health care in this country—
    Mr. John Bercow: How much?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bercow, be quiet.
    The Prime Minister: That will be a difficult task, Mr. Speaker.
    Of course we want extra money spent on the health service. The ludicrous thing about the right hon. Gentleman is that he says that he wants to look at other health care systems. He listed a whole lot of other health care systems in the article he wrote today—[Interruption.] This is directly on spending. He listed systems in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand, all of which he was going to look at. They all have something in common—they make more public spending provision than this country. So if the right hon. Gentleman says that this is his vision of the future, presumably he agrees with us, but we know that he does not. We know that from the article in The Times today, written by the Conservative party think tank—advisers to the Conservative party. On the board of that think tank are the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, yes, the shadow Chancellor. The article is entitled "Abandon the NHS"; they conclude that it will not work. As someone might say, "Ask a Tory question, get a Tory answer".
    Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that crime in Corby is coming down, but that the fear of crime—especially among older people and young people—is still too high. Although we are looking forward to measures for police reform and to extra cash

    329
    for closed circuit television, does my right hon. Friend agree that better street lighting actually raises the confidence of people to go out at night and be confident that their streets will be safe and that they can live in a safer community?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the new crime and disorder partnerships that were introduced by the Government have made a big difference to fighting crime on the ground, but they need to be taken further. In my view, we also need further measures—especially against antisocial behaviour, which is probably the biggest problem in many of our constituencies up and down the country. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing measures in the criminal justice Bill that will allow us to fight those problems much more effectively in the future.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If the Prime Minister wants to increase funding for health, does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) that social insurance schemes should be considered, or does he agree with his Chancellor that they should not?
    The Prime Minister: That is very simple. I agree with exactly what the Chancellor said: we want the money—done through general taxation. It is not merely me or the Government who have said that; it is also, for example, the British Medical Association in a report published in February this year, which stated specifically that, on grounds of equity and efficiency, we should have a national health service. With the greatest respect, I do not think the questions need be asked of this side as to where we stand: we stand for extra funding coming into the national health service, allied to reform—fundamental reform. We believe in a national health service free at the point of use. The hon. Gentleman does not need to preface his question by asking me if I am in favour of extra health service spending—I am. The question is: is he?
    Vernon Coaker: The Prime Minister will know that one of the great concerns that we all share is the low level of participation, especially of our young people, in our democratic process. At the last election, just four in 10 of our 18 to 25-year-olds voted. Will my right hon. Friend make that a priority and will he look at imaginative steps that we can take to try to re-engage our young people in the formal political process?
    The Prime Minister: One of the reasons for the establishment of the Electoral Commission was precisely to try to look at how we can widen participation. This is an issue not just for this country, but for other countries. I also think that we need to make it easier for people to participate, but perhaps we all need to go out and explain to people—no matter how they vote—that politics is important and how political decisions affect their lives. We only need look around to see how—after the events of 11 September—political decisions taken by Governments around the world have had a dramatic impact on the lives of people in this country and elsewhere.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if any member of his Government is found guilty of doing a McLeish they will also lose their job?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific allegations, let him make them, rather than leaving a general smear hanging in the air.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Our Government played a very important part in setting up the global AIDS and health fund. Is the Prime Minister aware that so far only £1.5 billion has been pledged to that fund, compared with the £7 billion to £10 billion that Kofi Annan said was needed annually; and that some poor countries, such as Uganda, have actually made bigger contributions, relative to their wealth, than many richer countries? Will the Prime Minister consider, first, increasing our contribution; secondly, doing what he can to encourage other western Governments to contribute more; and, finally, encouraging major British companies to contribute in the same way that some big American companies have done?
    The Prime Minister: We certainly want to encourage greater private sector influence and commitment; indeed, I have held meetings with private sector companies on this issue. We are committed—as Britain—to about $200 million for that global health fund. The overall fund is $1.8 billion. Obviously, it is true that at the moment we have not spent all that, but that is probably for good reasons as well as bad—in part to ensure that any money we spend actually goes to the people who need it and that it is properly used. I can assure my hon. Friend that our commitment is absolute; we have shown that, by having—in a sense—led the argument over the past few years. If we can do more, we will
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am aware that the Prime Minister has been asked this before, but there was so much noise that I did not happen to get the answer. How much will it cost him to achieve his ambition of reaching the European average on health expenditure by 2005? The question is how much, and the answer is … ?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is as I gave a moment or two ago—[Interruption.] Yes, I am afraid it is. We will meet the European average, and we will do so because we believe in putting extra resources into the national health service. As I said, when the comprehensive spending review is published, the right hon. Lady will see that the Government are committed to putting more money into the health service, and it will be obvious that, whatever sums of money we put in, she and the Conservative party are committed to taking them out.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 22,700 pensioners in my constituency, many of whom have small occupational pensions and will be delighted with last week's announcement that their attempts to save throughout their lives will be rewarded rather than harmed; but will he and his colleagues make every effort to ensure that every

    331
    pensioner in this country claims every single penny that they are entitled to, so that we can say goodbye to pensioner poverty for ever?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that pension measures—the minimum income guarantee, for example, helps the poorest pensioners—are there for all pensioners: the guarantees that were given by the Chancellor in his statement last week, the free TV licences for the over-75s and the winter allowance, which, of course, the Conservatives refused to introduce and still oppose. In respect of all those measures, we will help all pensioners and those who are poorest. The pension credit allows us also to help people who have modest savings but who often find that those savings do not actually help them to gain a proper income in retirement. It will allow us to do that and will benefit something like 5.5 million pensioners.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister will know that, since February of this year, the Strategic Rail Authority was instructed to put on hold the choosing of a franchisee for Welsh railways. We have had 10 months of damaging delay and services going down—10 months of damaging economic anxiety. Will the right hon. Gentleman please have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; otherwise he will have to find somewhere else to bury some bad news?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is important that the decision is taken. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot give him the date now.
    Geraint Davies: How easy, in the Prime Minister's view, will it be for Yasser Arafat to hunt down and hand over the terrorists responsible for the 25 brutal murders in Israel when he and his security infrastructure are being bombed by the Israelis, and the Americans are failing actively to call for restraint?
    The Prime Minister: First, I should express sympathy—I know on behalf of the whole House—for the savage acts of terrorism that killed so many innocent Israelis just a short time ago. It is important in my view that the Palestinian Authority does everything it possibly can to ensure that those in the organisations responsible for those attacks are rounded up and put under proper lock and key. That is the very minimum that the international community needs to see from the Palestinian Authority. Although there may be difficulties in certain areas in the authority acting in that way, it is necessary that it does so, and it must show that it is doing everything possible to
    332
    ensure that those responsible for those atrocities are withdrawn from their population and put, as I say, under proper lock and key.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he came to our local hospital during the recent election he made two predictions? First, he predicted that Labour would hold North-West Norfolk. Secondly, he predicted that, if Labour won, the health service would get better. Is he aware that that latter prediction has a very hollow ring for my constituent Mr. Andrew Gray of Ringstead, who, having waited in pain for 16 months for a hernia operation, has had it cancelled not once, not twice, but four times? Does not he owe an answer to Mr. Gray? Will he answer also the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is wrong that the hon. Gentleman's constituent should have had his operation cancelled. It is correct, however, that 19 out of 20 operations are actually done within the time that they are supposed to be done. What is more, now some 70 per cent. are done within three months. I do not know the exact circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I know that that constituent could not possibly be placed in a better position as a result of the Conservative party's proposals, which are to force people to pay for their operations.
    I have to say to Conservative Members that this debate about the national health service and how it is funded will go on from now until the next general election. The truth is that the money going into the health service has actually improved it. We need to do much more and we will do much more. Every single change that we have made on extra resources has been opposed by them. If they were given the chance to run our health service again, people would be forced to pay for their operations. That will never happen under this Government and this party.
    Tony Wright: Does the Prime Minister know of any public institution apart from this one where the people who are regulated have the ability to choose and dismiss the person who regulates them?
    The Prime Minister: It is for this House to decide how the Commissioner is appointed, who that Commissioner is and the terms of that appointment. I have to say to my hon. Friend and to some Opposition Members that, if the House wishes to change the rules, the measures lie with the House itself. A House of Commons Commission was established with Members of all political parties on it, including the Conservative party's Chief Whip. If people want to change the rules, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However, just because my hon. Friend thinks it is right to change them, that does not mean to say that it is. It is for the House as a whole to decide.

Middle East
3.32 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy in the light of recent events in the middle east.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for asking this private notice question.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in expressing once again the shock and anger that I felt when I heard the news on Saturday night and on Sunday morning of the series of terrorist atrocities in Jerusalem and in Haifa, in north Israel. These atrocities killed at least 25 and injured more than 180 people. They came on top of a series of other terrorist attacks that have caused many deaths and that, in turn, have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives.
On Sunday, I spoke by telephone to Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and then to President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. To Mr. Peres, I expressed my sincere condolences and those of Her Majesty's Government. To President Arafat, I stressed the imperative that the Palestinian Authority now properly detains terrorist suspects in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups, and the imperative of the need for him to take other action to remove the continuing threat that terrorists pose to the stability of the whole region.
Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security. Our approach to the peace process has been well set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by myself, including in my address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 11 November. We have backed fully the initiative set out by the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on 19 November, and his appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns as US envoys to the region.
Although the situation is grave—indeed, precisely because it is—the case for peace remains as strong as ever. We in the United Kingdom and in Her Majesty's Government stand ready to do all that we can to help the parties to resume substantive dialogue and to bring about the swift and full implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell committee recommendations. Distant and difficult though that aspiration may appear, we work towards a day when two states—Israel and Palestine—live peacefully together within secure and recognised borders, as called for by Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Campbell: In the spirit of the day, I draw attention to an entry in the Register of Members' Interests against my name in relation to the Liberal Democrat middle east council.
May I begin by sharing the expression of sympathy that the Foreign Secretary gave, not only to the Israeli community but, of course, to the Palestinian community as well? Even though it appears that the middle east is staring into the abyss, does he agree that it is necessary urgently to restate two cardinal principles: first, that Israel is entitled to live in peace and security within its boundaries; and, secondly, that the Palestinians are
334
entitled to justice and a viable homeland, as both the Prime Minister and President Bush have said in recent weeks, although, unhappily perhaps, not in the past 72 hours?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever President Arafat's faults, and they are by no means negligible, it is wholly unreasonable to equate him with Osama bin Laden? Does he also agree that to target Arafat personally, or to encourage others to do so, will have grave consequences in the middle east, both in moderate and in radical states, and not least for the coalition against terrorism, which may simply fall apart?
Finally, whatever violence may be committed against the people of Israel and whatever military action may be taken against the Palestinians, is it not the case—as I think the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged—that sooner or later dialogue will have to resume? Does he agree that that dialogue is much more likely to succeed if President Arafat makes serious, sustained and credible efforts to apprehend terrorists, and Israel, in return, exercises restraint and orders an immediate cessation of the policy of the expansion of settlements, which causes so much discontent and creates an atmosphere in which Hamas and Islamic Jihad can flourish?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, and express my sympathy for his current condition. I agree with what he said about peace, security, justice and a viable homeland. Indeed, I said exactly that in my remarks. As for equating President Arafat with Osama bin Laden, that is not a description that I or any member of the British Government has used or would use. There are many criticisms of President Arafat, but he is the head of the Palestinian Authority and needs to be recognised as such.
My criticism of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority is that they have not done sufficient to pick up the terrorists. I have had many conversations with President Arafat and other members of the Palestinian Authority. Their good intentions are not in doubt, but there is a failure to take action on the ground to pick up those terrorists who are known to them and everyone else. Those people have no love whatsoever for the Palestinian Authority, any more than they do for peace in Israel, the occupied territories and the middle east in general.
Even at this late hour, it is essential that President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, in recognising the gravity of the situation, take action to pick up those known terrorists and terrorist suspects, not just to arrest them, but to detain them securely and in circumstances in which the international community and Israel can see that they are detained securely.
Mr. Richard Spring: We in the Opposition are horrified and outraged by the recent bombings in Israel. Only today, we heard of six more innocent civilians injured and, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, 25 young people were killed and many more critically injured on Sunday. Our thoughts are very much with the families of all those who have suffered so grievously since the intifada started. We hope that those who suffer in that way will, at some stage, feel a greater sense of security.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that no matter how difficult or even impossible the current position, it has never been more imperative to create the conditions for

335
negotiations to start, based on the Mitchell process, and that, ultimately, going back to the Mitchell process is the only way to make progress? Does he agree that it is essential that Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian authorities ensure not only that those who are responsible for the terrorist outrages are swiftly detained and securely imprisoned, but that they are not quickly released, as has happened all too often in the past?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the terrible impact of these events is to undermine economic structures in Israel, the west bank and Gaza, creating a vicious cycle of unemployment and deprivation that simply exacerbates the problems? Does he share our view that the continuing crisis might undermine not only the coalition partnership in Israel and the stability of the Israeli Government, but the personal position of Chairman Arafat, and that that is yet another reason why the violence and bloodshed must end? If the right hon. Gentleman, working through international organisations and other bodies and through the offices of our Government, can bring any influence to bear on that tragic situation, he will have our fullest support.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on behalf of his party. I think that I covered most of his points in my previous answer. The Tenet and Mitchell reports set out a clear framework, agreed by both sides, for progressing from the current position to one of relative peace, and thence to longer-term negotiations.
One of the many individual tragedies in the continuing tragedy that has befallen the region is that there was yet another window of hope following Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech on 19 November and his appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns to take a hands-on approach to carrying forward the process. Yet again, extremists—in this case, on the Palestinian side—have exercised what in practice amounts to a veto on the process, blocking it for the time being. That makes it all the more important that such people, who kill innocent people and are negligent of people on their own side being killed, are locked up and detained for as long as is necessary, not released quickly.
On the issue of political instability, we have seen time and again that the cycle of violence produces great instability and makes it all the harder for those who recognise that the long-term future of their region lies in peace to be heard.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my right hon. Friend understand that most of the young people who decide to give up their lives in such a way are born into occupation, live all their lives under occupation, and, with their families, suffer the daily humiliation of the extremes of occupation? At some stage, the Israelis have to get back to the negotiating table, but they will not do so as long as they are using their military might—Israel is the fourth or fifth ranked military power in the world—against a mainly unarmed civilian population. At some stage, the Israelis have to be told to restrain their military forces; otherwise, there can be no peace.
Mr. Straw: I understand how strongly my hon. Friend feels. I hope that he, in turn, understands that throughout our years in office we have tried to be even-handed in the pursuit of peace. However, it is impossible to excuse the use of suicide bombers. Recent UK history has many
336
instances of explanations being offered for various terrorist outrages on both sides of the Irish sea, but whatever the motives or background of those who committed the atrocities, one simple, terrible fact remained: innocent people were killed and that was wholly unjustified.
Mr. Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary will command widespread support for the tenor of his remarks. Will he use Britain's undoubted influence in the region, especially at this stage, in the face of appalling provocation of the Israeli Government, to distinguish between targeted action against the terrorists, which is completely justified and with which no one can quarrel, and reprisals pure and simple, which cannot be justified and perpetuate the cycle of violence?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is now a question mark over whether Yasser Arafat is still a viable partner in the peace process? Either he has the ability to control and influence, and to stop these dreadful outrages taking place, in which case he is wilfully culpable for not doing so, or he is incapable of exercising that influence and control, in which case he is not much use.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He makes an important point about the difference between targeted action and untargeted reprisals. I will ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of the Government of Israel. They are important.
In some ways, I wish that the position of President Arafat were as simple as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. However, it is not, as ever, in the occupied territories of the middle east. The simple fact is that President Arafat is the elected senior representative of the people from the occupied territories, and it is a matter for those people, and not for us, to determine who their representative is. Meanwhile, it is fair for us to point to failures by the Palestinian Authority to meet its international obligations to the state of Israel, which it has recognised, and its people. In my judgment, in failing to do so, it has failed, in turn, properly to protect its own people.
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we should condemn the Israeli military attacks personally on Chairman Arafat, we should recognise that he often speaks with one voice in English to the outside world and with another voice in Arabic to his own people? Until he speaks with the same voice to both his own people and the outside world, there can be no return to the peace table.
Mr. Straw: I speak only a few words of Arabic, and I shall not try them out now. My hon. Friend knows well that any remarks made by President Arafat in Arabic can be translated quickly into English. All the important statements that he makes at his press conferences are in Arabic and not English, as I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister know, having been alongside him on such occasions. I do not think that there is a great deal in that point. However, it is important that we see action taken by the Palestinian Authority to detain those who are causing outrages and who are daily flouting and challenging the authority of the Palestinian Authority.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that however great the injustice that has

337
been done to the Palestinians—it is a very great injustice—absolutely nothing can excuse the sort of behaviour that we have seen in the past few days? Does he agree also that this cycle of violence must end and that the European Union, sovereign Governments and America must bring every ounce of influence that they have to bear to secure a ceasefire?
In wholly endorsing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) about reprisals, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until there is a ceasefire no process can begin, and that without a process there is no possible hope of the end of these wicked activities? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree to speak to his colleagues in the United States of America to ensure that the most severe pressure is brought on both the parties to this dispute for an immediate ceasefire?
Mr. Straw: I shall see Secretary Colin Powell tomorrow in Brussels. This afternoon, I shall speak to, among others, Hubert Vedrine and Joschka Fischer, the French and German Foreign Ministers, with the precise aim of achieving what the hon. Gentleman wisely set out. I agree with him, with just one caveat. I agree that no serious peace process can begin until there is a ceasefire, but we need a process to achieve a ceasefire, and need it rapidly. Although that is difficult, I hope that General Zinni and Ambassador Burns will be able to assist with it.
David Winnick: Is it not clear that the terrorists responsible for Saturday's atrocities—crimes against humanity, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has just said—have no regrets about the Israeli military retaliation because they believe that it will deepen the anger of the Palestinians and create a breeding ground for terrorism? Will my right hon. Friend take up the point about the United States? Is it not clear that the one country that can have some influence on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, but especially Israel, is the United States? Every effort should be made by the United States to bring about a viable Palestinian state, which, while it will not eliminate terrorism—no one has any illusions about that—will certainly help to undermine terrorism in that area.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right that the terrorists who caused the outrages—and, even more so, those behind them who did not volunteer as suicide bombers and continue to organise those outrages—have no regrets about the loss of civilian life or the provocation to Israel. However, I am afraid that that cannot lead us to assert that Israel should do nothing in response to those threats. There were plenty of occasions when we were fighting Irish terrorism when extremists in the Provisional IRA and others deliberately sought to provoke a reaction from the British Government and security forces; we had to make a proportionate reaction, but we had to react properly.
The United States should be commended by both sides of the House for the efforts that President Bush and Secretary Powell have made since 11 September and, indeed, before that date. The Tenet and Mitchell reports were produced well before 11 September, but there has been an acceleration of effort since then, with the important statement by President Bush in his speech to
338
the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November, followed nine days later by Secretary Powell's speech, which led to the appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns. I know that the United States is ready to do everything that it can, but it believes, as we do, that the first steps out of the terrible situation must be taken by the Palestinian Authority to ensure that those terrorist suspects from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups are locked up and stay locked up.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I associate my party and our colleagues in the Scottish National party with the condemnation of the atrocities and the sympathy expressed in the House to those who have suffered on all sides. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Israeli Government are seeking to make a direct comparison between their actions at the moment and those of the western coalition against terrorists in Afghanistan. Will he take the opportunity to reject that comparison and remind us both of the peace process that has taken place as a result of hard work in the middle east and the need to return to that process? Does he also accept that the Palestinian Authority's failures, of which there have been many in the past, are manifest, but that there is no viable alternative for the Israeli Government other than to discuss and negotiate with President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority?
Mr. Straw: In all terrorist situations, there are differences in the discrete causes, but there are also similarities. I am afraid that the most dreadful similarity is that innocent people end up getting killed. Action that needs to be taken will vary; plainly, given the scale of events on 11 September, that action was different from the action required in the middle east.
As to viable alternatives, everybody in Israel, the occupied territories and the region who supports a peaceful future for the middle east understands what needs to be done. It is all there, in Tenet and Mitchell. It is laid out in great detail in Secretary Powell's speech. Working out what ought to be done is the easy part; ensuring that it is done is the more difficult part. I come back to my point that if there is to be a pathway first to a ceasefire, and then to peace in the middle east, President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority must take action now—today—to lock up those terrorist suspects.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since any onslaught would make an appalling situation even worse, may we take it that the British Government are doing everything possible to deter certain Americans from the folly of attacking Iraq?
Mr. Straw: I have set out before, as has the Prime Minister, our approach to the situation in Iraq. I was pleased that we achieved a much better roll-over resolution to United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, which is the current sanctions resolution, with a clear undertaking from Russia that there would be an enhanced sanctions regime with a proper goods review list within the next six months. The key to Iraq coming back into the civilised world is for Iraq to implement the undertakings imposed on it by the UN Security Council resolutions, including the re-admission of weapons inspectors. I say strongly to my hon. Friend that Iraq

339
continues to pose a very serious threat to Arab states, as well as to the state of Israel, by its continued unlawful development of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. David Tredinnick: What impact does the Foreign Secretary think the continuous building of Israeli settlements on Arab territories is having on moderate Arab opinion in this ghastly period? Does he think that it makes the task of the Palestinian authorities any easier when attacks are made on the police, police barracks and those who are supposed to be in authority? Is not Israel in a cleft stick, in that if it takes such action, it weakens the very authority that it is inviting to take tougher action against extremists?
Mr. Straw: Successive United Kingdom Governments have said that they do not agree with the building of settlements inside the occupied territories. The future of those settlements must be one part of any peace process, but to get there—to achieve a sense of justice for the Palestinians, alongside what is equally and desperately needed: a sense of peace and security for Israelis—there must be an end to the violence, terrorism and vetoes on any kind of peace process. That requires of the Palestinian Authority the kind of action that I described.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the deaths of innocent Jewish teenagers at the hands of Palestinian terrorists, and the deaths of innocent Palestinian teenagers—of whom we might have heard a little more this afternoon—at the hands of the Israeli army, are both parts of the terrible tit-for-tat that is going on in what is called the holy land?
Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that the Labour party members of the Israeli Cabinet walked out of the Cabinet meeting that decided that the Palestinian Authority was an entity that supports terrorism and must be dealt with accordingly? Will he bear it in mind that Yossi Beilin, the ex-Labour Minister who was the architect of the Oslo accord, wrote yesterday in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot:
"The war that Sharon is planning … will push us many years away from the chance of leading a normal life"?
Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that a Labour Member of the Israeli Parliament, Colette Avital, a former ambassador to Portugal, said yesterday:
"Bombarding targets associated personally with Arafat is not fighting against terrorism. If we topple Arafat, are we ready to reocuppy all those territories and be again the masters of all those Palestinians?"
Should not this Labour Government be listening to those Labour voices from Israel?
Mr. Straw: We certainly listen to those Labour voices. I spoke directly to Shimon Peres on Sunday in answer to a phone call. I can think of no one who has sought more to secure peace in Israel and the occupied territories, but his mood was one of gloom and despair about the way in which these terrorists had undermined his efforts on the path to peace. My right hon. Friend asked me by implication whether we share the view expressed by Prime Minister Sharon, which is that the Palestinian Authority is an entity that supports terrorism. As I made clear earlier, that is not a description that we have ever used or would use. At the same time—I shall labour the point—it is extremely important that the Palestinian
340
Authority does more to contain the terrorists who are operating from within the occupied territories. As it does more in that respect, any suggestions that it is supporting terrorism will dissolve.
Tony Baldry: When does the Foreign Secretary believe that Palestine will be able to exist within secure and recognised boundaries?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that it is possible for anybody to put a time scale on that. It depends on when it is possible for the good people on both sides to exert power and come together to work on Tenet and Mitchell and then on a proper peace process. As I said, what needs to be done is pretty straightforward, but getting there is much more difficult.
Richard Burden: I am not aware of any hon. Member who has sought to excuse the suicide bombings at the weekend or subsequently. They deserve to be condemned.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an e-mail that I received today from somebody in Wadi Fouquin, a Palestinian village next to the Israeli border? Its road has been cut off and people cannot get in or out. The writer of the e-mail referred to a pregnant woman who may go into labour, but the village has no clinic and the people there simply do not know where or whether she will be able to have her baby safely. We need to say to the Israelis very clearly that the action that they are taking is disproportionate and is punishing a people collectively, which is against the Geneva convention. If we are to ask President Arafat to crack down on terrorists among the Palestinians, bombing the very security apparatus that could achieve that result is not a good way to go about doing so.
Mr. Straw: The Palestinian people have suffered grievously since the territories were occupied and they continue to suffer. As many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have pointed out, a large number of entirely innocent deaths have occurred among Palestinians as well; indeed, a greater number of deaths have occurred. None the less, we must recognise that in the past six months, the Israeli Government have taken steps to work towards a peaceful solution. Yes, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. There have been two recent windows for progress. Tourism Minister Zeevi was assassinated after a period of quiet that had lasted 10 days. The process was disrupted, after which there was continuing lower-level violence. Now there is a situation in which, notwithstanding the Powell speech on 19 November, the appointment of Zinni and Burns and the existence of a better prospect than there has been for many months of a process leading back towards Tenet and Mitchell, that effort and those chances and hopes have been vetoed again by terrorists. Any state that is in that situation is bound to take action—yes, proportionate action—to deal with it.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: In most certainly not condoning Israel's ill-targeted reprisals after the weekend's wicked events, may I nevertheless ask the Foreign Secretary whether he can confirm that Hamas is largely funded by sources in Iran, and, if that is so,

341
what action we are taking against those sources and the Government of Iran, as a leading member of the international coalition against terrorism?
Mr. Straw: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman with the information that is publicly available about exact sources of finance for Hamas and other terrorist organisations. In Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend answered a question about whether we should have better relations with Iran, notwithstanding some of the associations that have been mentioned. I share the Prime Minister's view that we are better able to achieve peace in the region by dialogue. I visited Iran twice in the past three months, and I make no apology for that. On my first visit in particular, I spoke to the Iranian Government about what we believe to be their support for terrorist organisations elsewhere in the middle east. That dialogue and engagement must continue.
John Austin: Although we must be even-handed in our condemnation of indiscriminate acts of violence that kill innocent civilians, whether by Islamic Jihad, Hamas or the Israeli state, is it right to base our foreign policy on even-handedness when one of the most powerful and heavily armed states in the world occupies its neighbour in contravention of international law and United Nations resolutions? With hindsight, does my right hon. Friend believe that we were wrong to abstain on the proposal for an international peace force—a protection force—earlier this year and that the United States was wrong to veto it? Does he agree that we might not be in our current predicament if that force had been established? Will he reconsider the matter now?
Mr. Straw: I make no apology to my hon. Friend for trying to be even-handed in my approach to foreign policy. That does not mean that one produces an equally balanced statement every day; it depends on the exact circumstances. However, if even-handedness means securing the objective of the people of the state of Israel living in peace and security alongside a viable state of Palestine, which also enjoys peace and security, I plead guilty to it. Such an approach is the only way to achieve peace in the region.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the fairness and consistency of his statement and answers today. I remind him and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) that when a United Nations force was ordered out in 1967, a chain of events began with threats to Israel and culminated in the occupation of what are today the occupied territories.
The Foreign Secretary correctly differentiates between the actions of bin Laden and Arafat. However, perhaps a better parallel is between the actions of bin Laden's suicide bombers and those of Hamas's suicide bombers. When we consider the measures that we have taken against bin Laden, is not it correct that similarly tough measures against Hamas and its suicide bombers should be undertaken by the one democratic state in the area: Israel?
Mr. Straw: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, one of the most striking features of the middle east conflict is
342
the extent to which people can be partisan even in their analysis. It is almost impossible to find a single work that presents both sides of the argument fairly. Like the Irish question or the Kashmir question, one can argue about the matter for ever and a day. Who cast the first stone? It depends on one's point of view. In all those conflicts, many stones have subsequently been cast and we must end that in the interests of the people concerned.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is neither appropriate nor helpful to try to compare one group of terrorists to another. I repeat that if one is killed or maimed by a suicide bomber, it does not matter whether that person was ordered to act by bin Laden or Hamas; the victim is still dead or injured. When I was Home Secretary, I proposed to the House that the military wings of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Hamas, among other terrorist organisations, should be proscribed. The House agreed to that.
Mr. Peter Pike: We all condemn the appalling atrocities that took place on Sunday, and acknowledge that Palestine needs to do more to tackle the problem of terrorists operating from within Palestine. The difference, however, between those atrocities and the excessive reprisals taking place from Israel is that those reprisals are being carried out officially by the state of Israel. We must remember that at all times. Does this not make it much more difficult for us to open the window of opportunity and get back to where we were last year, when a negotiated settlement was within reach? Since then, violence has escalated, and it has become increasingly difficult to keep that window of opportunity open.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to assert that the cycle of violence that has taken place, particularly since the intifada began on 28 September last year, has made restraint more elusive on both sides. We all wish to see restraint. It has also led to the circumstances described my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in which those who seek to be a moderating or restraining element in the politics of Israel or the Palestinian Authority have less authority than before.
My hon. Friend is also correct to say that an important opportunity to secure lasting peace was missed last year, and that what has unfolded since has its origins in the failure to achieve a settlement at that stage.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Surely we must urge restraint on both sides even-handedly—as has been said—and recognise that for a state to commit indiscriminate acts of reprisal and revenge can be just as morally reprehensible as terrorism, and can provoke escalating violence. Will the Government seek dipLornatically to impress on our US allies that for some members of the Administration to make partisan or inflammatory statements can only exacerbate the conflict, undermine the international coalition against terrorism and endanger world security?
Mr. Straw: Of course everybody wishes to see restraint exercised and action taken proportionately—a point made by the right hon. Member for Horsham earlier—and properly targeted. We must also recognise, however, that a proportionate response is determined by the proportion of the outrage that occurs before it. That is the difficulty that we face in this situation.

343
So far as United States policy is concerned, I tend to follow the official statements of Secretary Powell and President Bush, rather than newspaper reports of what somebody is supposed to have said to somebody else. So far as the official statements of Secretary Powell and President Bush are concerned, they have my full support and the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: While condemning absolutely the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa at the weekend, may I ask my right hon. Friend what pressure the British Government can bring to bear on the Israeli Government to withdraw from the west bank and Gaza, as demanded officially by the United Nations in 1967?
Mr. Straw: As President Bush spelled out in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, we are all seeking a secure and safe state of Israel, operating within internationally and regionally recognised borders alongside a viable state of Palestine, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions. All of us in the international community subscribe to the implementation of those resolutions, but to get to what is laid out in resolution 242—and subsequent resolutions—requires action on the ground by the parties. I have suggested to the House today how some of that action might be achieved.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the perpetrators—and their backers—of the continuing atrocities against Israeli citizens are people who want the elimination of Israel, rather than a just solution to the conflict on the basis of two secure and viable states?
Does my right hon. Friend recall that a year ago it was the Palestinians who walked out of negotiations? Does he feel that the continuing messages of hate broadcast by the Palestinian Authority and taught in Palestinian schools over the years, including recent months and weeks, provide some justification for Israelis' fears that they are now fighting for their existence, not for a just solution based on Israel and Palestine?
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says: almost all those who are behind, and claim to speak for, the suicide bombers, and other terrorists, want Israel to be eliminated. That cannot happen; it must not happen. It is completely inconsistent with any sense of humanity, and with international law.
As for what happened last year, there are many arguments about who did what, and who caused the negotiations to fail. All I know is that, according to what I have seen, they came within an ace of success—and if they had succeeded, the conditions of the people of Israel and those in the occupied territories would be very much better.
I also accept what my hon. Friend said about the way in which children in some areas of the middle east are being incited with parodies of Israel, although I must add that a measure of restraint should be exercised in regard to similar things that have been said by some Israeli politicians.
344
It is the Palestinian Authority that has signed up to a proper recognition of the state of Israel, and we look to it to put that recognition into effect.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend said that Israel had a right to take steps to protect its security. Does he accept that its long-standing policy of the targeting and assassination of Palestinian activists simply cannot be justified? While no one seeks to excuse suicide bombers, was not the Government of Israel's deliberate choice to assassinate a well-known Hamas leader just before the arrival of the American peace envoys guaranteed to provoke a violent response of some sort, to continue the cycle of violence, and to prompt a suspicion that it was designed to do precisely that?
Mr. Straw: I have condemned such killings in the past when I have felt it justified, in the terms used by my hon. Friend, and I shall continue to do so when it is appropriate. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has done the same. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying; but what we—Members on both sides of the House—must do is ensure that one act of violence is not excused by what happened immediately before it.
There was no excuse for the terrorism that took place at the weekend. Had it not taken place, there would have been a good prospect of Zinni and Burns being able to restart the peace process. The result of its taking place was the understandable reaction of people in Israel, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). It greatly increased the levels of fear in Israel, which are already palpable and which mean that many people in Israel simply cannot go about their normal lives as they would wish. Their children cannot go to school without being worried that they will be killed. Similarly, there is a cycle of fear and suffering in the occupied territories.
We must say to those who are triggering the violence that they have to stop. As I have said, we must also say to the Palestinian Authority that it must take steps to apprehend, arrest and detain for a long time the terrorists who are causing these atrocities, while asking the people and Government of Israel to show a proportionate response in the face of such huge provocation.
Dr. Brian Iddon: May I pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? Is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as concerned as Shimon Peres appears to be about the dangers inherent in what is now the potential collapse of the Palestinian Authority? If so, will he communicate his concerns to Mr. Sharon?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I have made clear our opinion on the Palestinian Authority. President Arafat is the elected constitutional head of the people in the occupied territories, and we believe that it is important that, as long as he enjoys the confidence of the people of the occupied territories and of the Palestinian Authority, he should remain in that position and we should deal with him. However, that is in no sense to justify some of the Palestinian Authority's failures, as I have spelled out today.

Speaker's Statement
4.20 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House on the letter of 28 November from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to me as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission. It is a matter of great regret to me that a private letter written by an Officer of the House to the Speaker should have reached the media in this manner, and I have asked for inquiries to be made into how it has come about. As to the letter's contents, I will be writing to the Commissioner for Standards to ask her for details of the pressure that she says was applied to her in seeking to carry out her duties. I will also be expressing my surprise that she did not raise those concerns with me at one of our regular meetings to discuss her work. I shall have nothing to add to this statement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement on police reform.

Police Reform
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, I shall make a statement on police reform and on tackling crime and antisocial behaviour.
There is not an hon. Member who would not testify that the greatest priority of their constituents is to live free from crime and antisocial behaviour. Freeing people from fear and insecurity that damages their quality of life is a fundamental tenet of government. I am, therefore, placing before the House a radical reform agenda for both the police service and those who work alongside it. It is time to act to protect the victims of crime and disorder, and to help rebuild and renew communities.
I pay tribute to the professionalism and expertise of police and the civilian staff working with them. We all owe a debt of gratitude for the bravery that is often displayed by policemen and women. Our reform agenda will build on success. The British crime survey recently recorded an overall decrease in crime of 12 per cent. That is the largest annual reduction in 20 years, and the fear of crime has decreased from its peak, in 1994. There is, however, no room for complacency.
Modernisation is built on increasing police numbers, and by next spring we shall have reached an all-time record of 128,290. Today, I am able to announce a new commitment: to meet the target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003 one year early. That will be achieved alongside an increase in civilian staff who will be additional to uniformed officers.
Action is needed, however, to improve consistency and overall performance. Only one in four recorded crimes are detected, and only one in 10 result in a conviction. The variations across the country are unacceptable, and the time has come to tackle the differences in performance and in absence. Detection rates vary from a high of 63 per cent. to a low of 15 per cent. For robbery, the rate varies from a low of less than 15 per cent. to more than 50 per cent. One force achieved as few as eight days per officer lost through sickness, but another had twice that rate. One force achieved a medical retirement rate of 9 per cent., but in another almost two thirds retired on grounds of ill health.
We have established a standards unit to work alongside a refocused inspectorate. That will ensure that the best can be replicated by the rest. A new central police training and development authority will draw together leadership, management and training. A new national centre for policing excellence will develop and disseminate best practice on investigation and operational policing. We will seek to improve personnel policies, and will establish a new locally delivered national occupational health service. To achieve the goal of safer communities, there must be a dramatic modernisation of working practices. Through the police negotiating board, we are seeking consensus on a programme of change and reform. We wish to ensure that those at the sharp end of public service are properly rewarded for the difficult job that they do. We are looking to enhance the status and rewards for those doing the most dangerous, difficult, or unsociable jobs. We want to see more flexible working arrangements

347
and an end to unnecessarily restrictive regulations. The police negotiating board has been asked to agree changes to part-time working, the current 16-hour minimum, and the requirement to fix rotas a year in advance.
Reform must be underpinned by support. We will cut bureaucracy and halve the number of best value indicators. The diary of a police officer illustrated that over two fifths of police time was spent inside the station. We will civilianise and computerise many of the tasks undertaken by those who would be better deployed out of the station. We will increase the number of specialist investigatory teams, develop a cadre of specialist detectives and accelerate the expansion of forensic work.
Technology can also play a key role in enabling officers to do their job more effectively. The Airwave programme will now be extended across the country at a cost of £500 million, ensuring proper communication within and between forces. We will widen the number of those who can work with and assist the uniformed police. The number of special constables will be drastically accelerated. Community support officers—sometimes called auxiliaries—will be trained aides to the police. The expanded "police family" will allow street wardens, traffic wardens and others to be accredited by the police for specific duties within strictly defined limits. They will be appropriately trained.
Our endeavour is to face down the antisocial and thuggish behaviour that bedevils our streets, parks and open spaces. That will help with our civic renewal agenda, ensuring that the community becomes part of the solution. The police cannot reduce crime and disorder and tackle the scourge of hard drugs alone. Families have a key part to play in teaching right from wrong, and respect for others. Local authorities, schools and the health service, and the voluntary and private sectors, must work together. All of us have a role to play in combating criminal activity and social disintegration: decency and respect are the responsibility of us all.
It is through the crime and disorder reduction partnerships and our community renewal programmes that we will be able to restore confidence. By supporting neighbourhood watch and other local initiatives, and mobilising the community itself, we really can make a difference.
Reform is for a purpose. Those we represent do not have a choice of policing services. That is why standards are at the heart of this reform. I am proposing today a three-tier approach to ensuring that the public are served to the standard they expect and deserve. Regulations setting out mandatory requirements, where it is necessary for all forces to adhere to a national standard, will drive consistency across the country. Codes of practice will be issued by and in the name of the Home Secretary. Those will be developed by the national centre for policing excellence, drawing on the expertise of the Association of Chief Police Officers. In addition, guidance, where local flexibility and responsiveness require a light touch, will provide a menu of best practice.
There is no intention that the Government will interfere in the day-to-day operational independence of the police. That would not be in the interests of the people whom we serve, the police or the Government. However, where action is needed, it is the duty of the Government to respond. Using the expertise of the standards unit and the
348
inspectorate, we will establish new powers of intervention where consistent failure provides inadequate protection for those whom we serve.
Basic command units, as well as the police force area, will provide comparison, like with like. We will work with chief constables and commanders to establish and spread best practice. We will provide support through multidisciplinary approaches to tackle the worst of repeat offending and repeat victimisation. We will mobilise the community against drug-related crime, and establish policing priority areas. We will update the role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
It is essential that we provide a greater degree of accountability as well as of devolution and delegation. We will establish pilots for decentralising budgets to basic command units, enabling greater flexibility in the use of resources and the response to local needs. In addition, we will support the developing role of the police authority in reaching out and responding to the community.
When things go wrong, it is important that people have confidence in the process. That is why I confirm today that in the police reform Bill we will be establishing an independent police complaints commission.
I spoke of our pride and confidence in the police service. That is why the Government have decided that we should award the Queen's jubilee medal to the police service. It is a symbol of our support. However, the test will be the difference that we make to the well-being of those whom we serve.
I want to put to rest for ever the cry, "There is nothing we can do," which is so often heard. Our job is to make sure that those who need help get it. Those who fear to walk down their local street or in their local park must be able to do so once again. Our job—my job—is to mobilise all the forces at our disposal to make that a reality, and I am determined that we should do so.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in providing early copies of the statement and the White Paper.
I begin by welcoming unreservedly the Home Secretary's splendid attack on the excessive bureaucracy recently imposed on the police forces of this country. We are delighted to receive him as a member of Her Majesty's opposition to the previous Home Secretary. I assure him that we shall work with him enthusiastically to demolish yet another part of the house that Jack built.
We welcome also the aspirations in the White Paper to increase the flexibility of working practices in the police forces. As the Home Secretary rightly said, there can be no good reason for rigidities such as the requirement that one year's notice be given of any change in rest periods. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say by what means he will ensure that such rigidities will be removed in practice?
The whole House will agree with the Home Secretary's desire to enhance the police's use of information technology, but what has happened to the custody and case preparation system based on information and communications technology, about which we were told by the previous Home Secretary on page 82 of his February White paper? While we are at it, what has happened to the rest of that White Paper? Will any of its remaining recommendations now be implemented?

349
We share the Home Secretary's desire to provide the police with more ancillary staff, enabling policemen to spend more time maintaining order and fighting crime. It is not altogether surprising that we share this aim, since we have repeatedly called for such measures over the past few years. Does the Home Secretary accept that hiring people to support the police is one thing but hiring people to pose as policemen is quite another? Does he agree that the police have special authority because they are given special training, have special obligations and live under a special code of discipline? Does he accept that the morale of the police and respect for the police would diminish if, in an effort to provide a show of increasing police numbers, he were to erode or muddy the clear distinction between policemen who have these special characteristics and other people in uniform who do not?
On the Home Secretary's important proposals on standards and targets, we recognise fully the need to spread best practice among the various police forces, as well as the need to expose the wide differences to which he referred in their performance. As the Home Secretary rightly points out, it is his duty to set national targets and to provide a stimulus for police forces to reach those targets. However, does the Home Secretary agree that there is a great difference between quite properly holding chief constables accountable for their performance and quite improperly seeking to micro-manage individual police forces from Whitehall?
Is there not a danger that the operation of a standards unit, allied to reserve powers held by the Home Secretary, might lead in practice and over time to chief constables coming to think of themselves as employees of the Home Office? Is there not a danger that intervention by the standards unit in the affairs of individual basic command units within a given police force may gradually undermine the operational independence of the chief constable of that force? Is there not a danger that if the independence of chief constables is undermined in practice, some future and less benign Home Secretary may be able, to some degree, to politicise the police?
Does the Home Secretary agree that these are delicate issues, which lie at the centre of the preservation of the rule of law in this country? Does he accept that the preservation of the rule of law is the single most important task of this House, and that nothing should ever be allowed to prejudice the fulfilment of that task?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that I can welcome the welcome of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the White Paper. In any event, I will, in the hope that he did welcome it. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions, and I will answer them all.
Yes, we are tackling bureaucracy head on. We are tackling a legacy of decades of build up of codes of practice, paperwork that has been demanded and a failure to invest in technology that would allow people, from the moment they make their first notes, to be able to translate them all the way through the system.
Yes, we will carry forward the case and custody programme. I make no bones about the fact that the history of technology for Government as a whole, and for my Department in particular, has not been good. Between the Lord Chancellor's Office and my Department, we are
350
determined to get this right. We have just appointed Jo Wright from IBM, who will be taking forward the very important task of making sure that we get this right.
Working practices and the development of a taskforce to carry forward the anti-bureaucracy drive under Sir David O'Dowd, who is stepping down as the chief inspector of constabulary, will ensure that the intention turns into reality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not our intention to burden the police with any more unnecessary regulation.
Hiring people to pose as constables is not something that we intend to do. We are responding to the cry from the community and the police service across the country with full-time community support officers—the Metropolitan police call them auxiliaries—who can work alongside and under the direction of the police service. Secondly, the street wardens whom I saw this morning in north London are massively increasing the reassurance and confidence of a community that has seen a dramatic reduction in attempts to burgle and take away vehicles in just the two months that the wardens have been there.
Standards are of course at the heart of the matter and the hon. Gentleman is right to say so; we do not intend to take responsibility from chief constables, but rather to reinforce it. Chief constables will retain their operational freedom and I have made that clear this afternoon. To hold people to account—not to micro-manage—is no threat to anyone; someone has to hold chief constables to account and police authorities have a limited remit in relation to the budget and the developed plan. That is why we have experienced difficulties over the years. Simply to put the current rules on misconduct alongside a clarification of the rules on incapability or gross inefficiency poses no threat to anyone—nor does it in any public service, as far as I am aware.
Chief constables will retain their operational freedom; they will not be set against superintendents—or commanders, in London. The operation on the ground—the police station that people relate to and refer to—is important. Giving supers freedom to use resources more flexibly will enable them to get people back on the beat, rather than spending their time in the police station—like the 43 per cent. average that we discovered.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rule of law is paramount, and that we must uphold it and expect our judiciary to do so. Our policing services are at the front line of that. That is why we are giving them our backing. I think that I have answered all the hon. Gentleman's questions.
Simon Hughes: I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the police, to the specials and to the civilians in the police service. I also welcome without reservation many of the things that the Home Secretary said. He made a clear commitment to replace the officers lost under the previous Labour Government, and to increase them to a record number. He made a commitment to a more flexible working arrangement and career structure for the police, and to an independent police complaints commission. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my party has for a long time argued for a standing conference on policing, so we welcome the creation of the new national police forum where it can be debated in a more studied way in future. Evidently, all my colleagues welcome the fact that, next year, the police will receive the Queen's jubilee medal for their services.

351
May I push the Home Secretary a little further on police numbers? Does the Government's welcome commitment mean that there is a target and that by a certain date, "every community will have one"—to put it crudely—and that there will be community police officers throughout the land in urban and rural communities?
Subject to questions and clarification, we also welcome the announcement about the extended police family. Will the Home Secretary confirm the important fact that they will all always be public servants—public employees—accountable either to police authorities or local authorities? Will he confirm that they will always be counted as additional to, and not instead of, the police establishment; and that their powers—I am aware of the points made in the White Paper—will be subject to the most careful debate and consideration, so as to obtain the maximum agreement between the public, police authorities and the police in the months ahead?
I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on police accountability. There were some troubling inconsistencies in the use of the words "interference" and "intervention"—no interference but some intervention. Does the Home Secretary accept the old authoritative principle that no man can serve two masters, and will he confirm that he and the Government are absolutely committed to chief constables being answerable to their communities and their police authorities? Will he confirm that the Government have no intention of moving towards a national police force?
On priorities, we share the Home Secretary's view that average national clear-up rates are unacceptably low and that the divergencies are unacceptably wide. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the public look to the police to achieve three things: first, to deter and reduce crime; secondly, to detect crime and bring criminals to justice; and, thirdly, to respond quickly and effectively when the public call on them? Does he agree that all three must be our objectives, and that we must not concentrate only on clear-up rates to the detriment of the other two?
Mr. Blunkett: I accept the last point unequivocally, and it is one that would be shared across the parties. The target on numbers is reflected, of course, in the individual targets at force level, using as a lever the crime fighting fund, which my predecessor wisely introduced as a tool to ensure that good intentions were carried into practice. I cannot guarantee that there will be a police officer in every community for the reason that the word "community" is not precisely defined, but I take the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and all of us should seek to do so and to translate the targets that I have set for 2003 into further targets, following the review of expenditure in the 2002 spending review.
The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Home Secretary asked about chief constables. We do not intend to interfere with the role of chief constables. Their relationship with the police authority will be paramount. That must be the case, which is why I have not taken the power directly to deal with incapability or inefficiency but to direct the police authority to act.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about those who are employed as part of the wider family. Community support officers will be employed by the police service itself.
352
Those who are not employed in that way and become the third tier, and are therefore wardens and the like, will be employed mainly by local authorities under the regeneration programmes. There will be a dual key so that their role can be activated only if the crime and disorder reduction partnership or the local authority, in the case of those who employ those people directly, agrees with the chief constable that that should be the case. We are not in the business of seeking to privatise the police, but, of course, security services work in large shopping complexes and major entertainment venues and we seek to accredit them and get them to work directly with the police, so that they are under supervision. When the security industry authority is up and running, it will enable us to do that more readily.
Mr. Chris Mullin: May I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals in the White Paper, which, I hope, will improve the efficiency and credibility of our police? In particular, I welcome the long-awaited independent police complaints commission. Does he accept that, although the quality of our policing has improved immeasurably in recent years, we still have a long way to go? Does he agree that it is hard to justify increased resources for the police unless we get value for the already considerable sums that we spend on policing? How confident is he that the measures that he has announced today will put an end to the overtime scams, the sickness scams and the early retirement scams that tarnish the reputation of British police?
On detection rates, I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware that figures can be massaged. Will he ensure that we are comparing like with like; otherwise we shall put the most honest and transparent forces at a disadvantage?
Finally, the Home Secretary referred to setting up a cadre of specialist detectives. May I offer a warning, by mentioning the west midlands serious crime squad? Many of the serious problems in the police over the years have developed from elite squads that have become a law unto themselves. I am sure that he will want to ensure that measures are in place so that, first, those squads are accountable and, secondly, that people do not stay in them for too long and develop bad habits.
Mr. Blunkett: I take the wise words of warning from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Even those of us who were not involved in such issues at the time have engraved on our hearts the words that he uses. That is why the standards unit and the refocused work of the inspectorate will be critical in rooting out any dangers of that sort that exist, and why it is very important that the extension of the British crime survey to a sample of 40,000 individuals will ensure that we root down into command unit level, not just force level, so that we can examine in more detail the performance that my hon. Friend describes, so that we compare like with like and root out failure. I cannot guarantee—I wish I could—that all the failures and the undermining of confidence that my hon. Friend described can simply be eliminated. However, the tools and measures that we are putting in place will go a long way towards achieving that goal.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What does the Home Secretary propose to do to end the anomalies in the funding of pensions and the perverse incentives that the police pension system gives to people to retire earlier

353
than they would otherwise wish? Furthermore, how is what the Home Secretary has said about rooting out antisocial behaviour consistent with the pressure that the Government are putting on the courts to go soft on the young vandals who appear before them?
Mr. Blunkett: That is the first time that I have been accused of going soft on anybody or anything, and I have no intention of doing so. I intend to ensure that we take every possible measure to stop people reoffending and that we take tough action with the persistent offenders who obviously, as a result, have repeat victims. That is one of the scourges that we face. At any one time, about 100,000 people commit half the crime in this country, and the concentration on them does not mean going soft on the ones that we can deal with through the behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour orders, which we will slim down. We will remove what I have described as the bureaucratic objections to implementing them and we will ensure that they are available more widely.
The hon. Gentleman touched on an issue that relates to value for money. Everyone in the House would like to deal with the problem that he mentioned, and I look forward to him making a contribution to me personally on what he wants to happen and on how best we can achieve it.
Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but if the changes do not result in our being able to tackle the nuisance and harassment that takes places on inner-city estates, the action will not be worth taking. The police currently do not have the resources to target such incidents in our communities and the victims are often too fearful to come forward to give the necessary evidence so that appropriate action can be taken. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend sets up specialist detective units or street wardens, will the people involved be trained in gathering evidence? If they become expert witnesses, we can target a problem that causes so many difficulties in our communities and which is often raised in our surgeries at the weekend.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right to say that properly trained and accredited individuals can play a part in becoming professional witnesses without experiencing the fear and intimidation that is present in many communities. West Lancashire has piloted a programme with the total support of the police and it has been able to provide cameras and tape recorders. It has been possible to use those eyes and ears on the ground to enable the police to take action swiftly and to get the kind of results that everyone would wish for their community.
Lady Hermon: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement on police reform, and particularly the creation of an independent police complaints commission. He will know that Northern Ireland is slightly ahead on police reform because of the Patten report. It put human rights at the core of police reform in Northern Ireland. Will human rights be placed at the core of the new codes of practice?
On the award of the Queen's jubilee medal to the police service, will the Home Secretary clarify whether that extends to the new Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady has me on the last point—I plead guilty to not knowing the answer. I have concentrated so much on England and Wales that I am not aware of whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made an announcement. I can assure her, however, that there is no question of discriminating against the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. I will check whether that announcement has been made and ensure, as soon as I leave the Chamber, that she is informed.
The human rights codes need to be practical and of value on the ground. We will provide the advice and the necessary safeguards for the public and the police on what can and cannot safely be done within the remit of the codes. I want to ensure that the advice in the codes puts the human rights of the victims and the community, as well as of others, at the top of the agenda.
Mr. George Howarth: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially its emphasis on arrangements for youth crime and disorder—the No. 1 issue in many areas, including mine. What activity would trigger a standards unit intervention in a police force or a basic command unit?
Mr. Blunkett: Once the data are collected and the comparisons are made, in addition to compiling an annual plan, the force or, in the case of a BCU, the superintendent working to the chief constable will be required to produce an action plan, which will be monitored. Should there be a persistent failure either to take on board the codes of practice or to follow guidance that elsewhere had set standards showing that good practice achieves change, such as the national intelligence model, it would be up to the standards unit and the inspectorate to work first with the police authority and, in extremis, to report to the Home Secretary, who will be empowered to instruct the police authority and the chief constable to act.
Mr. James Gray: A chief constable of my acquaintance supports what the Home Secretary says about the greater use of high technology to ease the job of the police. So, when he was instructed to send out a copy of today's White Paper to every policeman under his command, he was pleased to e-mail the Home Office to say that he intended to do so using e-mail. He was surprised to receive the response that, on the Home Secretary's personal instruction, he was not allowed to do that by e-mail and had to do it by paper. Why was that?
Mr. Blunkett: It would be a damn good point if I had given a personal instruction either to the Wiltshire force or to anyone else. I am a great believer in people being able to read things easily and quickly. If forces wish to e-mail their stations and officers, they are welcome to do so.
Mr. Stuart Bell: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will have the vigorous support of my constituents, especially those who suffer from the impact of under-age drinking and prostitution on the streets, and the severe impact of heroin dealing and use? Is he aware of the initiatives of Cleveland police to tackle drug dealers in a series of raids this week, followed by a commitment to take out a drug dealer a day? Will he convey his support and congratulations to the chief

355
constable, Barry Shaw, and the chairman of the police authority, Ken Walker, on the actions that they are taking on behalf of our community?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that my hon. Friend is challenging me to say "No", but I do, of course, offer an unequivocal "Yes I will." I am pleased that those people are taking that action. There is much that we can do together, not merely to tackle the problem of those who are dealing on the streets, but to contribute to the work that is taking place to tackle the intermediate market. In the west midlands, action is being taken to tackle those who stand between international traffickers and the people causing misery in our neighbourhoods. We have a long way to go, and the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will have a part to play with local constabularies in making that happen.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Home Secretary's encouragement for beat policing, but is he aware that some senior officers take a contrary view and have, in effect, abolished it? That happened in my area two years ago, to much public annoyance. Is it an operational issue for the police, or something to which national standards will apply?
Mr. Blunkett: We shall provide guidance to forces on best practice. We want imaginative approaches. It is a question not of PC 49, with or without the whistle, walking the same beat every night and every day so that people get to know both when he will and when he will not be there, but of creating imaginative patrols that get people out of the station, interchanging those who are in plain clothes with those who are in uniform when that is appropriate, and ensuring that community policing means what it says.
The standards unit will concentrate on achieving best practice across the board. Without the constable in the community and the intelligence that that brings, and without the reassurance that is part of the process, we will not get the change that we need. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if a force refuses to recognise that reassurance and support for the community and community partnership is not forthcoming, we shall take the necessary steps to ensure that action is taken.
Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by my constituents if it means more bobbies on the beat, believing as they—and I—do in the deterrent power of a uniform. Will he assure me, however, that whoever is responsible for the expansion in numbers, whether of special constables or neighbourhood wardens, will pay particular attention to encouraging women and some of our older citizens to present themselves for those posts? Will he pay equal attention to ensuring that what we get is neighbourhood wardens, not neighbourhood vigilantes?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is an unequivocal yes. Such people will have to be accredited, and the dual key will ensure that all partners involved are in agreement. Community support officers, the new civilian programme and wardens give us an opportunity to broaden the scope of those who are encouraged to take part in policing, for example, by
356
working on the gender agenda, as it is called, which is mentioned in the White Paper, or encouraging ethnic minorities to participate. Such posts can be the initial steps toward wanting to become fully fledged police officers. We have a great opportunity to change the nature and the make-up of the police service, as we have seen in London.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: When the Secretary of State says that the number of special constables will be "greatly accelerated", what does he mean? Will he quantify it? Will he also give us the benefit of his latest thinking on the payment of special constables?
Mr. Blunkett: Recent research into why the number of special constables fell found that, apart from many of them joining the full-time service, there were issues relating to management, recognition and the status that they were accorded. We can swiftly do something about that. In January, there will a new recruitment campaign. I am having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—I always am—on getting a package of measures that will provide greater incentives to those who give freely of their time and energy.
Mr. Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend should be aware that his keynote speech on police reform to the Police Superintendents Association, which signposted much of the contents of his statement and the White Paper, was warmly welcomed by every senior police officer to whom I spoke. However, does he agree that police performance standards will not rise as hoped unless the Spanish practices so beloved by the neanderthal wing of the Police Federation are ended? Senior police officers must be allowed to manage resources effectively. Never again do I want to hear of the Thames Valley police constable who presented a doctor's sick note claiming that the officer could not be expected to lift anything heavier than a kettle, or of his colleague, who was off work with a bad back but still had time to continue moonlighting as a fitness instructor.
Mr. Blunkett: Well, you only fire at an open goal when you discover that it is a hand grenade that you are kicking rather than the ball. I look forward to genuine co-operation from the Police Federation in getting rid of all the practices that give the police service a bad name, and that undermine the confidence, morale and motivation of colleagues. They have to fill the vacancies when others are not present at work. They have to do the job that somebody else should be there doing. They, like the rest of us, have to pay for those who retire early when that is inappropriate. We shall work together, including the occupational health service, to ensure that what my hon. Friend describes is never present again.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Having argued in the past from the Opposition Benches for an increase in the number of special constables, I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's proposals drastically to accelerate their numbers. However, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he might find resistance among full-time police officers. How will he address that?
If the Home Secretary is to introduce an extended police family, what additional powers does he propose for traffic wardens? Does he agree that that might have to be handled with some sensitivity?

357
Will the independent police complaints commission have new members, or will it still use police officers to investigate police officers, as previously happened under the Police Complaints Board, and as still happens under the Police Complaints Authority? Will he examine the centralisation of policing, which has certainly been perceived as a problem in Leicestershire, where there are fewer but larger police stations? That is causing some concern.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman again revisit the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—which requires the use of custody officers for charging? That involves many sergeants in police station work who otherwise could be out and about catching criminals.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, we are looking at civilianisation. A great deal can be done to ensure that a police officer is not tied down by duties that could be carried out by a properly trained and supported civilian staff member.
I think that the hon. Gentleman asked me five questions. I am wondering which one would he like me to answer.
Mr. Tredinnick: The complaints authority.
Mr. Blunkett: The authority will be able to employ its own investigation officers rather than drawing down the resources of another police service.
Ms Joan Walley: My right hon. Friend has presented a huge agenda for change. Given that there has been an all-round welcome, the proof of it will be in his ability to deliver the agenda for change. I congratulate him.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that many forces throughout the country, including mine in Staffordshire, want to be on the innovative end of changing work practices and working with local communities in areas of greatest need and in neighbourhood renewal areas. Is there any way in which he can give his seal of approval to the services that we want to deliver in Stoke-on-Trent?
Mr. Blunkett: We are extremely pleased that a number of areas have volunteered to be policing priority areas, which will not have rigid boundaries or be zones. In partnership with the police, and with investment through regeneration, areas of specific difficulty will be targeted. Policing priority areas will work with the police at a national and local level in bringing immediate and welcome relief to those who believed that nothing could be done and that nothing would be done. I am pleased that Stoke has volunteered to be part of that programme.
Norman Baker: There has been a broad welcome for the Home Secretary's statement, but there is also genuine nervousness that the independence of local police authorities should not be undermined by anything that the right hon. Gentleman has promised us. Does he accept that the proposed standards unit, which has many merits, could represent the first step on the road to a national police force? Does he agree that that would be a disappointing and unfortunate conclusion, and should not happen?
358
May I also gently remind him that under existing powers he was able, in effect, to sack the chief constable of Sussex by press release? I hope that, in retrospect, he accepts that that was not a sensible move and that the police authority should be allowed to deal with those matters itself.
Mr. Blunkett: I thought that it was sensible that Mr. Whitehouse resigned; I have no regrets about that. I want a system that works effectively and in which police authorities can deal with problems effectively. There is no question of centralising and nationalising the police forces of England and Wales; we are not proposing to do that. I make it clear, as I have done before, that the powers of the police authority will be exercised through the police authority.
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. In particular, I thank him for responding to representations that other hon. Members and I have made about having more special constables. However, in the west midlands, we face the problem of retention. Money and recruitment have gone up but, unfortunately, we lose disproportionate numbers to neighbouring forces such as Staffordshire, Shropshire and Warwickshire. What changes does my right hon. Friend propose to effect a solution to the problem of retention?
Mr. Blunkett: I understand that there has been a problem with what might be described as seepage to other force areas. We need to work on that nationally, but we must also engage the inspectorate and others to work with the force on internal practices and consider how recruitment programmes in neighbouring forces can reduce the pressure. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) have just reassured me that they are on the case.
Mr. David Cameron: I join others in welcoming much of the Home Secretary's statement, particularly the decision to award the Jubilee medal to members of the police force, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency. A number of police officers from Carterton police station wrote to me about the issue, saying how disappointed they have been up to now. I therefore thank the Home Secretary for his announcement.
Does the Home Secretary agree that the test of his reforms will not be the standards unit, which may, or may not, clash with Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, or some of the things done at the top, but the extent to which power and responsibility is devolved to the station commander—often a chief inspector or a superintendent? Does he agree that it is essential that they should be able to empower police officers, pay more to those who are doing a good job and, on the rare occasion when police officers are not up to the job or are not suited to it, encourage them to find another profession?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. The importance of leadership and management at that level and the exercise of sufficient flexibility will be crucial to the carrying out of that role, including ensuring that there is proper

359
supervisory training for sergeants. The new role of beat officers will enable them to take more responsibility, including responsibility for the wider police family. All of that adds up to a delegation and decentralisation designed to meet specifically and flexibly the needs of the local neighbourhood and community.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. How will he set up the independent police complaints commission, in which I have a particular interest, given what we have gone through with Operation Lancet in Cleveland over the past four years and what we have learned about accountability from that experience? It is important that we get accountability through the commission. Who will serve on it, and what consultation will my right hon. Friend undertake?
Mr. Blunkett: A great deal of discussion and consultation has already taken place on the IPCC. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is brought up to date on the precise stage that we have reached in making key appointments. We will ensure that we can accelerate the independence of the commission by means of the recruitment that I described a moment ago, which will break the dependence of the current complaints authority. I know that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not entering into the pain and difficulty experienced in Cleveland; in future, we want to make sure that processes are speedy and effective.
Bob Russell: The Home Secretary rightly drew attention to the excellent work undertaken by the neighbourhood watch movement, and reference was made to support. Will that support include financial reimbursement to the volunteer co-ordinators who undertake so much excellent work for the neighbourhood watch? Was it an oversight that in the Home Secretary's statement there was no mention of Crimestoppers and the 0800 555 111 national eyes and ears service for the public, which, as I am sure the House will agree, provides an excellent service and should be properly funded?
Mr. Blunkett: I gave neighbourhood watch as an example of a long-established and widespread organisation with—almost said tentacles—parishioners in every ward. Crimestoppers is a valuable scheme and we are working with it on long-term funding. We have just announced a third of a million pounds to ensure that it is lifted out of its immediate financial difficulty. We want to share that with others. We will speak to the crime reduction and disorder partnerships about the funding of co-ordinator posts. It has been drawn to my attention forcefully in the past six months that although police authorities have authority over such matters, its application is spasmodic across the country. We need to address that.
Mr.ChrisPond: As a member of the police parliamentary scheme, I welcome my right hon.
360
Friend's statement. Is he aware that although serious crime in north Kent has fallen sharply in recent years, my constituents share his frustration at the relatively low detection and conviction rates, especially for persistent young offenders? He will be aware that in Kent we are fortunate in having a progressive and effective chief constable. Perhaps my right hon. Friend has discussed some of the proposals with him, as I am looking forward to doing later this week. Is my right hon. Friend confident that that approach will be shared by all chief constables? What will he do if he finds a chief constable who stands in the way of reform and wants to prevent the raising of standards, as proposed?
Mr. Blunkett: The process described in chapter 7—go on, I shall be pompous—paragraphs 40 to 43 sets out the intervention powers to which I referred earlier, which are linked to the powers in chapter 6, paragraphs 83 to the end of the chapter. I thought that I had better memorise those during lunchtime—that was for Simon Carr of The Independent. The page numbers vary, depending whether one is reading e-mail or the print version. I shall end my reply by saying that I agree entirely with the accolades heaped on Sir David Phillips, not least because he is the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I have to do business with him.
Kali Mountford: Is it not worrying that the fear of crime stays stubbornly high, despite falling crime figures in the recent crime survey? Are not community constables well placed to tackle that? In his quest for good practice, I invite my right hon. Friend to visit Colne Valley, where he could congratulate Chief Superintendent John Holt on having the wisdom to recruit more community police officers, and PC Ian Oxley, who has worked tirelessly to recruit special constables, especially through his work with the community and local businesses to raise the much-needed money for women special constables, who need vests fitted for them costing £500 each. Does my right hon. Friend intend to resource special constables so that they can carry on their valuable work tackling the fear of crime?
Mr. Blunkett: As I said earlier, I am very keen indeed to try to develop the role of special constables and the incentives that are provided to encourage them. I commend the examples that my hon. Friend has given. I do not remember her ever asking me a question about something that she has not insisted that I come and see for myself. Despite the depths of winter, which make Colne Valley a wonderful place to ski but not necessarily to get to, I shall do my best to do that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must move on to the next business.

Points of Order
5.20 pm
Mr. Alan Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When answering my question yesterday about the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry, the Minister of State, Scotland Office said that he understood that, in relation to funding for the ferry, the Liberal Democrat Ministers in the Scottish Executive were
"rather mean about the matter".—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 150.]
I have a letter from Jim Wallace, one of the Ministers concerned, in which he writes that the Minister of State
"comprehensively misrepresented … the position of the Liberal Democrat Ministers"
I have also received a letter from the Minister of State, who apologises for inadvertently misrepresenting the views of the Liberal Democrat Ministers. As the original misrepresentation was made to the House, I trust that he will come to the House and apologise for his mistake. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any request from him for the opportunity to make such a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have no knowledge of such a request. The Minister of State is not present to respond to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but will, no doubt, read the points he has put on the record.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have in my hands a document headed "Labour thugs attack MP", in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) makes a number of deeply serious allegations against other Labour Members, including Whips. He alleges that there have been both verbal and physical attacks on himself. In particular, he singles out the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as attempting to intimidate him into believing that
"if he did not stop criticising Government legislation, the Whips would not prevent other Labour MPs further physically attacking him."
Those are extremely serious allegations. Similar allegations are made against the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who has personally and physically intimidated me in the past in this very Chamber.
Have you had any notification, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether Mr. Speaker has received a formal complaint from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who has said in a press release that he is making such a complaint? Furthermore, what action can you take not only to protect Members of this House from attack by other Members, but especially to protect dissident Labour Members from physical attack and intimidation by their own Whips? This is a most serious matter and action needs to be taken.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As somebody who has occasionally voted against the Government, I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) is more likely to launch a charm offensive than to intimidate anybody.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any complaint of the sort to which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)
362
referred should be made in the normal way that is laid down by the House, and will, no doubt, be dealt with accordingly.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as the representative of a number of parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission, despite the Prime Minister's claim that it is an all-party body. I might well be inclined to support the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), which appears on the Order Paper but for which no date has been fixed. Can I ask through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what procedure of the House Members from my party or from the other parties that are not represented on the House of Commons Commission can use to bring the matter and principle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Floor of the House for discussion, debate, Division and decision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The control of business in the House is entirely in the hands of the Government.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on matters that will arise after consideration of the ten-minute Bill? Motion 4 deals with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I do not think that you were in the Chair for any of the relevant periods last night, but I am sure that your colleagues will have told you that the House was eventually adjourned on a Government motion in the middle of a debate on an Adjournment motion while the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was on his feet.
I should like guidance on the following matters. First, is the resumed debate on the Adjournment motion that we were discussing when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was speaking, or are we back to the substantive motion?
Secondly, given that the original sittings motion was superseded by the Adjournment motion, which was in train when the House was adjourned formally, will we have a decent period for debate on the sittings motion? Does time begin again for that purpose? Some of the normal conventions on closure cannot apply if times for both debates are added together. Are we starting again?
Will you assure us that the Parliamentary Secretary, who was properly in his place yesterday evening and kindly undertook to reply to matters that were raised, will have the opportunity to do so when other colleagues have contributed?
I believe that we have never had occasion to deal with my last question. Today's Order Paper contains a motion on the business of the House that cannot have been tabled until extremely late last night. Is it in order generally for the Government to table motions when the sitting is suspended, or can that be done only when the House is sitting? Will you confirm that the business of the House motion was not tabled during the two periods when Madam Deputy Speaker suspended the House for 10 minutes in the early hours of this morning?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's points of order. First, we are discussing the substantive motion today. Secondly, no new time will

363
be allowed; contributions that have already been made will count and hon. Members who have spoken will not be entitled to speak again. Thirdly, the Parliamentary Secretary has the right to respond to the debate if he so chooses; it is a matter for him.
On the point about the Order Paper, the Government always have contingent instructions to take care of circumstances such as those that we are considering.
Mr. Graham Allen: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the guardian of the conventions of the House, will you confirm that the usual channels do not exercise the right to speak in the Chamber? Is not it therefore rather cowardly, and against those conventions, to make allegations against a member of the usual channels? Colleagues regard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) as so friendly that he has been given a job in the Whips Office this year that allows him to carry a large stick with which to defend himself against several hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that the House wants to go over that matter again. However, it is normal for an hon. Member to inform hon. Members if he intends to refer to them in the House.Hansard will record what has been said today.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that last night's sitting in secret was the first since the second world war?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it was the first since 1958.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the fact that the House sat in secret; there is therefore no record of the sitting. How will hon. Members who were not present know who took part in the debate and who can participate in today's debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those problems arise when the House sits in private.

Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs Etc.)
5.29 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the carriage of disabled persons accompanied by guide dogs, hearing dogs or other assistance dogs by drivers and operators of private hire vehicles; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is simple and has a simple purpose: to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that owners of working dogs are not refused the use of minicabs with their dogs.
Earlier this year, an event was hosted by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association at the House of Commons to celebrate the introduction of section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which requires licensed taxi drivers to carry dogs in their cabs. That is a welcome change, but the provision has not entirely removed the discrimination that exists against the owners of working dogs, because the Act does not cover private hire vehicles—in other words, minicabs.
The problem was first drawn to my attention about two years ago by a constituent of mine, Mr. Alan Powell, who described the problems that he had had over a number of years in finding minicab drivers who were prepared to take him and his guide dog. Drivers would turn up at his house when he had booked a car, but would refuse to take him when they saw the dog. He would regularly have to ring several companies before finding a driver willing to take him and his dog.
This morning, I met a guide dog owner who described having gone to Tesco's recently to do his weekly shopping. After he had done his shopping, he spent two hours phoning one minicab company after another to try to find a minicab prepared to take him home. One or two actually arrived, but then refused to take him with his dog. In the end, the assistant manager of the store took pity on him, got her car out and took him home.
Guide dog owners rely much more than most people on reliable and accessible taxis and private hire cars to help them get around and live a normal life. In a survey carried out recently by the joint committee on the mobility of blind and partially sighted people, one in seven people said that taxis and private hire vehicles were their most frequently used form of transport. One in five said that they used a taxi or private hire vehicle at least once a week. Many people said that that was because private hire vehicles and taxis were easier to use than most other forms of transport. It is obvious why that is the case: a door-to-door service is offered. A disabled person who does not have a guide dog might need a companion to travel with them, and taxis make life easier in that way. For people who rely on assistance dogs—be they guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs or other types of working dogs—taxis are often the most convenient form of transport.
Of course, the majority of taxi drivers are not the problem. Most people to whom I have spoken about this have said that the majority of drivers try to be helpful and courteous, but that some are quite the opposite. Some drivers and taxi companies are deliberately unhelpful, and some licensing authorities do not appear to think that there is a problem.

365
The licensing situation for private hire vehicles is rather mixed across the United Kingdom. Generally, local authorities are responsible in England, Wales and Scotland, but London is different. In London, licensing will shortly become the responsibility of the Public Carriage Office, and there has also been consultation with the Greater London Authority about the possibility of such licensing being included in its remit. At the moment, however, no London authority has a requirement in its licensing regulations that guide dogs should be carried. Northern Ireland is also different, in that licensing there is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
There is no doubt that real progress has been made in the last two or three years, largely because of the campaigns that have been run by voluntary organisations. However, the situation is still patchy. Across the country there is a total of 374 local licensing authorities, and it is good that 257 of them have now put a requirement into their licensing regulations that private hire vehicles will have to carry guide dogs. Another 50 or so are working towards that aim, but more than 60 local authorities either are not interested or have refused to do anything to change the licensing requirements.
Although progress has been made, there are still gaps. Guide dog owners may know the position in their own areas, but they cannot be expected to know where local authority boundaries begin and end, or whether a company is licensed in one area or in another. They may take a holiday in a different part of the country, and find that the requirements there are different. The patchwork of arrangements across the country creates real problems.
Some local authorities that have refused to act have said, "We do not want to create burdens for small businesses." I am not sure what the "burdens" are supposed to be. Another response has been, "We have received no complaints; there is no problem in our area." I very much doubt that there is no problem, even if no complaints have been received. People may well not know the licensing position, and may not know who to complain to.
Other authorities have said, "We will have a problem because many minicab drivers in this area are Muslim, and will object to having dogs in their cars." That is not the case. When the objection was discussed in my borough of Waltham Forest last year, one of the leaders of the local mosque helpfully made it clear that was not the mosque's attitude, and that it should not be used as a reason for minicab drivers to refuse to accept a guide dog.
I was recently given a cutting from a Blackburn newspaper, according to which Blackburn with Darwen council is currently considering the possibility of extending licensing. A Mr. Mohammed Narwan, a representative of the local private hire drivers association, is quoted as saying:
"People should be able to travel in private hire vehicles with their guide dogs free of charge."
I simply do not accept the excuse about Muslim drivers. Obviously provision must be made for those who might require an exception on medical grounds, but that can easily be accommodated by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
366
We are not discussing a problem that affects a huge number of people or would impose a huge burden on minicab firms. I am told that there are roughly 5,000 guide dog owners nationwide, but for them this is a massive problem that affects how they lead their daily lives. Both the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind have made it clear that they want this simple, positive change in the law, which would make life better for those whom they represent.
If we are interested in social inclusion, we should certainly be prepared to take my proposal on board. It concerns an issue of discrimination—discrimination that we could end quickly and simply. That is the Bill's purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Tom Clarke, Harry Cohen, Mr. Edward Davey, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Colin Pickthall and Rev. Martin Smyth.

PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (CARRIAGE OF GUIDE DOGS ETC.)
Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the carriage of disabled persons accompanied by guide dogs, hearing dogs or other assistance dogs by drivers and operators of private hire vehicles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January, and to be printed [Bill 62]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Orders No. 114 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) and No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—

(1)The Proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order, being a legislative proposal relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

(2)the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 13th December at 2.30 p.m.; and

(3)at that meeting

(a)the Committee shall consider the Proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

(b)the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 4.30 p.m.: and

(c)at the conclusion of those proceedings a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) Northern Ireland Grand Committee (Sittings).—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
That—

(1) the matter of regional governance in England, being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;

367

(2)the Committee do meet at Ten o'clock on Tuesday 18th December at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3)the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at half-past Twelve o'clock.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Business of the House
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4 December],
  That,

  (1)At the sittings on Tuesday 11 th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and

  (2)At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question again proposed.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to continue the remarks that I was making last night. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I begin by apologising for the fact that I shall not be giving way to right hon. and hon. Members as generously as I did last night, when I gave way—I have counted—on 23 separate occasions. The House may feel that I had rather a good innings last night and that I might therefore be trespassing on the House's patience if I speak too long today.
  There is another reason why I shall not give way so often. I anticipate that the Government will seek to bring this debate to a conclusion within an hour or so of its start. I also suspect that various hon. Members who were in the Chamber yesterday, most of whom remained in the Chamber throughout last night's proceedings, will wish to say something in this debate. I have in mind specifically the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but there may be others and I apologise if I have omitted anyone. I hope that it will be possible for at least those hon. Members to participate, if that is what they wish. It is with that in mind that I shall be much briefer than I would have otherwise been. I am also conscious that I have had an opportunity–51 minutes or so—to express my views.
  There is one other bit of business. May I welcome the Leader of the House to the debate? He was in the Chamber yesterday for the opening speech, but then he departed. He will see from the record that I made some pretty uncharitable remarks about his not being here. However, I am glad to see that, at least this afternoon, at a more convenient hour, he is on the Treasury Bench. I welcome that fact because this is an important debate.
  There is one more point that I should deal with before coming to the substance of the debate. The House will be asking itself—it might be helpful to know—why it is that we are debating something now that we were debating about eight or nine hours ago. Last night, we were debating the business motion, the effect of which is in reality to conclude debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill on Thursday 13 December—for reasons that I explained yesterday—at 7 o'clock. Various right hon. and hon. Members—including me, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and

  369
  Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—felt very strongly about that. There are powerful arguments against the proposals and those hon. Members advanced them powerfully.
  There were, however, only about two more speeches to be made last night, when it became apparent that the Government were going to move a closure. We knew that because those of us who have been in this place for some time suddenly saw that the Labour Benches, which had been largely deserted, had begun to fill up. We also saw the Government Whips chuntering together in the way that they usually do. We therefore knew that there was going to be a closure.
  Liberal Democrat Members—I commend them on this—hit upon a procedural device: to move that the House sit in private. As I understand it, that was the first time since 1958 that that has happened. Unfortunately for the Government, however, at that critical moment, they were plotting closure. So when Liberal Democrat Members moved the motion, there was no one to cry no. The consequence was that we went into private session, the Galleries were cleared, the amplifiers were switched off, Hansard departed
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is not going to speak at quite the same length as he did yesterday, but he is now giving a blow by blow account of what happened in the Chamber last night. Perhaps he could turn to the substance of his remarks.
  Mr. Hogg: As there was not a record of the proceedings, an account might be helpful; but I have of course finished my reprise. I have explained why we are having this debate today. However, we are debating a very serious point.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we seem to be able to debate the motion in prime time today without any real inconvenience to the Government's agenda for today? Would he like to try to explain why the Government thought that they could not do today what they tried to do in the middle of last night? The public should be made aware of that.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. This is an important business motion and it was being secreted through last night. What is more, it would have been voted on by the deferred voting procedure, which means that hon. Members sign a visiting book on Wednesdays. I refuse to participate in that process, because it is wrong in principle. It is right and proper that matters of importance should be debated on the Floor of the House in prime time and that right hon. and hon. Members should vote in the ordinary way.
  Simon Hughes: I endorse the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was the objective of my colleagues and I at all stages to try to achieve three objectives procedurally. First, we wanted to raise the issues and get answers to the questions. Secondly, we wanted to have the debate at a proper time when it could be heard and reported and people such as the Leader of the House could be present.
  370
  Thirdly, we wanted to be able to vote at the end of the relevant debate. We have managed to achieve that, if through a rather unusual device. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his assistance.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. His motives were as he has stated, and I supported them. He has brought about a most desirable outcome. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am being churlish if I do not give way much more, because I want to allow other hon. Members to participate.
  I have taken the liberty of saying that this is a serious matter. I have spoken many times on the Bill and I have advanced the generality of my argument against it. I shall not repeat that today, because those who are interested know why I am against it. I oppose especially the manner of its enactment.
  The Lords messages mentioned in the motion are the amendments that will come from the other place. The plain truth is that we have no idea of the weight or the content of those messages. That being so, we cannot tell whether the proposed ending at 7 pm on Thursday 13 December is reasonable. We are asked to assume that it is, but nobody—not even Government Front Benchers—can say that it is because we will not know what the messages are until the Lords delivers them.
  Another related point is that it is important that those institutions outside the House with real concerns about the Bill—I hope that Government Front Benchers will understand that there are many of those—should have an opportunity properly to make their representations on the amendments as they come from the other place, and as they go back and forth. The procedure that we would adopt under the business motion would actively prevent that from happening, and that is wrong.
  We have been told by the Minister—I am not sure that he intended to be quite as candid as he was—that we would have a timetable motion to govern the process of business on the messages. He will realise that the nature of the timetable—and, indeed, the nature of today's business motion—cannot properly be determined until we know the number, weight and content of the Lords messages. In reality, the timetable and the motion should not be laid until the messages are identified. In any event, the timetable will be shaped by the business motion, rather than the other way round. A timetable should be drawn so as to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to debate the legislation, and the business motion should reflect the time needed. In fact, the timetable will be the subject of the artificial constraint imposed by the business motion.
  Another point concerns the statutory instruments. The Minister told us last night—it was fair of him to do so—that secondary legislation would be introduced, pursuant to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and I made the point that the documents will already be in existence, albeit that they will be called drafts. If the Minister had wanted to, he could have laid those documents in the Library—he still could—or read them out in extenso, although you might stop him, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In any event, the House could be told the contents of the statutory instruments. It is unsatisfactory that we should not know those contents or be able to discuss them before we determine the end date. The statutory instruments may be offensive in themselves.

  371
  Indeed, they may be so offensive that we might not want the Bill to pass at all. That is a point that we cannot judge until we see the statutory instrument, and we shall not see that until we are given an end date.
  From time to time last night, I approached the debate with a certain levity, as did other hon. Members. It was a fine occasion. I enjoyed it, and I think that other hon. Members did too. However, this is a very serious matter. Although I have not always been able to secure the support of Conservative Front-Bench Members, I have consistently opposed the Bill because it seriously abrogates legal and civil rights.
  Sometimes a case can be made for abrogating such rights, and I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for some abrogation in respect of some parts of the Bill. However, no such case can be made for the Bill in its entirety. If the Government are going to abrogate civil, legal and political rights, they must do so in the proper way, with full and proper discussion in Parliament.
  The House will vote on the business motion later, and I do not suppose that Labour Members will support us on the matter. However, in the Division Lobby they will have an opportunity—which I hope they will take—to say to Ministers, "Look, my friends, what we are doing is wrong. What is more, we must not do it again." If they do that, the action taken by Liberal Democrat Members last night, which I supported, and the words spoken in this debate will have been worthwhile. A very important principle is at stake. We neglect it at the country's peril, and in breach of the duties that we owe our constituents.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I begin by expressing my gratitude to hon. Members of all parties. Hansard shows that the motion that I put to the House at 12.52 this morning was passed nem. con. I am grateful to all hon. Members for allowing the House to use that safety valve. There are not many safety valves left now, but hon. Members' response to my motion was very helpful.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the result is that we have brought out of the dark obscurity of the early hours of the morning into the relatively bright light of prime-time business some extremely important issues. It would be improper to refer to any of the discussion that took place after the motion was passed. Even though the present Bill is not likely to be retrospective, I suspect that the Home Office, and the Home Secretary, in their current mood, would have me locked up if I referred to any matters discussed in private session.
  As was said last night, I do not believe that any Member of this House or the other place is not committed to effective measures to deal with terrorism. There was some suggestion, or spin, that anyone who resisted the business motion was somehow against the emergency measures needed to deal with terrorism. That is a canard, and it is not fair on the Labour Members of the two Houses—let alone anyone else—who have major misgivings about the Bill and the way that it has been handled. Our lack of wholehearted, comprehensive and unquestioning commitment to the handling of the Bill and all of its contents does not mean that we are not committed to the defeat of international terrorism.
  Another advantage of bringing the matter before the House in prime time is that we have the pleasure of the company of the Leader of the House, who will recognise
  372
  the text that I am about to quote. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate found that the sampler above his bed—when he finally got there in the early hours—still carried the motto, written in proper, traditional Victorian woven script, "Good government and effective scrutiny go together."
  The Leader of the House said that to the Hansard Society on 12 July. He added that it was part of the exercise of achieving good government that this House and the other place must undertake their scrutiny roles with responsibility and proper dispatch. That is why it is so extraordinary that in the circumstances already described, the House is being asked to prejudge, in effect, the validity and value of amendments coming from another place. We do not know how substantial they will be.
  In previous Parliaments, it may have been possible for Ministers in the House of Commons to take the view that the opinions of people in the House of Lords could be discarded. However, the first of this Government's reforms of Parliament has given the Lords a new legitimacy. It is only right, therefore, that we take more notice of what the House of Lords says on matters such as this.
  Moreover, the Leader of the House told us a few weeks ago that he thought that the House of Lords in its present form was so good that he was prepared to countenance a substantial number of appointed members in the second phase of reform. That gives additional legitimacy to the House of Lords.
  We cannot therefore prejudge that what we get from the other place can be discarded because it has no value or validity. We cannot assume in advance that the amendments that the House of Lords has not even tabled yet will not be valid. Indeed, Labour Members in the other place may be disposed to accept some of those amendments, which makes it very important that we do not tie ourselves down to a business motion, in the format that is before the House today, that prejudges that issue.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the business managers of both Opposition parties could have come to an accommodation with the Government to ensure proper opportunities for the discussion of Lords amendments without interfering with what remains of the Government's programme?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that that offer was made, informally, through the usual channels, and I shall return to how we could have found more time to do what he suggested.
  It is critical for the House to know what amendments will come from another place before we tie ourselves to a programme. Those amendments themselves can be amended, and we need time to assess whether they can be improved still further and thereby achieve the sort of compromise that many hon. Members want. However, the other place may complete its scrutiny only of the Bill late on Tuesday night. We will be able to see the amendments that are tabled then and on the subsequent day, so the opportunity for intelligent amendment—informed by people in the House and outside it, as was noted earlier and, indeed, last night—will be limited. The Bill is big, and covers many issues, and such amendment is very important.

  373
  There may be circumstances in which the Government are disposed to accept all the amendments that come from the other place. If so, why do they not accept them now?
  That would save the House a lot of trouble, but we must assume that the Government will not accept them all, but resist some. However, if they are going to accept the amendments passed in the other place, the sooner they tell us which they will accept, the better. That will allow us to deal with the amendments more expeditiously.
  For the moment, I shall assume that the Government will dig in their heels. The indications, from the Home Secretary down, are that that is the Government's mood. In those circumstances, hon. Members have a responsibility to provide proper and careful scrutiny of the improvements that have been suggested. We do not want to put on to the statute book legislation of this importance that is full of loopholes and problems.
  Moreover, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, that is not the whole story. As its name implies, secondary legislation is secondary to primary legislation. We cannot know how apt, apposite and effective that secondary legislation is until we know what the primary legislation is. We cannot know how legitimate, proper and in order the secondary amendments are until we see what amendments come back from the Lords. We need to know the reaction of Ministers. Will they be prepared to accept some amendments, will they want to amend others, and will the House come to the view that compromise on some is a possibility?
  That was clearly spelt out in the watches of last night. The Parliamentary Secretary was honest enough to say that there is a whole package of secondary legislation to follow. We cannot take a view about the legitimacy of such legislation until we have seen the amendments to the original legislation.
  As you will have heard last night, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are views about the Bill on both sides of the House. It is an unusual Bill. The unkind might refer to it as a ragbag; I have described it as the good, the bad and the downright ugly. More charitably, it could be called a portmanteau Bill. It certainly covers a huge range of issues of varying urgency and impact upon basic civil liberties and human rights. Inevitably, parts of it raise different issues with different people. It is unusual in that respect, because there are so many aspects to its clauses. In those circumstances, it is not unnatural for Members of the other House, let alone Members of this one, to respond differently to its different parts.
  The legislation that is put before us is often not only short but directly focused and Members on both sides can take a broad-band approach to it. They know where they are on a Bill's basic issues and how they will respond to its different parts. That is not the case with this Bill. As happens often in debates in the other place, there has been a judicial review of parts of the Bill, independent of party politics. The bishops have had a view about specific aspects, although it would not be proper for me to go into detail. It is equally true that some distinguished and experienced Members of the Labour party in the other place have major misgivings about parts of the Bill.
  The Leader of the House, no less, has been saying how important it is for the revising second Chamber of this Parliament to be independent of Government and to have
  374
  expertise and experience to bring to its responsibilities. As we have in this place skimped Report and had no Third Reading debate, it is not unnatural that we have to rely on our colleagues at the other end of the building to do some careful detailed scrutiny of these issues. It would be outrageous if, after all the good work that they had done on our behalf, we then said, "We don't care what they said. Let's tear it up and get on with the job." That would be a negation of the responsibility of Parliament which, the Leader of the House has frequently reminded us, lies upon our shoulders.
  We still do not know what will happen under the business motion. Will there be a ping-pong situation? Will there be an opportunity for sensible people to sit down and achieve some compromise, perhaps even taking out of the Bill those issues that are not urgent and with which it is not necessary to deal immediately? My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) referred last night to issues that predate the terrorist attacks on 11 September. They cannot be regarded as so urgent as to be necessary now.
  It was apparent from the way in which the debate began to develop last night that there is no parliamentary imperative, let alone an outside imperative. We have yet to hear anyone say that the Bill must reach the statute book next week or terrorists will attack on Christmas day. It is outrageous for anyone to pretend that we must have the Bill then, to the day.
  I have pointed out to the Leader of the House that he unexpectedly gave us an extra day for the Christmas recess. Most of us knew that we were going to be here on Thursday 20 December, and then he told us that we were to rise on Wednesday 19 December. So there is room for shunting; we can find more time.
  What imperative demands that we must complete all our study of, and responsibility for, the Bill by the night of 13 December, given that it is complex, contentious and that there is opposition to it within Government ranks in both Houses? There is one date that makes that essential, but it is nothing to do with Parliament, the quality of the Bill or the opposition to it in either House. It is simply that on 14 December, the Prime Minister is due to go to the European summit at Laeken in Belgium. He wants to take in his back pocket a Christmas present from the Houses of Parliament and say, "Look what a good boy am I. I am getting tough on terrorism. I have a derogation from my Parliament on the European convention of human rights. Why don't you?" That is what it is all about.
  It is the Prime Minister's imperative, for political reasons. It is not to improve the legislation or to put on the statute book a measure of which we will be proud in years to come and which we will know was the right response to an emergency. This will be a tawdry Act because it has been dealt with in a tawdry fashion.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have been truly amazed by the moderation shown by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and my own. This is a monstrous process. Their decent evaluation of whether there is merit in all the contentions in the Bill has been

  375
  exemplary. In point of fact, the argument on many of the clauses has never pointed to how they relate to the special new circumstances that have arisen since 11 September that mean that this country's very survival is at risk.
  I object strongly to this process. I was very grateful when your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, confirmed that last night was the first time since 1958 that the House has sat in secrecy, and it should be on a measure such as this. That is consonant with the Government's argument that we are in a state of emergency. That was the proposition put by the Home Secretary, who has indicated that he will not yield in the Lords.
  I have no doubt what the motion means. The Government are on a journey of coercion. They are saying to the Lords as best they can—we will be the puppets, the shadow, in this parliamentary process—"You will deliver us this Bill in the shape that we require it by a certain date." They have no power to enforce that, but I saw the Lords yield during the seven times that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill ping-ponged between this place and the other. Their Lordships blinked. Anyone who has taken the most casual glance at the proceedings of the other place will know that they have had the leisure and appropriate time to discuss and weigh up important and entire issues. The Government have tried to drive through this monstrous piece of legislation, unjustified in so many of its particulars, in 16 hours, including all the time needed for votes.
  I am amazed that the Government troubled with the House of Commons. They have set a new record in deeming that which has not happened to have happened. I am surprised that they did not reach into their armoury, having set a precedent in the constitutional history of this country, and have the House declare—there are enough willing Labour Members for them to do so—that this process is taking place without debate. We are very close to such a situation.
  I hope that this coercive measure fails. I am mindful that we have not been allowed a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss matters such as habeas corpus, internment, new religious hatred laws and the third pillar of Maastricht. We have had 14 minutes, with a 90-minute order, directly to translate into British laws a change in our criminal laws that affects our constituents and that has been constructed out of a secret meeting somewhere on the continent. That is monstrous. We are prepared to suspend habeas corpus and to bring in internment in this country.
  I am anxious about this vast portmanteau Bill, which has imported a whole series of concepts that have no relationship—certainly none has been demonstrated—to the dangerous circumstances that arose on 11 September. I am surprised only that the Home Secretary did not grasp the opportunity to deliver some of the contentions of the Auld report and to take away our right to trial by jury. The Bill would have provided a good opportunity.
  I want the world outside to know what has gone on in this House of Commons: without knowing about the weight, import, number or seriousness of Lords provisions, motions such as this are hung in front of us, late at night, in secrecy—as if we were in wartime circumstances—with the microphones turned off, with one good, loyal citizen in the Public Gallery waving goodbye as we close down the House of Commons to
  376
  outsiders. [Interruption.] It is said that the Liberal Democrats closed down the House, but they could not do that. It is the duty of the Government to secure the business of the House and the country. Hon. Members should reflect on the purpose of this Chamber.
  The motion demonstrates that we are nothing. I do not understand why Labour Members cannot stand up for things that we have believed in all our lives, such as habeas corpus, one of the most important features in banishing slavery from these shores.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shepherd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not. I am mindful of the time constraints, because there will, of course, be a closure motion.
  We can push away consideration of important matters. We do not know the terms of the guillotine motion. The guillotine that the Government will impose next week will tell us whether they will even allow us to have a serious discussion of the serious amendments that we were unable to debate when the Bill was previously before the House.
  If the country thinks that its liberties are defended by this Chamber, it is very, very wrong. I want liberty to be defended by this Chamber, but now we are looking to an appointed House—an appointed House: what shame!—to make and defend the liberties and traditions of our country. That is why I oppose this abysmal, outrageous motion. It is all part of the attempt to create a climate in which people believe that this country is in such a desperate plight that the very life of the nation is under threat. It is not. No one believes that.
  We believe in proper, targeted, particularised measures to supplement those that already exist. The Government have no sense of country, and in one real sense, terrorism wins a significant battle with this form of legislation. I wish that the House would open up and recognise what we have become: we are nothing when Governments can jig around with their majority, with no debate on the substance of the basic freedoms for which this House came into existence. That is the purpose of the House but the Government will not permit its achievement.
  6.13 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the House will reflect on the superb sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We are doing something significant. Sadly, I do not have the same credibility as those Members who have already spoken as I was not here last night. I was speaking at a populist gathering in London that went on until a late hour. However, through the brilliance of the House of Commons, I have been able to read the Hansard report of the debate that took place last night. In fairness, we should give credit to Hansard for recording everything that took place before the House went into private session.
  I have some brief points. I hope that the House of Commons will appreciate that the Bill is desperately important; it is of great significance. When we consider that all the changes that we are making in relation to the third pillar of Maastricht were discussed in 12 minutes in this place, we realise that we are treating legislation

  377
  with contempt. The time taken to push the measure through shows that we are not taking democracy seriously. I fear that the motion shows that, too.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we hold opposite views on Maastricht and the third pillar, we share precisely the same views on the means that the Government are using to pass measures with no debate in the House of Commons? Does not the fact that we can stand together on that show exactly how desperate the Government have become?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend agrees with me, as I have been complaining for many, many years—in fact, since 1973—about the vicious and spiteful way in which Governments of both parties have forced through European legislation. I know that he would have been no part of that. Certainly, something significant has happened.
  We should also seriously consider the fact that the motion means that we cannot have adequate debate. We are talking about being limited to only two and a half parliamentary days. We do not know what other business will be proposed during that time. If the votes take place after 10 o'clock, it will not be possible to proceed with them. There would have to be a deferred vote on the following Wednesday, which would mean that the Government could not complete their timetable. Unless there is a tightly drawn timetable motion, it will be impossible to hold the relevant debates.
  The House should consider whether the motion will help the passage of the Bill. I have noticed that, as a result of all the recent changes, whereas the Lords used to be a quiet and inoffensive body, it now appears to take its democratic responsibilities more seriously. Will we help to get the measure through and create the good will that the Government obviously require if we proceed as we are doing?
  We are treating the House of Commons with contempt, forcing through massive legislation with no proper discussion. What the Government are doing will create more trouble; it will not solve problems. I certainly appreciate that the Government are anxious to pass measures on security speedily, but what they are doing is insulting to our democratic traditions and may result in their not getting legislation that they particularly want.
  There is not enough time properly to consider the measure or discuss Lords amendments properly. I fear that the result will not be to help pass the measure but a lack of good will.
  Finally, I hope that Members will think about what happened at the last general election. The vital aspect of that election was not who won, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal. It was the massive number of people who did not vote. Among younger people, there was not even the slightest interest in politics. The way that we carry on is driving people away from their democratic responsibilities.
  When people realise how we forced through this massive, important measure in such an appalling way, they will feel that there is little point in the democratic process. The House should think about the massive strike
  378
  action taken by the voters. If we treat democracy with contempt, we shall simply add to that process and there will be less participation in democracy.
  I hope that the House will think about those matters because what we are doing today will not help. It will create more problems, more confusions and more delay.
  6.19 pm
  Norman Baker: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a less eventful sitting than when you last occupied it. It is, of course, an irony that we seem almost to have time aplenty to discuss a motion that contains little of substance, whereas we had almost no time at all to debate a huge raft of terribly important and controversial provisions that will affect this country for many years to come.
  The Government told us that the allocation of time was such that they could spare no more time to debate the Bill in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading, yet by the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), we have managed to find an extra hour or so and, indeed, a couple of hours of Government time last night to debate what was called a piffling motion. One wonders why the Government were not able to find more time to debate the Bill, and questions should be asked about that.
  At the beginning of the debate last night, the Parliamentary Secretary—who has his back turned to me—was, I am afraid, left alone on the Treasury Bench through no fault of his own. With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a good deal of respect—is not able to assess whether the motion is adequate because he is not over-familiar with the Bill. One has to have gone through the Bill in detail to understand exactly whether the motion is appropriate and what is likely to happen in the other place. I should have thought that a Home Office Minister might have taken the trouble to stay with him on the Treasury Bench last night to advise him, but that was not the case.
  It was also a great pity that the motion seems to have been drafted by members of the Government, whose duty is to get business through the House, rather than by those who may have anything important to say about the Bill and who want to reflect on the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House have about it.
  Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the other criticisms that has still not been remedied—perhaps the Minister will help us in his winding-up speech—is that we still do not have any indication of the timetable under the motion. A further guillotine motion may well be imposed on debate next week. If we at least knew the structure of next week, we might be somewhat better off, but that is another secret not so far revealed to hon. Members, let alone Opposition Members.
  Norman Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the only certainty that we have is the motion. We have no certainty about the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords; about whether Labour peers will table amendments; or about whether the Government will accept any amendment. We have no certainty about the timing in the House of Commons; about any guillotine motion; or about what interested external groups will have to say about the Bill. We have no certainty about

  379
  anything, apart from the fact that the Government want to railroad the Bill through the House, irrespective of the outcome in the other place. That is the only certainty about which the Government seem to be interested.
  I suspect that a good number of amendments will come from the other place. If the House of Lords is doing its job properly, it will want properly to reflect on the fact that this House has not been able to consider whole swathes of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) correctly said. I pay tribute to him for the conviction and passion with which he speaks on such issues.
  For example, part 11, on the retention of communications data, was not discussed for one minute in the House, yet it contains huge powers that will allow the Home Secretary to accumulate data in pursuit of not simply terrorists, but those involved in any criminal activity under clause 101(5)(b). That is a matter of profound importance, but we had not one minute to discuss it.
  I had only one and a half minutes in which to discuss the transportation of nuclear material, and we are entitled to know more about that. The House spent only one and a half minutes on that part of the Bill, and we spent very little time on a range of other issues. We spent barely enough time even on the topics that we did discuss—whether it was Ministry of Defence police or face masks.
  I contrast that with the time that we have had to debate the Proceeds of Crime Bill in Committee. That Bill has been properly timetabled, and there have been good debates. To be fair to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), when the Opposition Members who serve on that Committee have asked him whether he has thought about an issue, he has said, "No, I haven't, but it's a good point and I'll go away and consider it." Ministers have not had the opportunity to do that with this Bill because the Opposition have not been able to ask, "Have you thought about this sentence?"
  Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend may not have had a chance to read this yet, but I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced its second report on the Bill this morning and has found many of the Government's concessions to be inadequate. It has suggested that the Bill needs to amended in many other ways. With a week to go, all parties in both Houses say that the Bill is inadequate, especially in its human rights aspects. That report has not yet been considered. Does my hon. Friend agree that such Committees were set up to give advice, but it seems that there will be no chance to take that Committee's advice, let alone to act on it?
  Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. What are those Committees for? I serve on the Human Rights Committee, as does the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and it has said that it is very worried about the Bill and that, in certain aspects, it is inconsistent with the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing about that? They have tabled no amendments to deal with those issues. Instead, the Bill is steamrollered through the House. Those Committees seem to be a sop, so that the Government can say that they exist, that they are
  380
  wonderful and that they are committed to human rights. However, when they propose something that the Government do not like, they are completely swept out of the way.
  Worse than that, when the House had a debate of sorts—was it in Committee, or on Report or Third Reading?—a Minister told us that debate and voting were shenanigans and that we were wasting time. What are we here for if not to debate and vote? It seems as though the Government want to close things down and run through their business as soon as possible and that they think the Opposition are a bit of nuisance and wish they would go away. The Bill will not go away. It is very controversial, and its consequences will be seen throughout the land if the Government do not listen.
  The Government still have time to listen to the House of Lords and to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members and—dare I say?—their own Back Benchers. Let us not forget that the gloss of support does not extend to Labour Back Benchers. They are just as unhappy with the Bill as Opposition Members. If the Government have any sense, even at this late stage, they will make more time for the Bill and listen to some of the comments that hon. Members have made.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: I shall be brief. We have heard some extremely powerful arguments during the debate, but exclusively from Opposition Members. The Government know that there is no satisfactory answer to many of the points that have been made. Of course, we do not know what Lords messages will be received, but we do know that, at worst, the motion could be oppressive and, at best, it is premature, and we shall divide the House.
  6.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Hon. Members raised a number of issues last night, early this morning and this afternoon, and I shall do my best to deal with them clearly and succinctly, although there has been rather more heat than light during the debate, especially last night and in the early hours of this morning.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—an hon. Gentleman for whom I have great respect—made an extraordinary contribution this afternoon, in which he questioned the patriotism of Government Members because of the business motion. I hope that, on reflection, he will accept that his remarks were over the top and deeply offensive.
  The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) referred in his closing remarks to the disconnection between the public and the House and, in particular, to the disconnection between young people and politics. I can think of nothing more that would switch off young people from politics than the scenes that we witnessed in the Chamber in the early hours of this morning, with the pathetic use of filibustering tactics by the Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Back Benchers.
  I should like to address the specific points that have been raised. First, several hon. Members have suggested that the Divisions on matters relating to the Lords messages might be deferred. I can absolutely reassure the

  381
  House that that would not be the case. The Sessional Order that relates to the deferral of Divisions is very clear. It states that Divisions on questions relating to
  "motions … in the course of proceedings on bills"
  and on a number of other matters will not be deferred, so there will not be a deferred Division.
  We had a somewhat protracted discussion at the beginning of last night's proceedings about the meaning of the word "Thursday" and how long next Thursday will last. The answer is very much as suggested by several Opposition Members: Thursday could well continue beyond that which we would conventionally understand Thursday to be. Thursday will continue either until both Houses have agreed to an Act and Royal Assent has been notified or until it is clear that no agreement can be reached. I very much hope that the House will not break the previous record established during the consideration of the Coercion Bill in 1881, when the day lasted for 41 and a half hours. It appears that compromise is possible, so Thursday may be extended.
  That connects to my third point, which is about the time available for debate. Several Opposition Members have raised the reasonable concern that there should be sufficient time on the Floor of the House to debate the Lords messages. In particular, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that issue and, when he intervened last night, I said that there would be a supplementary programme motion. It will obviously be drafted once we have received the messages from the Lords and in the light of the number of amendments that are before the House. The House will decide on that motion and, although I can give no guarantees, I will pass to those involved in drawing up the motion the concerns that have been expressed in the debate.
  Simon Hughes: One of the few certainties that we have is that the Lords expect to finish their Third Reading debate next Tuesday evening. Given that, can the Minister give us any indication as to what, if any, business will be taken here next Tuesday evening if this motion is passed? For example, will we debate a timetable motion then or will it be brought before the House on the Wednesday? After we know what the Lords have sent us on Tuesday evening, will there be an opportunity for all the parties concerned to be able to discuss the issue so that we can have some management of the remaining time if, unhappily, the House agrees to this motion?
  Mr. Twigg: Certainly every attempt will be made to ensure that all parties are involved. I made it clear in my opening remarks yesterday that we would not move immediately to discuss the Lords messages on Tuesday night. We would have a printed version, and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal thanked me for that in his contribution. I can give the broad assurance that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seeks. There will be cross-party involvement in drawing up the programme motion and we will not move immediately to discussion on Tuesday night. We will move to the concrete discussion on Wednesday.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Twigg: I do not intend to take any further interventions, because I shall speak for just another five
  382
  minutes. I took many interventions yesterday and I have promised Members on both sides to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned consultation, but I fear that Opposition Members protest rather too much on that point. Some said that they want to have the opportunity to consult outside organisations and, of course, that is extremely important. However, none of us can have failed to have noticed that there has been extensive debate, discussion and consultation since 11 September about the nature of the response. Yes, there is controversy and discussion, but no one can really say that we have not had full debate and an opportunity for outside organisations to influence the proceedings in this House and the other place.
  Several hon. Members referred to secondary legislation, so let me make clear the basis for that. The special meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September set 1 January 2002 as the deadline for implementing the 1995 and 1996 European Union extradition conventions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is publicly committed to meeting that deadline and actual implementation will follow, as required in the conventions, 90 days later. However, the Home Secretary will want to meet the legislative deadline in the terrorism road map agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
  Several hon. Members have asked that we make the regulations available publicly in draft. I am advised that they are being finalised and that they will be made available as soon as it is possible to do so, although that is unlikely to be much before they are laid before Parliament. Next week we will, however, be able to provide a summary of the main effects of the regulations on the Extradition Act 1989. In advance of that, the Government's proposals to implement the two conventions can be found in the consultation paper issued in March this year, "The Law on Extradition: A Review".
  The motion on secondary legislation will be required precisely because the House cannot take a view on secondary legislation until the primary legislation is passed. The House, however, has procedures for considering secondary legislation. All measures under the Justice and Home Affairs Council will take place under the affirmative procedure and will therefore be subject to debate.
  Finally, let me say a few words about the conduct of the debate last night and today. Last night, the Liberal Democrats took advantage of parliamentary procedure in an attempt to derail discussion of the Bill. The official Opposition co-operated with the Government to get a sensible solution, but some Conservative Back Benchers joined the Liberal Democrats in resorting to arcane parliamentary procedure to frustrate debate.
  Ironically, the reasons that the Liberal Democrats have given to explain their actions do not stand up. A motion to sit in private does not prevent another motion for closure. Even if the Government were contemplating a tactic of closure, it would have been within the discretion of the Chair whether to allow a such a motion. Therefore, like many outside, I find the tactics of the Liberal Democrats baffling.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the Minister and he has referred to legislation on extradition. He knows

  383
  perfectly well that the European Union arrest warrant, which was due to be considered and completed on 7 December, cannot be carried through in the way that the Government and the European Council originally intended, because the Government completely fouled up their own legislation two days ago. Furthermore, the measure is subject to a scrutiny reserve. Will the—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is a point for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Twigg: I welcome the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to the debate; it is certainly the first time that I have seen him. Clearly a mention of Europe aroused his instant interest as he sits in his previous position on the Back Benches rather than in his new position on the Front Bench.
  We heard a number of interesting contributions that did not relate directly to the motion. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has become a belated convert to modernisation with his criticism of late-night sittings and late-night discussion of motions. I was struck by the fact that today he was able to say succinctly in 13 minutes what took him more than an hour to say last night. Similarly, of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) managed to say in 12 minutes what it took the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey 34 minutes to say last night. That demonstrates that we have had sufficient time to deal with the motion fully and properly.
  I am pleased to commend the motion to the House. The provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill are a direct response to the changed security situation following the tragedy of 11 September. The powers in the Bill, such as those for the detention of suspect terrorist asylum seekers and for aviation security, are needed on the statute book as soon as possible. I believe that we have got the balance right, enabling debate, scrutiny and consideration in both Houses while seeking to secure the Bill according to the Government's timetable. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 152.

  Division No. 103]

  [6.38 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Best, Harold

  (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Borrow, David

  Baird, Vera

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barnes, Harry

  Brennan, Kevin

  Baron Kevin

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Battle, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bryant, Chris

  Beard, Nigel

  Burden, Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burnham, Andy

  Beggs, Roy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  384

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C bridge)

  Havard, Dai

  Campbell, Gregory (ELond'y)

  Healey, John

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Challen, Colin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heyes, David

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Jamieson, David

  (Copeland)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  David, Wayne

  Joyce, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Drew, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lucas, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Luke, Iain

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lyons, John

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foulkes, George

  MacDonald, Calum

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKechin, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, David (Midtothian)

  Mann, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marris, Rob

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Martlew, Eric

  385

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheridan, Jim

  Merron, Gillian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Mole, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Morgan, Julie

  Squire, Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Watte)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Tami, Mark

  Osbome, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynan, Bill

  Pumell, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watson, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Watts, David

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes: Angela Smith and Mr. Ian Pearson.

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burnett, John

  Allan, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baker, Norman

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barker, Gregory

  Cameron, David

  Baron, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Barrett, John

  (NE Fife)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bercow, John

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chidgey, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  (Rushcliffe)

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  Brake, Tom

  Conway, Derek

  Brazier, Julian

  Cotter, Brian

  Breed, Colin

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  386

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Oaten, Mark

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Ottaway, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Flook, Adrian

  Price, Adam

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Francois, Mark

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gale, Roger

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Selous, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Harvey, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heald, Oliver

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

  Heath, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Hoban, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Stunell, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Syms, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jenkin Bernard

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Thurso, John

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Key, Robert

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tyler, Paul

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Viggers, Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Webb, Steve

  Lamb, Norman

  Weir, Michael

  Laws, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Wiggin, Bill

  Letwin, Oliver

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willis, Phil

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That,
  (1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11 th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
  (2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.

  European Affairs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  6.50 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): Next week, on 14 and 15 December, the Belgian presidency of the European Union will host the final European Council of the year at Laeken, at which Britain will play a strong role as a European power, now, under the Labour Government, more influential than at any time since we joined the rest of Europe in the early 1970s.
  By co-operating with our fellow members of the EU, Britain gets practical benefits: more jobs, faster economic growth, safer food, cleaner beaches, cleaner air, purer water, less crime and, crucially, better security. In the modern world, our strength as a nation derives from the strength of our partnerships and our alliances. Nations are stronger when working together than when alone. In the modern world, sovereignty shared is sovereignty regained. We should be more confident and get more real about our sovereignty. Does getting more involved in Europe mean that we will give up our sovereignty? No, because there is a difference between giving up and choosing to pool sovereignty because doing so promotes Britain's interests.
  We have already given up our right to do what we like in defending Britain, because we are members of NATO. We already pool sovereignty with the United States of America and others because by doing so Britain has stronger defences. Anyone attacking us invites retaliation from all the NATO nations.
  Mr. Graham Allen: We are discussing a matter of fundamental interest to our country. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that although Labour Members are paying great attention to his speech, there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher—
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory rose—
  Mr. Allen: Oh, forgive me. I withdraw that remark. One Conservative Back Bencher is present in the Chamber. What does that tell us about the views of the Conservative party?
  Peter Hain: I do not want to intrude on the Conservatives' private grief. Presumably, their desire for a truce in their internal civil war over Europe is the reason why all their rabid Back Benchers are away.
  More than 50 years ago, we gave up our right to do as we liked in foreign policy by joining the United Nations. Its Security Council resolutions have the force of international law, and everyone, including Britain, has to respect them, but as a permanent member of the Security Council we can make the laws. By pooling sovereignty, the British people have greater influence in building a safer, more stable world.
  Mr. Michael Trend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will reply to the debate later, but why not?
  Mr. Trend: Perhaps the Minister might care to comment on the fact that had the Government not lost
  388
  control of the business last night and today, the start of this debate would not have coincided with the meeting of the 1922 Committee. That is why Conservative Members are not here.
  Peter Hain: I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall be reluctant to take any more interventions from Conservatives, especially interventions of that quality.
  Pooling sovereignty can entail compromises. That is sometimes hard for some commentators and politicians to understand, but real people know that in real life we cannot always get exactly what we want, and nor can other countries in those international bodies. We can better advance British interests by being right at the centre of NATO, the UN and, indeed, the EU.
  In recent weeks, the EU has acted with great resolve and rapidity to tackle the threat of terrorism. Already we have agreed that there will be a common European arrest warrant, a common definition of terrorist offences and common measures to freeze the assets of terrorist suspects. None of those measures could have been achieved outside the EU. By co-operating with other countries we strengthen our defences against terrorism—an evil that knows no national boundaries.
  There is more to do. We have to boost co-operation between our national law enforcement and counter-terrorist agencies, approve without delay the Commission's proposals to improve air transport security, and ensure that all member states ratify the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism and strengthen their domestic legislation. The EU has emerged as a key player in the global fight against terrorism. The natural alliance between the countries of north America and Europe is at the core of the international coalition.
  At Laeken, we have the opportunity to show once again the strength of the EU's backing for the current military campaign and to renew our commitment to the dipLornatic and humanitarian tasks, which are just as vital if we are to defeat the terrorist threat. The signing in Bonn this morning of the agreement on Afghanistan's future is a significant achievement. We pay tribute to the UN and to the Afghan leaders—men and women—who have grasped the opportunity to begin to rebuild their country. It is a victory for the international coalition against terrorism. A stable Afghanistan with a broad-based Government is as important to our own security as it is to the Afghan people, who have been liberated from the clutches of the odious Taliban. At Laeken we shall reaffirm our support for the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and Lakhdar Brahimi to deliver on today's deal and build a broad-based, multi-ethnic Government in Afghanistan.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is it not a little early to say that we have a stable Afghanistan?
  Peter Hain: I did not say that the job was finished, but the hon. Lady, for whom in other respects I have considerable respect, should recognise that many of her arguments in relation to the international coalition's action in Afghanistan have been proved wrong. The people of Afghanistan—including and especially women—are enjoying greater freedom than they have had for many a long decade.

  389
  Between us, EU member states and the Commission have already committed 320 million euros to the international humanitarian effort in and around Afghanistan, and the EU will have a continuing commitment to the region. Our kind of Europe has a collective duty to act as a more effective force for good in the world, so two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Chirac launched a British-French initiative on security and defence that the EU has been developing ever since.
  In the aftermath of 11 September, it is all the more important to underpin our security with the capacity to carry out humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks where NATO as a whole is not involved. Far from weakening NATO, as some have alleged, we have an opportunity to strengthen NATO by strengthening the capabilities of EU member states.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The fact that there is a crisis in the aerospace sector is widely recognised, and today aerospace workers lobbied the House of Commons. Will the European Governments at Laeken address that crisis in aerospace industries throughout the EU? Might consideration be given to bringing forward orders that have already been committed for the A400M—the military version of the Airbus? That would do a great deal to help us in the north-west.
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend speaks forcefully, as always, on behalf of his constituents, and I know that many hon. Members have interests in the aerospace industry. Those points will be taken on board because we want to ensure that Airbus Industrie has a positive future—I think that it builds the best aeroplanes in the world. Given the difficulties it has already experienced, the aerospace industry overall should take advantage of all the opportunities that might lie ahead.
  The European security and defence capability has been welcomed by President Bush, by all NATO members, by all candidate countries, and by almost everyone else across the world—except that fount of all wisdom, today's Conservative party.
  I especially welcome Ankara's confirmation this week of support for Turkish participation in European defence—an outcome that our officials and my right hon. the Foreign Secretary have worked hard to secure. At Laeken, we expect to be able to draw the realistic conclusion that the EU is now able to conduct some crisis management operations, and will be in a position to take on increasingly demanding operations as the assets and capabilities at our disposal increase. However, our best weapon in the fight against terrorism is international solidarity. Alongside existing EU members, applicants for admission to the EU have backed the international coalition and the anti-terrorist measures agreed by the EU.
  Britain has long been a champion of enlargement. We used our presidency in 1998 to launch negotiations for the first set of six applicant countries. Since then, we have pushed for and secured rapid progress. As a result, 12 countries are now negotiating their accession. A 13th—Turkey—has been confirmed as a candidate. Our Prime Minister was the first European leader to call for the first new member states to be admitted in time for
  390
  the 2004 European parliamentary elections. At the Gothenburg European Council in June, that objective was agreed. At Laeken, in 10 days' time, we shall take the matter further forward. All 10 of the candidate countries with target accession dates by 2004 have now closed 19 or more chapters of the 30 that make up the EU acquis.
  The Commission's recent strategy paper confirms that we are on track for our goal of completing negotiations with the best prepared candidates by the end of next year. As the paper reaffirms, while a political settlement of Cyprus's problems is plainly desirable, it is not a pre-condition for that country's entry to the EU. Only yesterday, the first meeting between the leaders of the two Cypriot communities agreed to direct talks. We continue to support a just, viable and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem.
  With the Bill having passed through this place and having completed consideration in Committee in the other place, we are now on target to ratify the Nice treaty, which is essential for enlargement to proceed. At the Nice summit a year ago, and for the first time since we joined the common market in 1973, we won an increase in Britain's voting weight relative to the smaller countries. We succeeded in providing for a smaller and more efficient Commission. We secured more qualified majority voting in areas where the UK's interest lies in reform and change while preserving our ability to defend the status quo and vital national interests where that is necessary.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am delighted that qualified majority voting will help us to reach consensus but still protect our vital interests. In respect of the prospectus directive, which affects the financial services interests of the City of London, does my right hon. Friend agree that what is taking place in London is larger than what is taking place in the rest of Europe? Qualified majority voting might result in the loss of our competitive advantage, and that would not be in our interests.
  Peter Hain: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable and an expert on the EU, but I am not sure that she is right in this instance.
  At Nice, we showed also that Britain is in the vanguard of reform and change in the EU. In the 12 months since Nice, the EU has agreed other practical measures that will directly benefit British citizens. These include new rules to speed up procedures for returning illegally abducted children home, new measures to limit emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia to make cleaner the air that we breathe and new airline safety measures so that we can fly the European skies more safely. Further practical benefits are in the pipeline for next year—again with British influence.
  There will be a new package of measures to liberalise the EU telecommunications market, which will increase consumer choice and should help to drive down phone bills. A new Community patent will encourage innovation and make it easier for business to protect intellectual property rights quickly, reliably and cheaply. There are measures to open up the pensions market so that people can shop around Europe for the best deals.
  None of those measures could conceivably be implemented so quickly and efficiently without the familiar structures and procedures of the EU. They will be of immediate and obvious benefit to all our citizens.

  391
  Several Members have raised with us the case of 12 British citizens who are being detained in Greece following their arrest near a military base.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend has listed all the benefits of the treaty of Nice, and I would applaud each one of them. Unanimity seems to have been denied by the Irish referendum, and my Irish colleagues tell me that it may be denied if a second referendum is held. Can we proceed to enlargement without the treaty of Nice being approved by all the present members of the EU?
  Peter Hain: In practical terms, the answer is no. The Nice treaty is the only realistic route to enlargement, at least on anything like the timetable that we have agreed. In practical terms, we could not proceed without a similar treaty.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Peter Hain: I am trying to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is an addict when it comes to these matters, and I shall come to him in a moment.
  The Nice treaty needs to be ratified by the House; otherwise, we shall deny all our friends in Cyprus, Malta, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and all the other accession states the status in the EU that they have so desperately striven to secure. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who is about to interrupt me, will support the treaty and the Government in the negotiations.
  Mr. Davidson: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am certainly not an addict? I am not nearly as sad as that. However, I take an interest in the plight of small countries. Is it the Government's position that they respect the decision made by the Irish people in a referendum, or is Britain pressurising Ireland to conduct a further referendum? Will he make it absolutely clear what Britain's position is on this matter?
  Peter Hain: I am delighted to do so. Yes, we respect the Irish people's verdict; no, we are not pressuring the Irish Government to do anything. On the contrary, the Irish Government have come to us and our fellow European member states. They have said that they wish to offer advice, having further consulted their own people to ascertain whether there are any further assurances from the EU, and especially the European Council, that might enable another referendum to be called. The Irish people can then be invited to make up their own mind, as was done—
  Mr. William Cash: Blackmail.
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has been told by his leader to keep quiet as the shadow Attorney-General. He is not supposed to say anything on Europe, but he says "blackmail" from the Opposition Back Benches. When the Conservative Government whom he supported—well,
  392
  sometimes; I am not sure whether he supported them on this matter—were in office the Danes initially rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum. On a further referendum, they were given assurances that enabled them to vote again—
  Mr. Cash: Blackmail.
  Peter Hain: I think that it is intelligent to seek reassurances on the matters that one is worried about and to consider the matter again. If the Irish choose to do that, they will have our support.
  I return to my point about the British citizens who are detained in Greece following their arrest near a military airbase. I can assure the House that our officials in London and at the British embassy in Athens are providing the detainees with the consular assistance that they need, and are working closely with the Greek authorities to expedite the case.
  The rapid pace of change in the world means that we in Europe cannot afford to stand still. Reform is not merely desirable, it is a survival strategy. At Nice, member states agreed to take the process of reform further forward at another intergovernmental conference, to take place in 2004. At Laeken, we shall agree the remit of a convention under which a wide-ranging debate will be held on the future of Europe in preparation for the intergovernmental conference.
  Mr. Colin Challen: Does my right hon. Friend think that we are exercising change at the right speed, given that the general public are perhaps rather disenchanted with the EU? Given the turnout at the last European elections and the fact that possibly there is only one referendum every generation, should we be doing more to address these issues?
  Peter Hain: I agree. We are doing more. At the convention launched at the Laeken summit the weekend after next and at the following IGC we will address the key objective of closing the gap between the leaders and citizens of Europe.
  The House will welcome the fact that its direct participation in the convention is already assured. Two Parliamentarians from each member state will be members. The rest of the convention will consist of one representative from each Government, 16 Members of the European Parliament and one representative from the College of Commissioners. The candidate countries will also participate. We expect the convention to address fundamental questions, such as how to demarcate the powers of the European Union and the member states; how to ensure that co-operation in the EU remains rooted in democratic legitimacy; and how to simplify the treaties so that citizens can better understand and appreciate what the EU does in their name—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).
  We welcome a debate to clarify who does what. We also welcome the simplification of treaties so that people can understand them, as I have sought to do in a new booklet summarising them in 300 words; it was published last night and I am happy to send a copy to every Member of Parliament who wants one. In addition, we want to

  393
  involve national Parliaments more. All of that is a British agenda, which is now being accepted by our colleagues across the EU.
  Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend talked about simplifying the treaties; lawyers get a bit worried when they hear such talk. Will the simplified treaties be legal documents and, if so, will the European Court of Justice adjudicate on them?
  Peter Hain: I am always reluctant to cross swords with my right hon. Friend who is an expert, not just on Europe, but on the treaties in particular. In fact, I venture to suggest that he knows a lot more about them than I do. He makes a legitimate point; there will be a disclaimer on the simplified directive and the treaties stating that they cannot be quoted in a court of law because they are a lay person's guide; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome that.
  The convention will not take decisions on the future of Europe; that task properly belongs to the Governments of the member states taking part in the IGC. The Governments of nation states will take that decision; in Britain it will be subject, as ever, to the final word of Parliament.
  Angus Robertson: Returning to the convention and UK representation, will the Minister share with the House his thoughts on the make-up of the UK delegation? He will be aware that the German lander will be represented by the upper House of the German Parliament. He said that it is vital that national Parliaments are involved. Does he agree that the national Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be represented directly on the convention delegation?
  Peter Hain: No, I do not; that is the simple answer. Two representatives of the House of Commons are provided for under the provisional agreement, which will be finalised at Laeken. European policy is a reserved matter for the House. I recently had the privilege of being invited to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament and was pleased to answer its questions. I see myself working in partnership with that Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to make sure that the vision that we project in Europe is as inclusive as possible. It would not be possible to have direct representation by all the lander, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and so on in the convention unless it was much larger than is being contemplated.
  Mr. Cash: As the Minister will know, I have certain responsibilities for the interpretation of treaties and other responsibilities for legal advice to the House. In the context of the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Minister is right that those matters are reserved. However, I remember crossing swords with the late Secretary of State for Scotland on the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998; although countries can aspire to the partnership described by the Minister, in practice if there is an ultra vires provision it is down to the Minister in Whitehall to override it by
  394
  order. That is prescribed in the Scotland Act and applies to questions of European law if there is a conflict between the two countries.
  Peter Hain: I will take the hon. Gentleman's word for it; his authority on those matters is unsurpassed. I am delighted that his voice has not been silenced on European matters and I hope that he will intervene throughout the rest of our debate.
  Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is important for the convention to pursue its work in Brussels, it is also sensible for its members to report regularly to their national Parliaments and, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), liaise with regional bodies as well? Throughout the life of the convention, there should be as much consultation and involvement of people as possible; we are all worried about the gap between European institutions and the people, and that would at least be an attempt to close it.
  Peter Hain: That is a positive and constructive suggestion from my right hon. Friend, a distinguished predecessor of mine. We shall certainly look at that important proposal and I hope that the House authorities and the usual channels will look at it as well.
  It is important that we know what the British people think about Europe. Today, I have placed in the Library the results of an opinion poll that we commissioned from ICM, which surveyed a relatively large and authoritative sample of 2,000 people across Britain. The main findings include the fact that a majority of two to one think that our membership of the EU is a good thing for Britain. Big majorities agree that the EU promotes peace and security in Europe and is good for British jobs and trade. The poll shows that the British people's priorities for the future work of the EU are maintaining peace and security and fighting poverty, unemployment and crime. It is that same practical Europeanism that the Government are seeking to advance.
  Mr. Richard Spring: What about the euro?
  Peter Hain: I shall come to that.
  The poll confirms that many people know too little about the EU; no surprise there. But it also shows, rather more interestingly, that the more people know about the EU, the more positive they are about it; knowledge is a wonderful thing. The Government will continue to encourage that, especially among Conservative Back Benchers—indeed, among Conservative Front Benchers as well. The poll confirms that, like our Labour Government, people are worried about EU red tape and bureaucracy. Like our Government, they are concerned that the UK's national identity should not be lost in the EU. The poll shows that a majority are not at present convinced that we should join the euro—no surprises there either—although the majority against is rather smaller than in other polls; 47 per cent. of the ECM respondents were against joining it, while 36 per cent. were in favour.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: There has been much play on the issue of national identity. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on whether the Scots or Welsh have less

  395
  of a sense of national identity after hundreds of years of membership of the United Kingdom? Has the fact that the French, Germans and Italians have been EU members from the beginning made them feel that they have lost their national identity?
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. As a Welsh MP like him, I know—as do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, hailing from Wales—that our Welsh constituents are fiercely patriotic about their Welshness, but are also proud to be British. The same is true in Scotland and, indeed, France; I do not detect that the French are any less French or less proud of being French citizens as a result of being positively pro-European. The same applies to the Germans, the Spanish and the citizens of any other EU member state. They are proud to be French, Spanish or German, as we are proud to be British, and proud to be European as well. That, I think, is the point that my hon. Friend was seeking to emphasise.
  The poll to which I referred confirms what we have long been saying as a Government: that what matters about the EU is what it delivers, how it makes a practical difference to the lives of its citizens, and how it helps sustain and strengthen the real, prosperous, safe Europe in which our people want to live.
  The European Council at Laeken will be the last before euro notes and coins are issued on new year's day in member states that are part of the single currency—a momentous step that will have an impact on us all. The change-over has been carefully prepared. We all have a strong interest in its success. A successful euro is in the interests of Britain, because so much of our trade is with countries in the euro zone.
  Meanwhile we shall continue to pursue our agenda for economic reform in Europe, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart at the Lisbon European Council in 1999—an agenda that will be given further impetus under Spanish leadership at Barcelona next year. That is yet another example of how, by building partnerships and engaging wholeheartedly with our friends in the European Union, we can deliver practical reforms and practical benefits for the British people.
  The coming 12 months will provide ample further evidence of the ways in which the EU delivers what Europe's citizens want. Key decisions are due on freedom, security and justice in the European context; action against terrorism; European defence; economic reform; and enlargement. These are all issues that matter to our citizens, and they are all steps towards our goal of building our kind of Europe: a practical, people's Europe that, in a world full of challenges, is the surest way to underpin British security and British prosperity.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: Since our last debate on European affairs, much has changed. The continent of Europe has had to face up to the challenge of terrorism. Just as in a previous generation many millions of people recalled the moment when they heard about the death of President Kennedy, so hundreds of millions of people alive today will always have in their memories the terrible visual images of 11 September. Yet out of that unspeakable horror, countries with very different political traditions have made common cause as the evils of terrorism are recognised.
  396
  As we reflect on the past few decades, however, perhaps we find that the most astonishing political event in Europe was the collapse of the Berlin wall—a momentous event which gave an opportunity to millions of our fellow Europeans to breathe freely and escape a hideous totalitarianism that had gripped their lives for decades.
  A number of those now democratic countries are already valuable members of NATO and, we hope, will soon be embraced politically and economically by the European family of nations. Given their history, their accession to the European Union is a moral imperative, as well as a political and economic one.
  For Russia, the collapse of the old Soviet Union and its satellites has resulted in a particularly difficult period of adjustment. Old suspicions and distrust have lingered on. That is why few developments have been more welcome than Russia's positive response to the appalling events of 11 September. It has given the international coalition much-needed support in fighting the terrorist threat, and President Putin has shown himself to be a strong national leader. The House will no doubt agree that it has been important for the cause for which we are fighting that Russia has joined the battle against terrorism so wholeheartedly and helped to provide crucial logistical support.
  That has been accompanied by an overdue thaw in the relations between Russia and NATO. We applaud the Prime Minister's efforts to build bridges based on the new rapprochement. We in the Opposition were pleased to see how much Lord Robertson's visit to Moscow last month accomplished. The proposal to set up a Russia-North Atlantic council has considerable potential. Both parties stand to gain far greater security by working together.
  There is still, however, a small dark cloud on the horizon in the picture of eastern Europe. It is regrettable that September's elections showed that it is not for nothing that Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko is called Europe's last dictator. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that President Lukashenko's Government
  "did everything in its power to block the opposition"
  and that there was
  "a campaign of intimidation directed against opposition activists, domestic observation organizations, opposition and independent media, and a smear campaign against international observers."
  The future of countries such as Belarus and Ukraine, for different reasons, causes concern to the eastern European EU accession countries, which want stable and successful neighbours.
  The welcome warming of relations with Russia, especially the lessening of its concerns about NATO's post-cold war role, makes it easier to address the concerns of the Baltic states about security, by admitting them to NATO. Arising out of the experience of close co-operation over Afghanistan and our gratitude for that, Russia should no longer feel threatened by the Baltic states joining NATO. Every NATO state gains when a new member is admitted, and for the Baltic states admission would be a further sign of their acceptance and recognition by the world as full and independent parts of democratic Europe. Admission to NATO would enable

  397
  them finally to put their difficult past behind them, at no risk to the interests of Russia or their own Russian minorities.
  Ms Stuart: Although I agree that the Baltic states should be admitted to NATO as quickly as possible, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should distinguish between the situation of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, which are all slightly different, and that there would be problems with Kaliningrad, should they join NATO and the EU?
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, as I know that she takes a particular interest in these matters. Following the events of 11 September, we should explore the position and take the opportunity to derive some benefit from the horror that occurred.
  Since the House last debated European affairs, a great step has been taken in the struggle against state-directed terrorism. Last June, Slobodan Milosevic was handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. It is clear that in Europe at least, state terrorism has been shown not to pay for the individuals who direct it. Nevertheless, the western Balkans remains a region of great instability. Ethnic hatreds still hang over the region's future. In Kosovo, much progress has been made and free and fair elections have been held, in which all ethnic groups took part.
  That brings us to Macedonia. I am sure that the entire House regrets the continued shootings and strife there, after it seemed that a peaceful settlement had been reached. It is clear that unless a way can be found to give Macedonia's inhabitants stability and security, the whole region will be in danger of another inter-ethnic flare-up.
  The military framework for dealing with the Balkan crises has been NATO, and it has proved flexible and successful. European Union countries outside NATO, such as Austria and Finland, have worked with it in peacekeeping operations such as KFOR. We should never risk losing such practical flexibility, which demonstrates NATO's importance and pre-eminence.
  The greatest strength of the response to the events of 11 September has been that it was a flexible and layered response within a flexible and layered coalition. It has been flexible in that it has not required every member of the EU to sign up to precisely the same response, and layered in that it has allowed for different levels of enthusiasm, and different levels of participation as a result. Some members have felt unable to make a military contribution in the fight against terrorism directly or to the campaign in Afghanistan in particular, while others have deployed forces or stated their intention to do so.
  A single European foreign or defence policy as advocated by Romano Prodi and others would have limited the effectiveness of the European response to that of the lowest common denominator, rather than allowing flexibly for a varied and layered response which allowed the EU to hold together while responding according to individual national capabilities. It is manifestly absurd that the advocates of greater integration have adduced 11 September as a reason for it. In fact, it plays in entirely the opposite direction. We need to ask ourselves this question: what would a single defence and foreign policy
  398
  on this issue have been? The lesson of the challenge of 11 September shows that a flexible Europe met that challenge as an integrated and harmonised Europe could never have done.
  Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the existence of a European defence identity and the capacity to act in areas such as the Balkans that allow the flexibility that we have seen since 11 September, which has enabled us to build an international coalition that can act in areas such as Afghanistan?
  Mr. Spring: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's thought process exactly. Of course, there should be European defence co-operation. We have always been in favour of that, but we believe that it should work under the umbrella of NATO. That is the difficulty that we now face as a result of Nice.
  Joyce Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is definitely repudiating the part of the Maastricht treaty—let us remember that it was signed up to by a Conservative Government and a Conservative Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary—that included a commitment to the
  "progressive framing of a common defence policy"?
  Is he now repudiating that commitment?
  Mr. Spring: The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that there was never any intention to establish a separate command structure outside NATO, but if one looks at exactly what was agreed at Nice, one sees that it is entirely different. I remind her that, originally, the Prime Minister himself bitterly opposed the moves that arose out of St. Malo. That is on the record.
  The most practical thing that we can do to help our friends in eastern Europe is to proceed with enlargement of the European Union, which is the greatest task that faces member states. Regrettably, what the Government signed up to at Nice now threatens to undermine the very raison d'être of Nice: enlargement. There is no guarantee that the Irish people would change their minds if the Irish Government held another referendum on Nice. For enlargement to occur, a fallback position is clearly needed. We have pointed that out to the Government before and they need to answer the point. It is no use carrying on pretending that this is not a problem. I am sure that the whole House will be glad to hear whether such a fallback plan exists, and if so, what it is. I would not like to think that the Government had not comprehensively and urgently considered the problem.
  The other great difficulty in the accession process is the lack of reform of the common agricultural policy. We know that, if there is no reform, the costs will explode and enlargement would be made virtually impossible. We have talked about these matters frequently in the Chamber, but I ask the Minister to note the final declaration at the recent World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha, which committed members to improvements in market access and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. It would be very helpful to all hon. Members to understand exactly what that means in practice, as it applies to the common agricultural policy. I hope that he will refer to the matter. Of course, agricultural reform was not even raised at Nice, which is very regrettable.

  399
  Before Nice, we were told by the previous Foreign Secretary that the accession process arising out of the so-called Amsterdam treaty leftovers probably did not require a formal treaty to pave the way for enlargement. If the accession process is, as we believe, a historical imperative, Nice should have been focused on it unequivocally and overwhelmingly. Before Nice, the previous Foreign Secretary told us about the 50 items for potential extensions of qualified majority voting put forward by the French presidency and then substantially ruled them out. In practice, however, at Nice the Government agreed wholly or partially to the majority of such extensions—so much for rhetoric versus reality.
  As I told the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), with regard to St. Malo our own Prime Minister flatly rejected the creation of any military structure outside NATO. What emerged at Nice was a European rapid reaction force that had nothing to do with improved defence capabilities or enhanced burden sharing, but everything to do with a structure that could ultimately undermine NATO and the United States presence in Europe.
  Peter Hain: In that case, why have NATO and the United States welcomed it?
  Mr. Spring: I have read what President Bush had to say. The Prime Minister's interpretation does not accord with what was signed up to at Nice. If the Minister looks at the annexes and exactly what was spelled out, he will see that there is a separate structure. As he will know, there is genuine concern in NATO, the United States and this country about a rival structure that may cause tensions within NATO in future. I am sure that he would not want that to happen. The separation of the command structure is spelled out unequivocally in the Nice annexes, and the Government simply cannot pretend otherwise. There are those who say that, since 11 September, there has been much rethinking. I hope so, for it is not only the decreasing military capabilities of Europe that have been put under the spotlight.
  Let us turn now to the charter of fundamental rights. I am delighted to see the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), in the Chamber as it was he who compared the importance of the charter with that of the Beano.He said:
  "We do not … favour the Charter's incorporation into the Treaties."—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 541W.]
  A matter of weeks later, he said:
  "I think it would be premature to decide now whether or not it should go into the treaties."
  Furthermore, the Prime Minister appeared to rule out an EU-wide constitution in his Warsaw speech.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not read my speeches with the same enthusiasm with which I am listening to him now. He will know that I said that the charter of fundamental rights was not a legally enforceable document. There was no question of its being entered into the treaties.
  Mr. Spring: I shall address that point specifically in relation to the interpretation of the European Commission's view of its efficacy in that respect. We said
  400
  at the time that the charter would be the basis for a European constitution, and of course that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
  When I recently asked the current Minister for Europe about discussions that he had had regarding the inclusion of a possible EU constitution in the forthcoming Laeken declaration, he declined in a written reply on 22 November to answer that very simple question. The plain fact is that numerous European leaders, including Chancellor Schroder and President Chirac, have made powerful calls for a European constitution based on the charter. Our Government know what the consequences will be for our country; we have no written constitution. Nothing will alienate the British people more from the EU than a wholesale increase in judge-led law and the further blurring of the division between the legislature and the judiciary.
  So, Nice was a catalogue of bad preparation, bad judgment and a lack of foresight on the part of our Government. It not only put in place the seeds of an intrusive and damaging European supranational constitution and the potential for tensions in NATO, but most of all, to the extent that it dealt with enlargement—as it should have done—it may well have obstructed it.
  Of course, we would have accepted the functional changes associated with enlargement, such as those in voting power. Nice was not about stopping the processes that are alienating Europe's citizens from the institutions of the European Union. It has simply aggravated the problem. All of this was signed up to by a Government who have failed to repatriate one single power to national Parliaments and to stop the remorseless process of political integration—a failure that has arisen because they have absolutely no view or conviction whatever about what an enlarged European Union should look like in 10 or 15 years' time.
  However, as the Minister for Europe said, the processes that lead up to Laeken, and subsequently to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, are in place. We want to make a positive contribution to the discussions that lead up to the IGC. In contrast to the thought-free zone opposite, we have already devised fresh ideas to reinvigorate the role of national Parliaments and give proper force to subsidiarity.
  Let me spell out some of our ideas. We want to put a senior Minister directly in charge of our Brussels representation, who regularly reports back to Parliament, answers questions, faces scrutiny and spends part of the week in Brussels. He or she would sit on the Committee of Permanent Representatives on that basis. We support a formal subsidiarity panel to which national Parliaments, not the courts, could appeal. We support enhanced scrutiny, and consideration of how national Parliaments can amend EU legislation. We want a structured and open dialogue between national Parliaments and the Council of Ministers. We also support a national parliamentary committee that oversees EU expenditure in every member state and monitors any possible fraud and abuse.
  Roger Casale: It sounds increasingly as if the hon. Gentleman is arguing for some sort of European constitution.
  Mr. Spring: We got used to the hon. Gentleman's interventions in the Committee that dealt with the Nice ratification process. I shall not comment further.

  401
  The proposals that I outlined, among others, would completely alter the balance and tone in the EU. We want clear limits on what is being done at the centre.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back three or four sentences. He briefly mentioned a proposal for national Parliaments to be able to amend European legislation. I am not sure whether he means that an individual country should amend the legislation for all the countries. However, that is an unreliable process unless all the countries get together to amend the legislation for everybody. That is the purpose of the European Parliament.
  Mr. Spring: I was trying to make the point that we need to enhance the role of national Parliaments. The Minister for Europe has also said that. We should consider the matter properly. We are making suggestions that can subsequently be discussed and debated to ascertain whether they can be developed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is no point in discussing the disconnection of national Parliaments from the architecture of the EU without making some practical proposals. Those that I have outlined are among several ideas that we want to consider. It is important that our national Parliament has a role in the EU that it currently lacks.
  Angus Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing yet another intervention. He talked about several ideas on subsidiarity, yet he did not mention the role that sub-state Parliaments in the United Kingdom might play. Perhaps he has missed something out or has no ideas about subsidiarity apart from the role of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Spring: I appeared before the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament with the hon. Gentleman, and I spelled out my views in great detail. His memory is a little imperfect.
  We support a change in the tone and structures of the EU. We want clear limits on what is done centrally. How does that square with the Prime Minister's view that there should be no finality to what is done at the centre? Of course, exceptional and unforeseen circumstances may arise and demand a unified response; that is different. However, it is ridiculous to diagnose the problem constantly and offer no prescription. The British people want not high-flown, windy rhetoric, but a clarity that is absent from current Government thinking.
  The Minister for Europe talked about the eurozone and the fact that the euro will come into play in a few weeks. Of course, the strength of the euro will depend on the performance in the economies of the countries in the eurozone. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we can only hope that the economies of Europe will grow, because they are important export markets for us.
  However, it is worth remembering what the Prime Minister said before the 1997 election when he talked about his love of the pound and his feelings about the Queen's head on the £10 note. He said:
  "I feel it too. There's a very strong emotional tie to the pound which I fully understand. Of course there are emotional issues involved in the single currency.
  402
  It's not just a question of economics. It's about the sovereignty of Britain and constitutional issues, too."
  Since then, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe have made further comments. They have said that there is no constitutional bar to the single currency. At what point and by whom was that resolved? Did a group of learned Queen's Counsel pronounce on the matter? Perhaps it was the Attorney-General, or did the Lord Chancellor make a magisterial pronouncement? We await the right hon. Gentleman's explanation with bated breath.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Spring: Many Labour Members would like to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have given way generously this evening.
  The Minister for Europe recently gave his views on the euro on "Newsnight". He expressed such wonderful banalities as, "We can't afford to be left behind in Europe." He showed that he had no clue about the operation of the European central bank by saying, "Where we don't have influence yet is in the direction of monetary policy." However, his most fatuous remark was, "Even if you opt out you are affected by it."
  Leaving aside our position as the fourth largest economy in the world, let us consider Canada, which is a member of the North American Free Trade Area and has an economy that is far more dominated by and more inextricably tied to the United States than our economy is affected by its relationship with the continent of Europe. Yet no one in Canada believes that it is essential for the Canadian dollar to be abolished. There are many other examples around the world.
  As the Bank of England has confirmed, foreign investment has not been dissuaded from coming here because we are not in the eurozone. What economic statistic can the Minister for Europe produce to reflect the disadvantages that apparently burden us?
  The single currency has little to do with economic considerations and everything to do with the politics of integration in the EU. As Mr. Duisenberg, president of the European central bank, openly said:
  "The process of monetary union goes hand in hand with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
  Let us not be in denial. The Chancellor's five economic tests are wholly subjective. The only test that matters is the sixth test of how and when to win a referendum. We shall argue for retaining our currency on economic, political and constitutional grounds.
  If the Minister for Europe wants to elevate the important debate above woolly rhetoric, he should consider producing a White Paper to examine the economic, political and constitutional implications of the single currency. If the Government did that, I am sure that the document would bear out our view that it is in Britain's interests to retain our currency. That view is held by a clear majority of British people.
  I have already referred to the tensions and difficulties in the Balkans. I should like to mention two other worrying areas in Europe. Today a meeting is taking place in Nicosia between the representatives of the two Cypriot communities, Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides. The position of successive Governments has been clear: we favour a bizonal, bicommunal, federal structure for the

  403
  island. We have strong historic ties to Cyprus, and its accession to the EU has put a spotlight on the island. The continued division can be no bar to Cypriot accession.
  Turkey also has ambitions for EU membership that we have accepted. However, it is greatly in Turkey's interest to resolve the problem in Cyprus, not least because of the growing disparity of living standards between the two parts of the island. Cyprus has already closed 23 out of the 31 accession chapters. We can only hope for a settlement. However, its absence cannot be allowed to impede full EU membership.
  Lastly, I want to consider Gibraltar, where passions have risen dramatically in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the recent Brussels process meeting in Barcelona. We welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that Gibraltarians will participate in the next European elections and we look forward to hearing the details. I hope that the Spanish Government will try to minimise the points of friction across the border.
  The people of Britain have a special feeling for the people of Gibraltar, for good historic reasons, and value their continued association with us. I am sorry to have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is more directly responsible for the upsurge of concern and anxiety in this country and, particularly, in Gibraltar than he is. He said:
  "Our European partners do not understand why a dispute between two member states over a territory with a population one fifteenth that of Luxembourg should be a deciding factor in such decisions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 90WH.]
  When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, he showed a deeply patronising attitude. It was highly provocative. He then dispatched his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—to appear on television to discuss Gibraltar with the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and me. The hon. Member for Don Valley made the disgraceful and inaccurate statement that smuggling was taking place on a massive scale. Where is the evidence for that? The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs rejected the accusations of massive smuggling and money laundering last year.
  So, despite assurances about respecting the right of Gibraltarians to determine their future, an atmosphere of bullying hostility has been created. This is a mess entirely of the Government's making; it is destructive and wholly unnecessary. We have made it clear that the way forward in any negotiations should be based on the concept of two flags and three voices, echoing the successful peace process in Northern Ireland. We would encourage the Spanish Government to seek a productive and friendly dialogue with their Gibraltarian neighbours and, in that atmosphere, encourage Gibraltar to respond.
  All hon. Members hold Spain in great admiration. In the time span of a generation, it has transformed itself into an exemplary parliamentary democracy and a successful constitutional monarchy. It is also a valued EU and NATO partner. Despite all that, there is no question but that the right of Gibraltar's citizens to maintain their constitutional arrangements is an absolute one, and no amount of weasel words will alter that fact.
  Ms Stuart: On Gibraltar, I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need three voices round the table. However, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar made it quite
  404
  clear when he gave evidence to the Select Committee that he believes that the interests of the people of Gibraltar are better served by an empty chair than by his presence at the negotiations.
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady does the Chief Minister an injustice, because he has made it plain that the concept of two flags and three voices is one to which he would be happy to accede. In fact, we have had discussions about such a process echoing the peace process in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady is not being fair to the Chief Minister, because the situation might be quite different had the matter been handled differently by the Minister.
  Peter Hain: The fact is that we have offered the Chief Minister exactly the same conditions for participation in the Brussels process talks—which are aimed at securing an agreement that will improve life in Gibraltar—that previous Chief Ministers have agreed to, and which have been offered by previous Conservative Governments. We are simply picking up the baton in a process started under Baroness Thatcher in 1984, seeking to promote dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar to resolve this intractable problem.
  Mr. Spring: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to want to resolve this intractable problem. He must, however, ask himself why there has been such fury and passion on the subject, and why the Chief Minister adopted the attitude that he did. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shrugging his shoulders. He should not be shrugging his shoulders about an issue such as this, because it is of deep concern not only to the people of Gibraltar but to the British people who write in their droves to Members of Parliament because they are concerned about what is happening. All I am suggesting is that there is a way of resolving this issue, but it does not involve using the kind of language that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Private Secretary have used with such reckless abandon.
  There are many lessons to be learned from the last 12 months. Nice was a failure of aspiration and influence by this Government, and the Brussels process was turned wholly unnecessarily into a cauldron of anxiety and suspicion. Nevertheless, following September's truly terrible events, we have been forced to examine the nature of our own societies. Despite our being a pluralistic, socially liberal country, tolerant by world standards and slow to anger, the Prime Minister's determined response overwhelmingly had the support of the nation. It has brought all of us who cherish civilised standards more closely together, from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond. But it has also shown us in Britain that we abandon our ultimate independence and flexibility at our peril. If we disconnect our people from our institutions—as we continue to do, particularly with regard to the EU—the validation of our democracy will surely be further weakened. This is clearly a lesson that the Government must urgently learn.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Clearly, many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, for which there is limited time available. I urge hon. Members, therefore, to keep their contributions brief. More may then be able to catch my eye.
  7.55 pm
  Alan Howarth: We are now being encouraged at the highest level to address ourselves to the possibility of an early referendum on membership of the euro. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees the barometer rising; the chairman of the Labour party—the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke)—has boldly pushed the boat out.
  I am a European. I have lived in France and remain an unrepentant francophile, and I have studied the classics and history—how could I not be a European?
  The motives and ambitions of the founding fathers of the European communities were noble. French and German officials who had jointly administered occupied France were determined that enlightened politics and bureaucracy should prevent any further such catastrophe.
  I confess that during what sometimes felt like the rather long hours that I spent seated at the table of the Council of Ministers, there were moments when I allowed my mind to wander from the immediate agenda. I have watched the representatives of 15 European nations, with their histories of conflict between them, earnestly thrashing out their policy differences under the auspices of this still new institution, the European Union, and I have been moved.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed regret that Britain did not play a shaping part in the inception of the European Union. But why did we not do so? It was not for reasons of insularity. The fact is that nothing in Britain's historical experience disposed us to feel that we should be part of the new system that the French and the Germans were creating. We had not experienced almost total destruction in war. We had not been occupied since Norman times. We had seen off the threat of German invasion. We were complacent about our institutions of parliamentary sovereignty.
  If we had deep national doubts about more limited propositions in the 1950s and the 1970s, there are now even deeper doubts about merging our currency with the single European currency.
  For all my personal sense of being a European, and notwithstanding that I believe firmly that it is right for Britain to be a member of the European Union, I cannot believe that we should join the single currency—in the foreseeable future, at any rate. The reasons that we should not do so are both economic and political.
  Fixed currency regimes have not been good for Britain. The 1960s saw a struggle, first to avert devaluation and then to cope with its consequences. The Bretton Woods system collapsed in the early 1970s. The snake, the crawling peg, the shadowing of the deutschmark, and the exchange rate mechanism—all the subsequent devices to fix currency parities—were damaging to the British economy.
  On the other hand, since we fell out of the ERM in 1992, the British economy has prospered remarkably. Low inflation, low long-term interest rates, low unemployment, successful export performance, and our standing as the world's fourth largest economy—all the achievements that I was so pleased and proud to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor expound in the pre-Budget report—are attributable in very real measure
  406
  to the freedom, which we have in the main skilfully exercised, to concentrate on other purposes and on disciplines other than the exchange rate.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that what is being proposed in terms of membership of the euro is membership of a single currency, not—as we have had in the past—membership of a basket of currencies known as the ecu?
  Alan Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. We therefore have to contemplate this issue with even greater seriousness.
  I do not see how the great and the good of the economic establishment can know what the appropriate rate of entry into the euro would be for sterling. They certainly got it badly wrong in the case of the exchange rate mechanism. If—more by luck than by judgment—they should get it about right in 2005, why should we suppose that that rate would still be appropriate in 2010 or 2015? The economies of different countries will perform differentially, whatever the momentary convergence and whether within euroland or outside it.
  A single interest rate is difficult enough to judge and manage within the United Kingdom alone. The policy that is appropriate to contain house-price inflation in south-east England is not the policy to help industrial manufacturers in south-east Wales to export, or to help the communities that have been so devastated by the collapse of steel-making to pick themselves up. How much harder it must be to operate a single monetary policy to suit the needs of a community of 12, or maybe more.
  The social and political stresses consequential on the single European currency and single monetary policy will not be alleviated, as in the United States, by labour mobility, nor, as in the United Kingdom, by an automatic stabilizer—a cyclical adjustment of deficit targets, enabling public expenditure transfers to take place in favour of people and areas affected by unemployment. The Maastricht treaty sets damagingly tight limits on borrowing by Governments: it must amount to no more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, even when their countries are in recession. The stresses will have to be alleviated by tax-funded public expenditure.
  The theory is that taxation policy will remain a matter for individual member states, but can the weaker regions of euroland realistically be expected to cope single-handed with the collateral damage caused by interest rates that are inappropriate for them? The pressure for the regional fund and the social fund to grow and grow will be irresistible. Only recently, the President of the European Commission called for the establishment of a European central fiscal institution. Tax-funded redistribution from richer to poorer across national boundaries within the European Union must entail an increase in supranational governmental powers in Europe.
  A federal Europe was always part of the original project, as the treaty of Rome's commitment to "ever closer union" effectively avowed. The single currency project has always been politically driven—supported, naturally, by multinational business. It has been driven by elites, who have not carried public opinion with them at all easily. Few economists will argue confidently that it is right on economic grounds.

  407
  The enthusiasts adduce a number of economic arguments in favour of Britain's joining the euro. Their principal arguments are these. They say that Britain will not be able to cope on its own; but we are inside the European single market. They say that our businesses would be protected from foreign exchange volatility, which ignores the fact that the dollar is more important to Britain's trade than the euro, and that the euro has been highly unstable against the dollar. They say that it would be nice not to have to pay the costs of foreign exchange transactions, which is a trivial argument. They say that more international investment would be attracted to Britain. That is belied by the fact that, in each of the last five years, we have attracted more inward investment than the original six members of the European Community put together. They say that we would be better placed to influence decisions in Europe and the world. That is plainly wrong as far as the European central bank is concerned—political influence is specifically ruled out by the treaty—and ignores Britain's membership of the G8 and the Security Council. Some industrialists say that, if only we join, we shall trade happily ever after with a competitive exchange rate. That is the sort of self-delusion that makes it certain that, whatever the exchange rate, they will fail to make their businesses competitive.
  The question, therefore, is whether joining is right for Britain politically. I believe it is not, for the historical reasons I have given and because of my conclusions when I examine the condition of the EU's institutions and consider the implications for democracy.
  I regret to say that the Commission is entirely unfit to handle significantly greater responsibility. Both as Science Minister and as Minister for the Arts, I was shocked at its incompetence. I was particularly scandalised by Directorate-General XXIII's handling of the droit de suite issue, which must be a locus classicus of misgovernment. Despite repeated requests from British Ministers, the Commission refused to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of a policy which, when implemented, will certainly be destructive of the EU art market, which happens to be located in London. I was also deeply unimpressed by the inadequacies of Directorate-General X in developing and handling the Culture 2000 programme.
  Mr. Wayne David: Is not Commissioner Neil Kinnock making tremendous advances in reforming the Commission?
  Alan Howarth: Notwithstanding the heroic struggles of Commissioner Kinnock, as Vice-President, with the task of reforming the Commission, he has a job on his hands even tougher than any he had to do as leader of the Labour party.
  I mean no disrespect to the European Parliament if I note that it is an immature institution, by no means capable of bearing the weight of democratic responsibility implied by the single currency. Its powers are modest. It is based on limited trust, and on shallow accountability. We in this country are not remotely ready, ideologically or organisationally, to practise democratic politics on a European scale. The remedies now proposed by the Belgian presidency to deal with the gulf that they see widening between the peoples of Europe and the institutions of the EU include cross-European political parties, further extensions of qualified majority voting, enshrining the charter of fundamental rights in EU law,
  408
  and direct election of an EU President. I hope very much that at Laeken my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will explain that it is not sensible or appropriate for Britain to accept such proposals. We would do better to concentrate on learning how to make devolution work well in the United Kingdom, and on restoring our citizens' faith in this Parliament.
  The Labour party was elected in Britain to carry through a social democratic programme, particularly to improve our public services. Membership of the single currency would, at least, severely hamper our efforts. We would lose the freedom to pursue the economic policies that we judged to be right. As things are now, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has had the freedom to cut interest rates over recent months more aggressively than the European central bank. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's fiscal programme, which he was told by the Commission earlier this year would be out of order within economic and monetary union, looks admirably judged. The International Monetary Fund projects UK growth next year of 1.8 per cent., against eurozone growth of 1.3 per cent.
  If we joined EMU, we would be members of a system whose record on unemployment—I think particularly of the loss of manufacturing jobs—has been and remains lamentable. Why should we imprison ourselves in a system locked into deflation by the remit of the European central bank, and compounded by the masochism of the growth and stability pact? Let us keep our discretion in policy making, and our capacity to configure policy to take account of our distinctive economic characteristics and social priorities. Let us not put our jobs at such risk and erode our democracy.
  I greatly admire the thoughtfulness, energy, skill and courage shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in international affairs—not just following 11 September, but since 1997. His scope as a leader, domestically and internationally, would be diminished rather than enhanced in the integrated Europe to which the single currency leads. I do not think it appropriate or realistic for Britain to aspire to lead the European Union. It will be better if, true to our history, we continue from within a more limited—though positive—participation in Europe to preserve the freedom to act on our judgment of Britain's interests at home and abroad.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). Our political opinions have diverged somewhat in recent years, although I am glad to say that there is a convergence on this issue, at least. I have always respected his political principles, even when I disagreed with him. However, I am delighted that he puts right at the front of his political thinking the crucial need to maintain self-government in the United Kingdom. That is important for the electorate.
  Although the vision that the right hon. Member for Newport, East and other Labour Members have for the United Kingdom's social and political structure differs very much from mine, I think that he and I agree that the electors must be able to choose. If hon. Members hand over all these powers to people whom we have not elected and cannot remove, we shall be giving away not so much our powers as those of the people who elect us. That will create a very widespread disillusionment with unpredictable results.

  409
  The Minister introduced the debate by referring to the forthcoming meeting at Laeken. I suppose that that will be one of the periodic episodes when the European Union goes through an internal crisis of confidence and tries to re-invent itself. We have learned that a paper has been prepared for that summit by the Belgian Prime Minister, who is chairman of a committee of wise men that includes Jacques Delors. That paper, like everything else in the European Union, is confidential, but, again like everything else in the European Union, it has been leaked.
  We are told that that study has concluded that the European Union is secretive, remote and undemocratic. Although I fully agree with that analysis, I am slightly worried about this constant reinvention of the European Union. I have lost count of the number of times that it has tried to relaunch itself or give itself a make-over, a face-lift or some type of rethink. Of course nothing ever really happens. The aim is a noble one: it is always to close the gap between rulers and ruled and to create a people's Europe rather than a politician's Europe. But of course it never happens.
  This particular reinvention looks particularly unpromising because its apparent solution is to entrench the European charter of fundamental rights and to introduce a written European constitution. Both policies were firmly rejected by the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister in the Nice negotiations, although I confidently expect that if the German and French Governments get their way on it, the Prime Minister will find a way of saying that he was in favour of those policies all along.
  The basic flaw is that the supposed solution to widespread public disillusionment with the European Union is yet more of the same policies. I think that, one day, it will occur to Heads of Government that something is more fundamentally wrong with the Union and with the structure and direction of policy. The Minister has referred to that disillusionment in this debate. It manifests itself in various ways, such as the very low turnout in European elections, which has reached almost farcical levels in the United Kingdom. We have also had the very unexpected referendum results.
  It is very noticeable that when the people of Europe are allowed anywhere near a decision, they usually reject the advice of the European political elite who tell them what to do and they reject the proposal. That is what happened in the Danish referendum on the euro, when almost all the political parties, newspapers, trade unions and employers' organisations told the people of Denmark to vote yes, but the people of Denmark voted no. The same happened in Ireland with the treaty of Nice.
  Unless that disillusionment and sense of alienation is tackled fundamentally, the results will be dangerous and even unpredictable. However, I do not want to be only critical; I have a few suggestions for the Government, the first of which is simply to tell the truth. As I know that that is difficult advice to give to the Government, I shall give an example. The other day, the Prime Minister came down to earth from his mission to save the world and set about trying to save the reputation of the European Union. He came up with the old familiar figure that 60 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union. That is simply untrue.
  410
  The Pink Book, of which I am a regular reader, gives a most useful geographic breakdown of the United Kingdom's trade patterns, and it breaks down our current account into earnings and payments. The recently published 2001 edition of the Pink Book says of those earnings and payments that
  "The European Union (EU) accounted for … around half (48 per cent.) of the world total".
  That figure is less than half of the total. Even if we took out investment earnings and other transfers, the figure for trade alone would be 51 per cent. There is no figure anywhere in the tables or the text of the Pink Book, even for goods alone, that even approaches the 60 per cent. figure that has been quoted by the Prime Minister and the Government. Let us, right at the start of this debate, at least respect the facts. If the Government ever again produce the figure of 60 per cent. of our trade being with the European Union, we will know that they have something to hide or a very weak case.
  We also have the debate on the euro. I was very struck by the acute analysis of the right hon. Member for Newport, East, and I agreed with much of what he said. Again, however, we are not having a proper debate in this country because we are not being given the facts. We are not even told what the estimated cost of changing over to the euro would be for this country. Various private-sector estimates are that the cost for the United Kingdom private sector will be £30 billion, but the Government have to tell us what the public sector cost will be. I know that such an estimate exists. I was in the Treasury five years ago, and even then there were outline estimates for Departments and Government agencies of the cost of changing over to the euro. If the Government are serious about having a debate on this crucial issue, let us have the facts.
  We know that the truly difficult debate is occurring not yet in the country but inside the Government and that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are circling round each other looking for political advantage. They have the agreed five economic tests, but we all know that those are highly subjective and that the same people who are asking the questions will be answering them and then judging the result. We also know, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, that there is an unannounced sixth test, which is whether public opinion can be changed in time.
  Therefore, on this crucial issue, all we have from the Government is a policy of fudge and delay. If the Government really want to start a rational debate and include people in this assessment, they should try to advance some of the arguments for joining the euro themselves, rather than leaving it all to poor old Britain in Europe. I do not know whether Britain in Europe still exists as an organisation; it is certainly very demoralised and bankrupt. Nevertheless, it is most unfair for the Government to expect Britain in Europe to make all the running when Ministers themselves are unwilling to try to dream up some of the supposed advantages.
  The arguments so far simply resolve themselves into one of inevitability: we are told that it is going to happen and that it is therefore a good thing. That is less of an argument than an attitude, and a pretty feeble one at that.
  We used to be told that communism was inevitable, but free people in a democracy have choices to make. We need to know what is best for this country.

  411
  The only other argument that we hear is the influence argument. We are told that we have to join the euro to sit at the top table, whatever that is. Sometimes, the metaphor changes: unless we join, we will miss the bus or be left behind in Europe in some unexplained way. Of course, that is all nonsense. I want influence over the matters that I am sent here to decide by my constituents. I want 100 per cent. of that influence, but it is a secondary matter whether I have influence over other countries with their own electorates.
  In any case, what brings a country influence in the world is not membership of some bloc but economic success, combined with military capability and the freedom to use it, and a foreign policy that is clear and over which the country has control. All that is on display in Afghanistan. We have influence on that issue, but it has nothing to do with our membership of the European Union or whether we are in or out of the single currency. In fact, the reverse is true. All our influence is threatened by the European Union.
  Economically, the EU is in the slow lane. The eurozone has an appalling record of job creation. It is sitting on a demographic and pension time bomb that it will not acknowledge. It endlessly talks about economic reforms, but nothing happens. After the Lisbon summit, the Prime Minister came back here with wonderful declarations about reform, but nothing happened. Nothing ever changes. Meanwhile, the regulations, the red tape and the tax harmonisation continue, eroding the competitiveness of Europe in the wider world—and that is the really big issue. I simply do not understand how we would benefit economically. If we take into account the fact that our gross contributions to the EU are running at £20 million a day, of which we get back only about half, the profit and loss account looks distinctly unappetising.
  Politically, the Government persist with the old-fashioned view that we exist as a country only in so far as we belong to a bloc. There are far more important forces at work in the world today, driven by issues such as information technology and the internet that have made geography irrelevant. We have witnessed the rise of the English language to world dominance, which is a huge advantage to this country that has nothing to do with the European Union. In fact, it is threatened by the EU, which persists in refusing to recognise that English has become the language of business and information technology in the whole of the rest of the world. Multilateral trade talks in the World Trade Organisation and tariff reduction talks are increasingly making the EU tariff wall irrelevant. Those developments reinforce the global maritime tradition of the UK. It is thus bizarre that the Government should defy that and attempt to lock us irreversibly into a low-growth trade bloc on our doorstep.
  The big lie at the centre of the debate is that it is about economics. I agreed very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said about that issue. It is widely acknowledged on the continent that this is a political project. Sometimes we pride ourselves on the quality of our debate on the issue, but we should not boast like that because the other EU members are far more honest about it. For example, Otmar Issing, a chief economist at the European central bank, said:
  "There is no example in history of a lasting monetary union that was not linked to one state."
  That is true, but it is dismissed by the British Government as the ramblings of a continental eccentric. However, people such as Mr. Issing and his colleagues are serious,
  412
  sensible, intelligent men and they know what they are talking about. They are speaking the truth. It is only the British Government who pretend that the euro project is all about some five economic tests dreamed up by the Treasury. There are enormous political and constitutional implications that are simply dismissed by the Government. I respect those hon. Members and others who make the political case for joining the euro. I disagree, but at least we can have a debate. I have no respect for people who advance the case for joining the euro and ignore the political implications or claim that they are irrelevant.
  Let us also be honest about what is happening to our democracy even in the absence of joining the euro. The Government are now regularly outvoted in Europe, which means that policies are imposed on us that, by definition. the House and the Government disagree with. The right hon. Member for Newport, East mentioned the art market, which is a good example. Some 50,000 people are employed in the British art market, but it will go off to New York because the EU intends to impose a resale levy on works of art.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he is a member of a political party that has taken the major steps over the past 30 years to get to where we are today? Does he now suggest that his party has been wrong for the past 30 years and is he calling for withdrawal from Europe?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am giving a specific example of an issue on which the hon. Gentleman's Government have been outvoted, and it should worry him. Instead of asking what I would have done if I were still in government, he should ask what is happening now when the Labour party is in control. Is he worried about the 50,000 people employed in the British art market? The change will not affect the big auction houses, of course. They already own assets in New York and will simply transfer their sales out of the EU to avoid the droit de suite or resale levy. As usual, it is the small people—the packers, the porters, the insurance agents and the transport agents—who will suffer and lose their jobs.
  To be fair to the Government, as I try to be on occasion, they understood the danger and voted against the tax, but they were outvoted. Where was the influence in the EU? That is the danger of what is happening. We are undermining those areas of national life in our economy where we have a competitive advantage, not to the advantage of the rest of the EU but—in that clear case—to the advantage of the art markets in Zurich, Tokyo and New York. They cannot believe their luck. They cannot believe that the EU would drive out of its jurisdiction an area of economic activity in which it has been so successful.
  Moreover, ratification of the Nice treaty means that more matters will be subject to majority voting and that the problem will therefore get worse. Even where we agree with EU policies, more and more decisions are being taken at the level of the European Union and further from the people whom we represent. The Government talk a lot about devolution and about moving decision making down so that it can be more relevant to electors and our constituents. Progressively, however, more decisions are being taken by a higher tier of Government, even more remote from people's day-to-day lives.

  413
  The same is true of expenditure in Europe. Money is being spent ever further from individual taxpayers. It is transferred to Brussels automatically. No vote in this House is required, and no budgetary process takes place in this country to agree the annual tribute that we pay to Brussels. It all happens under the European Communities (Finance) Act 1995. There is nothing that the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do about it. A sum of £20 million a day is automatically transferred to Brussels, some of which filters back to us as a result of the fraud and mismanagement that is inherent in the system.
  The electors have rumbled that. They know what is going on. Member states and the Commission denied for years that fraud and mismanagement were a problem. Finally, the members of the Commission resigned over the matter, but then half of them returned to office and the system goes on as it always has.
  The European Court of Auditors still refuses to pass the EU's annual expenditure accounts. If I were a director of a public company that did that, I would probably be in prison, but that is the system to which we belong.
  The budget goes on getting bigger, so the problem does too. Neil Kinnock has been mentioned. I am sure that he is doing his best to clear up the mess, but no one thinks about turning off the tap so as to stop the problem arising in the first place. We are reinforcing failure, and the people whom we represent have seen through that.
  My final point concerns an immediate example that I should like to share with the House. The European arrest warrant directive will be decided tomorrow or the next day in the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels. The warrant has received no scrutiny in this House. The relevant European Standing Committee met on Monday to consider it but broke up because the Minister arrived with the wrong documents.
  When he opened the debate, the Minister said that one of his aims was to increase the involvement of national Parliaments. The treaty of Amsterdam, signed by the Government in 1997, makes that a requirement. It states that it wishes to encourage greater involvement of national Parliaments in the activities of the European Union. That is a mandated requirement by treaty law, but what is happening? The European arrest warrant directive is about to be agreed without any involvement of this House.
  That is a very serious matter, as the directive proposes the forcible transfer of suspects from this country to other member states. If another member state lodges an arrest warrant, we would be obliged to hand over a suspect, even if the alleged offence was not a crime in this country. Even more remarkably, the alleged offence might not have to be committed in the country making the application, but in this country. As a result, we will hand over citizens to other criminal jurisdictions because of events in this country that do not infringe British law.
  By any standards that is a remarkable development in British jurisprudence. It has not been debated in this House at all, but it is due to be decided tomorrow. It was debated in another place, where it caused much confusion. The Minister involved could not give many answers.
  414
  The directive will be decided in secret, and on the basis of certain assurances given in another place that have not been given to this House.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be impossible for a British Minister to accede to the decision in Brussels tomorrow, if the matter has not been debated in this House?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is certainly impossible politically and morally, but we wait on events. Points of order have been raised in this House and, I understand, in another place, but no assurances whatsoever have been given on the matter.
  The European arrest warrant will be the subject of primary legislation. A Bill is promised for early next year. Another startling development of recent days is that under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which is still being considered, it need not come before the House for primary legislation but could be dealt with by secondary legislation. That is unamendable, and where it is debated is at the discretion of the Government. It can be debated upstairs in Committee, and whatever its members may say or think, any motion that the Committee passes can be overridden and the matter can go through forthwith, without debate in the Chamber. That is what secondary legislation means.
  The entire issue of criminal sanctions for British people and our ancient judicial protection, built up over centuries, can all be changed in future by secondary legislation. Yet the Minister says that he wants to improve the involvement of national Parliaments. That is another example of all words and no action. Grand declarations and high-sounding assurances mean nothing.
  Unless we can close the gap between words and deeds, the disillusionment felt by our constituents will become uncontrollable. Will the Government, for once, give us the unvarnished information so that we can debate these matters? Above all, they must stop fooling themselves and trying to fool others about what is really happening in the European Union.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: These European affairs debates are an opportunity for the House to discuss the forthcoming European Council. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has just spoken for 27 minutes and, to paraphrase him, it was all words and no content. It was the same speech that he gave six months ago or 12 months ago. We can imagine him sitting in Wells with a blanket around him and his hot cup of cocoa, reading his Pink Books. It is time that Conservative Members realised the importance of European debates. Only one Conservative Member is left now on the Back Benches, which shows how enthusiastic they are about Europe.
  I pay tribute to the work that the Government are doing on Europe. It is because of the work done by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe that the Prime Minister has been able to take such an important lead in world affairs. Europe is behind us and behind the alliance in our coalition against terrorism because of our positive engagement in Europe over the past four and a half years.

  415
  I have a few points for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and I hope that he will take them with him when he goes to Laeken. We have been talking about enlargement for a number of years, and are getting to the stage when the applicant countries need a firm date for entry. I used to favour the idea of small groups of countries joining separately over the next few years, but I think that the mood has changed and that most European countries—although I do not know the Government's position on the big bang principle—probably favour the entry of a large number of countries, perhaps the majority of those applying.
  I realise that some countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, probably have not reached the stage that others have reached. Turkey, of course, has only recently been confirmed as a candidate country because of the lead taken by the Prime Minister. However, I think that the other countries expect to see real progress.
  Without a firm date for entry, we will be sending a negative message to the countries of eastern Europe. They have worked hard on the negotiation process and public opinion is with them at the moment, but if we send a message that they must wait even longer, people in countries whose Governments strongly support entry into the European Union will feel that they have been left out.
  It is most important that we are firm on enlargement, that we continue our leadership role and ensure that we put the argument strongly, because there is a feeling in some EU countries that we could wait—that perhaps we could just let in Poland and a couple of other countries and that the rest can follow. However, the mood is for change, so I hope that the Minister will go with a firm commitment to do something about setting a date for the applicant countries.
  The right hon. Member for Wells and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who is no longer in his place, talked of the need for positive engagement. The right hon. Gentleman wondered what had happened to Britain in Europe. To divert him from his constant reading of Pink Books, I shall send him a book that Mr. Simon Buckby sent to me recently: "The Case for the Euro". I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to read it. I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is keen to read such literature.
  It is important that hon. Members realise that the Government have been putting the positive case for the euro. The Government support the euro; we believe that membership of the European Union is extremely important. That is why the chairman of the Labour party so recently said that membership of the single currency needed to be put before the British people as soon as possible.
  However, the fact remains that the five economic tests laid down by the Chancellor have still not been met. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) will find himself in a minority in the Labour party on that point. The vast majority of members of the Labour party and of the public are in favour of a strong relationship with Europe and, from conversations and meetings that I have held over several years, I believe that the vast majority of the British people want to join the euro, but the arguments being put by the hysterical tabloid press have distorted the case. If we are to win a referendum, we must put our arguments—exactly as the Government have been doing.
  416
  I should point out to my right hon. Friend, however, that we are not yet ready for that referendum because those tests have not been met. We need to follow proper constitutional arrangements before we reach the referendum. Conditions must be assessed and they must be in the interests of this country. The matter must then go to the Cabinet; if the Cabinet agrees it, it must come to Parliament and then—and only then—will it go to the British people. All the British people will then have an opportunity to discuss it. There will be a wide-ranging debate and the hon. Member for Stone and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse who are not in the Chamber today—the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) have suddenly been promoted and are thus silent on this issue—will also have an opportunity to put their views.
  Dr. Tonge rose—
  Mr. Vaz: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Lady, because other hon. Members want to speak. The Liberal Democrat position is the right one—except on the tests. It is important that the tests should be met. The Liberal Democrat view that we should go ahead with a referendum without the proper economic case is wrong.
  The Minister is right to talk about reform. I have not read his latest leaflet, which reduces the treaties to 300 words. It is a brilliant idea. It is exactly what we should be doing. Indeed, as there are so many Welshmen in the House today, I wondered whether they might want a Welsh translation—I can think of a few other languages into which the leaflet might also be translated.
  Some Opposition Members, in the hysteria of the tabloid press, are trying to turn the European issue into one of not only language but the complications of the European Union. It is important that we should explain those points and the arguments to the British people in simple language.
  It is vital that we continue to push ahead with the reform agenda in Brussels. It is time that Brussels took off its burka. So much takes place in secrecy that people do not understand what is happening. I favour the televising of European Council meetings as an opportunity for people to see the good work that is being done by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers. It is important to raise the veils of secrecy.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) for his work in the group of Laeken. It is essential that Britain is represented in that group by such an outstanding individual, ensuring that our agenda is discussed in Europe at the highest level.
  Unless we reform those institutions and the way in which the EU operates, we shall not be able to make the case for the euro in a referendum and win. As I have said before, the people of Britain will learn to love the EU only when they learn to love reform. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken the language of reform today, so he has our wholehearted support on this issue, and I wish him well in the forthcoming European Council meeting.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: I am pleased to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), not least

  417
  because he has restored some of the balance to a debate that has been going one way for a prolonged period. The Liberal Democrats broadly support what the Government seek to achieve on Europe, and we hope that they will continue to promote progress in reforming and developing the EU at the summit in Laeken next weekend.
  We are disappointed with the Government about one major issue—the single currency, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East has just referred. Despite the Government's bold assertions in arguing the case, to which he referred, we believe that their approach is characterised by timidity and a lack of unanimity, so a rather confused message is coming across. Outside the environs of Westminster, few people could say with any clarity where the Government are going.
  Of course, in a few short weeks, the single currency will be a reality in the shops of Amsterdam and—dare I say—probably in some shops in the United Kingdom as well, and the transactions of Britain's exporters will be very much embedded in the process, too. Finally, the bogeyman of the single European currency will be put to rest, with the realisation that the single currency works across Europe and that the sky does not fall in as a consequence of its use.
  The Government's approach to persuading the British public about the merits of the European single currency continue to dismay its friends and encourage its enErnies. It takes a massive leap of faith to find any unity throughout the recent speeches of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Foreign Office Ministers. The Government need a clarity of purpose, or at least a consistency of spin. It is not enough simply to send the spin doctors out to tell the journalists what the speeches meant. Positive steps need to be taken to argue the case and prepare the country for the full reality.
  Only when we get the conditions correct for entry can we possibly hope to win a referendum; it cannot possibly be won in six weeks of campaigning. We need a sustained programme of education and persuasion, and we need a sustained Government voice. The Government will witness some of the details being finalised at Laeken in a few days' time, so they must substantially increase their efforts to promote and prepare this country for what we believe to be an important development for us.
  Of course, the main aim of the summit will be to put in place the mechanisms to assist the debate on EU reform and the preparations for the 2004 intergovernmental conference. We Liberal Democrats hope that the intergovernmental conference will be able to produce a constitution for Europe. We do not hide from that, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) suggested that those on the Conservative Front Bench do, and they ducked dealing with their fears on that issue.
  A constitution is important simply to set out clearly the roles and responsibilities of the different EU institutions, to define more clearly their relationship with individual member states and to prescribe the rights of individual citizens, by incorporating the charter of fundamental rights in that constitution. In that way, we can begin to address the huge concerns that people have about the progress of Europe and the growing disillusionment that dismays those of us who support Europe.
  418
  The convention to be set up by the summit is crucial to the process and, in due course, to the outcome of the intergovernmental conference. If the convention is to be meaningful, its terms of reference must not be too restrictive and it must not prepare for a set outcome. If the debate is to be effective, it must be structured but not prescriptive.
  The European Scrutiny Committee report on the issue makes important recommendations. The convention should focus on the four key points coming out of the Nice treaty, but it should be free to consider other matters as well. It should be required to give an indication of the particular option that it prefers while not ruling out the others that it has considered. In addition, a House of Commons Member should be appointed to it by a motion of the whole House and not as the result of a stitch-up by the Whips. When appointed, that person should be required and given the opportunity to report back to the House on the convention's progress.
  One key point from Nice has become increasingly evident. Whatever we are doing, we must make Europe better understood. The treaties need to be simplified into something that approximates to language that we can all understand and about which we can hope to persuade others.
  Among the other issues, I wish to refer particularly to European security and defence policy. Much has been made of the transformation of the world since 11 September. Some aspects of the common foreign and security policy work well, but others require improvement. The policy covers 15 member states, with a population of approximately 370 million. After accession of applicant states, the population will increase to more than 500 million.
  European Union states spend about 150 billion euros each year on their military capabilities. That is about half the United States defence budget, although it recognises that there are more limited regional responsibilities. The EU population is 40 per cent. larger than that of the USA, but the gross domestic products of the two regional blocs are roughly the same.
  It is inconceivable to us that such a rich and populous region as ours should not make greater provision for its collective security. As the Minister said, now that the arrangements with Turkey over access to NATO assets are moving in the right direction, we are making progress towards achieving the European capability that we need. One by one the difficulties are being overcome. Over the past few months, there has been much rhetoric about standing shoulder to shoulder, but if that is to mean anything, we must be prepared to shoulder the burden of providing for our own security.
  The final issue that I want to consider briefly is the EU arrest warrant. Its purpose is straightforward and appealing enough, not least in that it is designed to remove the complexity and potential for delay that is inherent in the present arrangements for extradition which, through bilateral agreements between countries, are often complex. It is logical and desirable to replace that system with a common EU framework. Current procedures are clearly out of date, they are complex and require rationalisation.
  However, we are concerned about the breadth of the warrant that has been proposed and, not least, by the fact that the definitions in it are extremely vague. The general

  419
  headings include "high-tech crime", "environmental crime" and "racism and xenophobia". Three times the proposal has come before the European Scrutiny Committee and it is still not satisfied with the Government's definitions. We understand that the proposal will not be included in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, but will appear in primary legislation next year. However, the agreements at Laeken in 10 days' time with other EU member states will be reflected in the legislation. As the House has not proved itself satisfied with the proposals as explained by the Government, we believe that it would be better not to sign up to the warrant at the summit. By delaying its acceptance until national Parliaments are happy with it, a better arrangement will come to the fore.
  After the euro is introduced in January, the face of Europe will change significantly. In a recent speech to academics and business men in Birmingham, the Prime Minister said:
  "The tragedy for British politics and for Britain is that too many politicians have consistently failed, not just in the 1950s but up to the present day, to appreciate the reality of European integration and in so doing they have failed Britain's interests".
  Whether the Prime Minister was talking about the single currency or the agenda for reform and progress, he must not forget those words when he goes to Laeken.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Tonight's debate is a classic example of why Parliament is held in contempt by the electorate and hon. Members. Seven Labour Members will not be able to contribute to it, which clearly demonstrates why we need a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches and a 15-minute limit on Front-Bench speeches. Those hon. Members who cannot contribute to this important debate should be allowed to place their contribution on the record or give it to the Clerk at the end of the day as they do in Congress. We have had a frustrating experience of what should have been an interesting exchange across the Floor of the House. Labour Members in particular have ripped up their speeches in order to squeeze in their remarks, and I shall confine my comments to the forthcoming European constitution for the EU.
  A few days ago the EU was savagely attacked for being too bossy, remote, secretive and undemocratic; for failing all its peoples; and because its critics are growing daily, its priorities are wrong and its procedures are inadequate. That attack did not come from The Sun, the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph, but from the Prime Minister of Belgium, which holds the EU presidency. He is a convinced integrationist and his opinion was endorsed by a committee of wise people of eminent Europeans, including Jacques Delors.
  The Belgian Prime Minister's report urges the EU to reform and reinvent itself, and it is right. Those of us who care about Europe, and I include all hon. Members in the Chamber in that, know that it is time to move on and for Europe to grow up. At the Laeken summit next week, the EU must begin to create a new democratic settlement between its institutions and the citizens of Europe. The United Kingdom needs to be at that table, helping to set the agenda. The British experience of constitution making—our experience of creating the rule of law and of civil liberties, and our distrust of state power—would be useful.
  420
  The Prime Minister pointed out in Birmingham the other week that our history in Europe is one of missed opportunities. Another big juggernaut is coming over the brow of the hill; will we miss this opportunity, too? The 2004 intergovernmental conference will follow Laeken and it will commit the EU to a written constitution. People in the House and the UK have nothing to fear and everything to gain from the process. The opportunity should be welcomed by Europhiles and Europhobes alike. Uncertainty and mystery feeds the paranoia of both those groups, as well as the fears of the wider public. A written constitution will reassure everyone.
  The EU needs a written constitution, and it is going to get one. Barely a fortnight ago, France and Germany committed themselves to that. It is also a personal project of the German Chancellor. As has so often happened in the history of the EU, a fundamental project is under way and the British Government are faced with a choice between positive engagement and grudging acquiescence. We have seen the results of half-heartedness: our European partners create institutions that do not suit our national needs, and we join them years later, having lost the ability to influence the agenda and the design of the project.
  A constitution is part of the answer to reconnecting with our citizens—a plain, honest statement of where we are, rather than an obscure text that requires elite translators to teach us how we are governed. It also presents an opportunity to place an insurmountable roadblock in the way of that tiny minority who want a European superstate. Hon. Members are right to demand assurances on that issue, and it is precisely because we oppose a centralised state that it should be baldly stated on the face of a constitution. Only a written constitution will set clear boundaries to the power of the EU and underpin the authority of national and devolved institutions within the nation states. It can check any appetite, real or imagined, for regulation and interference in our daily lives.
  Limiting the tendency to centralise will also require the beefing up of that much abused word "subsidiarity". It will be a key test that the principle of subsidiarity is made clearer and more meaningful in the coming European constitution. It is unacceptable that no regulation, no directive, no act of power by any European institution has been challenged successfully on the grounds of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity must be placed at the head and at the heart of the new European constitution.
  I should alert the House to the fact that if that principle is made as clear as I want it to be, it will be rapidly and rightly employed by local and regional government in the United Kingdom. Far from abetting centralisation, such a European constitution will halt it and become the tool whereby citizens are able to reverse the process that has concentrated power in Brussels and in Westminster. Subsidiarity is the antithesis of the catch-all phrase, "ever closer union"—it has become the antidote to executive licence to go further and deeper without specific consent. The phrase "ever closer union" must be struck out of all the drafts, wherever it appears.
  Incidentally, it will be of great assistance to the EU if its constitution is written in elegant and inspiring language, not Eurobabble—and briefly, not bureaucratically. To be helpful, I intend to draw up such a constitution and present

  421
  it to the House as a Bill, although I am not confident of out-doing the excellent 300-word distillation achieved by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe.
  The EU has already achieved a semi-constitution of sorts, albeit by accident rather than by design. In late-night hurried deals struck in an atmosphere of acrimony and exhaustion, European leaders have often appeared less concerned to establish a wise and happy government for the EU than to satisfy the transient demands of their domestic electorates and media. Their debates are largely secret, unreported and ignored. That semi-official constitution is the playground of cognoscenti of all parties who think that their being involved in the process means that the electorate and citizenship of Europe are also involved.
  The result of such methods is clear—the stark report of the Belgian Prime Minister who pointed out that, for all its real achievements, the EU's current governance inspires little loyalty or affection among its citizens. The EU has had ample warning of that alienation in opinion polls, turnouts for elections, the referendums in Denmark and the Irish Republic, and the growth of extremist parties throughout the Union, but all too often the Euro-executive dismiss it as a failure of the people to understand, or the mendacity of the media. That alienation could easily turn into outright hostility as the EU launches its two big projects, the euro and enlargement.
  Against that background, any losers and those who fear losing in the EU will not accept decisions that they feel are imposed upon them by remote, unaccountable European institutions.
  Without consensus and without citizens feeling ownership, the EU will stagnate. It might even dissolve in bitterness and secession. We will not get such consensus and such ownership across the EU without a contract with our people and without a constitution to provide legitimacy and democracy for the decisions that affect our citizens. To those who formed the current Union, from Schuman to Thatcher, we say thank you. Now, as the Union approaches maturity, we need a new set of people and a new structure. Otherwise, as Jefferson said,
  "we might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him as a boy."
  A constitution is not a panacea, but it gives an open framework in which conflict can be peacefully reconciled. By the United Kingdom engaging in the process of creating a constitution, we will not only serve British interests but safeguard the future of Europe on a basis that is acceptable to our citizens.
  I ask the House and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to add to the UK's list of lost opportunities, but starting next week in Laeken to seize the opportunity of a written constitution with both hands for the benefit of the people of our country.
  9.6 pm
  Angus Robertson: I am pleased to take part in the debate of behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I commend the brevity and consideration of Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, to try to ensure that as many Members as possible are able to contribute to the debate. I, too, shall try to be brief.
  422
  I thank the Minister for remaining in his place throughout the debate to listen to us all. I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House are grateful to him for that.
  I agree with the Minister on some of his key points. His argument in favour of pooling sovereignty both in terms of the European Union and the United Nations was compelling. Perhaps he did not intend that it should sound like a compelling argument for Scotland's direct representation in those bodies. I endorse the views that he propounded regarding security and defence policy, especially in fulfilling the Petersberg principles, and in terms of the eastward enlargement of Europe and the treaty of Nice, which is why both the SNP and Plaid Cymru supported the Government and the passing of legislation earlier in the Session in that regard.
  The recent Liege conference was attended by 51 devolved Governments throughout Europe, including those of Scotland and Wales. I commend its findings to Members on both sides of the House. Part of the resolution reads:
  "In the scope of the debate on the Future of Europe, the Presidents of the Regions with legislative power ask to consider the lack of regional participation to the EU decision-making process as a theme to be addressed by the Declaration of Brussels/Laeken as well as by the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference."
  I endorse that view.
  I shall restrict my comments to matters of accountability and scrutiny, especially with regard to the reality that we live within a state with four nations and a devolved system of government in three of them. Members will be aware that there are many areas, especially in Scotland, where legislation is passed that involves justice, the environment, transport, agriculture and fisheries matters, which are also decided at an important level at the EU. Indeed 14 of the 22 areas that the Council of Ministers meet to consider are devolved matters. For that reason I want to highlight some concerns in the hope that even within current UK structures, these areas can be improved.
  My concerns include establishing key facts to help in arriving at good governance and transparency, the ability to scrutinise Ministers and EU measures and the ability to hold Governments to account. In terms of key facts with regard to decision making, I go back to my previous occupation as a journalist. The first questions that one is always supposed to ask are the hows, the whens, the wheres and the whos. Against the background of both the Council of Ministers and working group representation, unfortunately we have very few answers.
  I have tabled a number of questions, as have colleagues from other parties. The answers tend to be along the lines of one given by the Minister, in which he said that the UK Government are working in partnership with the Scottish Executive. Unfortunately, we do not get specific details about how, when and where; we sometimes get details about who is involved, but that is not enough to hold Governments—the UK Government, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Administration or the Northern Irish Administration—to account.
  The Conservative Government gave Scottish Office Ministers the right to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers; the present UK Government are continuing that policy. More than half of the debates held by the Council of Ministers are directly related to devolved matters,

  423
  but at the moment only 12 per cent. of meetings are attended by Ministers from the Scottish Executive, so I am concerned that there is a gap. The Minister and his Government have had a regular opportunity, in responding to written and oral questions from me, to explain exactly how the system works; that could shed light on the matter and I might not have any more concerns, although I doubt it. For the sake of transparency and good governance, I invite the Minister to shine more light on the way in which the system works.
  By contrast, having worked both in Austria and Germany, I know their systems well; for example, the concept of Bundestreue relates to the ability of the Milder to influence and bind central Government, who effectively represent their views. The Austrian system of governance involves the provinces through the Verbindungstelle, an office in which various policy positions are brought together and developed. We have had no idea from the Government how that would operate in practice in the United Kingdom. However, a joint ministerial committee, meeting once or twice a year to co-ordinate policy before meetings of the Council of Ministers is not, as I am sure even the Minister would concede, the most effective means of co-ordination.
  I know that officials talk to each other, but we do not know how the structure works or how often Ministers meet and discuss issues. That concern has been expressed not just by the SNP, but recently by Jim Walker, the president of the National Farmers Union in Scotland, when giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Rural Development Committee; he was anxious about the way in which Scottish agriculture policy was being pursued in Europe.
  I am concerned about the scrutiny of Ministers. I do not know whether Members know that there have been at least three instances in which a Minister from the Scottish Executive has represented the UK at a European level without any other UK Minister being part of the delegation. If one wants to scrutinise such Ministers, are they answerable to the UK Parliament? Nicol Stephen, the Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs, has not, so far as I am aware, given any pre or post-Council evidence to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a newly selected member. Conversely, no UK Minister who has attended Council of Ministers meetings to discuss devolved Scottish matters has ever given evidence to the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament either before or after such meetings.
  That is not good or transparent governance. I have a modicum of experience, having advised members of the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament for the first two years after devolution. The problems of the European Scrutiny Committee are mirrored and amplified in those of its Scottish counterpart. That has a lot to do with the way in which UK Departments and the UK Government disseminate European regulations and directives through the system so that, in Scotland, one cannot achieve effective influence.
  Finally, bearing in mind what I have said about the inability to scrutinise Ministers, the inability effectively to scrutinise European Union proposals and the lack of key basic facts to do so, how can we hold Governments to account, whether in the UK, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? That is simply not possible.
  424
  I give a great example. In today's European Scrutiny Committee meeting, we were discussing European arrest warrants and the lack of information that we need. If such information is not available to us a number of days before a key meeting, what is the position of the Scottish Minister for Justice? He probably has as little information as we have had. That is not an effective way to deal with a serious matter. Similarly, the Commission's proposals on fish catches for 2002 came out only two days ago. How can the Scottish Executive even be informed? The Commission cannot work effectively, it is not accountable and there is a lack of scrutiny.
  The contributions from the hon. Members for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on the subject of a constitution were extremely well reasoned, balanced and irrefutable. Regardless of anybody's position on further integration or in favour of more disengagement from Europe, the argument for a constitution is intellectually unassailable. The Scottish National party fully endorses it.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is no longer in his place, touched on the issue of the euro. My party is in favour of a single European currency, pending a referendum. As the official Opposition in Scotland, our support is unlikely to be overlooked anywhere as being useful in progressing that argument. A single currency would be to everyone's benefit in Europe, Scotland, the rest of the UK and elsewhere.
  In summary, none of the improvements that I suggest in the genuine hope of better governance, scrutiny and accountability in the UK compares in importance with direct representation for Scotland at a European level. At a time of enlargement, the countries of central and eastern Europe are knocking at the door. They want the same rights that other small and medium-sized member states enjoy. I would like Scotland to have that as well. There is no substitute for being at the top table, but any progress would be gratefully received.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Because of the short time available, I have deleted from my speech many of the topics on which I intended to speak, such as Afghanistan, enlargement, European defence, and euro notes and coins. I have decided to speak about the debate on the future of Europe, which is on the agenda for the Laeken Council. As many hon. Members know, it has been agreed that a convention will be set up to consider the future of Europe. Its conclusions will be fed into the next intergovernmental conference, which will take place in 2004.
  The Nice summit set out several questions which the debate on the future of Europe should address. One concerns the delimitation of powers between the EU and member states. There should be a clear definition of the powers of the member states and of the EU, because an enlarged EU of 27 member states would otherwise grind to a halt.
  I foresee a European Union in which first pillar issues are handled as they are at present, with a fairly integrationist agenda. Issues such as the single market, the environment, consumer policy and energy policy would be dealt with through assent, co-decision, co-operation and consultation. The European Parliament and Commission will still have an extremely important role in developing legislation with the Council of Ministers.

  425
  Second and third pillar issues should remain mainly the preserve of member states through subsidiarity, but there should be mechanisms to allow for co-operation of an advanced type between member states. The details of possible options for such co-operation will no doubt emerge from the convention process.
  The status of the charter of fundamental human rights will be discussed at the Laeken Council. The relationship of the charter to member state law will clearly need to be addressed by member states, as well as the question of how or whether it should be incorporated. The issue of possible overlaps with existing human rights legislation in member states also needs to be addressed.
  On the simplification of the treaties—another issue that was raised at Nice—we all know that they are complex documents and that they constantly need to be cross-referenced for sense to be made of them. Any attempt to make them more concise and understandable is clearly desirable. Whether it can be done in 300 words, I do not know.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): Yes, it can.
  Mr. Hendrick: We will see, but the simplification process runs the risk of loss of content. Enlargement brings its own problems in that regard. Hon. Members may be interested to know that it has just taken Romania a year to translate the existing treaties.
  I turn now to the role of national Parliaments. The phrase "bringing Europe closer to the people" is a hackneyed one that is used by politicians to get across the idea of the need to make the European Union and its institutions more relevant to the public. It is suggested that the involvement of national parliamentarians in the process would somehow achieve that and add to the legitimacy of the European Union. I believe that the creation of an additional chamber of national parliamentarians from EU states would find little favour with other member states and would, in many ways, make the role of the European Parliament more confusing.
  However, it is important that the forthcoming convention deals with increasing the involvement of national parliamentarians in the making of legislation by other means. For example, it could deal with methods of enhancing the scrutiny of EU legislation by national Parliaments and ways of making the scrutiny process more open and transparent. Another possibility is the idea of setting up a delegation of national parliamentarians to meet regularly with the Council of Ministers to discuss legislative matters. The issue of more openness in European Council decision making is also a matter for discussion. I am reliably informed that this is the only legislature outside Pyongyang that legislates in secret. Again, I am sure that the convention will propose options on those matters. I look forward to seeing what options are available when it eventually meets.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. William Cash: Some comments have been made about the extent to which I would be expected to speak on European matters in my current role. My
  426
  portfolio as shadow Attorney-General certainly includes a responsibility to examine questions relating not only to international treaties but to constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and between the UK and Europe—the matter about which I propose to speak now.
  I want first to recall the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who said that the arguments for a constitution were unassailable and cited, for example, the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), as well as those of other hon. Members. I find that an astonishing idea. The one thing that we can say for certain about the Government relates to a matter that I have raised with the Prime Minister many times, not only at Question Time but after statements and on other occasions. I have asked him many times whether we can have a White Paper—indeed, this issue has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—on the constitutional and political implications of where we are going. Here we are, embarking on a journey towards Laeken and the future of Europe debate. We know that we are being taken into the arena of European constitutional arrangements. Indeed, that has been happening for a long time. We know that there are people who would like such arrangements, because they would enable them to lock everybody in.
  A constitution creates an entrenched situation. There is no room for the sort of reform to which the Prime Minister referred in a recent speech. He spoke about repatriating powers to the nation state. The ideas of those of us who have argued for repatriation and renegotiation are therefore being endorsed by those who have an uncontrollable vision of Europe that involves a constitutional arrangement. A huge contradiction is inherent in that view, and it makes me fear for the future of Europe. It means that there is no basis on which to apply subsidiarity to matters covered by the levers of European government and thus enable us to guarantee maintaining control over, for example, our defence arrangements or justice and home affairs.
  The European arrest warrant and proposals for an extradition Bill were mentioned today. They will be considered next year. However, the constitutional arrangements that will provide for those measures apply to regulations and the sort of provisions that are included in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. At the moment when the Minister and others are considering the need for more information and a wider and clearer debate, we are being led into an arena of obfuscation and denied the necessary information that would be provided in a proper debate in prime time on primary legislation. Yet we are considering the important subject of the abolition of extradition in Europe.
  That matter involves not only extradition, but bail and trials in absentia. It also raises the question of who is a judicial authority: is it the state prosecution service by another name in other countries? We have been considering monumental issues in the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. Some questions remain unresolved. Whatever happens on 7 December, there is a scrutiny reserve for good reasons. They are inherent in the democratic accountability to Parliament of its scrutiny Committees, which report to the House and ensure that decisions are not made without the provision of proper information. That cannot happen without debate.

  427
  European Standing Committee B dissolved in chaos the day before yesterday. There is no time for a full debate, the scrutiny reserve continues to apply and the decision on the European arrest warrant requires unanimity, yet it will apparently be made on 7 December. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to listen because I should be grateful if he could tell us what exactly will happen.
  The current proposal is that the decision will be made on 7 December, but, as I said, the scrutiny reserve applies and no debate has taken place. Will the Government defer the decision? The Minister appears to be engrossed in conversations this evening. Will he be good enough to tell us whether the Government will make the decision on Friday on a third pillar question that requires unanimity, or will they defer it because scrutiny has not been completed?
  There is no point talking about constitutional arrangements when democratic accountability is being infringed in the House. That is a serious matter and I am sure that the Minister, who is a responsible person, understands that. There will be a massive row if the decision is not made according to the proper procedures and with justification.
  In the context of the desire to move towards a new constitutional arrangement, I want to refer to the Government's White Paper. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the preliminary proposals for the White Paper state that the objective towards which the Laeken conference is to be directed is a "laboratory for world governance". That is there in black and white. What on earth is it supposed to mean? There are serious constitutional questions involved here. These are serious issues relating not just to the appearances of subsidiarity, which simply endorse the hierarchy and lock it into a new, enhanced constitution for Europe, but to the central question of democracy.
  Labour Members know perfectly well that I have argued over and over again for more democracy and accountability in the European Union. I have not been against the single market. I have been in favour of a reformed arrangement to provide proper governmental and democratic arrangements that ensure that people are properly heard, and that they have an opportunity to have their say when policies are made. I have argued consistently for referendums, for that reason. That is why I have played a part in—as some have kindly said to me—helping the Irish in their referendum. I was very glad to have been able to do that, as I was in Denmark and France before that.
  If the Whip system in this Parliament operates, as it has, to prevent the opportunity for proper consideration of some of these matters, it is essential that some decisions should be taken by referendum. I was, therefore, delighted when that opportunity arose and the decisions were transferred down to the people at the grass roots. In the case of the Irish, they had to hold a referendum under their constitutional arrangements. When they did, every citizen was sent a clear, concise, accurate document—like a White Paper, perhaps—to their doorstep, stating what the Nice treaty was all about, and they rejected it. It is a function of a properly democratically run country that people are given proper information.
  We have made requests over and over again for a White Paper, and for other information. There has been a fundamental failure on the part of the Government to
  428
  respond. I am extremely surprised and disappointed that the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, should be party to these shabby arrangements, including the arrangements in clause 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. He and other Ministers in the Foreign Office must be involved in those provisions to a degree. Those arrangements will be fundamentally unconstitutional and undemocratic.
  An interesting paper by a number of political scientists and constitutional experts, entitled "IGC 2000: The Constitutional Agenda", is described as rethinking the European Union. In it, J. H. H. Weiler—a great political and constitutional expert—states on the question of whether there should be a European constitution:
  "a formal process of adopting a constitution is not only pragmatically not feasible but might even be conceptually undesirable … Europe may have a constitutional legal order but the problem is that it does not have traditional constitutional legitimation"
  because—I am now paraphrasing—in practice, there is not the necessary degree of common consent and democratic grass-roots agreement over what is going on, as exemplified by the results of the recent referendums.
  This issue presents Europe with a monumental problem, which is that Europe is sliding down a slippery slope on the pretext of some high-flown idea that it can have a constitution, when in fact it lacks legitimacy at the grass roots. Nothing is more dangerous, either for a nation state or for any putative superstate or federation, than to fall between the two stools of the determination to achieve a greater degree of rule making at a higher level and the lack of consent from the people concerned.
  Fundamentally, consent is about freedom. As Vernon Bogdanor said the other day in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee—the record of which I strongly recommend that Members read—if the European Union does not adopt the principles of democracy and accountability represented by the British system, there will be no real hope for the future of Europe.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for kindly inviting me to wind up the debate. He is a well-known titan of the Dispatch Box, but I am grateful for the opportunity, and I shall enjoy it. I have a sense of deja vu, as I used to wind up debates on Europe a few years ago when I was my party's spokesman on the subject. We have heard a number of thoughtful speeches this evening; I sympathise with those who were not called, but, as we all understand, there were many reasons for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) touched on some important legal and constitutional matters. The quotation that he read out about Europe's lacking the traditional constitutional legitimacy goes to the heart of the issue. As other Members have pointed out, there is no understanding between the ruled and the rulers in terms of the European Union. That is the fundamental problem. It is not, as some Members have suggested, simply a question of economic tests—say, for joining the euro. The all-important political and constitutional questions that need to be settled with the people of this country must come first; and if the people of Europe have no sense of belonging to the European institutions, those institutions cannot work.

  429
  I was impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the scrutiny process. I wish more could be done in that respect. He was also right to raise the important question of arrest warrants, which was also raised in the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells referred to the droit de suite, as did the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth). I lost track of it some months ago, and was surprised to discover a few weeks ago that it had been slipped through with no chance of further discussion in the House. That is shameful. The droit de suite will have an impact on many people and organisations, including a firm in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend said, it will have serious implications for people running small businesses. It will have a devastating effect throughout the country, and I wish the Government could have found a way of giving us an extra chance to debate it.
  When I listened to the right hon. Member for Newport, East, the years seemed to roll back: I agreed with nearly everything he said. I must warn him, however, that his new colleagues listened stony-faced, as I believe the expression is.
  In his interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk referred to Belarus, in which I have a personal and particular interest. I now run my party's international office, and, as the Minister probably knows, I am a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. As I think he also knows, I have a special interest in Belarus, and was very disappointed by the recent presidential election there. It was neither free nor fair, and I look to the Government to state that clearly on behalf of our country. Our thoughts must be with the brave democrats who continue the struggle against tyranny and Lukashenko's Belarus. I think it can be said that, following the fall of Milosevic, he is far the most tyrannical leader in Europe.
  Will the Minister say what steps have been taken to reconsider the disastrous closure of the British Council in Minsk? I think that that decision needs to be revisited as soon as possible.
  Three years ago, when I last spoke from the Dispatch Box, on enlargement, I was fairly pessimistic about progress. I am less so now because I think that the will to get on with enlargement is shared more widely. I also note that many of the applicant countries have made huge efforts to fulfil the requirements that have been placed on them. I am particularly delighted—I think that this is the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) was making—that Lithuania and Latvia have moved on so well in the process and are catching up Estonia.
  I also agree that a big bang of 10 countries entering at the same time is highly desirable. However, I still think that there are mountains to climb before enlargement becomes a reality. The main problems associated with agriculture and the structural funds remain. With the presidential election in France, where agriculture has suddenly gained a new intensity as a political issue, and with Spain—the largest winner of regional funds—holding the presidency for the next six months, this will not be an easy time for the enlargement process.
  430
  There are already noises coming out of Madrid casting doubt on the target date for enlargement. One does not have to be a political genius to know what that is all about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk also mentioned Gibraltar. Many distinguished Labour Members have often debated Gibraltar, and I am sorry that they are not here today; we need to return to that subject. The citizens of Gibraltar have of course been full citizens of the EU for some time, but they have been treated shamefully in the past. I am very pleased that they will now be able to vote in European elections.
  I believe, however, that the British Government are playing cruel games with the wishes and affections of the people of Gibraltar. I cannot understand the message that the British Government are trying to send out to Gibraltar. Of course Spain has the presidency next and it would be good if in the next six months we could resolve all our outstanding differences with Spain, but, on Gibraltar, the Government have so far only made a bad situation worse. They have embarked on a process that I think can only end in tears.
  The Government have already hugely annoyed the people of Gibraltar by sending out signals that the British guarantee of self-determination has a rubbery rather than a steely quality to it. I think that that feeling will only grow worse in the coming weeks and ensure that the people of Gibraltar say no to whatever question is asked of them.
  Therefore, one outcome for the British Government will be to destabilise the Gibraltarians to no practical effect. The other outcome will be to irritate the Government of Spain by appearing to sympathise with their position but then being unable to deliver. As so often, our Government will end up by failing on both fronts. The empty chair is there at the table, but it is for someone who wants to talk about sovereignty. The people of Gibraltar of all parties, all Members of Parliament and all former Speakers have made it absolutely clear—and they believe that the British Government should support them in this—that there is nothing to discuss on sovereignty.
  Mr. Bryant: That is not true.
  Mr. Trend: We have different opinions on what sovereignty and other such difficult conceptual words mean. If the Government of Gibraltar are being invited to discuss fundamental principles of sovereignty there is no doubt that they do not wish to do so. There are ways in which that could be discussed, and the First Minister of Gibraltar has made that clear. However, if the empty chair is for someone who, as the British Government have made clear, is meant to discuss the fundamental principles, clearly no one from Gibraltar can occupy that chair.
  I am very encouraged by the European Union's approach to Cyprus, and I very much hope that minds can be concentrated on finding a just solution to the island's problems as part of the enlargement process. Conservative Members remain committed to Turkey and wish to encourage it in the necessary reforms that will bring it, too, into full membership of the European family. However, Turkey has to understand that it cannot stand in the way and that Cyprus's place in the enlargement process is not negotiable.
  Many hon. Members have rightly discussed the world situation and how it will affect the development of Europe. What we have seen in the past few months is a

  431
  demonstration of how power is really exercised in today's world. After all the grandiose rhetoric about common defence and military structures that we have had to listen to over the years, the EU is not and never shall be the right forum to take action of the sort that the current world situation so evidently requires. Romano Prodi's performance in recent months has shown how tetchy and difficult the Eurocrats can be on that subject. We watched the press conference with Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister, when Mr. Prodi sulked his way out of the room and told the BBC that the EU needed power in military and foreign affairs because it was powerless in the big united global war. Splendid, let us keep it that way for as long as possible.
  The Government know that we wholeheartedly support them in their recent actions, but I also hope that they are learning the lesson that their earlier rhetorical gestures on common policy were mistaken. Once again, we have clear evidence of the close and practical relationship that exists between us and the United States. Moreover we have had an important demonstration of how important flexibility is in defence, and vain rhetoric on the EU's future in that respect has been undermined by the reality of the present situation.
  The circus is moving on to Laeken and I wish the Minister a jolly time of it. I do not see anything in the Laeken approach that will cure a problem that has been identified by many hon. Members tonight. Nothing that will happen at Laeken will bring the EU's affairs one inch closer to people throughout the Union, especially after the experiences of Denmark and Ireland, as my right hon. and hon. Friends mentioned. Trying to make some sense of Europe for the people is, as we have long been telling the Government, the real challenge for the EU.
  The biggest noise around at the moment, as many Labour Members have confirmed, is the proposed convention. We are told that one way in which the EU can grow closer to the citizens of Europe is through the new convention, but that is nonsense. Instead, the convention will be a chance for Europe's budding Thomas Jeffersons to sharpen their pencils and head for the equivalent of Philadelphia. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is unfortunately no longer in his place, is becoming an expert on making new constitutions and I am sure that he would love to take on that task. I disagreed with much of what he said, although I am always interested in how he puts things. We can agree on the analysis of problems without necessarily agreeing on the prescription of the cure.
  I have not done this debate for a while, but my sense of deja vu tells me that things have moved on but much remains the same. In particular, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have pointed out, the EU still uses the same tedious jargon, weasel language, skewed language and hectoring tone that have for so long marred its progress. My suspicions also go into overdrive when I am sure that we have been given only half the picture. Romano Prodi recently told the College of Europe that some of his major reforms would consist of technical provisions only. I am sure that that will raise the hackles of my right hon. and hon. Friends. When the Minister said earlier that sovereignty shared is sovereignty regained, I felt a judder inside me and questioned whether that made any sense whatever.
  432
  EU leaders, however much they protest the opposite, are responsible for the unnecessary double-speak, muddle and confusion that surrounds their utterances. They are responsible, too, for the arrogant reputation that is synonymous with the EU. When the Irish told Brussels to hold its horses, Prodi went to see them and told them that their views did not matter. Clever stuff. The great paradox of Europe remains the same as it has been for the past 10 years or so. It is the people at the top who are trying to drive the EU too far and too fast who do the damage. It is their closed doors and their private language that alienate ordinary people. It is their indifference to the lack of democratic accountability based on units of government that people understand that prevents sensible progress.
  9.49 pm
  Peter Hain: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate for the Government.
  I begin by welcoming back to the Dispatch Box the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). I responded to him in his Adjournment debate on Belarus, and I pay tribute to his work on that country. I welcome too his support for enlargement, and wonder why he voted against the Nice treaty when the relevant Bill went through the House earlier this year. Opposition to the treaty would block enlargement and prevent all the countries that he mentioned from joining the EU. There is therefore a degree of hypocrisy and contradiction in that approach.
  Whatever the current feelings in Gibraltar, I invite the hon. Gentleman to look ahead at what I think is a great prize for the people there, and for Britain and Spain—an agreement that will give the people of Gibraltar maximum self-government, and all the advantages of being a full part of the European Union. Such an agreement will allow them access to the wider market in Spain, from which they are largely barred at present.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative Government under Baroness Thatcher who began the Brussels process discussions, which included the issue of sovereignty. He will find that Conservative predecessors of mine, including Lord Tristan Garel-Jones, have consistently been part of that process, and that sovereignty has been on the agenda.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in another context, sovereignty in the European Union, and noted my remarks about sovereignty shared being sovereignty regained. I draw his attention to the words of Michael Heseltine in an interview, when he said:
  "a degree of shared sovereignty"
  was the way that "you enhance sovereignty." That is the exact point that the Government are making, and the hon. Gentleman seems oblivious to it.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—my hon. Friend—appeared again on the Back Benches and made an eloquent speech. That is clear proof that there is life after death on the Tory Front Bench—but only when people are temporarily reincarnated on the Tory Back Benches. He expressed delight at his participation in the Irish referendum, and gloried in the no vote that was recorded. Our friends in Cyprus, Malta, Poland, Hungary and in all the countries of eastern, central and southern Europe want to join the EU, but his delight obviously

  433
  stems from the fact that a no vote prevents them from doing so. The consequence of the failure of any of the 15 EU member states to ratify the Nice treaty, as happened in Ireland, is that those countries are denied the opportunity to enter the EU on target, as they wish to do.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) made an interesting speech about the euro and mentioned inward investment. I am advised that France has taken over from Britain the leadership in inward investment in manufacturing. Many inward investors—the Japanese in particular—now say that they prefer France over their traditional choices of Wales and other parts of Britain because France is in the euro. My right hon. Friend might therefore want to bear that in mind.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) back to European debates. In his eloquent speech, he made the important point that enlargement should go ahead quickly and that the applicants need a firm date to work with. I completely agree with him. Applicant countries should have a firm date and Britain, as champion of enlargement, is committed to setting that date as early as possible in 2004. I also agree that as large a number of countries as possible should come into the EU, as long as they complete all the chapter negotiations required for accession.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) made some interesting points about the European convention. I shall take note of them and look into them further. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a very interesting speech about a written constitution for Europe. I look forward to his Bill as a guide to further progress.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke about the Scottish Parliament's relation to the European Union via the United Kingdom Government. However, he conceded that Scottish Executive Ministers represent, and have represented, the UK on a number of occasions. That will continue to be the case, where appropriate, and I welcome it.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) spent some time dwelling on the dangerous consequences, as he saw them, for our relationship with the United States as a result of our approach to Europe and our support for European defence. I have not seen much evidence in recent weeks that the relationship between the United States and Britain or between our Prime Minister and President Bush is on the rocks; on the contrary. However, the Opposition never let the facts get in the way of their argument.
  Let me try instead to reassure Conservative Members by quoting a senior British statesman, speaking in London on 13 November. He said:
  "crucial to the modern Anglo-American relationship is Britain's role as a European power—not just a country anchored offshore the Continent, but a full partner in the European Union. Those who argue that Britain should weaken its links inside the EU in order to cosy up more intimately with the United States are ignoring the facts of power. Such a shift would actually reduce our importance in the eyes of American decision makers."
  That is absolutely right. I hope that Conservative Members who disagree will take it up not with me but with the person who said it—their very own former Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, now Lord Hurd.
  434
  The Opposition have also made a predictable and synthetic fuss about European defence. In reply, I quote Lord Hurd from the same speech, in which he said:
  "we have to press ahead with the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The partnership between Europe and the United States will only be valid if the effort made by each partner, particularly in military strength, is recognised as substantial by the other."
  That is the policy of the Government, but I doubt whether anything that I or Lord Hurd could say would persuade the headbangers on the Conservative Benches.
  For the authoritative voice of today's Tory party, I turn to my e-mail in-box. As part of my efforts to explain Europe better, I have instituted an online debate about Britain and Europe on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It is a very popular website, and we recently received the following contribution from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, one Roger Helmer. I am glad that he is keeping out of trouble by sending me e-mails. Mr. Helmer wrote:
  "EU membership is the greatest threat to Britain's prosperity, democracy and security."
  This is from a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. He goes on:
  "The great task of our generation is European deconstruction."
  He explains:
  "The Treaty of Nice threatens to turn Britain into a mere off-shore province in the new European empire."
  He concludes:
  "We must oppose Nice, oppose the Euro, oppose the new IGC".
  So he goes on, rather like the man muttering to himself whom we try not to sit next to on the bus. We wondered whether it was a crank e-mail, as we get quite a lot of those, and not only from my friend the hon. Member for Stone. Sadly, it appears to be genuine—cranky, but genuine.
  So which party is the Conservative party? Is it the party of statesmanlike Lord Hurd or the party of headbangers, like Roger Helmer, MEP? Or is it the party of the people who write letters in green ink, copied to the Queen and the Pope, about the great global conspiracy that is today's Europe? The answer was given in The Guardian this morning by Nick Kent, campaign manager for the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He said:
  "The party I joined was full of nice old people; today, it is full of nasty old people."
  He also said:
  "In truth, no group of 300,000 adults, other than the membership of the Conservative party, would have chosen lain Duncan Smith over Ken Clarke."
  I cannot but agree.
  I am practical about Europe. I want to deliver real things for real people: full employment, equal rights, and an end to injustice and poverty. Up and down Britain, people know that Europe is good for their jobs, their security and their future. They may not care for Eurospeak; nor do I. They are not heady about Europe; nor am I. Like the Foreign Secretary and the entire Government, they are practical Europeans.
  Practical Europeans want a Europe that works for Britain, which means a Britain that works with Europe and has more self-confidence about its engagement

  435
  in Europe. Yes, some things that some Europeans say are daft. Some want to take Europe in the wrong direction, but most others want—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Smith.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise my concerns about the procedure followed by the NHS Appointments Commission in appointing the chair of the North Durham Health Care NHS trust.
  I do not intend in this debate to raise concerns about the operation of the hospital, nor to criticise personally the new chair of the trust, Ms Angela Ballatti. I intend to concentrate on the clear faults in the appointment procedure and on the disgraceful way in which the former chair, Mr. Kevin Earley, has been treated.
  Mr. Earley was appointed chair of the trust in April 1998. He and his new board faced a number of challenges, the most demanding of which was the building of a new private finance initiative hospital in Durham—one of the first in the country.
  Mr. Earley's term of office came up for review this year. In July, he was asked to attend a meeting for what was described as an "informal chat" with Mr. Peter Garland, the regional director of the northern and Yorkshire health region and Dr. John Marshall, regional appointments commissioner for the NHS commission.
  It was made clear to him that his reappointment as chair would not be automatic and that they wanted to "road test" the procedure for the appointment of the trust's chair. A number of points were raised with Mr. Earley: first, concern over the waiting list at the hospital since April 2001; secondly, the quality of the executive management team at the trust; and, finally, concern that Mr. Earley was acting as an executive chair.
  In response to those concerns, Mr. Earley explained robustly that the waiting list delays were mainly the result of down time when the new hospital came on stream in April. Until then the trust had met all its targets and the national patient action team was happy with the trust's strategy.
  With regard to the comments about the executive team, Kevin Earley pointed out, rightly, that the appointments had been made with the full involvement of the regional health authority. For example, the medical director had been appointed on a recommendation from Ken Jarrold of Durham health authority, whose chair at the time was actually Dr. John Marshall.
  On the concern that he acted as executive chair, Kevin Earley reminded Dr. Marshall that on his appointment he had been told by him that, in coming years, he would have to "have his foot on the pedal because the trust had a lot to deliver".
  On 31 July 2001, Mr. Earley received a letter from Sir William Wells, chair of the NHS Appointments Commission, telling him that he would not be automatically reappointed, and stating that the post would be advertised, but
  "you will of course be entitled to apply".

  437
  The NHS Appointments Commission procedure, under the heading, "Arrangements for local chair appointments", states:
  "Regional Commissioners will review appraisal reports and discuss possible reappointments with regional directors. Except where the appraised performance of the incumbent chair is good, vacancies will be advertised".
  Well, I have Mr. Earley's last appraisal here, and it states:

  "Overall health of organization—good

  Financial management—good

  External profile of organization—good

  Relationship with Chief Executive—good

  Effectiveness of Board—good

  Management of relationships with media—good."

  I could go on.
  During Mr. Earley's three years as chairman of the North Durham trust, he was appraised on three separate occasions. At no time were any concerns about his performance raised with him by the then regional chairman, Mrs. Manzoor, who conducted personal interviews after each appraisal. If no concerns were raised at those appraisals, why did the commission think that he should not be reappointed?
  To shed some light on that, I have to return to Sir William's letter, in which he states that the views of the regional director, Mr. Garland, would be considered, as well as the appraisals. He goes on to state:
  "In your case the Commission accepted that the difficult relationship with your former Chief Executive led to concerns about the strength of your own leadership skills and relationships within the Trust".
  To question that as a reason for not reappointing Mr. Earley, I refer again to his appraisal of June 2000. Under the heading "Relationships with the Chief Executive", it states:
  "have improved many if not most issues viewed from similar perspective—assessment—good".
  No concerns have ever been raised with Mr. Earley about his relationship with the former chief executive by the regional chair, who, as I have said, carried out personal interviews after each appraisal. If that is not good enough evidence to show that he should be reappointed, I shall refer to The Journal—a Newcastle paper—in which, on 16 November 2001, the former chief executive, Mr. Worth, is quoted as saying that
  "he and Mr. Earley worked well together for three and a half years and believed the two achieved a lot in North Durham".
  The reason for the non-reappointment does not stand up to scrutiny. Again, if there were serious questions about Mr. Earley's leadership, why did they not show up in the annual appraisals? Why were those concerns not raised by Dr. John Marshall, the then chairman of the health authority?
  Kevin Earley reapplied for the position of chairman when it was advertised this September. In fact, he was shortlisted and interviewed for the post. Again, if the commission had grave concerns about his performance and leadership abilities, as was stated in Sir William's letter, why on earth was he shortlisted and interviewed?
  I understand that, following the interviews, the regional NHS appointments commission made a recommendation to the national commission, but it was rejected. It is not known
  438
  whether a second preference was also nominated, according to the commission's procedures, but no appointment was made as a result of the process. That effectively left the trust with no replacement for Mr. Earley.
  The commission's clear conclusion was that, despite an open advertisement, no one from my constituency, from that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), or from that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) could be found to fill that post. I find that hard to believe or accept.
  Given that no appointment was made, I understand that the regional commissioner, Dr. John Marshall, wrote to certain existing non-executive members of health trusts inviting them to apply for the post. I have studied the NHS Appointments Commission's procedures on the NHS executive website and cannot find where the procedure used in this case is laid down. I hope that the Minister will enlighten me in her reply.
  The actions by Dr. John Marshall raise serious questions. Who drew up the list of who was to be invited for interview? Where do Dr. Marshall's actions appear in the procedures laid down and what criteria were used to draw up the list? We know that some non-executives on the North Durham trust were invited to apply, because at least one wrote to Dr. Marshall refusing to be considered and strongly criticising the removal of Mr. Earley as chair. We also know that Mrs. Angela Ballatti was asked to apply. She qualified—rightly in my opinion—because she was the chair of the local priority services trust. However, we also know that the chair of the priority services trust in Sunderland, who is a Durham city resident, was not invited to apply.
  The list of those approached and the reasons for it need to be made public. More importantly, we need to know why some people were not asked to apply for the post of chair of the North Durham trust. What should have been an open and transparent process has become clouded in secrecy, with the commission hiding behind its so-called "cloak of independence".
  The new NHS Appointments Commission was set up to end the accusations of cronyism and, to quote from its website, it was created to
  "ensure that the public, the NHS and Ministers have confidence in the openness, transparency and fairness of the procedures which are used".
  We are as far from that position as we could possibly be.
  We must ask questions about not only the procedure used, but the people finally appointed. Mrs. Angela Ballatti is a senior tutor in the business school at Durham university and Dr. John Marshall was director of the business school. This, along with the appointment of Sandy Anderson—who worked with Dr. Marshall for 30 years at ICI in Teesside—to the chair of the South Durham Health Care NHS trust makes the perception of cronyism hard to refute.
  Mr. Earley was removed without adequate explanation and that has left a stain against his character despite the much good work that he did for health care in my constituency and in Durham in general. The only reason given for his removal was that he did not get on with the former chief executive. We may never know the true reason but, since the controversy surrounding this appointment, Dr. Marshall has at least given some pointers as to where we might find an answer.

  439
  In a private meeting with the non-executive members of the North Durham trust after Mrs. Ballatti's appointment, Dr. Marshall said that Mr. Earley's demise had occurred because he had engineered the retirement of the former chief executive, Mr. Worth, so that he could "put his boy in", referring to the new chief executive, Steve Mason. Dr. Marshall could not be further from the truth. Mr. Worth's retirement was agreed with the regional health authority and Dr. Marshall did not object when he was chair of the health authority.
  If Mr. Earley committed a crime, it was that of wanting another Marshall—Mr. Charles Marshall—as the new chief executive of the North Durham trust. That proposal was blocked by the regional director, Peter Garland and, on a point of information, the present chief executive did not apply for the post at that time. Mr. Earley had crossed Mr. Garland, so it could be interpreted that Mr. Earley's removal as chair was Garland's way of hitting back at Mr. Earley's defiance.
  The NHS Appointments Commission was set up to ensure transparency and fairness. This case demonstrates that, in the appointment of the chair of the North Durham trust, it has failed badly. A chair, who even the Secretary of State for Health agreed to me privately was a good one, has been removed without good reason. Mr. Earley's only crime was that of crossing the NHS's northern regional director.
  The NHS appointments commissioner for the region, Dr. John Marshall, clearly has a lot to answer for, but it appears that he is unaccountable. It concerns me that if more decisions and finance are to be devolved to a local level, as was announced last week, there needs to be greater public accountability of those we appoint to run our health service at a local level. Failure to do that will allow local health service civil servants to continue to make mistakes and not to deliver the health care that the Government and the public in North Durham demand. If speaking out and challenging the local civil service results in individuals being removed, we will not get talented and representative people coming forward, and the challenging questions on the health service that the public need to be put will not be asked.
  I ask the Minister to examine the issues that I have raised tonight. I will work with Mrs. Ballatti, the new chair, for the sake of my constituents, but I will continue to ask the challenging questions that need asking.
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on securing the debate. It is clear from the way in which he makes his case that he takes seriously his responsibility to represent the best interests of his constituents in the health service. I recognise and understand his concern that the North Durham Health Care NHS trust should have sound leadership. The performance of any NHS trust depends on the leadership provided by executive and non-executive directors of the board. His constituents rightly expect their local hospital to provide the best service that it can.
  The new hospital, the University hospital of North Durham, which has been built on the north end of the existing Dryburn site in Durham city, is operational following a £96 million private finance initiative scheme.
  440
  It rationalises acute hospital services and centralises in-patient facilities and specialised out-patient services on a single site. Almost £600,000 of additional funding has been allocated to critical care services and £500,000 has been allocated to provide equipment this year in the new hospital. My hon. Friend's constituents now have access to high-quality care.
  We heard how Mr. Earley's personal and forthright leadership style gained him support from hospital staff and in the local community. I do not wish to say anything that would detract from his significant contribution to the trust or the community at large over the past three and a half years. However, it does not necessarily follow that his record makes him the automatic choice to lead the trust into the challenges of the next four years. The NHS Appointments Commission, in making the appointment of Angela Ballatti as chair from 1 November, has taken an independent view that North Durham Health Care NHS trust can move forward to even better performance under her experienced leadership. Before I deal with the detail of Mr. Earley's position, I will say why the NHS Appointments Commission was set up and how it operates.
  In 1999 Dame Rennie Fritchie, in response to complaints from MPs and interest by the media, announced her intention to scrutinise all NHS appointments. Her report in March 2000 made 28 recommendations for improving the process. She concluded that there was a lack of transparency in the way those public appointments had been made and even that political affiliation had been more important than merit when candidates were considered. The Public Administration Committee became involved and its second report recommended that the Government should consider the possibility of an independent appointments commission.
  The Secretary of State for Health took the view that an independent commission was the only way to provide complete reassurance to the public. The commission was set up with a chair, a chief executive and eight regional commissioners. The establishment of the commission means that the appointment of chairs and non-executives to NHS boards is no longer the direct responsibility of Health Ministers. In addition, the NHS Appointments Commission does not consult MPs on the identity of candidates. Instead, it writes to all Members of Parliament whenever a chair post is advertised to give them the opportunity to draw the advert to the attention of anyone who they think is suitable.
  Mr. Jones: The process was clearly inefficient in my region, because even though I was elected in June the commission wrote to my predecessor, Giles Radice. I had to point out that I was now the Member of Parliament. Clearly, the commission does not keep on top of who are the Members of Parliament in the northern region.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When I met Sir Williams Wells today, I asked that the procedures connected with Members of Parliament be examined to ensure that they are efficient and effective. On occasion, not only have Members of Parliament not been notified that vacancies have occurred and that they should draw the advertisements to people's attention, but they have not been notified when an appointment has been made. I am anxious to ensure that all Members of Parliament are properly notified of appointments: they are

  441
  important positions in every community and local Members of Parliament must be kept up to date. I stressed that to Sir William Wells.
  The NHS Appointments Commission was established as a special health authority from 1 April this year to take over responsibility for recruitment and appointment of chairs and non-executives. In taking the step of establishing an independent appointments body, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health had the support of the Public Administration Committee and the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie. Sir William Wells is the first chairman of the commission.
  The NHS Appointments Commission itself is subject to regular audit and scrutiny by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who has a statutory duty to audit all public appointment files within her remit. She does that by sending in teams of auditors who trawl through the files, examine processes and report on their findings. The commission will be audited annually from 2002. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that the proceedings and processes of the commission will be subject to intense scrutiny. In addition, anyone who thinks that the appointments process is flawed may draw their concerns to the attention of Sir William, who has the power to scrutinise all the papers and the process. He can request the board to re-examine the appointment, and would do so if he found evidence of flawed procedure. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may then take up the matter directly with Dame Rennie Fritchie, who has the power to see all the papers, audit the procedures and report back. The commission would be bound to consider her recommendations and to take appropriate action. We have built in checks and balances to ensure that the commission's activities are subject to proper audit.
  Transparency is crucial if the public are to feel that proceedings have been properly conducted. One of the first actions of the commission was thoroughly to overhaul the appointments process. After a comprehensive consultation exercise involving all serving non-executives, new guidance was published that has the full support of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I understand that copies of the entire process are available in the Library. The process is open and transparent and ensures that appointments are made—and can be seen to be made—on merit alone.
  There are safeguards in the system. First, all interview panels must include an independent assessor who has the right to report directly to the Commissioner for Public Appointments if the proper procedures are not followed. Secondly, appointments are not made by any individual alone. Chair appointments are made by the full board of the commission in a collective decision. Thirdly, no chair or non-executive has an absolute right to a further term of appointment. If there is any doubt about their performance, their post will be advertised, but they are entitled to apply and be interviewed along with other candidates. That may appear harsh to my hon. Friend, but the NHS Appointments Commission believes that the process is essential to encourage openness and to ensure that the NHS always has the best leaders available to it.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: Those who have been rejected must be told why they were turned down. It hardly creates confidence or encourages people to come forward if they are not told.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point—one that I raised with Sir William Wells today. All unsuccessful candidates should be entitled to proper feedback on their interview, on the process, on their perceived deficiencies, and on where they need to be stronger if they are to be appointed. I have been assured that all candidates are entitled to feedback, both orally from the members who sat on the interview panel and, if they wish it, in writing. It is an important part of the procedure that people should understand where their perceived deficiencies are.
  Mr. Jones: That is not included in the procedures that have been laid down, and it is new to me. Mr. Earley has not been offered that option.
  Ms Blears: That should be remedied. I undertake to ensure that it is.
  My hon. Friend said that in relation to the process concerning Mr. Earley, a decision was made not to appoint any candidate on the first occasion. There was then a trawl or a head-hunting process. My hon. Friend has rightly said that that process of seeking applications is not in the written process that he has examined. Again, that matter needs to be remedied. Apparently, the process is acceptable to the independent commissioner, and it has been used on a number of previous occasions. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the process should be transparent and should be part of the written procedures. I will ensure that happens.
  In Mr. Earley's case, there was a panel that consisted of the regional commissioner, another chair and an independent person. At the first session, Kevin Earley was interviewed in accordance with the process. Along with three other candidates, he was assessed as not having the particular skills needed by the trust for the challenges of the future. The details of that interview are in confidence between the commission and Mr. Earley. I do not have them, but he should be entitled to that feedback. I will ensure that he gets it.
  Miss Ballatti was appointed by the commission at its board meeting on 12 November. She is already an experienced chair, and she will be supported in her new role by the induction and training procedures. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has said that he intends to work closely with her in the interests of his constituents to ensure that their health services continue to be of the highest possible quality.
  My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the role played by Dr. John Marshall in this procedure. I have been reassured by Sir William Wells on behalf of the commission that Dr. Marshall is a man of the highest integrity who has worked in the north-east for more than 40 years in the chemical industry, the university sector and as chair of a health authority. It therefore follows that he knows many local people. It is an asset to have that

  443
  local knowledge when trying to search out and find the highest quality people to lead the NHS within the region.
  Mr. Jones: I accept my hon. Friend's point. However, if we are looking for new people to come into the NHS and into the appointments system, which is what the commission was set up to do, and if we are limiting such people to those who know Dr. Marshall and others who move in certain social circles, we shall not get new blood, which is what the process was set up to achieve.
  Ms Blears: I do not think for one moment that I said that candidates should be limited to people moving in the same social circle. I said that sometimes it is an asset for people who are grounded in their communities to be able to seek good, high-quality leaders for the service.
  We must be clear that it is an unfortunate fact of life that in any appointment process there will be candidates who are disappointed by the outcome and who will try directly or indirectly to take the matter further. We in the House need to be careful not to become caught up in that
  444
  process. The independent commission was established to ensure that there is fair play, that appointments are made on merit and that we have transparency.
  If my hon. Friend still has concerns, he should take them up with the chair of the commission, Sir William Wells, who I am sure would be delighted to see him to talk the issues through in depth. I recommend that my hon. Friend, and any other Members who remain concerned, take up these matters. They should ensure that their concerns are placed firmly before the commission. It is important to make sure that we all have faith, trust and confidence in the appointments that are made. It is in the best interests of all our constituents to ensure that we get high-quality people into the health service who are able to perform on behalf of their communities and deliver the best services to which all our constituents are entitled.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Public Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call Helen Jones, I wish to explain to the Chamber that there is a problem with the annunciator system. The power is down. When it comes back, there is a danger that it will be at high volume until it can be adjusted. Please do not be scared.
Helen Jones: I open the debate as a member of two unions that recruit in the public sector: the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and Unison. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about public services, which are often taken for granted and sometimes criticised. They were neglected for 18 years under the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, they continue to deliver major improvements to people's lives. Despite the problems, those services provide excellent services for the majority of people every day. They represent some of the best aspects of our society, such as a sense of civic responsibility, a commitment to communal action and a belief that we all have a responsibility to one another. I am part of the generation that has always expected good public services. I am also old enough to remember the great changes that they made in people's lives.
It is a cliché to use one's family in a debate, but I shall do so because mine is representative of millions of other families. My grandparents brought up their children in the most appalling poverty. Although they worked hard all their lives, they lived in slum housing and there was no chance for their elder children to stay on at school past the age of 14, let alone to aspire to higher education. My older uncles and aunts still remember what it was like to struggle to pay a doctor's bill after a new baby was born or when a child had been seriously ill.
Yet my grandmother lived to see her grandchildren born under a national health service, grow up in decent local authority housing, and go to university. We did not go there because we were more clever—we were not—or because we were more prudent. I could not manage on the budget on which my grandmother had to manage. It certainly was not because we worked harder. It happened because public provision made it possible. Public services allowed families to move forward and improve their lives, which could never have been achieved by individual effort alone.
Over two generations, lives completely changed—so much so that my son now finds it difficult to believe the stories that his grandmother tells him. People live longer. We have wiped out many infectious diseases. Educational attainment is higher. People now have higher aspirations, and rightly so. That has come about through public provision. Meeting those higher aspirations is the next challenge that faces our public services.
70WH
We must remember the lessons taught by those people who set up public services. They were not afraid to have a vision. They thought on a grand scale. That was true not only of the founders of the welfare state, but of the great Victorians who set up the public water and sewerage systems in our major cities. It is true of the people who built cities with big public buildings and open spaces. They thought big and were able to do that because they had the support of the public. They kept that support by meeting those aspirations and by fostering a sense of confidence, which enabled people to make changes with the belief that they could achieve their aims.
This country had that in full measure. That was why, even in the midst of the second world war, it could plan for a health service and a welfare state, and have the determination to implement it afterwards, even in times of economic problems. People did that because they believed that they could, and people are coming round to that view again. They are ready to take the steps needed to improve our public services. Years of constant privatisation have told them that there are some things that they cannot buy for themselves. Years of under-investment in transport led to jammed roads and a collapsing railway system. The privatisation of hospital cleaning services resulted in dirtier wards and an increase in hospital-acquired infections, for which, at the end of the day, we all pay.
The scandalous neglect of public housing was one of the little noticed effects of the Conservative Government. The decline and social problems on many estates affected not only the people living there, but the whole community. That was the price we paid. With the collapse of Railtrack, people saw that the theme that private was always good and public always bad was no longer tenable. There have to be changes, but our public services are already demonstrating that they can rise to that challenge. Services such as NHS Direct and the university for industry demonstrate that flexible and responsive public sector services can be delivered when people need them.
There are many examples of innovation and service delivery of the highest standard in my constituency. Our libraries are now installing computers so that even those who cannot afford computers in their homes can have access to the internet. Health visitors in my area set up a project called "tackling men's health", where they worked with the local rugby league club to raise awareness of men's health issues. In Orford in the middle of my constituency, a personal medical services pilot demonstrates some of the best practice. By changing the way it works, it has met the health needs of the area. For example, under the direction of the practice nurse, it offers a good smoking cessation service. Its front-line staff have been retrained. Receptionists have become primary care assistants and can check blood pressure or test urine samples. They can then take NVQs, allowing them to do other tasks such as taking blood samples or nebulising asthma patients. In doing so, they free up the time of other practice staff. A patient who is worried about whether he should come to the surgery can have a telephone consultation with a general practitioner. That is the sort of public service innovation that we want to encourage.
Some believe that our public services are in decline but I do not buy that. Of course, there are problems and there is much more to be done. However, many of them

71WH
still deliver excellence every day. We tend to appreciate such services only when they are not there: for example, refuse collection or the much talked about health service.
My wonderful secretary, Lynn, has given me permission to use her recent experience of the health service as an example. A year last July, she had a brain haemorrhage. She could have died, but was treated in the Walton neurosurgery unit and in Warrington hospital. She later developed eye problems and was treated at St. Paul's eye unit in the Royal Liverpool University hospital. Throughout that time, she received excellent nursing and medical care. The surgeons not only saved her life but restored her sight and got her back to work.
When Lynn later developed cataracts, as she was warned that she would, they were dealt with speedily and efficiently. She went to see the consultant on Tuesday 26 November about the last of her cataracts. She was in hospital the following Sunday, and the operation was performed on Monday. She could not have bought that kind of care in the private sector, however hard she tried. She could never have met the costs at the point of use.
Lynn compared her most recent hospital experience with the time that she went for a minor operation in 1994. She said that the wards are cleaner, the food has improved, and staff morale is much better. It is better because we believe in and support public services whereas the previous Government did not. They opposed the creation of many hospitals, neglected them for 18 years and then tried to privatise them.
I give an example, taken from my constituency, of the result of that neglect. The previous Government allowed the creation of a private wing in the grounds of Warrington hospital. The wing went bust because no one could afford to use it, so we bought it for the NHS. Its facilities are now available for all local people according to need, not ability to pay. It is officially called the Daresbury wing, although staff refer to it as the Dobson wing, after the person who bought it.
My message is that public services can deliver and, for most people, they can deliver well. Of course, we must make changes. We are investing in public services in order to make those changes and to put right 18 years of neglect. Spending, particularly on health and education, is now increasing faster than it is in most European countries. An extra £43 billion is to be spent on public services between this year and 2004, besides the extra £ 1 billion for the health service announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report. We expect that reform will accompany that investment.
My examples have demonstrated that staff in the public sector are ready to make changes to the way in which they work. That is right, because most of our services were designed for the 1950s. Society has changed irrevocably since then. People expect more. They are no longer so grateful to have any service at all that they will put up with long waits and shabby premises. Our staff know that and are working to meet expectations.
We should not duck the need for change; it offers us great opportunities. We should lay down the principles that underlie public provision, even when we make
72WH
changes. The first of those principles is that public services should support and help those who help themselves and allow them to move forward. However, public services must also recognise their duty to care for the weakest in our society, who cannot help themselves.
We can make public services more responsive to local needs and local demands by investing in and supporting front-line staff. In my experience, staff on the front line often know more about what is needed and what works in public services than anyone else. Staff are fizzing with ideas, which we must allow them to try out. We must be adult enough and honest enough to admit that, although most of those ideas will work, some may not. Change is always a risk.
We should recognise the expertise of staff who have spent many years in the public sector, often on low pay. We should be rewarding them and building on their commitment to ensure that we make the best use of their experience. The Government have taken steps in that direction by allowing health care assistants to train as nurses, for example, and classroom assistants to become teachers. However, a lot more needs to be done. The Government must examine the matter. People who make a commitment to public service should be rewarded with a proper career path.
We must create a proper public sector management ethos. We need to recruit the best and brightest managers, and to find ways to encourage them to be committed to a career in public service. We should explore the possibility of establishing a public sector management college that will attract the best and brightest, taking as our model the French Grands Ecoles, a prestigious institution that enables people who enter public service to have a good career. Managers who deliver must be rewarded.
Our public services must develop a greater culture of openness and accountability. They should be willing to learn from their mistakes; they should be able to admit it when things go wrong and to put them right. We are making great strides in the national health service, for example, in that respect. However, a lot more needs to be done.
The culture of accountability must be taken further. Local authorities must be freed, so that they can invest in reform and make improvements. I am glad that the Government have made a commitment to allow them to borrow, because we need to give real choices to the people on the ground. People who work in housing, for example, need to be able to choose between trusts, arm's length companies and staying with the council. They can have that choice only if local councils can invest in repairs and improvements in the same way as housing trusts can.
We should not be afraid of that. We should recognise that, in different parts of the country, that will result in different conditions and in different ways of doing things. That is local democracy: if a local authority gets things wrong, it will pay the price at the ballot box, just as hon. Members do.
We need to have a grown-up debate with voters about public servicesߞabout what our priorities are and how we are going to pay for them. We must be honest politicians and admit that we cannot perform miracles. There is a price to be paid for everything, and it is impossible to have American levels of taxation and

73WH
European levels of public service. We need to say to people that if they are not prepared to fund public services, there is another price to pay, which we experienced under the last Conservative Government: not only poor services, but a fractured society.
The price that is paid for public services is a subscription for belonging to a decent society. Public services have delivered that consistently, for many years. They have delivered excellence and care, and have allowed many people to improve their lives in ways that were previously unimaginable. We should celebrate that, and look at ways to allow our public services to go forward, working with their staff to do an even better job in the future.
9.48 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and, in particular, to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I agree with everything that she has said. Her eloquence is matched only by that of the 13 empty chairs that are facing us this morning. That speaks volumes about the Opposition's attitude to the celebration of public services. It is great to celebrate public services, and we should do emphatically.
My background is as a social worker with children and families in local authorities. That profession is the epitome of public service. Social workers with children and families carry out the fundamental role that is given to local government: the role of "corporate parent"—an appalling and horrible phrase—to young people in care. It is a good parent to young people who must be looked after. Social work is a service that practises unconditional positive regard: people are worthy of respect, hard work and compassion whatever they have done, and they have dignity, something to offer and can be worked with.
Social work with children and families is a service that attends to the needs of the needy and vulnerable and those whose behaviour can be extremely challenging and difficult. The service reaches out to people who have been bereaved, abused, wronged and hurt. It represents the last line of defence for many people; sometimes it is the only line of defence that they ever have. The service reaches out to people in custody and prison, those who suffer from mental illness and those who have absolutely nothing. Hundreds of thousands of people do social work with children and families in many ways. We must acknowledge that cleaners, domestics or handymen, who may not think that they have skills in social work but who can build good relationships, can often do the best work with children in children's homes. Their practical activities may strike a chord with people whom others have been unable to touch.
Many people work in social services and some are the best people I know or will ever know. They work with children and families not as a job, but as a vocation. They always go the extra mile and never give up on people. They keep on keeping on, work antisocial hours and always and unequivocally put the needs of children and their families first.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something very precious about the public services to which he has referred? The public service ethos cannot be bought. People have a real commitment to those for whom they care, which goes beyond mere payment. It is not only about remuneration. It would be bad to lose that ethos.
Mr. Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes my point for me, but he leads me in another direction. The spirit of public service and the vocational emphasis have often been abused in the past, and people have not been properly paid or treated well at work.
We rarely hear about people who simply go about their ordinary lives and the business of social work, however high quality and heroic the work may be. I use the word "heroic" in its proper sense. Frankly, the world seems interested in many public services, certainly in social services, only when things go wrong. People are interested in failures and scandals, workers' incompetence, and villains. Every activity—social work, public service, every other activity in the world—has those features. It is right that incompetence, bad practice and downright criminal behaviour should be exposed but, for once, we have an opportunity to celebrate public service.
Paddy Tipping: An important point is being made about failure. Does my hon. Friend agree that, through the Office for Standards in Education, the Audit Commission and others, far too much focus is on identifying failure rather than looking for success, good practice and promoting, praising and celebrating that success and good practice?
Mr. Dawson: I could not agree more. That is an exceptionally important point. Far too often, we examine to detect failure and define problems when we could be looking at the details of day-to-day work, which is of high quality, and bringing it to the fore. It always amazes me to see the Oscar ceremonies and awards on television, when well paid and famous people queue up to slap each other on the back. I want to see loads of social workers getting awards for the good jobs that they do day in, day out.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I think that the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the concept of the Audit Commission. Every Audit Commission report is based on looking at good practice, celebrating public service and saying, "If it can be done well in one part of the public sector, why can it not be matched in another part?" It is not about doing down the public services. It is about celebrating them when something is done well, and asking others to match that quality.
Mr. Dawson: To tell the truth, I do not recall mentioning the Audit Commission. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about its role. However, the culture in which so much inspection takes place is about finding fault. There should be an emphasis on looking at good quality, extending it and supporting those who carry out such work, sometimes in the most difficult circumstances, where resources are poor and management structures are not as good as they should be.

75WH
The best way to celebrate public services is to talk about the ways in which we can support public services better. In many cases, extremely valuable staff performing an important function are let down by a range of people. Often they are let down by local politicians—I speak as someone who has been a local politician—who do not value properly the services that they carry out, and sometimes do not understand the fundamental importance of their role. Sometimes, they need to be reminded forcefully, as they were only a couple of years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), about their fundamental role in relation to corporate parenting. It must be emphasised and re-emphasised over and again that local councillors have the most important role to play in relation to the parenting of children in care and many other services.
Staff at the front line and the sharp end are often let down enormously by the grievous bureaucracy that still prevails, unfortunately, in many parts of the public sector, and in other areas, by inflexibility, departmentalism, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North made this point extremely well—management who fail to listen to, value, understand and empower those staff at the coal face who know the job inside out, are utterly committed to their work and have brilliant ideas about how to develop and improve the service.
We should trust and empower people more and give them proper support. Giving those who do some of the lowest-paid jobs in public services their head would bring about far greater improvements to public services than the Fancy Dan, top-down approaches of privatisation and external management techniques. If we trust those who are committed to working in public services and support them properly, we will make much greater progress.
We must provide support by offering precisely the career structure to which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North referred, and by paying such people properly. Every Wednesday, the "Society" pages of The Guardian advertise social work posts. Today's advertisements are asking for experienced people to work in child protection, with offenders with mental disorders, with children who need preparation for longterm placements, and with children and adults whose terrible disabilities have undermined their lives. However, we are offering such people between £16.000 and £23,000 a year.
On Tuesdays, The Guardian carries many advertisements for jobs in the media, in marketing and cultural services. Important and good as those jobs undoubtedly are, they do not hold a candle to those advertised in The Guardian today, yet they are paid tremendously better than front-line social work posts. We should pay those who work in public services a decent rate, particularly given that the economy is so successful and that a wide range of employment opportunities exists. No wonder we are finding it difficult to recruit staff for important public services.
We must ensure that our public services are staffed not only by paragons—those for whom such work is a vocation, and who will work all day, every day because
76WH
that is what they want to do—but by competent, highly intelligent, well-motivated, career-minded people who see in such work a good way to earn a living throughout their entire working life. I hope that this debate contributes to that process.
10.3 am
Rachel Squire: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing this debate, on making an excellent speech, and on giving us the opportunity to celebrate public services. I apologise for the fact that, unfortunately, I must leave before the end of the debate to attend a Select Committee meeting. I shall be brief so that others can contribute.
As has been said, we all tend to take for granted the invaluable contribution that those who work in public services make to our daily lives. We certainly need to give them greater reward and recognition. In particular, we need to tackle the continuing inequality in pay, which has been highlighted in today's news and which affects many women workers. I liked the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson): why should we not have a national Oscar awards-type ceremony every year for every sort and grade of public service worker ?
I should declare an interest: I am a member of Unison, the largest public service union. I came into politics through my activity as a shop steward; later I became a full-time official representing public service workers. I wanted to tackle the injustices that I saw in society in general, and particularly the injustices and inequalities that were affecting public service workers and the people to whom they gave such commitment.
I can offer one or two examples of public service workers from my own experience. I worked with and represented hospital domestics in Liverpool, Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and Fife. Prior to privatisation, they treated hospital wards as though they were their own homes. They were low-paid, part-time women workers but they knew the names of every single patient and would take the time to stop to say hello and have a chat. They would pay for from their own pockets and bring in a card or small present for an elderly patient whose birthday it was. They would provide comfort and support to patients and families, as well as the same high standard of cleanliness as they expected and provided in their homes.
They were not there for the money; they were on very low pay. They were there because of a genuine commitment. As my hon. Friends have said, when the last Conservative Government started to privatise cleaning, catering and other services, we lost those standards and that quality. Report after report has demonstrated that what we predicted at the time has happened: hygiene quality and standards have suffered. We must now show our commitment to restoring that quality and those standards and to giving women such as those hospital domestics a feeling that they are recognised and valued as equal members of our society.
Another example of such commitment comes from my contact with home helps and home carers throughout the country. Again, the vast majority were women working part time who balanced low-paid jobs with bringing up their families. They were often carers for adult, elderly or disabled relatives and, in areas such

77WH
as Fife and Ayrshire, had to deal with the horrendous consequences of the miners' strike: a year without pay and the devastation that that brought to their families and communities. However, time and again, they went beyond their contractual hours. They would call in at weekends, on public holidays, at Christmas and new year to ensure that wee Jeanie or wee Jimmie were all right and had all that they needed.
As we all look forward to settling down in our warm comfortable homes at the Christmas and new year break, we should remember that every day of the week, 24 hours a day, public service workers are out there providing services that we take for granted. We all give an occasional thought to ambulance staff, the fire service and the police, but it is too easy to forget the many other public service workers: those in residential and nursing homes; those who provide all sorts of hospital care; those who provide emergency repairs to the roof when stormy winds have blown it off; those who come out to tackle problems with and restore gas, electricity and water supplies affected by stormy weather.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North has said, we must also remember those who collect our refuse. We are all desperate to have our bins emptied after Christmas because they are full of turkey bones and wrapping paper, and we expect the bin men to provide that service. The refuse collectors in my area take time to check that people who are on their own are all right. If their bin has not been put out, they will ensure that someone knocks on the door to check that they are well.
I represent a Scottish constituency which is known for bad weather during the winter months and I want to mention the road gritters and the services that they provide in more remote and rural communities. They go out in blizzard conditions when the rest of us are told to stay at home and not venture out. They put their lives at risk to accompany ambulances, fire engines and other vehicles that may be trying to reach people trapped in their cars, or to get people to hospital for emergency or urgent treatment.
I back the excellent speeches and suggestions of my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North and for Lancaster and Wyre. I am proud to be a citizen of a country in which hundreds of thousands of people show a daily commitment to others. I am proud to be a member of a union that seeks to give equal worth and value to those people. I am proud and accept the responsibility of having been given the opportunity to be a Member of Parliament. We must deliver greater reward and recognition for our public service workers and give them the opportunities that public services give to us.
10.11 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech, in which she spoke passionately about the magnificent public services in Britain and the workers who are employed in them. My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) also made admirable speeches. I endorse everything they said.
78WH
I shall focus on privatisation. I urge the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister to keep public services public and not to pursue privatisation. Some weeks ago in this Chamber, I described the private finance initiative as irrational nonsense. I do not retract from that at all and was pleased that it gained some currency in the broadsheet journals. Since then, more evidence has come to light, demonstrating that what I said was correct.
I want to quote some research from Unison, which estimates that
"for every £1 bn of PFI contracts, the cost to the public purse is £50 million per year more than if the public sector could borrow directly. The costs of PFI have been met by cuts in services and in the employment conditions of public sector workers."
Thus we get 5 per cent. extra costs or, to put it another way, 5 per cent. less for our money by using PFI schemes.
Other aspects of privatisation have been touched on. Contracting-out of services inevitably means that profits are paid from costs, public service workers' pay is squeezed and staffing levels are cut. The quality of services gets worse. Reference has been made to hospital cleaning. At Luton and Dunstable hospital, we have come to the point of taking cleaning services back in-house. We have deprivatised them and the hospital is becoming cleaner. It has recently had a magnificent report; it is one of the hospitals that received three stars in the Government's assessment. I understand that it is the 11th best hospital in the country.
There is other research evidence on privatisation and private sector costs. Public and private health care costs in the United States of America have been compared. Administrative costs as a percentage of total hospital costs in the USA are 22.9 per cent. in the public sector and 34 per cent. in the private sector. We all know what a bloated, over-expensive health service the Americans have in the private sector.
Australian evidence shows that the estimated average cost per medical episode in Australia is 10 per cent. higher in private than in public hospitals. Where does the money go? It goes into profits and into vast payments for company executives. Statistics provided by the Labour research department show where the money goes and what remuneration executives receive. At Rentokil, one of the contracting companies, Sir Clive Thompson receives a salary of £1,076,000 per annum. In Jarvis plc, Paris Moayedi receives £509,000 per year; last year he received a 46.7 per cent. increase on the previous year, as well as dividends of £368,000.
Comparisons can be made between that remuneration and the average pay of workers in the contracting companies; for example, the chief executive of Compass, Francis McKay, receives £660,250 per year, while his average employee is paid £8,545. That is 77 times greater, which is grotesque. The great majority of workers in such companies are low-paid women.
When we increase public spending, we want the money to go into service provision and patient care, not into the bloated profits of a private contractor or fat-cat executive payments. The problem is decades of underfunding of our public services. One example is health. We can refer to the European Union average, to which much reference has been made recently. During the past 30 years, we have spent nearly £10 billion a year

79WH
less on our health service than the European average; the precise figure is £9.2 billion. That is the equivalent of £14 million per constituency every year for 30 years. The situation is getting worse: the difference between France, which allegedly has the best health service in the world—not the most expensive, but the best—and us is the equivalent of £40 million per constituency every year. No wonder we have stresses and problems such as queues in the health service, and health service workers not being paid as they should be.
GPs and consultants have visited me to ask me to intervene to solve some of the problems that they face daily. I frequently write to Ministers at the Department of Health, who know that my letters are sometimes intemperate in language, which I regret. However, we must sometimes speak the truth.
Recently, a friend retired from being a teacher and needed a bypass operation, which he could not get. He had to wait while in danger of having a heart attack and perhaps dying. A friend of his had a house in France and said, "Come and stay with me for a few weeks. If after dinner one night you have a slight pain in the chest, the local hospital will give you a bypass overnight. After that, you can spend a while longer with me and then return home." He could have a bypass in France free of charge, but could not do so in his own country. That is a shame. The health service is not unwilling, but the resources are simply not there.
Luton and Dunstable hospital in my constituency is a fine one with dedicated people working for it. I am in regular contact with them and praise them to the skies for their work. None the less, they admit that their cardiac department is half the size that it should be. It is no wonder that there are problems and that a GP should contact me asking what to do when a patient needs an angioplasty and cannot get one because of lack of resources.
We must invest in the public sector and consider what has happened to it during the past 30 years. The figures provided by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which were recently published in a report, are incredible and show how public investment has fallen in Britain during that time. Since 1975, when it peaked, investment in the public sector has fallen from 9 per cent. of gross domestic product to 2 per cent. of GDP in 2000. No wonder we have difficulties. Spending must rise substantially, but it must go into public services and decent pay for public sector workers, not into private finance initiatives or private contracting.
I refer to a campaign recently started by Unison. I should declare an interest: I am associated both with the General Municipal Boilermakers union and Unison, two unions in the public sector, although I speak entirely for myself and my constituents. There is a campaign called "Remember 83". For Labour Members, remembering 1983 is a painful experience. I was a Labour candidate for Parliament that year, and I did well narrowly to beat the third-placed candidate in the same constituency where I now have a majority of some 10,000. That is how badly we did in 1983. The "Remember 83" campaign is about not 1983, but the 83 per cent. of the population who oppose introducing the private sector into public services. They do not want privatisation of the health service.
80WH
I urge the Minister to remember that we must not lose the public service ethos—the sense of commitment to public service and to our fellow human beings. When people work for other people, they feel better about themselves than they would if they worked simply for money. Money goes only so far. We all need it to live on, so it seems right that people should be properly remunerated. However, when people are working for other people, they feel that what they are doing is of immense value, particularly when those people are vulnerable, young, old, sick or disabled. That is when they are at their best and when human beings are at their most noble. It is Labour Members' job to remember that and to promote it for the future, not to go down the route of privatisation.
10.24 am
Mr. Harold Best: I was delighted to discover that the time for this debate had been obtained through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I thought that her speech this morning was first class.
I am standing here today because of the success of public services. Two factors allowing me to stand here are due to the national health service. First, cardiology was important to me just a few years ago; I might not be standing here otherwise. Secondly, this summer, I had my left hip replaced again. That operation involved some re-engineering of work done 15 years ago by the NHS. Therefore, I stand here as a representative of the success of the NHS, one of the finest public services that it is possible to imagine. However, public services are not always as well run as one might anticipate or hope for.
There is a tendency for us sometimes to forget experiences that we have had in the past. I would like to tell the Chamber about an experience I had in the 1970s—a long time ago. My wife and I were going to be godparents in a town in Yorkshire called Knaresborough, which is not far from Harrogate. We had to travel from Leeds. We checked the timetable for the train on Sunday, and found the train we wanted. We turned up at the station, only to discover there was no train at that time.
I went to complain to the people in the railway station, and the man said, "There normally is a train, but the trouble is that we're doing some maintenance work on the track and we forgot to amend the timetable. Just a moment." He disappeared and then returned to say, " I've just cleared this with my boss." He climbed over the counter and said, "Follow me." We got into his car and within half an hour we were in Knaresborough.
That sort of dedication from a public servant in providing customer satisfaction cannot be beaten. Imagine that same type of service being provided by Arriva—those who know the area know what I am talking about. Arriva cannot even get the drivers to run the trains. Every day, at Leeds station, there is an announcement saying, "We regret to inform people wishing to travel to Huddersfield that there is no train because there is no driver. However, there is a bus running from Leeds station to Huddersfield station." Those are the essential benefits that one can get from a public service, as opposed to some examples of private service.
I do not want to be seen as someone who knocks private services. I am talking about successful public services. We all experience successful private services at

81WH
some stage in our normal working day: one enters a corner shop and the service is first class because there is direct contact with the public. Shopkeepers need to know that they are satisfying their customers in a personal, direct way. There are similar examples. It is a case not of one against the other, but of managing the most intelligent form of service that is required to meet particular needs. We must maintain that balanced view.
Public service means more than the health service and the railway system. Today, we are taking part in perhaps the most important public service: that which democracy renders to the people, whom it claims to represent and work for. Regrettably, there has been a serious decline in the ability of local democracy to deliver for the people it is elected to represent. We must redress that balance in favour of public servants in local government. If we can do that, we shall be committing a great act in defence of public services. The demoralisation of local government by spending controls has been terrible to witness, and we must give back the power to deliver to public services such as democracy.
If hon. Members' constituencies are like mine, there will be problems with street litter. My constituency has a serious problem in that regard. More than 50 per cent. of my constituency's residents are transients, most of whom are students; shortly, they will vacate the area in which I live for Christmas. There is a huge take-away industry in my constituency, although it is really a throw-away industry. Vast quantities of material are deposited in public places, and it is deeply offensive to the public eye. It is time that we took action to defend those public spaces, which are ours. We should be able to do that through local government, which is the greatest public service.
Because I feel passionate about local government's role in public services and the democratic values that flow from the public service that councillors give, I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to speak. I shall sit down, but I want hon. Members to notice how smoothly I do so, which is due to the success of the NHS.
10.28 am
Paddy Tipping: I am always keen to follow a smooth act, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), I am keen to stress the importance of high-quality, world-class public services. We are on the road to achieving that.
Real investment is going into public services. Alongside that investment, we must reform the public services. Social workers, teachers and refuse cleaners are committed to that.
World-class public services are provided by involving the work force. The Government's position on public services seems to be linked to earlier reforms by previous Governments. That is dangerous. It is vital to consider how good public services are managed. There is a role for the private sector in the delivery of public services, but it is up to Ministers with responsibility for health, education and other matters to define what it is. Uncertainty about that definition is leading to a lack of morale in public services. There is still a feeling that public service delivery is bad and private sector delivery is good. It is important to ensure that services work for the communities that they serve.
82WH
Yesterday, I met a group of Unison stewards from Nottinghamshire. I must confess that I am a Unison member; I have been involved in the delivery of public services all my life. What struck me was their determination that services should meet the needs of families and communities.
In strengthening the resources of the Cabinet Office and the delivery unit, we should be aware that setting targets can create problems. Resources should be devolved to a local level to let local people deliver local solutions to local problems. We should celebrate the fact that people in Luton, Lancaster, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle or Nuneaton come up with different solutions and responses, but there is some anxiety about that. We hear a lot about the control freak tendency. I say on the record very quickly that I do not think that that exists. However, unless we empower local people we will lose the commitment of public sector workers.
Regulatory bodies such as Ofsted, the police inspectorate and the Audit Commission focus too much on the nuts and bolts of service delivery. They are good at looking for efficiency measures, but not so good at identifying and promoting success. I accept that the Audit Commission has changed its position, but the district auditor's approach to best value continues to focus on failure. If there is one body that has created a lack of morale in the education service it is Ofsted, with its consistent focus on failure. We need to identify success and to treat the work force who are producing it as beacons of excellence.
We should celebrate what is good in public services. There is a great deal of it about. We should be proud to use public servants to roll forward our public services to ensure that they meet local needs. Investment is taking place and the work force are committed to reform. The messages that we send out to them, both at national and local level, must aim to facilitate and encourage them in their work.
The central focus on targets is a danger. Let us loosen the lead a little, devolve resources, and let local people and work forces consider local problems and introduce local solutions. That really would be a celebration of success in our public services.
10.34 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am delighted to take part in this excellent debate. I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on bringing us together to focus on success and to celebrate public services. All too often, Members of Parliament hear in their constituency surgeries about the bad side and the difficulties. All too often, the debate is about the problems. It is important to celebrate the good work that takes place.
The hon. Lady was right to say that we often take public services for granted. She was also right to highlight current innovation, use of the internet and development. Public services are moving on. I agree that we need a mature and sensible debate about their future.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was right to talk about the need to empower staff. Front-line staff know a lot about what is involved in their work day to day. We should trust and empower those individuals more, so that they have a greater say. He was right to touch on the issue of pay,

83WH
and to compare the salaries for jobs advertised in The Guardian on Monday with those for jobs advertised in that newspaper on Wednesday.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) highlighted the public sector ethos—on Christmas day, people nip in to see the folks for whom they care, and are prepared to put their hand into their pockets to pay for a Christmas card and a present. That is an important point.
I disagree with several points made by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). He did not have an open mind on private sector involvement. I agree that PFI is not a satisfactory model, but there are many other ways in which the public sector can become involved in public services apart from PFI. We are too hung up on thinking that PFI is the only way in which that can be achieved. I would describe the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) as the bionic man—I am delighted that the operations have been successful—and I was pleased that he had an open mind about private sector involvement.
It is a big disappointment that we did not have a chance to hear more from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). If he had had more time to speak, we would have heard much more interesting information. I agree entirely with his remarks about Ofsted and his critical point about falling into the trap of assuming that everything that the private sector does is good, and everything that the public sector does is bad. There is good and bad on all sides. In a mature debate, we need to look at best practice.
I want to focus on a few key issues in relation to public services, and to allow time for the two winding-up speeches. Money is an issue. I quote one example that had a profound impact on me. A couple of years ago, I visited the pathology department in my local hospital. I was able to avoid passing out at seeing blood everywhere, but the other big impact was made by the comments of two individuals who worked in that department. The first person said that he was going to leave the department to work for a food manufacturer and to test chicken for bacteria. He was going to earn more money doing that. I looked at the second person and said that she looked absolutely exhausted, and that she must be working extremely hard. She said that she did work hard, but the reason why she was exhausted was that she finished her pub job at midnight the night before. She had to do that job to be able to work in the pathology department. What a ridiculous situation.
Another issue is to try to reward some of the people who work in public services. Currently, there is a Queen's police medal and a Queen's fire service medal. That leaves a big gap. Will the Minister consider the idea of a Queen's ambulance service medal? The work carried out by the ambulance service is phenomenal. It is often the first service on the scene, and is involved in horrendously difficult situations such as air and rail accidents. The people who work in that service put themselves into difficult situations with great bravery. I tabled an early-day motion on that issue during the previous Parliament, which attracted about 100 names. Support also comes from the Red Cross, the fire service and the police, who want their colleagues in the emergency services to be rewarded.
84WH
I want to speak briefly about work loads. We can talk about pay, awards and rewarding staff, but the other big issue is the amount of legislation and initiatives coming from central Government, which impact on our public services. Since this Government came to power, 4,500 targets have been set in the key area of education. The first thing that happens to me when I visit a school is that the head takes me into an office and shows me a pile of legislation and initiatives. Heads would probably say that the individual ideas are good and worthy. However, the problem is the collective amount of stuff that comes through. I hope that the Government recognise that they could help those who work in the public service by pacing change more and acknowledging that the pile of red tape and legislation is too great.
It is important to involve and engage some of the professions. They would be prepared to move with change, and many public service workers would be prepared to examine a model using the private sector. It is critical to have an open mind, to involve those individuals in the debate and to listen to them more. We hear the criticism that the Government do not appear to want to listen to them.
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my speech in passing and talked generally about the success of the private sector in public services without giving specific examples. I have dozens of examples of the failure of the private sector in public services. Will he tell me about the successes?
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of his friend who went to France and had a successful operation. However, the French model is not purely funded by public money because parts of the model work differently. That is a classic example from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I make a plea on the difficulty of recruiting individuals to public services. In Winchester and the south-east, property prices are phenomenally high and we have major difficulties recruiting police, care workers and hospital workers. We have to recruit people from abroad to work in hospitals and desperately try to fill gaps and vacancies in the police service. The Government have introduced concepts about key workers' salaries, but they must try harder to tackle the issue. Although we wish to celebrate public services and reward individuals, if we cannot recruit people, we are in a real mess.
10.41 am
Mr. Tim Collins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing the debate and on her passionate and informed speech. I was struck by what she said about how public services have helped to improve peoples' lives over recent decades and the changing experiences in her grandmother's lifetime. I am sure that she would acknowledge that Conservatives have formed the Government for 49 of the past 71 years. Therefore, the improvement is not wholly the Labour party's achievement.
In these debates, we should move away from slightly sterile exchanges in which the party in government claims that everything is perfect when it is in office and

85WH
everything was dreadful when the other lot were in, while the party in opposition claims the reverse—everything was wonderful until it left office and has been dreadful ever since. There is excellence in the public services under this Government, and there was excellence under the last Conservative Government. There were problems in the past and there are problems now. The question is how we can address those problems and build on the successes.
I have often heard the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is not quite a neighbour of mine, speak and he brings extraordinary knowledge, passion and care to all debates on social services. He has the greatest experience and expertise of any hon. Member on such matters and, yet again, he spoke with vim and vigour. He was correct to say that if we trusted public servants on the ground more, we would get more out of them and public services would run more smoothly.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) spoke from a background of considerable experience about injustices and inequalities that relate to public service workers.
Like the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I was struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). He started in a nonpartisan fashion with his scathing criticism of the private finance initiative, because that attacks both my party and his own Government. However, he described the French system as probably the best health service in the world. We must learn from the experience of other European countries.
Although many excellent people work in our national heath service—I would say that because my sister is an NHS GP—there are problems with our service. Health care outcomes are not as good as those in most other European countries. We should learn lessons from what works on the continent, and apply those lessons in Britain. If we reach non-partisan consensus on that, we will have made some progress.
Mr. Hopkins: As we all know, the problem is underfinancing. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that French compulsory insurance, which makes a larger contribution to public services than direct taxation, is little different from British national insurance contributions? Compulsory insurance is less progressive than income tax, but because of France's more equal income structure, that is less of a problem. The French taxation system is less regressive.
Mr. Collins: I do not particularly want to intrude on the grief that apparently exists between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister talked about social insurance in similar terms to those used by the hon. Gentleman, who may yet receive a call from 10 Downing street. The hon. Gentleman is back on the party line, as far as Downing street is concerned. In the pre-Budget report, the Chancellor was a little more scathing about funding health care by any method other than taxation. That debate is raging within Government, and we should discuss the issue, too.
I was delighted to see that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) stood up and sat down smoothly. He mentioned that his first hip operation,
86WH
which was performed successfully under the NHS, occurred 15 years ago. A Conservative Government were then in power, and that reflects the fact that there has been excellence and success under both Conservative and Labour Governments. It is not the case that public services were a terrible tragedy before 1997, or that there has been total excellence since then.
Mr. Best: I want the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that a public service provided that service in both cases.
Mr. Collins: I do, and in the hon. Gentleman's case, it was a public service run by a Conservative Government, so we are all happy. What a delightful non-partisan note on which to proceed.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) talked about the dangers of the Government's approach to health services. He was right to say that we must move away from the idea that the private sector is always good and the public sector is always bad. We should also move away from the opposite stance. The Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was right to say that it does not matter whether a cat is black or white; what matters is whether it catches mice. We should pragmatically consider what works.
We should reflect on the fact that our public services are important and are the fabric that holds our society together, whether their business is to save lives, defend national security, prevent crime, care for the vulnerable or pass on knowledge from one generation to another. I agree with the point about the importance of local government, which provides a vital public service by representing local communities.
We must move forward with clear principles. Many hon. Members have set out some of those. I should like to add a few, some of which are similar to those that we have heard. We must respect the professionalism of public servants. We must allow them to exercise independent judgment and to give those who depend on their services the benefit of their training and experience. That has implications for the quantity of regulation and inspection applied to public servants.
We must provide proper resources for our public services but we must also give them financial discretion. For example, there has been much debate on the state of cleanliness of our hospitals. Many hospitals in my constituency and elsewhere are grateful to the Government for providing additional resources for cleaning their hospitals but resent being told that the money can be spent on cleaning only those parts of the hospital that are visible to the public. Staff point out that to reduce the risk of disease or infection, they must clean the whole hospital, not just the bits that are on public display.
We must provide management and structures that ease, not hinder, the tasks of public servants. We must increase the choice available to those who use the services. That does not go against the public service ethos; the best public servants are strongly in favour of increased choice. We should thank our public servants, in a non-partisan way, for all that they do for us, our constituents, and residents and citizens of this country. Public servants are appreciated. Although hon. Members differ on many issues, Parliament strongly endorses, welcomes and supports the work of our excellent public services, and it looks forward to building on the best throughout the country.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and I am glad that hon. Members have had an opportunity to examine the principles that underpin public services. It is impossible for me to address adequately in the remaining 10 minutes the many issues that have been raised.
The Trades Union Congress rally which took place in Westminster yesterday rightly sought to celebrate the virtues of the public services, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on securing today's debate. She spoke passionately about her experiences of the public services and those of her family. She also mentioned the high ambitions and ideals of the founding fathers—and mothers—of our public services.
Opportunities to examine in detail the fundamental philosophy that underpins the public services occur too infrequently. As elected representatives—and, in some cases, holders of public office who help to run the public services—hon. Members should grasp every one of them. We should address several key questions. Why do we choose to deliver public services? Who is best placed to deliver them? What services should we deliver collectively? How do we make decisions about those services?
The most famous touchstone remark is that of Baroness Thatcher that there is no such thing as society. That comment has frequently been cited, because it exemplifies the fundamental divide in British politics between those who see the nation as a random collection of individuals, and those of us who cherish the reality of communities, families and networks of interdependency, and who acknowledge that they make up the society in which we live and our collective consciousness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) memorably commented on the tradition of community spirit that has been demonstrated by our historic decisions to form Parliament, Government and local authorities and to deliver public services, which is a more tangible expression of that community ethos.
Our public services are rightly cherished. The public have a great affection for them and hold them in the highest esteem. We should underline the value of the role that is performed by those individuals who provide basic services for the nation such as health, schooling, policing, protecting the environment and ensuring that Britain keeps going at all times. We should pay tribute to their hard work and commitment.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Warrington, North referred to the quiet stories of excellence that occur every day in our public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) talked about the vocation of social work, and about how, day in and day out, social workers put the needs of children and families first. He used the word "heroic". That is the right term, and I pay tribute to those people. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) spoke about her experience of working in the
88WH
public sector, and reminded us that we must not take for granted day-to-day services such as road gritting and refuse collection, as they are also important. As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West is a walking testament to the virtues of the national health service and other public services.
Why do we come together, through Government, to provide public services? At root, we do that because of our common recognition that, as a civilised society, we constantly advance if we create a climate that is conducive to fostering opportunities for all. Everyone should be able to realise their potential. Everyone should be able to learn and to develop their skills for work and for self-improvement. Everyone should enjoy good health and longer and more comfortable lives. Everyone should be able to travel more safely in a decent environment and to have security so that they can lead peaceful lives that are free from crime. The importance of fun, leisure and recreation should not be forgotten.
All those reasons and more justify our delivery of public services. They do not benefit only the less fortunate and the more needy in society; we all benefit collectively from public services. We do not have public services for altruistic reasons alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) pointed out that economies of scale can be gained from collective provision, which sometimes cannot be so easily gained through individual insurance-based provision. In addition, efficiencies and cost savings can be made. Those are all reasons for having mutually provided public services rather than services based purely on profit extraction.
Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the minute people begin to use widespread private insurance services, they become more reluctant to pay for public services for the people who cannot afford it? The key to good public services is that they are provided for everyone.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend has touched on the points that we have debated, particularly in the past few days, about the national health service, comparative ways of funding and raising resources, and the efficiencies involved. Social insurance and other forms of private insurance need to be examined in more depth. I agree with the points that she has made.
These are testing times for public services; there is no doubt about that. Demands are high, pressures are constant and capacity is always being strained. In schools, there is a drive for ever higher standards of achievement. In the national health service, there are more operations and higher expectations because the population is living longer than ever before. In transport, there are more commuters and higher car ownership. There are great problems in meeting the ever-increasing expectations of our public services, and they need to be dealt with. In some quarters, there is a history of poor management and perhaps back-burner attention from previous Administrations. There has been chronic under-investment, asset stripping and a failed dogma of unjustified privatisation.
There are stark realities that we need to face. Cures will not come simply or overnight. We must find better ways of developing true partnerships between managers

89WH
and front-line staff to foster the feeling of shared common endeavour. We need to look at restructuring management systems and building the management skills that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North mentioned. Nothing is free in public services and ways must be found of paying for them. The pre-Budget report talked about how new resources should be matched with public services reform.
There are lots of solutions, many of which have been mentioned today. In the reform of public services, the existing system must be shored up with better recruitment and retention of key workers. Salaries must be improved. There should be performance incentives, but there must also be flexible working, child care assistance and so on. We must ensure that we make the capital investment necessary to improve the infrastructure that public servants work with day in, day out.
The Prime Minister set out four clear principles of public services reform. First, a framework of national standards, inspection and accountability, not simply to find fault, but to highlight good practice, needs to be devised. Secondly, we must devolve more freedom to front-line staff. Thirdly, the work of front-line staff should be more readily recognised and the value and professionalism of public sector workers acknowledged through pay awards and better conditions. The
90WH
suggestion about an ambulance service medal made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) is certainly one that I will take back to my colleagues in the Department of Health. Fourthly, we must consider ways of widening choice for public services users, increasing variety and expanding those areas that are especially successful.
Private sector involvement it is not about dogmatic privatising. It is not a panacea or magical device. Nor is it about changing the ethos of public services. We must bring the best customer-oriented aspects of the private sector into the public sector. The public should be treated as individual consumers who deserve and expect respect and the highest quality of service, rather than as faceless recipients of product.
I understand some of the misgivings that have been voiced about public-private partnerships. However, we must look not only at the costs of borrowing, but at project management, servicing and the transfer of risk in those areas. There are too many issues for me to discuss all of them today. There are great things going on in public services. The notion of the public service ethos is extremely important. I believe that public services encapsulate mutual interdependence at local and national levels. That proves that public services are a good way of delivering what we need throughout our communities.

Government of Wales Act 1998
11 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured time for such an important debate. As we know, the creation of the National Assembly for Wales carried some high hopes. It was to be a new age for Welsh politics and the Assembly would make practical improvements to everyday life in Wales. Some positive things have happened. There is a more open and accountable system than was in place previously. We have got rid of testing for seven-year-olds. We have seen the end of the publishing of school league tables. I am delighted that we have a Children's Commissioner, a post for which I have worked hard over the years. We have free prescriptions and dental checks for under-25s.
Such achievements are laudable, but a recent headline in the South Wales Echo said "Scrap the Assembly". The paper published a survey that showed that 46 per cent. of people in Wales did not want the Assembly. Apparently, the majority view of people under 40 was that we should increase the Assembly's powers. The survey made it clear that people are not happy with the Assembly as it is at present.
What are the problems? Let us consider first the myth of inclusive politics. The Assembly is supposed to be a collective body, with each elected Member taking responsibility for its decisions. In practice, the power to make decisions has been transferred to the First Minister under section 62 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. Under section 63, the First Minister has deputised specific responsibilities to various Ministers who then deputise decision making to the civil service. The ethos of the civil service is to serve the Government. not the collective body. Instead of decisions being taken by a collective body, we have created a cabinet system that is similar to Westminster's.
It could be argued that the committee system provides inclusive politics, but under section 57, Ministers sit on subject Committees, because the cabinet structure was put in place after the legislation was made for Committees. As a consequence, Committees have no independence from the Minister. They influence the agenda. All briefing papers to the Committee are sourced from the ministerial Department and the Minister takes part in all the discussions. Will a briefing paper from the Department contain anything that conflicts with current policy? Ministers over-influence the Committees because the devolution legislation did not, as in Scotland, create a legislature and a Government. It created instead a corporate body that on Fantasy Island would have led to consensus politics but that has in fact led to tension, frustration and lack of delivery.
Recently, Rosemary Butler—then Secretary for Education and Children, with responsibility for the under-16s—revealed what the Government really think of the Committees. She said that she listens to the views of the Committees as she listens to the views of any other body or institute that she discusses matters with. Clearly, that is not a partnership, and although section 62 allows the Minister to delegate responsibilities to the Committee, that has not happened yet.
The National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill that is currently before the House of Commons contains the proposals of Jane Hutt—the
92WH
Minister for Health and Social Services in the Assembly—about local health boards—before the Assembly has agreed to them. She has told the media that we will be moving immediately towards implementation, and that is before the Assembly has even discussed the plans, never mind agreed to them.
A further problem is that the Assembly is too weak. On 29 October 2001, giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales said:
"I believe that in the last two years we have seen and experienced quite a dramatic change in how legislation for Wales is made, as compared to what had happened before devolution."
How much secondary legislation for Wales is actually passed by the Assembly and how much is really different from what is passed in England? Even in the areas that are supposed to be devolved, there have been more Statutory Instruments passed for Wales in Westminster than in the Assembly. In 2000, the Assembly passed 70 SIs, 30 of them for education or health. Westminster passed 40 SIs relating education or health in Wales. In 2001, up to 31 July, the Assembly passed 28 SIs for education and health whereas Westminster passed 22. We are pulling ahead a little, but those figures do not include instruments passed for both Wales and England. Research on that has not yet been concluded.
The way in which the foot and mouth crisis was handled brings the matter into focus. The National Assembly for Wales took de facto control, but had to wait for permission from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in certain cases, which caused delay. As we all know, delay was the worst thing in the circumstances. The Assembly did not have sufficient powers to react adequately: for example, it could not decide to reopen livestock markets. Carwyn Jones, the Welsh Minister for Rural Affairs, said in the Assembly on 8 November:
"The Assembly cannot take that decision"—;
that is, to open livestock markets.
"We are aware of the discussion, and the whole Assembly is it agreed that must have such powers for itself."—[National Assembly for Wales Official Record, 8 November 2001; p.23]
Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman argues that the Assembly has been given too few powers, but some would argue that the problem is that it has not been willing to use what powers it has. Some of us remember the great debate at the time of the referendum and the promise that we would make a bonfire of the quangos. The Assembly has the power to make that bonfire, but all we have had is a damp squib. It has not happened.
Mr. Llwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I quote from The Western Mail today, in which a Labour insider said:
"While we can't be sure how many Labour AMs favour increased powers, it seems that not a single one would take the Assembly in the reverse direction. No one backs the line taken for so long and so unsuccessfully by Llew Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent."
That might put that matter in context.
The Assembly could not make the decision on foot and mouth, although it has been asking for the necessary powers. In another example, it is pressing for powers over animal health, but that is being ignored.

93WH
The Assembly still has to rely too often on Westminster for primary legislation. Whitehall appears to ignore the wishes of the Assembly on the Animal Health Bill, which will give the Government far-reaching powers, for example, to reduce compensation to farmers in special cases, and stronger powers to slaughter animals. The Secretary of State has admitted that there has been no consultation, and the Assembly is not mentioned. The Bill gives the Assembly none of the powers for which it has called. The Executive are calling for them and the subject Committee is calling for them. In a recent debate on the Queen's Speech, the whole Assembly voted for them. A perfect opportunity for devolving those powers has again been ignored.
In higher education, the Assembly is responsible for access grants and bursaries, but student fees and loans are still the responsibility of Westminster. How can the Assembly develop a proper policy on student and university funding when it has responsibility for only half the tools involved?
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if he is so concerned about the way in which this House deals with primary legislation that has been requested by the Assembly, he as leader of his parliamentary party has not attended the debates on education and health relating to Wales that we have had in the past couple of weeks? Not a single member of his party said anything at all in the important debate on health that he has just mentioned.
Mr. Llwyd: It is quite simple. I cannot be everywhere at once. We are a team, and the matter was being covered. Such comments come well from a Labour Member. Let us look at Welsh Grand Committee attendance. Fewer than a third of Welsh Labour Members turned up. Where were they?
On 26 November, the Welsh Executive published their action plan on tax incentives. It is a helpful document, including proposals to the United Kingdom Government on how to improve incentives for business through the UK tax system. How many of those proposals were included in the pre-Budget statement? Only two or three. Calls for such things as broad-band incentives and national insurance credit were not mentioned in the pre-Budget statement.
Under the Transport Act 2000, Parliament and the Scottish Executive can nominate a member of the Strategic Rail Authority, yet the Assembly has the right only to be consulted, even though it asked for the same right to nominate. It is true that the public had high expectations of the Assembly.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why there has been a 10-month delay in the establishment of a single rail franchise for Wales is precisely that we do not enjoy the representation in the railway infrastructure that, for example, the Scottish Executive enjoys?
Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that that is right. Once again, we are lagging behind. We are being let down and our public services are faltering through no fault of the Assembly itself but simply because of the way in which it was constructed.
94WH
There is some confusion about the way in which the devolution settlement was put together. For example, two years ago a calf processing scheme was established to help dairy farmers who could not export calves because of BSE. Although the United Kingdom Government discontinued the scheme, the Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee looked at whether Wales could proceed with it. After a great deal of confusion, it became clear that such a scheme had to operate everywhere in the UK—it could not operate in only part of a European Union member state. In other words, because it did not function elsewhere, it could not do so in Wales.
There is the further example of pay and conditions for teachers. For a while, the Assembly was unsure whether it was empowered to deal with such matters and in the end it was decided that it was not. However, the Assembly is responsible for appraisals and therefore for performance-related pay. Teachers find that very confusing and it is difficult for them to know who to complain to. Even in respect of matters that are supposedly devolved, many responsibilities remain with Westminster.
Another good example is building regulations. At one time, the Welsh Office dealt with such matters, but during the reign of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the relevant expert retired—probably late on in life—and the powers were returned to Westminster.
Unfortunately, an anti-devolution attitude exists in Whitehall, and Westminster has clawed back powers that were devolved. There is the example of the Local Government Act 2000, section 6 of which enables the Secretary of State for Wales to amend or repeal statutory requirements on local authorities to produce particular plans, so that they can streamline their planning by reducing the number of separate plans required. In an Assembly debate of 4 July 2000, Peter Law, the then Local Government and Planning Secretary, called for those powers to be extended to the Assembly. The Westminster Government responded by giving it such powers in a few specific areas, but Peter Law argued that that was not a satisfactory response to the strong representations that were made. He said that
the Assembly would be unable to offer local authorities the same flexibility without the UK Government's consent, although these plans relate to powers that have been transferred or granted to the Assembly…We should keep control over plans that are already within the Assembly's responsibility."—[National Assembly for Wales Official Record 4 July 2000; p.20.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has mentioned railways, and it would make sense if powers relating to our railways were devolved to Wales. As a result, the Barnett formula grant would itself increase—although that is a debate for another day and I shall not get into it now. We have made no secret of the fact that we want stronger powers for the Assembly. In customary fashion, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) said that we cannot expect to have those powers, and that we must learn to walk before we can run. There are many obstacles in the Assembly's path, however, that make its operations difficult. Of course, we would argue that for the time being we need parity with Scotland—the power to pass primary legislation and to vary taxes.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of another referendum, or does he believe that such powers should be granted without consulting the people of Wales?
Mr. Llwyd: I am not entirely sure whether a referendum is called for, although we might have to consider that idea. At the moment, the Assembly is undoubtedly underperforming, but not through any fault of its own.
Let us compare the Government of Wales Act 1998 with the Scotland Act 1998. The Government of Wales Act lists exactly what is devolved and the minutiae of various statutes; the Scotland Act merely states which powers remain with Westminster and, unless something is mentioned in the Act, the Scottish Parliament is automatically responsible. That is much more clear-cut than the confusion in the Government of Wales Act. The Assembly cannot assume discretion, but the Scottish Parliament can. The Scotland Act keeps the door open for further devolution by including a section allowing devolution in other matters if and when needed; the Government of Wales Act does not say how future Acts of Parliament shall confer further powers on the Assembly, but there is an assumption that the Assembly will be able to debate Westminster's intentions and influence further legislation. However, we saw how that worked on the Animal Health Bill.
Future Westminster Governments could reduce the Assembly's powers without further legislation. There is no protection because of the complete lack of a logical basis for the current pattern of powers. Had subject areas been devolved, matters would be simpler. The coalition Government in the Assembly have appointed an independent commission to look into powers and electoral arrangements for the Assembly—we welcome that—because they can see a problem, but the commission is not due to report until 2004.
Edwina Hart, the Minister for Finance and Communities in the Assembly said in a BBC report on 29 September 2000:
"I am sick and tired of Whitehall civil servants drawing up schemes which include Wales without consulting us.
This shows contempt for the people of Wales and for the principle of devolution which was supposed to be a central plank of Government policy.
Following the announcement by the UK Government"
Welsh cars
"will not be allowed to have Welsh flags on their number plates."
Christine Gwyther, the late lamented Agriculture and the Rural Economy Secretary, claimed that Whitehall had kept her in the dark about a mix-up over genetically modified seeds being sold in the United Kingdom by mistake. She put that on the record on 19 May 2000.
I know that several hon. Members want to speak in this debate, but I want to raise two further matters. One is a quotation from an article entitled, "The New Model Wales" in the Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 25, No. 4 of December 1998, which was, of course, before devolution. Richard Rawlings of the law department at the London School of Economics said:
"There remains, however, the uncomfortable prospect of the Assembly as supplicant or lobbyist in the Westminster process. In the words of the White Paper, 'the Assembly will need to establish
96WH
a close partnership with Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies'. This is very different from the situation of the Welsh Office as part of central Government."
He continued:
There is, none the less, too much about the scheme that disappoints. It is not simply that Wales has once again been treated as a second-class member of the Union. The product has been prejudiced by the nature of the decision-making process. Old governmental assumptions have held true, a rich constitutional discourse has not had the opportunity to develop. So let us, in conclusion, focus on the way in which the new model Wales has been produced."
He also refers to the
high dependency of the Welsh scheme of devolution on administrative and political goodwill. It is to this effect a flimsy construction, which presupposes consensus and co-operation for legitimacy and effective operations."
I shall conclude by referring to today's edition of The Western Mail. Mr. Alun Pugh, a Deputy Minister at the National Assembly for Wales, is a Labour Member who can hardly be called Plaid Cymru's friend, or perhaps anyone's friend. The paper says:
"The present situation is a 'constitutional time-bomb' set to go off shortly after administrations of different political persuasions are returned in Cardiff and London.
The warning and subsequent demand for full powers by 2010 from Alun Pugh, deputy minister for education, will be repeated next week in slightly different terms by the heavy-weight and highly regarded Constitution Unit of the University of London.
Mr. Pugh … makes his demand at the University of Glamorgan in Pontypridd",
where he discussed the completion of
"Keir Hardie's unfinished business…Mr. Hardie was of course MP for Merthyr Tydfil, Labour's parliamentary leader until his death in 1915, and a fervent advocate of home rule.
The Constitution Unit looks to the future in its The State of the Nations 2001 … the present secondary law-making powers held by Cardiff are inherently unstable".
The article further says:
"The unit blames the crooked interface between powers held by London and those enjoyed by Cardiff"
and informs us that Mr. Pugh will tell students that
"Having no law-making powers in Cardiff means that in the event of the Tories returning to power in Westminster"—
heaven forbid
"we in Wales could be steamrollered by laws whipped through by English Tories."
A senior Assembly Member said:
"I suppose about one quarter of the 29 AMs have during plenary sessions or in public speeches said or hinted at the need for such a change."
Again, I shall refer to the closing words of the article:
"No-one backs the line taken for so long and so unsuccessfully by Llew Smith, MP for Blaenau Gwent."
11.21 am
Llew Smith: Hon Members will not be surprised that the nationalists have called this debate. It is another opportunity to push the arguments for a Welsh parliament, with the ultimate goal being a separatist Welsh state. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) would deny that, and he uses moderate language to hide his agenda because he knows that the goals of separatism and independence are utterly unacceptable to the electorate.

97WH
The nationalists' misuse of language is obvious in their attempts to project a more moderate image, and it is wise to recall a few examples of that.
Ieuan Wyn Jones, who was then a Member of Parliament, was obviously having trouble with his crystal ball it was probably not bilingual—when he predicted:
"Labour are clearly unable to win a general election."
If Labour was unelectable there was no need to worry because Ieuan and his fellow nationalists had the answer, which was independence. However, that idea had to be couched in sweet and moderate language to make it acceptable to a hostile electorate. The buzzwords that Ieuan used to hide his aim of independence were:
"self-government for Wales is the only answer."
Sadly for Ieuan, he forgot to tell his mate Cynog Dafis, again a former MP, who proceeded to announce that self-government, which used to be called independence, remained Plaid's aspiration.
Determined not to be beaten, and equally determined to make a fool of himself for a second time, Ieuan, recognising the flexibility of human nature and ideas, was pleased to announce:
"I think self-government now needs to be redefined. I much prefer to use 'full national status'".
On that occasion he learned from history and told his party's members the reasoning behind the new line of full national status. Unfortunately, the members failed to keep those discussions secret and proceeded to tell the world, or least their recent party conference. When David Senior, a conference delegate, referred to independence, he said:
"Apparently it means the same as full national status, but you see, I can't say it because it is not our policy … Hang on, if it means the same thing, it is our policy and therefore I can say it."
Mr. Llwyd: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has quoted a junior party member and portrayed his view as being somehow representative. Far from trying to keep the discussion secret, all the media, including HTV and BBC, had been invited in.
Llew Smith: I am unsure how Cynog Dafis will respond to the accusation that he is a junior member of the Welsh nationalist party. If we have time, and certainly after this debate, I am willing to refer the hon. Gentleman to quotation after quotation from both junior and senior members of the Welsh nationalist party, where they use such language to cover the aims of their party, which obviously involve separatism.
There are other nationalists who are equally confused about their aims or, more accurately, determined to hide the truth. That became even more obvious to me shortly after the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was elected, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said:
"I watched the television when he made his victory speech. He said that he wanted to work himself out of a job and that although he was going to Westminster, he did not want to be there."
98WH
It is amazing the sacrifices the nationalists are willing to make to represent this great nation of ours. My right hon. Friend went on:
"I can understand that. Even the post-modern Welsh nationalist party believes in some form of separatism and Welsh membership of the European Union. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) nods. I am not sure, but I believe that he also wants to work himself out of a job eventually. To paraphrase a famous saying. 'Make me chaste my lord, but not yet."
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy replied:
"Yes, I am trying to work myself out ofjob.'"—[Official Report, 2 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 6331
How can Plaid Cymru deny that it is the party of separatism and independence, when it concedes that its future plans do not involve having representation in the House of Commons? Are we expected to believe that the nationalists would have supported the Assembly if that was the end of the process? It would be the equivalent of signing their own death warrant if they were to support a halfway house, and not press for a parliament and ultimately independence. Anyone foolish enough to consider working politically with the nationalists should also remember that they helped to keep the Tories in power by voting with the Tory Government on the Maastricht treaty in exchange for a seat on the European Committee of the Regions. Indeed—
Mr. Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I have been listening for the past six minutes to this rant, and so far there has been nothing about the Government of Wales Act 1998. Others are waiting to speak about the Act. With great respect it really is out of order.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): I remind the Chamber that there are a number of hon. Members who are waiting to speak. It is my intention to get everyone in.
Llew Smith: I am sure that you do not need reminding, Mr. Amess, but the hon. Gentleman may have been listening to me for six minutes, but I had to listen to more than 20 minutes of his drivel, so time is certainly on my side. If we are going to discuss the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the role of the National Assembly for Wales, it is important that we examine the alternative, which is a Welsh parliament in a separate state. We should discuss why the Welsh nationalists want a separatist state and why they want independence.
We were consistently told that the failure to achieve independence was preventing additional European money, such as objective 1 funds, from being allocated to large parts of Wales. This was obviously another cheap attempt by the nationalists to con people into supporting independence, because the Labour Government delivered objective 1 for Wales and made a mockery of the nationalist claim. Those who are pressing for a Welsh parliament should recognise that once it has been achieved, the next demand will be for a separatist Welsh state divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom.

99WH
The present demand by a few for a Welsh parliament is often justified with the argument that it was an insult to Wales to be given fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament. That is once again a nationalist argument. I am still not sympathetic to an Assembly, but I am of the opinion that the powers should be based on the most effective form of decision making. We want good government, not nationalism. Are we so unsure of ourselves in Wales that we have to copy the Scots, when we were informed that one of the reasons for devolution was that we were different from the rest of the United Kingdom?
In my opinion, the Government must now consider decreasing the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and devolving them to local authorities. Unlike the creation of the National Assembly for Wales, that would be an act of real devolution, not nationalism. It is also necessary for central Government to devolve a number of their powers to local authorities.
The Assembly has been unwilling to use all its powers to keep promises that it made to justify its existence. We all remember the promise to make a bonfire of the quangos, but that has not happened and we have seen only a damp squib. During the referendum, some of us said that we did not need an Assembly to make a bonfire of the quangos, just a one-line Bill from this Parliament. At that time, many nationalists extolled the virtues of an Assembly by informing us that it would be a miracle cure for all our economic, social and constitutional ills—you name it, the Assembly would cure it. No explanation was provided as to how that could happen—the mere existence of an Assembly would be sufficient. No matter what nationalists might dream up, we all recognise that their aims are separatism and independence.
It is important that we understand the reasons for the demands of the nationalists and why they are pushing for independence. Anti-English prejudices have run throughout their party since its birth. Saunders Lewis, a founding member and former leader, saw the Jews and the English as enemies, while admiring Hitler and Mussolini. [Interruption.] Of course, the nationalists do not want to hear this. Of Hitler, Saunders Lewis declared:
"At once he fulfilled his promise—a promise which was greatly mocked by the London papers months before that—to completely abolish the financial strength of the Jews in the economic life of Germany."
The Welsh nationalist attitude to the English is also seen in their opposition to English children being evacuated to Wales to avoid the bombing of their homes during the second world war. They said that that would
"completely submerge and destroy all of Welsh national tradition."
Saunders Lewis went on to say that the
"movement on population is one of the most horrible threats to the continuation and to the life of the Welsh nation that has ever been suggested in history."
So, there we are. Hitler and Mussolini were friends of the nationalists, but English children escaping the ravages of war were the enemy. The anti-English prejudices of the Welsh nationalist party have changed
100WH
little over the years and can be witnessed from the statements of some of its members. Gwilym ap Loan referred to the English in Wales as an
"alien culture within our nation."
and Simon Glyn referred to retired people moving into Wales as a "drain on our resources."
So deep was the nationalist hatred of the English that they originally opposed the building of the Severn bridge and referred to it as a "suicidal policy". Then, as now, jobs are not important to the nationalists compared with the need to break the link with England and all things English. Nationalists in the Chamber may want to clarify their position today.
I do not want to give the impression that Welsh nationalists hate the English to the extent of taking a principled stand against any English involvement. Certainly not, because although they want independence, they also want English money to subsidise their aims. Hardly a day goes by without their taking the begging bowl to demand more money. One of my predecessors, Aneurin Bevan, rejected the anti-English sentiments of the nationalists and never failed to emphasise the common goals that unite us. Leo Abse, referring to Nye, reminded us:
"he believed, as I believe, that a miner is a miner, whether he works in Durham or Glamorgan, that a steel worker is a steel worker, whether he works at Ebbw Vale, Llanwern, Scunthorpe or Sheffield".—[Official Report, 16 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 1793.]
That is why, as a socialist, I reject nationalism and separatism: it would take us down the road to a Welsh parliament. The problem is not nationality but economics and the system and, as a socialist, I will always base my ideas and action on that fact.
11.34 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: It is a great pleasure to follow the socialist hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith)—he is one of the few socialists left in the Labour party. During his regurgitation, mixed with bile, of the future of Wales, we were given no idea what his constitutional settlement or his party's idea of a constitutional future would be.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Wales. I attend Westminster Hall fairly regularly and this is the first time that I have seen a Cabinet Minister here to respond to the debate. We are grateful for that acknowledgement that this is a serious debate—despite the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent.
In reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Students (Mr. Jones)—
Mr. Llwyd: Cardiff, Cannabis.
Mr. Thomas: Yes, perhaps it should be Cardiff, Cannabis.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) were present at the debates on both the Education Bill and the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr spoke in the Education Bill debate, which is

101WH
more than any Wales Office Minister did. Those debates had important Welsh aspects and merited some ministerial contribution.
I want to consider a narrow aspect of the operation of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to show how its failings have meant that we have not been able to achieve what we should like to achieve in Wales. Section 121 places a duty on the National Assembly to make a scheme promoting sustainable development. In response, it produced a paper entitled "Learning to Live Differently"—a positive document containing many ideas about how to use sustainable development as an opportunity to improve the quality of life instead of viewing it as a barrier or hurdle to economic development. We need to build on our burgeoning industries. There are few coal miners or steelworkers left, thanks to the Government's policies.
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: No. The hon. Gentleman did not want to debate with me and I do not want to debate with him.
Llew Smith: What about the miners' strike?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Thomas: We must base a new economy on new industries such as renewable energy, which will benefit both the economy and the environment, and introduce the knowledge economy more fully. It is sad that Wales lags far behind in that respect.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I wish to make a serious point as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central and Cannabis. The hon. Gentleman is about to argue that the constitutional process does not allow sustainable development to take place as was intended. However, does he not agree that there is no bar on the Welsh Assembly setting up renewable energy plans? Before devolution, the Welsh Office agreed several plans for wind power stations, but the Assembly has not proceeded with them—not because of any constitutional bar, but because it decided not to.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that he knows what I am going to say and is trying to take advantage of that. In fact he is wrong, and I intend to deal with the points that he raised. He is right to say that the Assembly has not seen fit to give the go-ahead to some important renewable energy projects, but that is nothing to do with the constitutional settlement—it is the result of a political decision by the Labour-Liberal coalition to thwart those developments. I suspect that he is as disappointed about that as I am.
However, the constitutional settlement also thwarts such developments. For example, on energy policy, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Assembly is responsible for planning for electricity generating plants of less than 50 MW. Unfortunately, these days that is virtually nothing—any new renewable energy projects have to generate more than 50 MW if they are to pay their way—so although the Assembly may be consulted, the decision making remains here in London with the Department of Trade and Industry. That becomes even
102WH
more worrying when one considers that nuclear power stations generate at least 1,000 MW, so the role of the Assembly in deciding whether there should be a new nuclear power station in Wales is negligible, if not nil. Can the Assembly deliver the coherent energy policy that it is supposedly putting together, which is compatible with sustainable development, when it is responsible only for small-scale energy generation?
On renewable energy, Wales already contributes 40 per cent. of the wind energy produced in the United Kingdom. However, there is an increasing likelihood that a new nuclear power station will be foisted on the people of Wales against our will. If that happens, it will be akin to the foisting of Tryweryn on us in the 1960s against our will. It is interesting that the interconnector that has been suggested for renewable energy, pitched as an interconnector to link renewable energy sites along the west coast of Britain, also links the sites of existing and potential nuclear power stations. There is no reason why an interconnector could not be used for nuclear energy as well as energy produced by renewables.
In my constituency, an application has been made for a large new wind farm at Cefn Croes, which would generate something like 59 MW—1 per cent. of Wales's electricity needs. The decision on that rests with the Department of Trade and Industry and not with the National Assembly. Hon. Members might say that at least the Assembly has a consultative role, but it has not seen fit to say yea or nay to the Cefn Croes application. That might be a political problem in the Assembly, but I suggest that it is also a constitutional problem. It feels that it does not have the right level of decision making over such processes, and because it is not responsible for the outcomes it shirks away from taking decisions.
Things would be bad enough if that remained the situation. However, if we pry further into the future of renewables in Wales, we find that the DTI has produced a consultation paper for offshore wind or water-driven electricity stations in Wales. Not content with relying on its ability to decide on projects of more than 50 MW, the DTI is suggesting that it should decide all applications for projects of more than 1 MW in London. That might happen in consultation with the Assembly, but it is removing from Wales to the DTI powers that currently reside with the National Assembly and local authorities in Wales.
The consultation process on that recently ended and, lo and behold, the Government have decided to go ahead. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 will be expanded and the Government response simply states that
"detailed handling procedures will be drawn up to show the roles of the different Government Departments and other bodies."
The role of the National Assembly as a statutory consultee in the process will be covered by detailed guidance, and any change in the National Assembly's overall position in the devolved arrangements will have to be separately considered by Ministers. Now, the Assembly is passing from being a decision-making body to being a consultee body.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is discussing renewable energy. He will know that those who promote renewable energy argue, and have argued

103WH
for some time, that the primary problem in gaining permission for renewable energy sites is the difficulty with planning. Organisations calling for more renewable energy have asked the Government to remove the ability to restrict planning easily, by taking decision making to a higher level. I cannot see how it is consistent for him on the one hand to promote renewable energy but on the other to argue that planning permission decisions should not have been taken to a higher level.
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. There are 47 minutes left, and six people, including the Secretary of State, waiting to catch my eye. I would be grateful if we could have shorter interventions.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I will deal briefly with the intervention.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes such matters seriously, but the outcome of what he just advocated would be the reverse of devolution and democracy. He is advocating that all decisions be taken at the highest level and not at the most appropriate level for the local people concerned. If the people in Wales say that they do not want renewable energy, I, though an advocate of renewable energy, have to accept that as the democratic view of the people of Wales. I do not think that the current constitutional arrangements allow them to express that will properly and fully.
The change in procedures for renewable energy was opposed by my county council. It has also caused concern to the Association of National Park Authorities, the Countryside Council for Wales, the National Trust and Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority. They were all concerned to see that a level of democracy was being taken away from them and the Assembly and given to the Department of Trade and Industry. A parallel process is taking place, whereby the Government are consulting the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about a change in planning law. They want to get rid of public inquiries—admittedly, they can prove lengthy, wasteful and expensive—and introduce a fast-track process for large-scale applications. That could benefit some renewable energy applications, but it could also benefit nuclear power stations.
I should also remind hon. Members that the application for the Kielder Forest renewable energy wind farm has been with the DTI since 1992, but the fact that it has taken the DTI nine years to reach a decision has nothing to do with the public inquiry—it is the DTI's decision alone. Raising the level at which decisions are taken does not necessarily lead to greater efficiency.
Many of us are criticised for wanting the famous process of devolution to be a bit like a Benny Hill sketch and move at a fast pace. Some say, "Whoa! That's too fast—let's see things happen at a normal pace." Perhaps there are a few hon. Members who want matters to
104WH
progress in slow motion, but I doubt whether many—other than the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent—want the reels to run backwards.
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: No. I want to—
Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David Amess (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Thomas: I want to make two final points, on the environment and on the failure of the present constitutional settlements. A decision was taken overnight by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to allow the planting of genetically modified crops on three sites in Wales. There was no consultation with Members of the Assembly, the Welsh Executive, local Members of Parliament or Opposition spokespeople on the environment. In fact, there was no consultation at all.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman will know that two of the three sites were in my constituency, and he will also be familiar with the frustrations arising from the Assembly's lack of powers. However, if he has done his homework he will surely acknowledge that it was not a question of the DETR's retaining such powers, given that it, too, did not have them. They were given away in 1991 on implementation of environment legislation by the then Tory Government.
Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution, but she is not entirely right in implying that her Government's hands are clean. It was a committee established by the then DETR that decided to plant GM crops in Pembrokeshire. Although I am pleased that planting on the two Pembrokeshire sites has not gone ahead, she will be aware that there remains a site in Wales on which such crops are being grown. That has thrown into complete disarray the Assembly's policy of a GM-free Wales, and its vision of Welsh agriculture based on a green, increasingly organic concept. If it is to have one hand tied behind its back and be thwarted at every opportunity by decisions taken in Whitehall, the Assembly will be unable to develop a sustainable future for Welsh agriculture.
The biggest issue in Wales this year has been access to rural housing. Unfortunately, the debate has been coloured by the use of extreme language on both sides of the argument. However, there is a solution. A number of reasonable proposals can be made in support of greater access to rural housing that enjoy the support of, say, people in Exmoor national park and in Cumbria. I included such proposals in a private Member's Bill that I wanted to present to Parliament. The Bill was thwarted by the arcane procedures of the House, to the extent that we did not even debate its merits. Nevertheless, during that process it became clear that simple matters such as planning the number of second homes in Wales could be decided not at Welsh level but only a Westminster level. Such problems underline the frustration felt by many in Wales. The Assembly could,

105WH
and should, be doing a better job, and it should be given the necessary powers. That is why we need a review of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
11.49 am
Dr. Hywel Francis: I am a long-standing campaigner for democratic devolution. In 1979 I was the treasurer of the West Glamorgan campaign and in 1997 I was the national convener of the cross-party "Yes for Wales" campaign. I mention that not because I am keen to indulge in veteranism, but to remind hon. Members that the Labour party and the Labour Government come to the question from our vision as democrats and our respect for the democratic will of the people of Wales and the people of Britain. In that spirit, hon. Members should be reminded of the words of the current Secretary of State for Wales in October 1999 when he said that devolution is "a settled question." Many chose to misunderstand the meaning of that statement, which was borrowed from the late John Smith's memorable words,
"the settled will of the Scottish people".
For us in Wales, the settled question means that there is no going back. One of the new responsibilities of the Secretary of State is to safeguard the new constitutional settlement, as represented by the referendum result and the Government of Wales Act 1998. We should all, whether we were for or against devolution, now work with the Secretary of State and Assembly Members to make the present democratic settlement work.
The settled question in Wales also means that it is the democratic will of the Welsh people. The people voted, albeit narrowly, for democratic devolution and we must respect our democratic decision. It is disingenuous now, and it was disingenuous immediately after the referendum result, to call for additional powers. Our task in Westminster and the Assembly is to make the democratic devolution settlement work. It is inappropriate to call for additional powers without recognising the need for a further democratic mandate.
The task before us is simple. First, we must stop talking down the Assembly. The democratic partnership between the Assembly and Westminster is working, as evidenced, for example, by the creation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the additional funding achieved for objective 1 areas. Secondly, we must remind ourselves that our main task as Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members is to improve the quality of life of the Welsh people. My distinguished predecessor, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that we must achieve
"the repatriation of democracy to Wales".
That has now been achieved, and it is our task to make it work for the benefit of the people of Wales.
11.52 am
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), I have always supported the principle of devolution. However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) missed the point—I may not have made myself clear—that if devolution had been in place in 1991, the Assembly would have had the powers, because it would have had to be consulted.
106WH
The hon. Gentleman also referred to nuclear power stations. There is great fear in my constituency in west Wales at the prospect of a nuclear power station, but I cannot help thinking that he is scaremongering. He will be aware that although the nuclear installations inspectorate is still the responsibility of Westminster, the Environment Agency and the planning aspects of any applications are devolved to the Assembly.
Mr. Simon Thomas: We are debating the Government of Wales Act and the hon. Lady should be aware that the Environment Agency is not devolved to Wales. It may have a Welsh branch or arm, but it is not devolved. She should also be aware that the Minister in the Welsh Grand Committee refused to rule out a new nuclear power station in Wales.
Mrs. Lawrence: My understanding is that the functions of the Environment Agency in Wales are devolved to the Assembly, perhaps the Secretary of State will expand on that.
On nuclear waste, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation document on the management of nuclear waste, it is clear that the Assembly will have its say in the matter.
Given the opening statement by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), one is tempted to ask why he voted yes in the devolution referendum. He referred to the Welsh Grand Committee, but he does not seem to be aware that there was a three-day sitting of the Welsh Affairs Committee when the Welsh Grand Committee met last week. At the Welsh Grand Committee meeting of July 2000, only one Plaid Cymru Member was present. It was an important occasion on which we debated the comprehensive spending review, and he may wish to explain why he was not there.
I support devolution and I have always supported devolution. I tabled amendments to the Government of Wales Act 1998 on behalf of business in Wales. Those amendments were accepted in principle, and they were the only amendments that were accepted during the Act's passage through the House of Commons. I support devolution because actions such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) sending £100 million back from Wales could not happen under the Assembly. The decimation of NHS management under the former Welsh Office, which is a fundamental problem for the NHS, could not happen under devolution.
Llew Smith: Putting aside whether an Assembly is right or wrong, or whether we should have voted yes or no, does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy voted yes was that he and his party saw it as a step down the road to a separatist, independent Wales?
Mrs. Lawrence: One is tempted to believe that.
Nursery vouchers, which were anathema to the Welsh people, could not have been imposed with the Assembly as it is now.
The issue of secondary powers, on which I did some research, was raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy in last week's Welsh Grand Committee. The Assembly is not using its existing

107WH
powers on secondary legislation, and my information, which comes from the House of Commons Library and the Assembly, reveals that the Assembly passed 29 statutory instruments in 1999.
There are three systems for handling secondary legislation in the Assembly. I shall describe them as outlined by John Osmond, director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. There is a full-length process, there is a foreshortened process and there is an emergency process. In 1999, there were 29 statutory instruments of which 15 were subject to the emergency system; in 2000, there were 119 statutory instruments of which 40 were subject to the emergency system; in 2001, there were 221 statutory instruments—that is a different figure from the one cited by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—of which 48 related to foot and mouth disease and 93 were subject to the emergency system. In two years, there were 369 pieces of secondary legislation, of which only eight were dealt with by the full system, while 148, approximately half, were dealt with by the emergency system.
We must examine what those three systems do. The full procedure means that secondary legislation goes in front of the business unit, the subject Committee and the Legislation Committee before being debated in plenary. Eight of those 369 statutory instruments were dealt with through the full process. The emergency procedure involves a decision made by the Welsh Executive subject to scrutiny by the Legislation Committee after the instrument is made.
On that subject, John Osmond states:
"So far much of the secondary legislation considered by the National Assembly has been dealt with by the third, emergency, route. This may be because the Assembly's committees had too much on their plates in the early months to get round to such detailed matters. On the other hand, if the precedent is followed in the future, it will mean that one of the purposes of devolution, to make the legislative process more transparent, accountable and open to amendment, will be lost."
The number of statutory instruments dealt with by the Assembly during the first months was low compared with former Welsh Office's activity.
Mr. Llwyd: I am listening intently to what the hon. Lady is saying, and it is constructive. Can she tell us how many such instruments were passed in that time by the House of Commons?
Mrs. Lawrence: I understand that the hon. Gentleman alleged that 60 had been passed by the House of Commons, but I am talking about legislation dealt with by the Assembly. It seems that there has been a lack of time to examine secondary legislation with the degree of scrutiny that those who support devolution, and supported it during the passage of the Government of Wales Act, expected. Here, we have one and a half hours for statutory instruments in Committee, but there, because of the lack of time, such decisions have not been given sufficient scrutiny. We must ask the hon. Gentleman and his party why that is so.
I looked at the debates in the Welsh Assembly during that period; the majority had been secured by Plaid Cymru. We should consider the Assembly's responsibilities. Labour Members want the Assembly
108WH
and devolution to work and when the Government of Wales Bill was proceeding through the House, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues said that that was also their position—if we can believe what they say. Now, the leader of Plaid Cymru is saying that devolution is doomed to failure. The only reason why it is doomed is that instead of handling secondary legislation openly and transparently in the Assembly, which it has a responsibility to do, the party introduces debates on UK Government fiscal and public expenditure, royal commission and Lords reform, new deal, relief of world debt and the up-to-date situation in Afghanistan. Any council or local authority could discuss those subjects if it wanted to, but if the ordinary population of this country felt that their local authority was discussing such matters and avoiding the problems of rubbish collection, transport, street lighting and so forth, there would be an outcry.
Labour Members want the Assembly to work and to have the opportunity to do the job that we voted for it to do, and that was the purpose of the Government of Wales Act 1998: to have devolved, transparent decision making, which is as near as possible to the people it serves. That is the purpose of devolution. If the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and his party co-operated in the manner in which they said that they would when we were enacting the legislation, rather than calling for debates for which the Assembly has no responsibility, it would work effectively and could progress in its job.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am going to call the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), but I ask him to speak for no more than three minutes, or I may not use such discretion in future.
12.2 pm
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Thank you, Mr. Winterton.
I want to concentrate on how the constitutional settlement is working. In the past fortnight, two major Bills that will effect health and education provision in Wales have been discussed. Plaid Cymru showed poor attendance in debates on both.
The system is not working as well as it could. Both Bills had Welsh clauses that are considerably different from major English clauses. Yesterday's debate on the Education Bill revealed many differences. The best way to give scrutiny to a Bill, whose major provisions affect Welsh constituencies in a different way from English ones is not to be obliged to vote on the whole package on Second Reading, when it includes entirely contradictory things for different parts of the country.
The reason why the Welsh provisions are appended to bigger Bills is to do with the constraints on time in the House. I understand why that is a practical necessity if we deal with legislation as we do. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, Wales Office Ministers were unable to respond to the issues raised in the debates on both Bills. That may not have been the best way to deal with them.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider again whether mechanisms could be introduced whereby we could deal with Welsh legislation in a separate way that did not take time away from the rest of the Government's

109WH
programme. They want to implement the programme and will be understandably reluctant to introduce Welsh Bills that will take up precious time. We have discussed before whether we could introduce some fast-track mechanism or use the Welsh Grand Committee.
We must consider how to make the settlement work. I am sure that that is a great priority for the Secretary of State and he will have thought about it deeply for some time. Although the existing mechanism is better than nothing, it is not working as it well as it could in respect of those two Bills, and we need to make progress on improving it. It would be useful if other parties offered help and suggestions, rather than simply saying, "Scrap the whole thing."
12.6 pm
Lembit Öpik: Let me first say how pleased I am that Plaid Cymru Members have secured a debate—in a way, it has enabled us to celebrate the success of the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition in Cardiff—and how appropriate it is that representatives of the two parties of government in Wales should make the last two speeches.
Devolution was a Liberal idea, a long time ago. Many believe that it was a consequence of Liberals dragging their feet that Plaid Cymru came into existence, partly as a pressure group to drive Wales towards devolution. I am concerned about Plaid Cymru's entirely negative attitude to the early years of the devolution project in Wales. I have listened with interest and some confusion to what its members have said about its position. For a long time, I mistakenly believed that its policy was to support independence. That was clarified when a former Member of Parliament, Dafydd Wigley, said that the party had never supported independence, much to the surprise of many of its members and the rest of us.
The confusion remains. Plaid Cymru has a very close working relationship with the Scottish National party, which is committed to independence for Scotland. Hon. Members and the public can be forgiven for being somewhat confused about why two parties with such different objectives in principle choose to align themselves in the House of Commons.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman's confusion if he could explain why last night his party voted against the Education Bill, including Welsh clauses that his party had put in and supported in Wales. Does that not show that his party is not only two different parties, but a different party in any given constituency?
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman has failed to clarify the question of independence.
Mr. Thomas: He has failed to clarify his voting record.
Lembit Öpik: I assure him that independence involves making difficult decisions and trying to find a balance between the best interests of the UK and those of Wales. [Interruption.] We try to draw a responsible line, part of which involves not shouting down Members who are trying to make a sensible and constructive contributions.
Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in reality there is no confusion in the nationalist party
110WH
about its position on independence? Indeed, Dafydd Wigley, to whom he referred, is on record as saying that an independent Wales would leave NATO.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Although we can all be entertained by the contradictions, it is a serious matter, because it is hard to gauge exactly how one should view Plaid Cymru's position on devolution. The hon. Gentleman has been a long-time opponent of devolution. [Interruption.] I am sorry: of the settlement in Wales. That is a respectable position, although I do not necessarily agree with it.
It was symptomatic of Plaid Cymru's approach that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) intervened after six minutes to imply that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) had no right to make his points. That summarises what many feel is the attitude of Plaid Cymru Members. They try to shout down any opposition, including me when I was speaking a few minutes ago, rather than respecting the right to a different opinion.
We should all remember what was said at the time of the devolution debate: new politics requires new attitudes and a willingness to operate in a different way. That willingness is not apparent among Welsh nationalists. For example, Plaid Cymru Members tabled three amendments on the child care debate in the Assembly. The amendments were on matters that were about to be addressed anyway. They tabled four amendments on the ministerial code; that subject too, was already in hand. Tomorrow, Plaid Cymru Members will lead a debate on economic development. All those issues are already on the agenda.
It seems to Liberal Democrat Members that although Plaid Cymru Members take a negative attitude towards the devolution settlement, they want to steal the clothes of the coalition for the many positive things that are being achieved. The two parties in the coalition have embraced a new kind of politics by operating together and trying to provide political stability in the devolution settlement in Wales.
The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) made an insightful point. Eight out of the past 10 minority party debates awarded to Plaid Cymru were wasted on matters that Plaid Cymru Members know that the Assembly could not influence significantly. The nationalists are entitled to spend that debating time as they wish, but it seems to the Liberal Democrats that Plaid Cymru Members are more interested in posturing and playing at party politics than in spending debate time constructively and making a helpful contribution to the government of Wales.
Mr. Llwyd: Mike German.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman says the name as though it were a mantra that evokes the devil himself. That is an example of Plaid Cymru seeking opportunistic advantage, even though Mike German has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing throughout what has been, in my view, an overly long and drawn-out inquiry. [Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I do not want to hear sedentary conversations. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is supporting me from his sedentary position. He is so angry about the injustice meted out to Mike German by Plaid Cymru that he felt the need to shout out. He can be forgiven for that.
Plaid Cymru Members have attempted to score a party political point against Mike German and the Liberal Democrats, even though in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty. The fact that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is willing to drag that up is symptomatic of the attitude that bedevils the nationalist contribution to the government of Wales.
In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, almost out of frustration with the Government of Wales Act 1998, said that Plaid Cymru cannot be everywhere at once. That is true. Plaid Cymru's long list of criticisms, complaints and frustrations cannot be resolved by the four Plaid Cymru Members of Parliament, although it is not the party's fault that it has only four seats. The Liberal Democrats have 52 Members of Parliament, all of whom are committed to devolution. All Liberal Democrat Members take a federalist attitude toward the United Kingdom, and are willing to engage in devolution—not just for Wales, but for England and Scotland, too.
I suggest to Plaid Cymru that it seek allies carefully, rather than making enemies of potential allies. It should be willing to engage with those who are committed to devolution and its expansion, as are many—not all—of the hon. Members present.
I remind the Chamber of the long list of triumphs achieved by the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition. They include the Reece report on student funding, which pushes for a more generous settlement for students. Farming Connect was a significant achievement of my colleague, Mick Bates. We provided free school milk, which many feel was a great step forward in health provision for young people. On economic development, the Assembly's efforts made a significant contribution to save many jobs in Llanidloes—to be parochial for a moment. I am sure that there are many other examples.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy rightly praised the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition for its proposals on free prescriptions and dental charges for a proportion of the population. That is another Liberal Democrat policy, as was the introduction of the Children's Commissioner. Even when condemning and criticising the Assembly for its performance, hon. Members cite some of its successes.
I recognise that Plaid Cymru has a legitimate right to try to maximise its power and the number of votes that it can secure in Wales. However, I suggest to Plaid Cymru and all parties that we have a higher responsibility: to make devolution work. To do that, we must think positively about the opportunities that it brings, rather than simply run it down. I invite Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives to enter into the coalition of ideas that can put the public first, rather than engage
112WH
in a cynical and incessant attempt to drag down an institution that so many of us worked side by side to try to convince the Welsh people was worth while.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Before I call the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), I shall say that I want to give the Minister 10 minutes to wind up this important debate. If the hon. Gentleman can use self-discipline—I know that he can—the Chamber will be very happy.
12.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I will make a brief contribution, Mr. Winterton.
This is an important debate, but part of the problem is the high expectations of devolution that existed when the process was introduced. We all remember the debates. We were all told how wonderful everything was going to be—we would have a cure for the common cold, and the Welsh rugby team would never lose again if only we had a Welsh Assembly. Look at what happened. I shall not talk about Welsh rugby, because I have only four minutes. The fact is that the expectations could not possibly have been met.
We now know—we expected to hear this from Plaid Cymru—that devolution was a journey and not a destination in itself. Now Plaid Cymru thinks that the reason for the Welsh Assembly's not working properly is that it has not gone far enough—it should have primary legislative powers, and if only it had them, we would have a cure for the common cold and the Welsh rugby team would never lose another match. We have been there before. Yes, we should make devolution work—it is a reality, because the Assembly has powers—and we should use the powers that we have, and stop whingeing. The Assembly has sufficient powers to make a difference in many fields, but they are being used as a vehicle to try to push devolution even further.
I was in Corwen this week, and I saw the North Wales group having a meeting on the Welsh language with Dafydd Iwan. It seemed successful, and a lot of people were there. That is one area where devolution has worked. The Children's Commissioner has already been mentioned, and the Assembly gave the Westminster Parliament a lot of evidence which enabled it to introduce the post through primary legislative powers.
My goodness, though, what a load of piffle the Assembly concentrates on. It has a hole in the ground that cost £ million to £10 million, when we were told that the whole thing would cost only £17 million. Why does the Assembly not scrap it and spend the money on the people instead? Assembly Secretaries have renamed themselves Ministers, and Rhodri has renamed the whole organisation WAG—the Welsh Assembly Government. Instead of navel gazing, why does the Assembly not focus on the requirements of the people, not the politicians or institutions, and start delivering?
In the national health service, which is a clear example of the way in which the Assembly could have made a difference, waiting lists of six months or more have increased by 900 per cent. The situation is far worse that it was before devolution. It is pointless for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) to look

113WH
smug, because he is part of the coalition that brought that about. He should have taken some of the responsibility and blame in that regard.
Part of Rhodri Morgan's problem is that he has too many jobs. Mike German has been mentioned before—he was put to one side, and Rhodri Morgan took on the responsibility. Manufacturing is in meltdown, agriculture is in crisis and tourism has been hit because of foot and mouth. We need somebody at the top who takes a clearly focused interest in the economy of Wales rather than one person trying to juggle too many jobs at one time. Frankly, it is Rhodri in Wonderland, and he must ensure that he gives a proper opportunity for other people to delegate the responsibility. I understand why he does not want to delegate responsibility when he looks at those who sit around him, but they are his Members and it is time that he did.
The National Assembly for Wales must not be given taxation powers because the referendum did not grant that, and it must not be given primary legislative powers without the people of Wales having their say. They did not vote for that last time, and there is no desire for it now. The Assembly should use and concentrate on the powers that it has. The National Assembly for Wales will be judged on what it does.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
12.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): We have had an interesting and informative debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in Westminster Hall, and if it is always as cold as this, I will not return in a hurry.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made reference to my presence as Secretary of State—the debate is important. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office is not here because he is Cardiff discussing the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill that is currently going through the House with a National Assembly for Wales Committee. The purpose of his journey to Cardiff is to ensure the progression of the partnership in shared government that the devolution settlement is all about. When I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I wondered whether his party wants that partnership and sharing of government. On the basis that Plaid Cymru's aim is independence or full national status, does he want the sharing of government between Members of Parliament who represent Wales and Assembly Members?
Mr. Llwyd: With respect, partnership must be equal. The example that the Secretary of State cites is not good. The Under-Secretary is at the National Assembly for Wales today discussing a Bill that has received its Second Reading, and surely it is now too late to change it. The Assembly expressed a view against the Bill before Second Reading.
Mr. Murphy: Although the Assembly had some differences of opinion about structure, there are opportunities for both Assembly Members and
114WH
Members of Parliament to deal with many aspects of that Bill and the draft NHS Bill that will come before us soon.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Assembly was weakened because powers were transferred to the First Minister. The Assembly itself voted in plenary to delegate power to the First Minister. He also said that the Government of Wales Act 1998 does not provide further powers to the Assembly, unlike the Scottish equivalent. However, section 22 provides for the transfer of functions, and other functions may go to the National Assembly for Wales.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned statutory instruments and, specifically, those that are made in Westminster but affect Wales. In 2000, 225 SIs were made in the National Assembly for Wales and seven were made in Westminster. In 2001, 308 SIs have been made in the Assembly and nine in Westminster. All the statutory instruments that are made in the House of Commons either transfer powers to the Assembly, or concern the law—the hon. Gentleman's profession—language or education. Such statutory instruments give extra powers and responsibilities to the National Assembly for Wales, which he would presumably endorse.
Plaid Cymru Members questioned whether the settlement is working. Of course it is. It works better each year. They and others have called me a dinosaur, but I am told that dinosaurs lasted for millions of years. The people of Wales voted for the Assembly only four years ago and it has operated for just over two years. I read in the South Wales Argus about Professor Hazell from the university of London who said that the settlement is not working. I have never met him, and I do not know who he is. All I know is that the Prime Minister has charged me with the responsibility of ensuring that the devolution settlement works. It does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) has said. I agree with him that there are ways in which we can improve it, and we will look carefully at them in the years ahead. However, a comparison between 2001 and 2000 shows that the Assembly has been given more enabling clauses, so that it can decide how to deal with matters such as education.
Education provides a good example. There are 31 clauses that refer specifically to Wales in the Education Bill that yesterday had its Second Reading in Parliament. That Bill also proposes to enable the Assembly, if it so wishes, to have various powers. The Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 has been derided by some people, who said that it was tagged on to another piece of legislation at Westminster. That was not the case. An opportunity was provided to introduce a Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill quickly, and that was supported by every party. Matters such as legislation on the national health service and on post-16 education could also serve to illustrate my point that not a single piece of primary legislation of importance to Wales has been refused in the past two years.
More importantly, the working relationships between the House and the Assembly are continuing to improve. What the people of Wales are concerned about above all else is the delivery of the services that affect their lives—as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said. However, they voted in the referendum of 1997 for a particular form of settlement:

115WH
a partnership in government between the House and the Assembly. They voted for primary legislative powers to remain at Westminster, on the basis that there is a reason for that, which is the partnership. That is what they voted for.
I have read the proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill—and I advise hon. Members to do the same. Those proceedings, on the Floor of the House and in the other place, are peppered with references to the fact that the people of Wales voted for the settlement, and to the fact that that is why—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) mentioned—the settlement is settled. It is not settled in concrete for many years to come—nobody has ever suggested that—but it is settled in the sense that only very recently people decided to vote for a particular type of devolution settlement.
Of course we have had teething problems, and there will be more to come. There will be occasions when the Government and the Parliament disagree on certain matters with the National Assembly for Wales. That will always happen, so long as Wales remains within the United Kingdom, and so long as the devolution settlement that the people of Wales voted for is in place.
Parliament is sovereign; it agreed to ensure that the legislation was passed, but did so on the basis that a majority of the Welsh people said that that is what they wanted. I say to Opposition Members that, although there have been difficulties, it is important that the Ministers and Members of the Assembly should be able to ensure that we get better services in health, schools, local government, transport and the environment, by sharing the responsibility for them with hon. Members at Westminster. The people of Wales want that settlement. It is working well and it will improve in the coming years.
The big test will come in 18 months. It is essential that we do not allow ourselves to get into a position where we use the constitutional questions to obfuscate the importance of the services themselves and the delivery of them. We must not carry on talking so much about constitutional issues—frankly, they turn off most of our constituents, important though we think they are.
Our constituents want a genuine improvement in the quality of their lives. We want to achieve that in a special way, by means of a devolution settlement—a constitutional arrangement—that has been operating for only a short while. That sharing of power and responsibilities between hon. Members and the Assembly is crucial to the success of the working of the Assembly—and, above all, to the success of the improvement of the quality of life of women, men and children. All hon. Members, along with Members of the Assembly are jointly responsible for that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): As we have finished early, we can now move on to the next debate. It is a good day for the Welsh. I call Mr. Gareth Thomas.

Gas Network
12.29 pm
Gareth Thomas: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a debate on a subject that is of interest not only to Wales, but to many people throughout the United Kingdom. I am also pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), in the Chamber. I hope that she can respond positively to some of the issues that I raise.
There are approximately 25 million households in the United Kingdom, 5 million of which—that is, 20 per cent—are not currently connected to the gas network. It is a large network that has been developed over a long time to a high engineering standard, but it needs to be expanded. Many of the households to which I have referred are fuel poor according to the definition adopted by the Government in their strategy for tackling fuel poverty. In other words, those households spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on energy to maintain an adequate standard of warmth. Many of those households are in rural communities. Moreover, many of them are close to a gas main. That is a cause of frustration.
In fact, Transco has estimated that no fewer than 1,300 communities with more than 150 households have no gas, but are within 2 km of the gas network. To use the jargon, they are infill communities. Gas is being supplied by gas transporters to new developments where there is competition. However, there is a problem with getting gas transporters to pipe gas into the communities that the network has not so far reached. Many of the communities to which I have referred are in my constituency, which is quite rural. I refer to Llysfaen, Betws yn Rhos and Gellifor in the community of Llangynhafal.
Mr. John Lloyd Roberts, the clerk to the Llangynhafal community council, recently wrote to me, and I shall quote briefly from his letter because it crystallises the frustration felt by many of my constituents. It states:
"The Community Council, on behalf of over 100 local residents, has been in discussion with Transco Wales Ltd over the past 6 months regarding the provision of mains gas to the village of Gellifor. I would like to emphasise that the main gas supply line passes very close to the village and a number of properties on the edge of the village have already been connected.
A quotation was recently received from Transco requesting a charge of £2001.00 per property—dependent upon receiving 30 quotations."
Mr. Roberts makes the point that prior to the deregulation of the gas industry,
"villages much further away from the pipeline were connected at a cost of less than £200 per property.
He goes on:
"The Community Council and local residents are extremely disappointed that the estimated cost has turned out so high and arrangements have been made to obtain alternative quotations from other public gas transporters. However, the alternative quotations are all similar to the price quoted by Transco. We have also investigated the possibility of obtaining assistance under the Objective I Scheme but have been told by the County Council that a Scheme of this nature would not qualify for Objective 1 funding … We find it difficult to believe that it was the Governments intention that the introduction of competition in the gas industry

117WH
should result in connection charges for rural communities increasing from the previous £200 to the current figure of £2,000 per property."
The community council has asked me to pursue the issue and to see what can be done to improve the regulatory framework.
The industry is highly regulated, and the system should be made more conducive gas transporters extending the network not just to rural communities but communities on the edges of towns. There seems to be a fair measure of consensus that the network should be extended, although it would be entirely unrealistic to expect all communities throughout the United Kingdom to be connected to gas.
Energywatch, the successor to the old gas and electricity community councils, accepts that there is a strong case for the gas network to be extended. The regulator, Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—accepts that there is a problem, which has prompted it to embark on a consultation process in relation to amendments to the arcanely titled Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 2001. Those regulations are important if not crucial to the problem. In its letter to consultees on 21 August 2001, Ofgem said:
"Ofgem has become aware of a significant reduction in the extension of gas network extensions to rural areas, or `infills', and the limited level of competition in this market".
The Lattice Group, the parent company of Transco, which operates the national gas network, agrees. Mr. Richard Grant, head of environmental affairs in that organisation, noted:
"introducing gas to non-gas areas forms part of Lattice's overall sustainability agenda".
I am sure that the Minister will have no trouble in agreeing, as a basic principle, that that is also part of the Government's agenda for tackling fuel poverty—I refer to the fuel poverty strategy document, which was published in November.
The Minister will know that the industry has been involved in a working group chaired by the Department of Trade and Industry and involving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations, which was set up to consider the issue. I understand that an initial report has been presented to the Department. Will the Minister say when that final report will be published and how the Government propose to proceed?
Ofgem has also referred to the social action plan—which forms part of the parameters laid down by Government—that governs the role of the regulators. The Government have referred to the need to bear in mind some main objectives when dealing with regulation of the electricity and gas industry. One of those was to tackle poverty and social exclusion in order to improve the health of the population overall. The Government do seem to be concerned, and I acknowledge the progress that they have made in tackling fuel poverty to date. They accept that vulnerable customers should not be at risk of suffering adverse effects from the operation of competitive markets.
In a way, the debate encapsulates a classic problem. The Government believe in opening up markets and the virtue of competition, because that is in the overall interests of most consumers, including poorer families
118WH
and low-income households. The price of gas and electricity has gone down as a result. There are occasions, however, when the Government must intervene in the market to deal with distortions that have occurred and are occurring. The subject of this debate is a classic example of that.
Ofgem's social action plan goes on to say that it has to identify barriers to disadvantaged customers who participate in a competitive market, and that it would like to develop policy initiatives to allow such people greater access. I would be interested in what the Minister has to say on how we deal with fuel poverty overall. Gas has a part to play. It is a cleaner fuel, so it has an environmental advantage, and it is cheaper. A lot of people in my constituency have to buy oil, including me. It is messy and tends to be more expensive. Gas is an all-round option that many people would like to have.
I accept that the extension of the network requires the Government to deal with the structure of the industry and amend the regulations within which it operates. The current structure of the gas industry, which was brought about by the Gas Act 1986, as amended by the Utilities Act 2000 and other legislation, separates the function of gas supply from that of providing gas infrastructure such as pipes and pressure units. A company cannot hold a licence for two functions such as supply and transportation.
Before the 1986 Act, the old British Gas was an integrated business able to provide all gas services to its customers, including gas connections, supply and transportation. Many people fail to understand that. There is some confusion about titles and the new structure of the industry, although it has been in operation for some time. Transco, Lattice, Centrica and British Gas, not to mention other gas transporters, have a problem on their hands. I do not advocate that we go back to the old regime, but it is fair to say that it was able to recover the capital costs of extending the network in other sectors of its gas business, which was primarily based on the supply of gas. It is generally accepted that British Gas under the old regime provided a substantial cross-subsidy for the installation and extension of the network. However, we live in a different climate, and I accept the need for competition.
A gas transporter—a GT—is obliged to provide gas infrastructure to premises only where it is economical to do so. Of course, there is a 23 m rule whereby if someone lives within 23 m of a gas main, the GT has to connect him or her up to the mains. When the GTs determine the charges that they must apply, they are guided by the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations, especially regulations 2(a) and 2(e). To make those extensions economically feasible, GTs have to recover the full cost of the mains installed within five years. That period is stipulated by the regulations, and the rule is inflexible and causes difficulties. It is clearly hampering the extension of the network to infill areas. It means that people like those living in Gellifor find the costs charged by GTs prohibitively expensive.
I would like to mention one other interesting aspect of the regulatory framework, which is condition 6 of the standard gas transporter's licence. It allows a GT to recover the costs of extending the network directly from the shipper, so that the shipper can recover it in due course from customers by billing them. The cost often does not appear on the bill. For many, that is a more

119WH
palatable and straightforward way to proceed. I know that Ofgem will examine condition 6 of the GT licence, but I would like to know whether the Government have any views. I suspect that we will have to extend the prescribed period. That would help, but we may have to go further. We may have to introduce innovative projects to deal with fuel poverty and examine the licensing regime and conditions.
The Minister knows what I am looking for. First, I want the Government to acknowledge that there is a problem. Secondly, I want them to do something about it. Thirdly, I want them to publish the findings of the working party to which I have referred. Do they accept the case that I have made for greater flexibility? In broader terms, do they accept that relaxing the regulatory framework will help them to pursue their broader agenda of tackling social exclusion and fuel poverty, as well as ensuring that rural communities feel part of our wider community?
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this debate. He has raised a matter of general concern, not only to his constituents but to many people without access to mains gas.
In response to my hon. Friend about our acknowledgement of the problem, we certainly agree that around 4.5 million British households—roughly 20 per cent. of the total according to my figures, which may be slightly different from his—do not have access to mains gas. Some of them would be able to take up a connection if they wished, but most would not.
Those households do not have access to what is seen as the cheapest and most convenient conventional fuel. I agree with my hon. Friend about that, although it could be said that there have been times when gas was not the cheapest alternative. There are other factors that determine the relative costs of fuels from time to time, such as the environment, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and convenience.
I turn to the statutory position, which is of concern to my hon. Friend. Without losing him and myself in a snow storm of detail, it may be helpful if I first say a little about regulation and what it has and has not delivered. Connections to the gas network are governed by a range of primary and secondary legislation, and in particular by the Gas Act 1986. Companies are obliged to connect within 23 m of an existing main. The energy regulator, Ofgem, is required to encourage reasonable requests for connection where it is economically feasible.
As a result of the range of legislation, and most recently the Utilities Act 2000, the provision of connections is now fully competitive. My hon. Friend espouses the values of competition. As I am, among other things, the Minister for competition, I must encourage him to get behind the notion that competition benefits consumers and has done so tremendously. I am sure that competition is the way forward.
120WH
Communities and individuals are no longer forced to use Transco, but may access one of the dozen independent gas transporters. That relates to my hon. Friend's point about Mr. Lloyd Roberts's letter, to which I will return later. Consumers may also use self-lay companies. As a result of competition, 70 to 75 per cent. of connections to new housing developments are now carried out by companies other than Transco.
There is a lot of competition in the area, and it is working. However, competition alone cannot deliver connections to the bulk of communities and households outside the network—or rather, it can, but the costs involved in providing connections are often beyond what households are prepared to pay. That in turn means that potential take-up is not high enough to make it worth while for the transporter to make the connection.
In the past, a monopoly, did not have to respond to costs, or it could spread them across its operations. Now, in charging householders for connections, Transco must reflect the cost of doing so in order to avoid abuse of its dominant position—none of the independent transporters can afford to subsidise connections. That point relates to research undertaken by Mr. Lloyd Roberts into the options and various fees quoted in the constituency case cited by my hon. Friend. That has led to concerns about lack of access to mains gas and the cost of connection to it being raised on behalf of two sets of people—although the two may overlap. The first is of those communities that wish to be connected but who find the cost prohibitive. The second is the fuel poor. It has been argued that lack of access to the network keeps households in fuel poverty by denying them access to the cheapest, most efficient fuel.
I turn to a couple of specific points raised my hon. Friend about regulation. Ofgem is consulting on changes to the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 2001. Although change of the type proposed by Ofgem to encourage the taking up of new connections would help, the Government believe that the change would have only a marginal impact on the problems that we are discussing. The regulator's duty to help people on low incomes does not override its primary duty to protect the interests of all consumers. The balance is ultimately a matter for the regulator. As my hon. Friend is aware, the regulator is independent of the Government.
I turn to work done by the gas network group and the report mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he acknowledged, the Government are particularly concerned to address issues surrounding social exclusion and disadvantage. The fuel-poverty strategy, which was published recently, reflects that concern. That is why when drafting the strategy we gave a commitment that we would work with Ofgem to ensure that, whenever possible, the gas network provided the widest viable coverage and the fullest viable capacity.
Rather than have an introverted debate between the DTI and Ofgem, we decided to establish a working group to consider the issues surrounding the network in the context of fuel poverty. The group, which met for the first time in May, therefore included representatives of the Government, the regulator, the gas transportation and supply industries, consumer bodies and organisations with an interest in energy efficiency. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy,

121WH
received its report last month, and it will be published shortly on the DTI's website. We expect it to be published before Christmas.
I shall not discuss the findings of the report, because it is yet to be published, but the statistical information available to the group suggested that, for the 900,000 English fuel-poor households without gas, the provision of gas central heating and, where practical, loft and cavity wall insulation could remove between 600,000 and 700,000 people from fuel poverty. A similar impact would be likely in Wales and in Scotland. However, the report notes that similar results appear to be obtainable from insulation and central heating systems used in conjunction with other fuels, so there is a variety of approaches to tackling fuel poverty.
Before turning to the fuel-poverty strategy, I shall say a little more about gas versus other fuels. The installation of appropriate insulation and heating measures could significantly reduce fuel poverty, but it is striking that the key to removing households from fuel poverty may not lie exclusively with access to a particular fuel, but in the combination of the insulation measures and central heating. Gas is certainly more convenient and is at present cheaper than other fuels, but some of those other fuels, including fuel oil and solid fuel, appear to come close in providing affordable warmth.
Indeed, the Scottish Executive's central heating programme took the view that when use of gas is unfeasible, fuel oil and solid fuel represent valuable alternatives, and that may prove to be the case in communities in England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly is piloting a programme that uses disabled facilities grants and HEES—home energy efficiency scheme—funding to provide oil-fired central heating with insulation measures as part of adaptation work.
As for the fuel-poverty strategy, I explained that the drive to consider issues surrounding the network arose within the context of the Government's work on fuel poverty. We are committed to tackling social exclusion in all its forms. Fuel poverty is one aspect of social exclusion and it creates great hardship in the lives of the 4 million households in the United Kingdom that are affected by it. That is why we published last month our fuel poverty strategy, which was agreed with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Our joint objective is to remove from fuel poverty by 2010 all vulnerable households—that is, those containing pensioners, small children, the disabled, or people with a long-term illness who are at risk of ill-health from cold homes.
Our latest analysis suggests that the number of fuel-poor households has fallen in the past few years, from about 5.5 million in 1996 to 4 million. That confirms that our policies of improving incomes and maintaining downward pressure on prices are working. The figures are based on modelling of changes in incomes and energy prices alone, and do not take account of improvements in housing energy efficiency over that time, so the real figure could be slightly lower. Whatever
122WH
the real number, however, there are still too many such households. The strategy sets a framework for taking the work forward. It is only the start of the process, and we stand ready to review and revise policies in the light of practical experience in the delivery of measures.
Gareth Thomas: I agree with a large part of what the Minister has said, but will the Government reconsider, with a view to amending, the regulations within which the gas industry must operate?
Miss Johnson: As I explained, there are clear parameters within which the framework functions, and we have no specific proposals to reconsider that. We are watching for the outcomes of our policies within the framework. Much work must still be done in response to the strategy and to the report, which will be published shortly. We need to consider the action identified in that report, and how we might progress from it.
The range of measures in the strategy is aimed at materially helping all fuel-poor households, irrespective of whether they are connected to the network. The fuel-poverty strategy sets out in some detail the position for Wales. The long-term answer to fuel poverty lies in improved energy efficiency in housing. That is a devolved matter, and responsibility for housing improvement and energy efficiency lies with the National Assembly for Wales. There is at present no direct estimate of the numbers of fuel-poor households in Wales, but the National Assembly will work to determine the extent and distribution of the problem.
A currently used indication of the level of fuel poverty is the number of households eligible for assistance under the Welsh home energy efficiency scheme, based on the 1997–98 Welsh house condition survey, which suggested that about 220,000 households were eligible for assistance. The scheme is the main vehicle in Wales for reducing fuel poverty. The basic package comprises grant aid for insulation measures up to the value of £1,500 and an enhanced grant of up to £2,700, which covers new central heating as well, for households containing people over the age of 60, lone parents, the disabled, and long-term sick. The programme also covers conversion of coal-heating systems to gas firing.
Rural conditions were at the heart of my hon. Friend's debate. Difficulties with improving rural housing include lack of access to mains gas and the high incidence of solid walls in older properties. The Assembly has commissioned an examination of alternative fuels and insulation methods that could be used in hard-to-heat homes. The initial study will report early next year and is looking for proposals for practical pilot studies to evaluate the use of identified alternative heating fuels and insulation methods.
Much work is being done on the wider strategy, and the Assembly is in touch with all those involved, including the DTI and DEFRA—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. We have run out of time. We thank the Minister for her reply.

School Transport
1 pm
Norman Lamb: I have called this debate to draw attention to the urgent need for the Government to take a more proactive approach to tackling the decline in the use of school buses. I have thought for several years that it is nonsense to cut home-to-school transport when our roads carry far more traffic than ever before and are therefore far more dangerous. At the same time, sensible environmental policy dictates that we should get as many people as possible out of cars and on to public transport.
The subject was brought to my attention again when the school year began in September. My constituency office was swamped with telephone calls from parents who had discovered that their children's school bus had been withdrawn or that arrangements had been altered. Many families were left in a difficult position, particularly those that could not make alternative arrangements. The villages of Horning and Southrepps were badly hit because the county council withdrew discretionary bus routes. The school bus to Antingham and Southrepps primary school was withdrawn completely because only one pupil lived far enough away to be eligible for free transport. That left two dozen other pupils who had taken up spare seats on the bus under the discretionary transport arrangements without any transport to school. As a result, far more cars must travel down dangerous narrow lanes to take those children to school, and the parking problems outside the school are horrendous. Several parents who try to combine work with child care face disruption, while those who take their children to different schools have a particular problem.
As regards Horning, parents were advised that they could use the public service bus to take their children to school when the school bus was withdrawn. However, the public service bus stops on the wrong side of a busy main road outside the school, and the children must then cross the road. It also arrives well before the start of the school day and therefore before the school is willing to accept responsibility for the children. That means that they must wait by the side of a busy road before being allowed on to the school premises. Thankfully, some children have been offered spare places on a minibus. However, that will be reviewed in February, and there is no certainty that they will keep their places.
I shall talk about the current legislative framework before highlighting the decline in school transport over recent years and putting the case for a substantial shift in direction. The rules on providing school transport date back to the Education Act 1944 and have remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the subsequent introduction of the parent's right to choose their child's school did not lead to a commensurate change in school transport rules—indeed, it has led to some crazy situations. A child might go to a particular school for very good reasons, but he will have no access to free transport if it is not the designated school.
Free school transport must be provided for children under the age of eight who live more than two miles from the nearest school. Older children must live more than three miles from the nearest school to qualify. Teenagers over the compulsory school leaving age have no right to free transport.
124WH
There is no comparison between the safety of roads 57 years ago, when the rules were introduced, and the situation now. Parents today understandably fear for their children's safety. Increased volumes of traffic create a much more serious hazard for all pedestrians, let alone young children. The child pedestrian death rate in this country is one of the worst in Europe; it is nearly four times that of Sweden and significantly higher than those of France or Germany. It is currently 0.87 per 100,000 children. Unfortunately, matters have worsened in recent years, because local education authorities in the past went well beyond the statutory minimum requirements and provided transport for children living within two and three-mile distances, depending on age. However, as budgets have been squeezed, local authorities have chosen to cut school transport provision rather than take money from schools. That has certainly happened in Norfolk, and I know from colleagues that the picture is similar around the country.
I am not trying to score cheap political points, but the Cinderella nature of the school bus service goes back a long way. I found a report of a court case involving Surrey county council in 1953. The county council had changed its school bus arrangements following a circular letter from the Education Minister,
"urging education authorities to curtail expenditure on the transport of children to school so far as possible".
The problem is a long-standing one. However, such an approach—although I recognise that there are other factors at play—has contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of children taken to school by car. In the past 10 years the total has doubled, which means 1 million extra every day. An RAC report published this year seems to confirm that the decline of the school bus has continued since Labour came to power in 1997. That is a cheap political point, but the trend has continued.
During peak rush hour periods, nearly 20 per cent. of cars on the road are doing the school run. It is worth noting that in the United States, hardly a country recognised for sound environmental policies, 54 per cent. of children under 12 go to school in the traditional yellow bus. That figure compares with 9 per cent. in this country.
The result of what I have described is chaos on the roads. As Professor David Begg, chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister, put it,
"Parents driving their children to school are a major cause of accidents. Double and triple parking outside the school gates cuts visibility and causes confusion."
That is a nonsensical state of affairs, with regard both to child safety and the environment. On its website about school travel the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions highlights the impact of the school run on local air quality, journey times and even local business competitiveness.
Two other matters cause me concern. First, provision for post-16 students is patchy. With no legal right to free transport the charges that are imposed are a disincentive for the children of low-income families to remain in education. I suspect that that hits low-income families in rural areas particularly hard, because the distances to college are greater.

125WH
A letter that I received from the Minister in October confirmed that variations in provision across the country
"have led to inadequate and inconsistent support nationally."
The Government recognise the problem. The Minister will know that concern has been expressed about the impact of moving post-16 education funding away from education authorities to the Learning and Skills Council. I would like reassurance that that change in funding arrangements will not lead to a decline in subsidised transport for that age group.
The second matter of concern to me is safety on buses, particularly the question of seat belts. A loophole in current legislation allows schoolchildren to be transported to school on a vehicle without seat belts, if that service is designated a public transport service, which does not have to be equipped with seat belts, rather than a school bus service, which does. In cases in Norfolk of which I am aware, little timetable information is available on the so-called public transport routes. For that reason, only schoolchildren tend to travel on them, yet because of the loophole, they do not have to wear seat belts and the bus does not have to be provided with seat belts. Lack of resources seems to be at the root of that unacceptable practice.
What then is the Government's response? The rhetoric is great: the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" sounds rather like motherhood and apple pie, but the Government's declared aim was stated to be
"a fairer society in which rich and poor, old and young, town and country dweller, all have reasonable access to transport for work, for school, for shopping and leisure; giving people a choice in how they travel, reducing dependence on the private car."
The White paper states:
"Public transport has a vital role to play in meeting those objectives, and giving people an alternative to the car."
The Audit Commission, in a report entitled "Going places: Taking people to and from education, social services and health care", published in the last few days, refers to the Government's stated aim of "reducing unnecessary car use" as
"a key part of the Government's transport and environmental policies".
It refers also to the value of school transport in helping parents enter the labour market and hold down jobs. That is particularly the case with single parents. Women have less access to cars than men. School transport can therefore aid social inclusion. Yet the ridiculous decline in school bus transport continues and the number of car journeys continues to rise.
I recognise that a great deal of work is going on around the country.
John Barrett: Some of the work currently being carried out in Scotland involves the Scottish Executive's introduction of a safer routes to school programme. You mentioned earlier that David Begg—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I did not mention anything. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Lamb) may have mentioned him, but I did not.
John Barrett: I beg your pardon, Mr. Winterton, and ask your forgiveness as a new Member learning the
126WH
system of Westminster Hall debates. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). Does he agree that one of the key issues is the introduction of safe routes to schools programmes such as that at Carricknowe primary school in my constituency? Speed bumps and other measures to reduce traffic are being introduced and parents are being urged to encourage their children to walk to school or use school buses.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Interventions must be brief. That appears to be more than an intervention. I will use my discretion, if the hon. Gentleman would like, briefly, to conclude his intervention.
John Barrett: Thank you, Mr Winterton. Urgency is key; any child injured or killed on the way to school is one child too many.
Norman Lamb: I very much agree. I recognise that there are schemes all over the country, including that fine scheme, which aim to make it safer for children to walk or cycle to school and to encourage car-sharing.
The Government established the school transport advisory group in 1998. I applaud such efforts, but they are not enough. They will not on their own reverse the current trends. I have the impression that the Government accept that, given the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement in February of a series of pilots of an American-style yellow bus service. I must ask, however, what action has been taken since then. I understand that the pilots are due to be launched in the new year. Will the Minister confirm where they will be, when they are due to start, the length of the pilots, whether they will operate under the distance rules from the legislation dating back to 1944 that I have described, whether pupils and students living within those distances will be charged for travel, and how much government investment will be? Finally, what are the Government's plans to extend the pilots across the country should they prove successful? If he cannot answer all those points today, I should be grateful if he would come back to me with full answers.
The potential value of an expanded school transport network, whether through the use of the designated yellow bus or greater investment in existing arrangements, cannot be overstated. Buses must have clear safety rules, ensuring the provision of the same driver each day, passenger checklists, installation of safety belts, and radio contact with an operations room.
Cutting morning traffic would be of enormous environmental benefit. Extending free transport rather than charging for it would have a big impact in persuading parents to get their children on to the school bus, but we must debate whether it should be free. As long as the 1944 rules remain, education authorities will be forced to make the impossible choice between increasing investment in public transport or in schools. Will the Government change the legislative framework? As Gordon Hanning, the head of the passenger transport unit at Norfolk county council, told me:
"Many people feel uncomfortable about the appropriateness of current legislation and that a new approach is called for."
Will the Government's worthy rhetoric be matched by investment?
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): My voice is going, and I hope that it does not go completely prior to the conclusion of my response. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. All parties accept that the issue that he raises is important. The Government acknowledge the need to ensure that the current framework is working to the best effect and that significant resources are used in the most efficient way. Post-16 transport will continue to be the responsibility of local education authorities. That responsibility will not be transferred to learning and skills councils, which was made clear by the Learning and Skills Councils Act 2000. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about pilots, including all the details that he requested.
It costs about £500 million a year to provide statutory school transport for children of compulsory school age. We agree that school transport is relevant to all parents and children, whichever mode of transport they use. We often hear calls for an increase in home-to-school transport expenditure, but the figure is already substantial. About £485 million was spent in 1999–2000—an increase of approximately 9 per cent. on the previous year and above the level of inflation. Half of that expenditure was on children with special educational needs. They are high on our list when we consider young people who are excluded from society and education. School transport is funded by local education authorities, so any increase in transport costs would mean that less is spent on teachers, books, computers and school capital.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of statutory school transport is to ensure that no child is denied the right to attend a suitable school. It is not and never was intended to be an all-inclusive transport service providing free travel for those who could reasonably walk or who have chosen not to attend the nearest suitable school.
We will continue to make substantial increases in education funding. In 2002– 03, we will increase the educational standard spending assessment by more than £1.3 billion—an increase of 6 per cent. We are also increasing the standards fund by almost £160 million and the direct grant for schools by 2.75 per cent. That will help local education authorities to meet the escalating costs of school transport.
Norman Lamb: I recognise that the purpose of the 1944 school transport rules is to get children to school safely. However, we need a change. There is a sound environmental case for getting more children to school by bus. Does the Minister accept that the number of children taking a bus to school is declining, despite the investment?
Mr. Lewis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point. Of course, the objective must be to get more children to school by means other than cars. That would satisfy the requirements of an integrated transport policy and environmental and safety considerations. We absolutely agree. Where we part company, as we always do with the Liberal Democrats, is on the concept of infinite resources. Unlike them, the Government must work within the constraints of finite resources.
128WH
My next point will be a genuine one and not party political, although the last one was. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he made one or two party political points in his speech. We must focus on ensuring that we get co-ordination and organisation at local level right, and that the significant additional resources that are going into the system make the difference in communities that they are meant to make.
The discussion is about diversification of modes of transport to get young people to and from school, but it is also about attitudes. It is not only in the context of education that attitudes to modes of transport have changed; it is a general phenomenon in communities and societies. The deregulation of buses in the 1980s contributed to it, but people are increasingly dependent on motor vehicles for a range of reasons.
Our 10-year transport plan, into which we are putting significant additional resources, is designed to create a far more balanced, integrated transport system. Clearly, that will affect how young people are transported to schools and college. It is essential to increase the use of alternative modes of transport to the car. I do not think that there is any difference in the ultimate objective, but we on the Labour Benches are persuaded that we can take measures within the existing legislative framework; however, we will introduce new legislation for post-16 education transport. I will discuss that in a moment.
We believe that we should use existing legislation better and ensure that the significant resources that we are putting in are used to best effect. In some ways, that is the dividing line. The hon. Gentleman advocates new legislation and infinite resources. The Government want to make better use of resources and ensure that existing regulations work to achieve the objectives that have been established.
On post-16 transport, we recognise that one of our primary objectives for education is to encourage more young people to stay on in education and learning after reaching the age of 16. We also recognise that a lack of access to acceptable transport is a contributory factor to so many young people dropping out of education at that age, especially in some rural areas.
We recently commissioned a study to map existing arrangements, to offer options for improvements and to produce good practice guidance. The study has been completed and the interim report made a strong case for re-ordering the legislation, specifically around post-16 transport. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Education Bill had its Second Reading yesterday and will be in Committee next week. It includes clauses that specifically relate to the debate.
The Bill will give local education authorities a coordinating role in developing policies with key partners to provide effective and efficient post-16 transport arrangements. We propose that LEAs work with school governing bodies, colleges, learning and skills councils and passenger transport authorities. Crucially, LEAs will be obliged to publish a transport policy statement in consultation with those partners by 31 May each year, setting out what provision and support is available through schools and colleges in the local area. That is very important because it will ensure transparency and give students much better information on what is

129WH
available. It will also drive more effective partnership working and facilitate the pooling of resources that is desperately needed.
Transport issues have dissuaded young people from continuing in education and learning, in part because of a lack of knowledge of and clarity in available services, and in particular because of a lack of collaboration between strategic transport authorities and educational institutions. The legislative framework will begin the process of dealing with several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, particularly those relating to post-16 education.
I should emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, statutory school transport is not the only source of assistance for young people with travel costs. Local authorities have the power, although not a duty, to establish concessionary fare schemes. Some 40 per cent. of shire counties, for example, run such a scheme. A few schemes are countywide, and some offer fare reductions during the morning peak. Strategic authorities have therefore introduced a number of discretionary schemes that go beyond their statutory duties. They recognise that a significant part of developing and achieving an integrated approach to transport in local communities is dealing with travel to and from learning institutions.
Local transport plans, which we introduced as part of the Transport Act 2000, set out the general strategies for tackling local transport issues. School travel is meant to be an integral part of those plans, as is tackling the issue of children's safety during journeys to and from school. The plans are also meant to include targets for a modal shift away from the use of cars for school journeys, and the monitoring of progress. Authorities are also asked to establish how they will work with individual schools to develop comprehensive school travel plans.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is providing funds for implementing the local transport plans. In 2000, the local transport capital expenditure settlement provided an £8.4 billion package for implementing those plans over the next five years. That is a further example of investing significant
130WH
resources and developing a clear strategy. However, tangible benefits for communities up and down the country will take some time to feed through.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said that there is no time to waste, and that one child injured is too many. We agree, but it takes time for a new, cohesive framework and significant new investment to come together and make a real difference on the ground. As I always say to Liberal Democrats, there is such a thing as the concept of finite resources.
We are looking at a variety of ways to encourage sustainable travel from home to school and to reduce congestion. For example, the DTLR recently met major bus operators to discuss scope for greater standardisation in concessionary fare arrangements. Our concern is that such arrangements are patchy and differ greatly in different parts of the country. We want young people throughout the country to have universal access to arrangements that are similar to each other. At the conclusion of that meeting, the feeling was expressed that there is scope for standardisation. We need to focus on getting right the strategic responsibilities of local organisations.
The key to solving many of the problems that the hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned during his valid contribution to the debate is ensuring that we adopt a cross-Government approach. Departments with responsibility for transport, education, health or other public services—indeed, any Department that is responsible for creating a more cohesive community—need to contribute to creating both a legislative and a non-legislative framework, ensuring the best use of the significant additional money that the Government have put into transport, particularly transport to and from educational institutions. We recognise that there is a lot to do. We cannot claim, by any means, that we have cracked the problem, but we believe that we are heading in the right direction—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up. I thank the Minister for his reply and express the hope that his voice will recover. We move to the last of today's Westminster Hall debates.

Rent Restructuring
1.30 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a debate that will highlight a range of concerns on the Government's rent restructuring policy, which was the subject of a recent statement. It is a fantastically complex area, and the moves arise from broad decisions announced last December.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers for having taken the time to listen to concerns expressed to them by tenants and by Members of Parliament. Significant concessions and alterations to the original proposals have been made, which I welcome. Last summer, I invited the noble Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, to visit my constituency. Not only did he visit a flagship housing development in Fulham of which we are especially proud locally, but he spent two hours meeting local registered social landlord officers and tenant representatives to hear their concerns about the Government's proposals. There remain, however, major concerns. My objective today is to highlight those and to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether she can offer us any comfort on them.
The proposals, inevitably, have proven especially controversial in high-value areas among the few tenants who have found out about the potential impact on their rents. Although the proposals are broadly sensible as they affect the majority of tenants across the country, there are particular problems in areas of high capital values. I do not accept the premise that the notional value of a property should be a major determinant in the calculation of the overall rent of that accommodation.
Inevitably, the proposals affect families living in areas such as my constituency, where property prices are exceptionally high. Although that aspect of the formula affects tenants scattered across the country, those in London, particularly inner London, will be most adversely hit. The decision that capital values should be the second major criterion in calculating tenants' rents raises this question: why should a postal worker living in a three-bedroomed flat on the 14th floor of a tower block in Fulham pay £25 or £35 a week more for his accommodation than his counterpart postal worker living in a similar property in Newcastle? Why should a nurse living in designated key worker housing in a new development in Hammersmith pay significantly more than another NHS worker living in similar accommodation in Hastings?
During the past decade, my borough has acquired a record second to none among London councils in developing new affordable housing. In practice, the proposals bring into question how affordable that accommodation will be for future generations and especially for the key public workers who are so vital in any well-balanced and cohesive local community. Council rents in London have risen higher during the past decade than those in any other region. The practical effect of the proposals will be that many London tenants will face rent rises well above inflation rates every year for the next decade.
There are particular concerns about the rents that could be charged to housing association tenants. Housing associations are to be allowed to increase their
132WH
rents to the new target level as soon as they re-let existing properties. This means that tenants living in self-contained two-bedroomed accommodation in a converted house in Fulham, where, as I have remarked, property prices are exceptionally high, will pay vastly different rents for identical flats located in the same house. I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister, where is the cohesion and fairness?
Indeed, if some of the more avaricious registered social landlords pursue such a policy, and it appears that some plan to do so, it will clearly be inconsistent with lettings for new developments where the grant assumption set by the Department will be based on a phased movement to the new formula rents for existing tenants. The inevitable consequence will be that applicants, especially poorer applicants, will be deterred from accepting housing association property. My local authority, in common with most others across London, has a strict one-offer policy on permanent accommodation. That will place some tenants at risk of being found to be intentionally homeless if they decline an offer of a property because of the new target rents being set rather than the existing rent regime applying, which is what I advocate.
The Government's introduction of the council tax benefit restriction scheme in April 1998—I recognise that this is not a policy for which my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible—is a nasty and regressive measure which saves the Treasury a miserly sum. As a consequence, poor tenants are penalised in my constituency if they are entitled to receive council tax benefit, as the level of benefit available to them is capped at band E. Some tenants are forced to pay up to £14 a week, or £700 a year, extra out of their already meagre benefit allowances. A further measure artificially to hike poor tenants' rents will again penalise poor tenants for living in high capital value areas, and it cannot be justified.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine this problem to see whether the Government can come up with a solution for a situation whereby housing associations, whose average rent is due to rise under rent restructuring, in practice increase rents for re-lets faster than rents for existing tenants?
Next year in Hammersmith and Fulham, the local authority will be required to set the rent for each home. The weekly rent charged must not exceed £85 for one-bedroomed accommodation, £90 for twobedroomed accommodation, £95 for three-bedroomed accommodation or £100 for four-bedroomed accommodation. Those caps will rise annually by the rate of inflation plus 1 per cent.
Although I have said that the caps are welcome, I fail to understand the justification for increasing the cap by the extra I per cent. Why must rates always rise above inflation? Will the Department undertake to review the margin above inflation of the cap, if it can be demonstrated that the waged income increase for council and housing association tenants has increased by less than the average rate of increase in earnings? In recent years, the lowest paid workers' wages have not kept pace with average earnings.
Ms Karen Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that in several London

133WH
authorities, including his and mine, the take-up of the working families tax credit is among the lowest in the country? Does he agree that part of the reason is that people entering the workplace find the added incentive insufficient to cover their housing bills? Does he agree that this policy may exacerbate that tendency?
Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I share her concerns.
A recent study showed that the increase in lower quartile incomes was only half the increase in median incomes. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that the poorest members of society who are working should not have to spend an ever-increasing proportion of their already moderate incomes on accommodation when those of us who are earning far more do not. It has been calculated that, by the end of the 10-year phase-in period of the Government's proposals, council rents will have risen by approximately one sixth. That amounts to £1.2 billion a year before taking inflation into account. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that figure or, if she disagrees with it, advise me of her Department's estimate of the extra rent that council tenants will be paying at the end of the 10-year period?
Concern has been expressed about the value for money that the rent restructuring proposals represent for tenants who are affected by them. In Hammersmith and Fulham next year, some rents will rise by as much as £4.09, or 4.31 per cent., a week. I am advised by my director of housing that only 101 dwellings, representing less than 1 per cent. of the council's housing stock, will have a weekly rent reduction.
One of the claims that the Government have made in favour of the proposals is that the new structure of rents will allow tenants to choose whether to pay more for a better property or to save money by choosing a less popular property. That element of choice will, of course, be welcome when and where it applies. However, in reality it will not apply in inner London, where the demand for social housing is so great that it massively outstrips supply. Unless there are exceptional changes in their circumstances, tenants in inner London will find that their ability to choose where they live and how much they pay for a different quality of accommodation is virtually zero.
In my experience, most tenants would be prepared to consider paying higher rent if there were a commensurate increase in the level of service that they received. More caretakers, more security, better planned maintenance and more generous decoration allowances—those are the sorts of enhancements to services that tenants will want and expect if they are expected to pay more rent. An extremely complex formula in the Government's summer consultation paper shows that nationally tenants next year will get only £1 in every £2 of the increased rent in extra or improved services. Will the Minister comment on the accuracy of that calculation? Can she offer tenants any comfort by assuring them that they will receive genuine enhancements to services if their rents are increased?
In my borough, the Government proposals will lead to higher rent increases in the next 10 years than in the past decade—I remind my hon. Friend that the majority of that was spent under a Conservative
134WH
Administration—despite the fact that we have proved that London rent increases have been well above average during that time. The average rent increase in Hammersmith and Fulham over the past 10 years was 23.2 per cent., compared with the projection based on the current proposals of 29.5 per cent. over the next decade. That will apply particularly to one and twobedroomed properties, which represent 73 per cent. of my local authority's housing stock. If we can demonstrate that the increase will lead to improved services, I believe that tenants will accept it. If not, they will not understand why they are asked to pay significantly more for no obvious gain.
I recognise that the Government have made strenuous efforts to respond sympathetically to the representations made to them by elected representatives and those landlords who have expressed concern about the proposals' practical implications. However, some of my hon. Friends and I would have preferred the Government to agree to defer the implementation of these policy changes for a further 12 months to allow for much wider consultation with tenants.
The overwhelming majority of tenants remain blissfully ignorant of the proposals. However, in the past few weeks increasing numbers have become aware, some have written to me expressing their surprise and anger about the lack of consultation and asking where the mandate for the implementation of the policy comes from. Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine ways of further ameliorating the effect on tenants who live in high capital value areas?
I am, however, pleased that the Government have agreed to a simplified commencement of implementation as from April 2002. I am also pleased that, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), my hon. Friend the Minister gave a commitment to have further consultations with local authorities and tenants' groups. What will those consultations mean in practice, and how will they be carried out, especially with tenants groups?
I am pleased that in the same answer my hon. Friend gave a commitment to review the policy constantly and to annual monitoring and fuller research of the policy in practical and operational terms. What will the three-year review that she recently announced cover? Will any issues be excluded from the review; if so, what will they be? How will the potential poverty trap implications be monitored in practice? How will local authorities, the National Housing Federation, tenants' representatives and Members of Parliament be involved in specifying the nature of the issues to be monitored and researched?
The Government's restated commitment to the future of public housing is very welcome. I recognise that Ministers have tried to assist those of us with serious worries about the impact of the proposals on some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies whom we are bound to represent.
The Chartered Institute of Housing has responded in the past few days to the Government's proposals by emphasising that basing rents too much on house prices will inevitably create rent differentials throughout the country. It pointed out that if rents in some areas are too high, they will have an adverse effect on work incentives, trapping tenants in unemployment and adding to social

135WH
exclusion. I agree with the institute and hope that the Government will continue to work with tenants, landlords and Members of Parliament to ensure that the policy does not, in practice, penalise the very people it was designed to assist.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on his success in the ballot and on raising this important topic. Before responding to the details of what my hon. Friend said is a complex policy on rent restructuring, I want to make two commitments absolutely clear. First, the Government are committed to ensuring that social housing remains affordable for people on low incomes. Secondly, we are committed to ensuring that low-income people and communities can continue to live in areas of high value, such as those in inner London. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about rents in areas of high value, and the Government have taken steps to deal with that. I shall come back to that later.
Our policy on rent restructuring is part of the Government's wider housing agenda. The aim is to close the gap between rents in different sorts of social housing and, as my hon. Friend said, to pave the way for greater choice for social housing tenants. That applies not only to different council properties in the same area but to different sorts of social housing tenure, because at present the perception that housing association rents are high can be a bar to people who might consider applying for that sort of housing. We want a sensible structure of rents so that tenants can choose whether to pay more for a better property or to save money by choosing a less popular property. To achieve that, we are establishing a common basis for social rents throughout England by linking rents to both the value and size of the property and to manual earnings in the area. The new rents must be affordable and we are linking them to local earnings to ensure that. They will not be market rents. Rents in the social sector throughout most of the country will generally remain well below what a tenant would pay for the property from a private landlord. I said that that will apply throughout most of the country, because some areas have very low demand and different trends in property prices.
To put the matter in perspective, average manual earnings in London are around £19,000 a year, or £370 a week. Average local authority rents in London are around £60 a week. Someone on average manual earnings spends around 16 per cent. of his or her income on housing. We have not used average earnings because that would distort the position, particularly in London. The calculation takes no account of contributions from anyone else in the house who is also earning. That can be contrasted with someone renting in the private sector—I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the figures better than I do—in which average London rents are usually more than double those in the social sector for less space. It has not been possible to track trends over time, but I would be interested in doing that. I am confident that the ratios are good and ensure that rents are affordable.
136WH
We recognise that any increase is a financial pressure, especially for those on low incomes, and the need to protect tenants from large or sudden rent increases. We acknowledge the need for a smooth and gradual progress from existing rents to the new system. We must protect tenants, local authorities and housing associations during that period by ensuring that sensible and predictable changes in rents take place each year. We have therefore built in four safeguards. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues, for lobbying for them.
The first protection that we have built into the system is that the move to new rents will take at least 10 years for most properties, and longer for others. For local authorities and registered social landlords, 10 years is a reasonable period during which to come to terms with changes to the financial structure.
Secondly, we want rent increases limited to the retail prices index plus 0.5 per cent. and £2 a week in any one year. That will help keep rents affordable and will mean that, if local authorities apply the formula, rent increases will be less during the coming decade than in the past 10 years.
Thirdly, we have capped the upper limits on rents. That will be £100 a week for a four-bedroomed property, and less for smaller dwellings. Where rent is already above the upper limit, it will be frozen or reduced. Each year, the limit of the cap will be increased by RPI plus 1 per cent.
Fourthly, local authorities can apply aggregate increases for the first year. That will particularly benefit those areas where there is wide divergence between property values—the peaks and troughs that affect my hon. Friend's constituency.
Those safeguards mean that there will be only a gradual change in rents for tenants. We have done some sums; it is likely that changes in rents nationally, as a result of rent restructuring, will be only half the increase of the past decade. Average rents in London are likely to move broadly in line with the national average. However, I will be careful when talking about rents for the next few years because housing associations and local authorities will remain responsible for setting rents. We should like local authorities to follow our policy, and we will influence their approach through the housing subsidy system, but we cannot take decisions for them. However, were Hammersmith and Fulham to decide to follow our policy on rents for next year, its average rent would go up by between £2.70 and £3 a week.
My hon. Friend asked what tenants will get out of rent restructuring. It is not the case that all council tenants will face a rent increase. The rents of about one in five council tenants will fall in real terms, which is a direct and positive outcome for them. More than 60 per cent. of social tenants receive housing benefit and will continue to receive that protection after the impact of rent restructuring.
My hon. Friend asked about the improvements that council tenants will see in their housing. I point to the Government commitment to make all social housing decent by 2010; that will include tackling the £19 billion backlog in council house investment, which we inherited. We have already made a start and the amount that we have allocated for housing investment is already

137WH
twice that which the last Conservative Government planned for 1997–98. We plan further rises in investment. It is also right that tenants should make a greater contribution to the cost of the upkeep of their property as quality improves.
My hon. Friend asked about consultation. Considering the quantity of information available on the proposals, substantial opportunity has been provided for comment and discussion. The information that has been circulated through local media means that many people will be aware of what is happening. We consulted widely on the rent restructuring proposals last year, before announcing our decision in December 2000 in the housing White Paper. We consulted again this summer about the changes that need to be made to local authority housing subsidy so that it does not hinder progress towards the new rents.
Mr. Coleman: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I recognise that the landlords were consulted widely before last December. Will she tell me or give me some practical examples showing exactly how housing association tenants were consulted? In my constituency, and I suspect in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, the vast majority of tenants were never consulted, know nothing about it and remain in blissful ignorance to this day.
Ms Keeble: It is hard to give examples that would cover the whole country, but I have seen reports based on housing authorities consulting their tenants at the time of the consultation on our proposals, which we carried out this autumn. It is clear from local newspapers that a number of local authorities did that. I find it hard to believe that all people are in blissful ignorance.
This issue has come up in meetings that my Government colleagues and I have attended, and there have been clear discussions among some tenants or tenant organisations about the proposals and the possible implications. I accept that it is impossible to say that every tenant knows what has happened, but there has certainly been more discussion and consultation than the Government are often given credit for.
Ms Buck: I certainly would not expect my hon. Friend to be able to answer a question of such specificity during this debate. However, I am afraid that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham
138WH
(Mr. Coleman) the confident view that most individuals had no idea about the implications of restructuring until, at the most, two or three weeks ago.
I wonder whether the Minister could write to me and my hon. Friends giving examples of letters or news reports where actual representations were made to tenants before, say, the beginning of November on the implications of rent restructuring.
Ms Keeble: I will certainly do that. I can think of local newspaper articles that I have seen, and I will arrange for us to track back and find out what happened. Clearly, local authorities will be consulting from here on in, as they take decisions about what to do about their rents for next year. We have clearly said that they have discretion in a number of areas.
I would like to deal with a few particular points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham made. Housing associations are free to decide how quickly they move their rents to the levels required by rent restructuring, although they should aim to complete the process as far as possible in the next 10 years. We have advised the chair of the Housing Corporation that where housing associations do not need to put their rents up to remain financially sound, they should not be pressed to do so. I shall undertake to raise my hon. Friend's concerns with the chair of the Housing Corporation because it is in the interests of the council housing sector and housing associations to ensure that some equity is achieved.
My hon. Friend has also raised issues about different constituencies and the impact in different parts of the country. It remains a responsibility of local authorities and registered social landlords to decide rent levels and patterns. Local authorities will set rents for 2002–03 in January or February next year. A number of issues will not be resolved until then.
I want to leave one last thought with colleagues. Great attention has been devoted to the detail of the implementation of this policy. I would place it fair and square against the backdrop of housing policy as a whole. In government, we have to take a view across—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I regret to tell the Minister that, although we thank her for her reply, the time is up.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which recommendations of the tobacco taskforce have been implemented to date; and which are planned to be implemented in the future. [20156]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The tobacco taskforce was established in 1998 to provide practical assistance to the sports affected by the Government's decision to ban tobacco sponsorship of sport. The taskforce's role is mainly advisory: to assist sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to find replacement sponsors by assessing the needs of each sport offering advice on best practice in establishing commercial relationships with sponsors; and assisting the sports in making links with potential new sponsors. In all, seven sports have sought assistance to make the transition from tobacco sponsorship—rugby league, clay pigeon shooting, billiards and snooker, pool, darts, ice-hockey and angling.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value of tobacco sponsorship for each sport sponsored in the UK, was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [20167]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Records are not kept of the amount of tobacco sponsorship received by each sport. As part of the 1995 voluntary agreement on sponsorship of sport, the Tobacco Manufacturers Association is required to make a return detailing the expenditure incurred in that year by tobacco sponsorship in the United Kingdom. The total value of tobacco sponsorship of sport in the United Kingdom for 1999–2000 was £8,815,000.

  Sports (North-East)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has further to develop grassroots sports in the north-east. [20358]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to the development of sport and increasing opportunities for participation throughout the country. The strategy for sport—A Sporting Future for All—and the Government's plan for sport set out an action plan on how we intend to achieve those objectives. Responsibility for developing grassroots sport at the regional level rests with a number of organisations including Sport England, local authorities, local education authorities, schools, sports governing bodies, sports clubs, volunteers, and in order to ensure the best use of resources it is essential that all these interests work in partnership.
  298W
  In the north-east region all of the programmes for providing better sports facilities and improving sports provision are being implemented. These include lottery funding, where almost £80 million has been committed to the region, the school sport co-ordinators programme and specialist sports colleges, while £20.6 million under the spaces for sport and arts, £37.9 million under NOF Round three and £2.8 million under the NOF Green Spaces programmes will be invested into facilities which will be available to schools and the wider community.

  The North East Sports Board has also published its Sports Strategy—2001–2006 as a result of which eight action plan implementation groups have been set up to take forward a range of issues including investment in sport, health, education, social inclusion and links to economic and cultural strategies.

  For the future I have made it clear that I want to see a strengthened regional structure for the delivery of sport in the regions which involves local decision making and strong partnerships with all the key local interests. I will be discussing these issues with the Sport England Council and its new chief executive when he is in post.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is her policy to reduce grants to English Heritage proportionately to reductions on VAT liabilities following the Finance Act 2001. [20180]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]In the last Budget the Chancellor announced a new grant scheme to assist repairs and maintenance to listed places of worship. Initial estimates are that the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme could be worth up to £30 million per year. There is no cap on the scheme; all listed places of worship that meet the criteria will receive a grant. This Department has been asked to make a small contribution to its administration costs. We have asked English Heritage to meet this commitment, which they have chosen to do through the redirection of £2 million in grant-in-aid from the Joint Places of Worship (JPOW) Scheme.

  Competitive Bidding
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the schemes administered by(a) her Department and (b) its agencies where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process; and what was the amount of money allocated to each scheme. [19789]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]My Department administers two schemes through Re:source, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, where awards are allocated on a competitive bidding process. These are the DCMS/Wolfson challenge fund for public library projects to which we allocate £2 million a year; and the designated museums challenge fund for which £15 million was allocated for the three year period from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 to support projects to improve presentation at museums with designated collections.

  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made
  299W
  of the effectiveness of the National Foundation for Youth Music in providing more opportunity for young people to participate in musical activity; and if she will make a statement. [19613]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]The National Foundation for Youth Music operates independently of Government. It has made over 500 awards nationally totalling nearly £16.5 million, and reaching over 150,000 participants. 84 per cent. of these are enjoying their first musical experience.

  Broadband Broadcasting
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to ensure that all areas of the UK proceed at the same rate with the shift from analogue to broadband broadcasting. [19976]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who currently receives free-to-air broadcast channels on analogue will continue to do so digitally after the switchover to digital television, whether by terrestrial, cable or satellite means. We recognise that there are some synergies between the ranges of services which digital television and broadband access can deliver and we aim to ensure that these synergies are developed. But it is for the competitive market to determine which services are valued by consumers and which technology is best able to deliver them.

  Silverstone
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she, has made of(a) the future of and (b) the costs of improved access to the Grand Prix circuit at Silverstone. [17327]

  Mr. Caborn
  Silverstone is one of the most popular Grand Prix circuits in the world. The Government are in discussion with the owners and operators of Silverstone about its future and their proposals for its redevelopment.

  The operator of Silverstone is concerned that the problems encountered by spectators arriving at recent British Grand Prix threaten the retention of the event. The operator has been consulting with the Highways Agency and the local authorities about an improved access from the A43 trunk road. Planning applications have recently been submitted to the planning authorities. I have made no estimate of the costs of these proposals.

  International Sporting Events
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to submit bids for future major international sporting events; and if she will make a statement. [18166]

  Mr. Caborn
  Responsibility for submitting bids for major sports events lies with the relevant governing body. The Government encourage all sports to work closely with the UK sports major event's steering group in the preparation of bids for major events to ensure that bids are properly co-ordinated. Where a bid cannot proceed without significant public funding, the Government will need to review all aspects of a bid thoroughly before giving any support. The Government have asked the 300W
  performance and innovation unit (PIU) to consider the structure of support for major international sporting events.

  2005 World Championships
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work her Department is undertaking to ensure that Sheffield is a viable alternative to London as a bidder for the 2005 World Championships; and if she will make a statement. [17944]

  Mr. Caborn
  The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) decided at its council meeting on 26 November to reject the offer of Sheffield's Don Valley Stadium as an alternative to Picketts Lock and to reopen the bidding for the 2005 World Athletics Championships. The IAAF' s decision is disappointing; Sheffield would have provided an outstanding venue for the 2005 World Championships.

  At a meeting between UK Athletics, Sheffield city council, the Government, UK Sport, Sport England and the British Olympic Association on 27 November, it was agreed unanimously that UK Athletics should not enter a Sheffield bid.

  Sports Fields
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of publicly owned school sports fields have been sold(a) since 1997 and (b) in 2001–02. [17176]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  In October 1998, this Government introduced new legislation to protect school playing fields from unjustified disposal. Precise information on the number of sales that have taken place since that time was included in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for School Standards on 18 October 2001, Official Report, column 1292W.

  Before October 1998, local authorities were able to sell school playing fields without the permission of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and information on the individual sales that took place was not collected centrally. Information on the total number of school sports fields was also not available centrally.

  We are currently validating the Asset Management Plan information we have received from authorities, including that relating to school sports fields, and hope to be in a position to publish further analysis in the spring.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Users' National Council
  Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will provide the combined total expenditure of the Post Office Users' National Council in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for the financial years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; what this year's budget will be for postwatch and projections for the next three years; and if she will list the elements of unplanned outturn in (a), (b) and (c). [16280]
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]Historical information in respect of the financial years 1997–98; 1998–99 and 1999–2000 for the Post Office Users' Councils in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be found in the annual reports for those years in question. The annual reports were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Information in respect of the Post Office Users' National Council was contained in the answer on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 149W.

  The Consumer Council for Postal Services (known as Postwatch) was established to fulfil an important role in the new postal regulatory framework. It has wider statutory obligations and powers than POUNC and a more extensive regional structure. When considering Postwatch's budget we wish to ensure that Postwatch has sufficient funds to fulfil its role effectively.

  We have agreed a total budget of £7.8 million for Postwatch for the financial year 2001–02. The sum initially agreed for Postwatch for this financial year (£6.9 million) has recently been increased by £0.9 million in light of special circumstances associated with establishing a new organisation within a new regulatory framework.

  The figures on planned expenditure on Postwatch for the two financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 are provisional and may be subject to adjustment with ministerial approval. This Department has not yet received from Postwatch a detailed bid for the financial year 2002–03 but we will consider the bid on its merits.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 163W, on BNFL, whether the purchase prices paid by BNFL to acquire companies in the US include payments to settle outstanding claims against each company and the acquisition of other financial liabilities. [19330]

  Area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  United Kingdom

  168,200

  182,570

  186,250

  178,460

  183,325

  Middlesbrough

  195

  205

  190

  200

  220

  Redcar and Cleveland

  170

  155

  150

  175

  150

  Former county of Cleveland

  755

  745

  805

  760

  820

  Investment, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to secure investment in Lancashire in(a) manufacturing and (b) service sector jobs. [19921]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government office for the north-west, the North West Development Agency and Small Business Service work in partnership with other agencies, business and local authorities to provide support and advice to investors in these two sectors, and to ensure that an attractive range of skills is available. A number of schemes, including Regional Selective Assistance, the Enterprise Grant Scheme, SMART awards and Regional.
  302W
  Mr. Wilson
  The purchase prices BNFL paid in these acquisitions took account of the assets and liabilities associated with the individual business acquired.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what savings have been made in Magnox-related liability estimates since the Government transferred its shareholding in Magnox Electric to BNFL. [19253]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL's liabilities, including those of Magnox Electric, are stated in its annual report and accounts. BNFL's liabilities have shown a net increase in the period since the acquisition of Magnox Electric. Magnox liabilities account for over 85 per cent. of the BNFL group liabilities.

  Manufacturing (Teesside)
  Dr. Kumar
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many local firms are involved in the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the Teesside area. [19977]

  Alan Johnson
  The Manufacturing Advisory Service is in the process of being established. No firms have been assisted as the regional centres of delivery have not been announced. Therefore, it will take some time to assess the level of assistance given. However, it is expected that the north-east centre will be aiming to assist approximately 500 companies per year

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many SMEs have been launched in each year since 1996(a) nationally, (b) within Teesside and (c) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [19979]

  Alan Johnson
  The information held relates to businesses that have registered for VAT. The table shows how many businesses registered, year on year, since 1996 throughout the United Kingdom. We are unable to provide figures for Teesside or the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency, but can provide those for the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough; Redcar and Cleveland and the former county of Cleveland.

  Innovation Fund, exist to provide direct financial assistance to support new investment. Work on cluster developments, reclamation and re-use of land and on promoting the leisure and tourist industries is also intended to attract investment to Lancashire.

  Farmers, Kent
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress of the agreement between suppliers and supermarkets as it affects farmers in Kent. [16835]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 263W.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what her estimate is of the number of jobs lost in small businesses as a result of foot and mouth disease; [17677]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the number of businesses that will be lost in the next 12 months as a result of foot and mouth disease. [17679]

  (3) how many small businesses have had to cease trading because of the effects of foot and mouth disease. [17678]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI, Small Business Service and DEFRA have not made estimates of the numbers of jobs lost; the number of businesses that will be lost in the next 12 months; or the numbers of businesses that have ceased trading in the small business sector as a result of foot and mouth disease. It would be difficult to arrive at such figures, given that in many cases there will be a number of factors influencing a decision to reduce the size of a business or to cease trading, for example prospects for an individual business prior to the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Ofgem
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will issue the statutory social and environmental guidelines to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority; and if she will make a statement. [18391]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department undertook a public consultation on a draft of the social and environmental guidance over the summer, and we are currently considering the responses. We plan to issue the guidance as soon as possible once that process has been completed.

  Online Trading
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's targets are for the number of businesses trading online. [17284]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department wants to ensure that the performance of UK small and micro businesses is up with the best in the world.

  The Department's target for the number of businesses trading online is to ensure that one million micro, small and medium sized businesses are trading online by 2002.

  The Department has already exceeded its target to connect 1.5 million SME's by 2002, reaching 1.9 million last year.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UK companies have approached her Department for advice on investing in Sudan in 2001. [17903]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We estimate that 30 inquiries relating to Sudan were received from 1 January to 30 September. We have no detailed breakdown of these inquiries between trade and investment.
  304W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the UN initiative, UN Global Compact, and its implications for companies operating in Sudan. [17917]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Global Compact is the UN Secretary General's initiative on global corporate social responsibility involving a number of leading international companies and NGOs. It encourages companies to take nine core human rights, labour and environment principles into consideration in their business in the developing world. We fully support the UN Global Compact and were one of the first Governments to do so. The Global Compact is a voluntary instrument aimed at developing best practice that goes beyond compliance frameworks and encourages creative responsibility on the part of companies. We encourage firms operating in developing countries like Sudan to consider how they can best implement the principles behind the compact. The compact offers the potential to make a tangible improvement to the quality of life of people affected by UK company operations around the globe, but particularly in the developing world.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of bilateral trade is with(a) Yemen, (b) Oman, (c) India and (d) Pakistan. [20251]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information is as follows:

  (a) British exports of goods to Yemen from January to September 2001 amounted to £56.7 million, an increase of 39 per cent. on the same period last year. Imports from Yemen for the same period were £4.1 million, a decrease of 28 per cent. The last full year figures for 2000: British exports were £52.5 million. British imports were £6.2 million.

  (b) British exports of goods to Oman from January to September 2001 amounted to £219.8 million, an increase of 38 per cent. on the same period last year. Imports from Oman for the same period were £51.1 million, a decrease of 12 per cent. The last full year figures for 2000: British exports were £278.3 million, and British imports were £97.4 million.

  (c) British exports of goods to India from January to September 2001 amounted to £1,404.8 million, a decrease of 14.3 per cent. on the same period last year. Imports from India for the same period were £1,394.7 million, an increase of 10 per cent. The last full year figures for 2000: British Exports were £2,055.8 million. British Imports were £1,712.1 million.

  (d) British exports of goods to Pakistan from January to September 2001 amounted to £178.4 million, an increase of 20.1 per cent. on the same period last year. Imports from Pakistan for the same period were £317.3 million, an increase of 16.9 per cent. The last full year figures for 2000: British exports were £205.9 million. British imports were £378.1 million.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the staffing levels of the Insolvency Service. [20249]
  305W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As at 1 November 2001 the number of staff in post in the Insolvency Service was 1,359 (full-time equivalent).

  Women's Employment and Pay
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the report by the Deputy Competition Commissioner into women's employment and pay. [21321]

  Ms Hewitt
  I welcome this report, which examines non-legislative and cost effective measures to improve women's employment prospects and participation in the labour market and to achieve greater equality of pay.

  I welcome too the Government-sponsored research report, "The Gender Pay Gap", which analyses the causes of the pay gap. Both of these reports are being published today.

  A number of Government initiatives are already under way to tackle this important issue, including key elements of the Employment Bill and the work of the fair pay champions in supporting equal pay initiatives in their sectors. We welcome the contribution both these reports make to understanding and to reducing the gender pay gap.

  We will also be publishing the Government's full response to the 14 recommendations made in the Deputy Competition Commissioner's report today.

  I am placing copies of both reports and the Government's response in the Libraries of the House.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 785W, on motor vehicles, what radical pro-consumer change she is advocating to the block exemption for motor vehicles; and what consultation she has had with the retail motor industry and motor manufacturers on this. [20374]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The current block exemption is not working satisfactorily. If consumers are to obtain value for money, then change is needed to secure an effective single European market in new cars and to provide more competition in the retailing of new cars and in their servicing and repair. My officials have had a series of discussions with motor industry trade associations and individual manufacturers and retailers, as well as with the Consumers Association.

  Fireworks
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what measures she has taken to ensure that fireworks are sold only close to specific dates such as 5 November and 31 December; [21062]

  (2)what recent guidelines she has provided retailers selling fireworks; [21061]

  (3)how many (a) children and (b) adults were injured by fireworks in (i) 1995 and (ii) 2001 to date; [21303]
  306W
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were injured by fireworks in(a) the UK, (b) the north-east and (c) south Tyneside in each year since 1997. [20975]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The powers available under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 allow for regulations to be made that address the intrinsic safety of goods but do not allow for the periods of sale to be regulated. We have, therefore, entered into a voluntary agreement with the industry that fireworks should only be made available for general retail sale for a period of three weeks around the 5 November and for a similar period around new year.

  Our fireworks Safety Toolkit includes advice to retailers as to their responsibilities under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, the voluntary agreement on the period of sale and best safety practice.

  Data on firework injuries for this year (2001) are still being collated, therefore the latest data available are for 2000. Firework injuries in 1995 and 2000 are as follows:

  In 1995: Children (under 18 years) 929, adults 556, not specified 45;

  In 2000: Children (under 18 years) 557, adults 415.

  We collect data from accident and emergency departments across Great Britain of accidents involving fireworks over a four week period around 5 November. We do not have separate data for the north-east or south Tyneside. The nearest we can provide is as follows:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Great Britain

  908

  831

  1,056

  972

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  143

  144

  167

  142

  South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  3

  5

  2

  3

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken in response to the recommendation in the Better Regulation Task Force annual report 2000–01 that her Department should become an effective champion for small retailers. [20677]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The Government Response to the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) report gave me this role, which I have for all small firms. We are now considering how this can best be done.

  We will certainly engage with key stakeholders in seeking to improve the competitiveness and productivity of the small retail sector, as well as to encourage small retailers to take advantage of the full range of support schemes appropriate to them.

  Employment Tribunals
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in employment tribunal cases where parties were required to pay a deposit, what the mean average deposit was at a preliminary hearing as a condition of continuing to proceed with the case in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [20660]
  307W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The mean average deposit required at a pre-hearing review as a condition of continuing to proceed with the case was:

  Year

  £

  1998

  89.51

  1999

  83.31

  2000

  95.82

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal claims, where a deposit at a preliminary hearing was required as a condition of proceeding, were proceeded to a full hearing in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000, broken down by deposits required from applicants and respondents; and in how many such cases (i) the claimant won and (ii) the case was withdrawn and (iii) the case was settled before a full hearing. [20661]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]Most of the information requested is displayed in the table.

  1998

  >1999

  2000

  Number of cases which withdrew after a PHR deposit order

  6

  1

  1

  Number of cases which settled after a PHR deposit order

  11

  1

  7

  Number of cases which proceeded to a full hearing after a PHR deposit order

  30

  9

  7

  Of which, successful at full hearing

  8

  1

  1

  The ETS database cannot provide information according to whether the deposit was required by an applicant or respondent.

  A claim may be brought under more than one jurisdiction or subsequently amended/clarified in the course of proceedings, but will only be counted once in the table (against the main jurisdiction).

  Source:

  employment Tribunals Service

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for each(a) area based and (b) other regeneration-related initiative for which her department is responsible (i) the amount budgeted and (ii) the total expenditure in each financial year for the planned lifetime of each initiative (A) nationally and (B) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [16450]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]No specific area based initiatives are currently listed by the Cabinet Office Regional Co-ordination Unit as being the lead responsibility of my Department.

  As part of its promotion of enterprise the Department of Trade and Industry has a number of programmes which can contribute to the regeneration of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, notably the £100 million Phoenix fund.
  308W

  Gambling
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made on the impact of enacting the recommendations in the Budd report on gambling in respect to amusement machines in seaside arcades on(a) employment and (b) exports; and what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. [17366]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have made no such assessments. I have had no such discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list those public bodies to which her Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17606]

  (2) if she will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17607]

  Ms Hewitt
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about taskforces, reviews and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website (http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/ caboff/pb00/pb00.htm). Copies of the annual report on taskforces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

  The following executive NDPBs have been established since the publication of Public Bodies 2000:

  The Consumer Council for Postal Services

  The Gas and Electricity Consumer Council.

  The following advisory NDPBs have been established since the publication of Public Bodies 2000:

  Advisory Committee on Cleaner Coal Technology

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission

  Ethnic Minority Business Advisory Forum

  Import Parity Price Panel

  Partnership Fund Assessment Panel

  Small Business Council

  Small Business Investment Taskforce.

  The following executive NDPBs have transferred to the Department since the publication of Public Bodies 2000 as part of machinery of government changes:

  Advantage West Midlands

  East Midlands Development Agency

  East of England Development Agency

  North West Regional Development Agency

  One North East

  South East England Development Agency

  South West England Development Agency

  Yorkshire Forward.

  309W
  The following advisory NDPB has transferred to the Department since the publication of Public Bodies 2000 as part of machinery of government changes:
  Advisory Committee on Work-Life Balance

  Yemen
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Ministers in her Department have visited Yemen since 1 May 1997 and on what dates; what visits are planned by her Department's Ministers to Yemen; and what dates have been arranged for future visits. [19126]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. No visits are planned.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the total unallocated funds within her departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against her departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19443]

  Ms Hewitt
  The departmental unallocated provision (DUP) for the present financial year is contained in "Trade and Industry—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04" (Cm 5112 at Annex B Tables B6 and B7). Draw-down of the DUP has been reported to Parliament in the Winter Supplementary Estimate. Outturn against six-month forecast for each request for resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  Regulations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations affecting business have been introduced since 1997. [20096]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has been responsible for the introduction of 533 statutory instruments since May 1997. Of these 533 regulations, we estimate that 9 per cent. reduced costs borne by businesses, charities and voluntary bodies, while over 75 per cent. had no or a negligible effect on costs for businesses, voluntary bodies, and charities. Over 30 per cent. of all the regulations introduced by DTI since May 1997 have been orders licensing firms to provide public telecommunications services, increasing consumer choice and competition in this sector.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Cuba
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing to Cuba in response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Michelle; and if she will make a statement. [19999]

  Clare Short
  We have provided immediate funding of £250,000 for the populations worst affected by the flooding in Cuba which followed Hurricane Michelle. Funding has been allocated through the International 310W
  Federation of the Red Cross (to deliver shelter materials and medicines) and the United Nations Development Programme (for their work on immediate needs for food production and food security, health and social infrastructure, communication and housing).

  Financial Deepening Challenge Fund
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what criteria are used for allocation of Financial Deepening Challenge Fund grants; what mechanisms are in place to assess the impact and effectiveness of grants made under the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund; and what assessment her Department has made of the impact and effectiveness of projects funded by the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund; [20646]

  (2)how much money has been allocated in grants through the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund; [20645]

  (3)how many companies have received funding through the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund. [20644]

  Clare Short
  The Financial Deepening Challenge Fund was launched in April 2000. It has since been made available for application by enterprises in 15 countries in Africa, South Asia and the UK. The fund accepts bids for assistance twice a year. All bids are independently assessed on fixed timescales and on a competitive basis. More information on the fund can be obtained from the website: www.challengefunds.org. or by contacting the DFID public information point on 01355 84 3132.

  Since the launch of the fund in January 2001, there have been two completed bidding rounds—with the third bidding round currently in progress. In the first two bidding rounds, the fund panel approved seven projects. In total, grants amounting to £3.7 million have been committed to these projects, these amounts being disbursed over the life span of the projects. A number of these projects were submitted by consortiums rather than single companies. In total, seven companies and six non-governmental organisations are expected to be involved in the implementation of these projects.

  Business Linkages Challenge Fund
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what criteria are used for allocation of Business Linkages Challenge Fund grants; what mechanisms are in place to assess the impact and effectiveness of grants made under the Business Linkages Challenge Fund; and what assessment her Department has made of the impact and effectiveness of projects funded by the Business Linkages Challenge Fund; [20643]

  (2)how much money has been allocated to grants through the Business Linkages Challenge Fund; [20642]

  (3)how many businesses have received funding through the Business Linkages Challenge Fund. [20641]

  Clare Short
  The Business Linkages Challenge Fund was launched in January 2001. It has since been made available for application by enterprises in 19 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the UK. The fund accepts bids for assistance twice a year. All bids are independently assessed on fixed timescales and on a competitive basis.
  311W
  More information on the fund can be obtained from the website: www. challengefunds.org. or by contacting the DFID public inquiry point on 01355 84 3132.

  Since the launch of the fund in January 2001, there has been one completed bidding round—with the second bidding round presently in progress. In the first bidding round, the fund panel approved four projects. Contracts for the implementation of these projects are currently being concluded with the bidders, with projects either just commencing or due to commence shortly. The four projects approved will receive grants amounting to circa £700,000.

  The four projects approved were all submitted by consortiums. In total, 12 companies, five public bodies, three non-governmental organisations and one university department are expected to be involved in these four consortiums.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the President of the Council (1) what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what their value was; [17553]

  (2) what the value is of fairly traded (a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [17552]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None. The Privy Council Office does not, however, have a refreshment facility in which it could stock fair trade goods.

  First Order Questions
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to change the rota for first order questions. [21596]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  From January 2002 there will be two changes:

  (i)Trade and Industry questions will be reduced to 50 minutes, so as to provide Members with 10 minutes to question the Secretary of State covering her role as Minister for Women.

  (ii)Provision has also been made during questions to the Church Commissioners, and Public Accounts Commission for Members to question the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet his Spanish counterpart as part of the Brussels process. [18894]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister propose to hold a further ministerial meeting of the Brussels Process in early next year.
  312W
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the geographical limits of the administrative area of Gibraltar as defined in Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht. [18898]

  Peter Hain
  The territory of Gibraltar includes both the Rock and the southern part of the Isthmus connecting the Rock to Spain; UK title is based on both the treaty of Utrecht and continuous possession over a long period of time. The Government are confident of the UK's title to the territory.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) one of the Ministers in his Department visited Gibraltar in the last four years and when (i) he and (ii) one of the Ministers in his Department propose to do so. [18899]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to pay his first visit as Foreign Secretary to Gibraltar

  Dates

  Ministers

  22–23 July 1999

  Joyce Quin

  10–11 May 2000

  Keith Vaz

  6 September 2001

  Peter Hain

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment was made at the recent meeting in Barcelona between himself and his Spanish counterpart of the level of cross-border smuggling from Gibraltar. [18897]

  Peter Hain
  The Spanish Foreign Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not discuss the issue of cross-border smuggling at the ministerial meeting of the Brussels Process in Barcelona on 20 November.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, as part of the negotiations with Spain, the Government are discussing giving inhabitants of Gibraltar the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. [19965]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1081W.

  The decision to extend the European Parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar in this way is for the UK. But, in preparing to take this step we have been in contact with all interested parties, including Spain.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what statement the Spanish Foreign Minister made relating to the ability of EU citizens resident in Gibraltar to vote in European parliamentary elections during his recent meeting with UK Ministers. [20227]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) on 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1081W.
  313W
  At the meeting in Barcelona on 20 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister welcomed progress on a number of issues, including enfranchisement for the purpose of elections to the European Parliament.

  EU Arms Exports Embargo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to make the EU embargo on arms exports to the Great Lakes Region legally binding. [18907]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no EU arms embargo for the Great Lakes Region. An EU arms embargo against the Democratic Republic of Congo was announced in a Declaration on 7 April 1993.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking within the UN Security Council to establish a tribunal to try for crimes against humanity persons allegedly responsible for preparation and commission of(a) the 11 September attacks in the US and (b) other international terrorist crimes. [19894]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  International criminal courts are not a substitute for national jurisdictions. Their function is to prosecute perpetrators of crimes for which a relevant national jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to take action. That does not apply in the case of the 11 September attacks. Setting up a new international court or tribunal to try terrorism would cause great delay, not least since there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter to him dated 4 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mohammad Azam. [20364]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I regret that, due to an administrative error, my right hon. Friend has not yet received a reply to his letter of 4 October.

  The matter is being checked urgently and a reply will be sent in the next few days.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the Draft International Code of Conduct, agreed to by members of the Missile Technology Control Regime at their plenary session in Ottawa during September in the Library. [20505]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A copy of the draft International Code of Conduct on Ballistic Missiles was placed in the Library of the House on 15 November 2001.

  European Union (Public Attitudes)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to survey public attitudes to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [21008]
  314W
  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office commissioned ICM to conduct opinion research to find out what the British public know about our membership of the European Union, which issues they believe are important, what information they want, and how they want it delivered.

  I will place the full results in the Libraries of both Houses on Wednesday 5 December.

  Balkans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in rebuilding the Balkans, with particular reference to the Serbian oil, chemical and motor manufacturing industry. [18197]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government together with EU partners are committed to rebuilding and developing the Balkans. Under the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation regulation agreed by the Council of Ministers in December 2000, 4.65 billion euros of EU assistance has been allocated to the region for the period 2001–06.

  The Serbian car, oil and chemical sectors have made progress since 1999. We understand that the Zastava car manufacturing plant aims to produce 7,500 vehicles in 2001 and has signed a four year export agreement with Syria. The Pancevo oil refinery now operates at full capacity and may exceed its current plans to refine 2.1 million tonnes of oil in 2001. The re-opening of the Danube to commercial traffic on 29 November 2001, will assist trade development in these commodities and goods from and to Serbia and the surrounding area.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the progress of the Abuja Agreement in Zimbabwe and (b) the prospects for the elections next year. [18634]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to honour the commitments they made in Abuja on 6 September. However, their actions over the past three months show scant regard for these commitments and have seriously undermined the Abuja Agreement.

  With Commonwealth, SADC, EU partners and other concerned members of the international community, we continue to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to create a climate conducive to free and fair elections. It is clear that there have to be significant changes in the arrangements which President Mugabe is in practice willing to put in place for observers to the election process, and the election process itself, if that election is to carry any credibility with the rest of the world and with voters in Zimbabwe.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the United Kingdom submission to the United
  315W
  Nations Commission on the law of the sea in the case brought by the Irish Republic on the Sellafield MOX plant on 19 November; and if he will make a statement. [17939]

  Mr. Straw
  On 9 November 2001, Ireland submitted a request for the prescription of provisional measures to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (The MOX Plant Case). The United Kingdom's Written Response, dated 15 November 2001, and the United Kingdom's oral submissions at the hearing on 19 and 20 November are on the Tribunal's website: www.itlos.org. I hope my hon. Friend finds this an acceptable response.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Yemen. [20252]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our relations with Yemen are firmly founded on our historic links. Relations have improved since the low-point of the Abyan incident in 1998. We welcome President Saleh's strong condemnation of the attacks in the USA and his co-operation in the fight against terrorism. We are in close touch with the Yemenis on this and on other issues such as the British prisoners detained in Aden.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the US Government, (b) the United Nations and (c) other coalition partners concerning (i) terrorist organisations in Yemen and (ii) the policy of the Government of Yemen towards such organisations. [19127]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly discuss Yemen (including terrorist issues) as well as many other countries, both formally and informally with the US and other Governments. The contents of these talks remain confidential. There was a brief discussion of suspected terrorists in Yemen at the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee on 25 October.

  We are grateful for the positive Yemeni approach to counter-terrorism. The Government of Yemen have HMG's support in their efforts to combat terrorism.

  Suicide Terrorist
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the need for an inquiry into international preparedness for the willingness of suicide terrorists to use aircraft and other vehicles to inflict substantial loss of life. [19775]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take the threat of international terrorism very seriously and attach great importance to deterrence and prevention of terrorist activity. Since the horrific terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September the international community has intensified co-operation on responses to international terrorism, for example, reviewing safeguards in respect of aviation security. We are also working across Government to ensure that our own contingency plans represent the best possible response to a range of situations.

  We do not believe that an inquiry into international preparedness would help us prevent or respond more effectively to terrorist attacks.
  316W

  Albania
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Albanian Government with respect to the assassination attempt on Mr. Azzan Haklaj. [19581]

  Mr. MacShane
  This incident is the subject of an Albanian judicial investigation. With our partners in the international community, we are monitoring developments closely.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the recent parliamentary elections in Albania, with special reference to(a) organisation and (b) conduct. [19582]

  Mr. MacShane
  A report published in October by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) praised the improved organisation and conduct of the elections. It highlighted a number of cases of manipulation, for which it identified the Socialist Party, rather than Prime Minister's Meta's Government, as responsible. The ODIHR report made clear that these shortcomings were not such as to affect the overall result. We continue to encourage and support Albanian efforts to address any flaws and to strengthen the democratic process.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of gun running into Kosovo from Bosnian sources. [19583]

  Mr. MacShane
  Arms have been smuggled into Kosovo from various sources, including a low level of trafficking from Bosnia and Herzegovina. In an effort to tackle this activity and strengthen law and order structures in Kosovo, in June 2001 the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) adopted legislation against the illegal possession of arms, illegal border crossings in and out of Kosovo, and terrorism. The United Kingdom strongly supports these measures.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the importance of the BBC World Service during the conflict in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [19975]

  Mr. MacShane
  Public service broadcasting is important at a time of international tension when millions of people around the world rely on the BBC's objective reporting. In response to the events of 11 September the BBC World Service has increased output in Persian, Pashto, Urdu and Arabic and mounted its longest-ever continuous news transmission in English. I welcome these enhancements. A survey carried out among Pashto and Persian-speaking male heads of household in Afghanistan before the crisis indicated that 71 per cent. of Pashto speakers and 62 per cent. of Persian speakers listened to the World Service weekly.
  317W

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries he has visited since 7 June. [20253]

  Mr. Straw
  I have visited 17 countries since 7 June, in a number of cases more than once.

  Cuba
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Cuba. [20256]

  Mr. MacShane
  Britain has a good relationship with Cuba. Bilateral visits, trade links and exchanges in new areas of co-operation continue to develop. We are committed to a policy of constructive engagement with Cuba, based on critical dialogue and practical co-operation. Through our frank and open discussions we cover a wide range of issues of common interest, including human rights.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made towards decommissioning. [18095]

  Dr. John Reid
  The IICD reported, on 23 October, that it had witnessed the IRA putting a quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives completely beyond use, in accordance with the decommissioning scheme and regulations.

  It also undertook to continue its contact with the IRA in pursuit of its mandate.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives since 23 October. [18112]

  Jane Kennedy
  In its report of 23 October the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it would be continuing its contact with the IRA representative in the pursuit of its mandate.

  All paramilitary groups should now build on this very significant progress. The Good Friday Agreement committed all participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. This can only be achieved through the legal framework of the Decommissioning Commission.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the progress made in decommissioning. [18116]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 23 October that it had witnessed a quantity of IRA arms being put beyond use according to the terms of the decommissioning schemes and regulations. However, in the interest of furthering the process of putting all arms beyond use, the Commission declined to provide further details.
  318W
  All paramilitary groups should now build on this very significant progress. The Good Friday Agreement committed all participants to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. This can only be achieved through the legal framework of the Decommissioning Commission.

  Criminal Justice Review
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the criminal justice review. [18097]

  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the criminal justice review. [18103]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the criminal justice review. [18105]

  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent action the Government have taken to improve confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. [18121]

  Mr. Browne
  We have published a draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and an implementation plan to take forward the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system. We are consulting on our response to the review and expect to introduce the legislation in this Session. Our response to the review marks another key step in implementing the Belfast Agreement.

  This was the most important review of its kind to have been undertaken in Northern Ireland in the last 30 years. The criminal justice system has served the people of Northern Ireland well over many years, often in very difficult circumstances. The review is radical and progressive, maintaining the best of the old system while integrating applicable international concepts and practices.

  I want to ensure that everyone interested in the future of criminal justice in Northern Ireland has adequate opportunity to have their say and to contribute to the effectiveness of our proposals. I am therefore extending the period of consultation by a further four weeks to 7 January 2001.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the organised crime taskforce. [18099]

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives the Government have put in place to tackle organised crime in Northern Ireland. [18104]

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the organised crime taskforce. [18113]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall),Official Report, columns 320–21.
  319W
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle(a) paramilitary and (b) organised crime in Northern Ireland. [18115]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government utterly condemn all paramilitary violence and intimidation and remain resolute in the fight against the illegal activities of paramilitary organisations. We will continue to ensure that the Chief Constable and the GOC have the resources at their disposal to meet the threat. With regard to organised crime, the Government are tackling this on a number of fronts. The organised crime problem is sophisticated and our response is too.

  The organised crime taskforce has been in operation for just over a year and has overseen structural improvements in the way organised crime is tackled. Links between the various agencies are developing. This is leading to operational success such as the 42.5 million cigarettes seized in Warrenpoint Harbour during a search of a vessel which had just arrived from Latvia: the largest ever such seizure in the United Kingdom.

  We must keep up the fight against organised crime and we must continue to increase the effectiveness of our response. We are in this for the long haul and everyone in Northern Ireland has a role to play in tackling organised crime.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland since 1 November. [18101]

  Jane Kennedy
  The main republican paramilitary groups' ceasefires are still holding. However, dissidents continue to pose a threat.

  The main loyalist paramilitary groups UDA/UFF, and the smaller group LVF, have been specified on 23 October. The Secretary of State keeps all ceasefires under review.

  However, during the month paramilitary groups on both sides have continued to exercise control over their communities through fear and acts of intimidation.

  The Government utterly condemn all paramilitary violence and intimidation and remain resolute in the fight against terrorism.

  A copy of the security statistics from 15 November to 27 November is as follows:

  Security situation statistics 1–27 November 2001

  Number

  Deaths

  1

  Shooting incidents

  27

  Bombing incidents

  17

  Casualties as a result of Paramilitary:

  Assaults

  6

  Shootings

  13

  Notes:

  1.Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

  2.The following types of incidents are included:

  Shots fired by terrorists

  Shots fired by the security forces

  Paramilitary style attacks involving shootings
  320W
  Shots heard (and later confirmed)

  Other violent incidents where shots are fired (eg armed robbery)

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

  2.2001 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of violence and intimidation by paramilitary groups. [18109]

  Jane Kennedy
  Terrorist violence has remained at a significant level. The following table gives a breakdown of that violence from 1 January 2001 to 26 November 2001.

  Security situation statistics 1 January-26 November 2001

  Number

  Deaths

  14

  Shooting incidents

  329

  Bombing incidents

  325

  Casualties as a result of Paramilitary:

  Assaults

  128

  Shootings

  174

  Notes:

  1.2001 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  2.Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

  3.The following types of incidents are included:

  Shots fired by terrorists

  Shots fired by the security forces

  Paramilitary style attacks involving shootings

  Shots heard (and later confirmed)

  Other violent incidents where shots are fired (eg armed robbery)

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

  Religious Bigotry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to reduce religious bigotry as part of the peace process. [18102]

  Dr. John Reid
  In my speech at the recent Labour party conference I reiterated the Government's commitment to eradicating all forms of intolerance in Northern Ireland, and promised to criminalise such manifestations of hatred, whether based on racism or based on sectarianism. To that end it is my intention to consult in the new year on how best to tackle crime committed because of either racial or religious intolerance.

  Security
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [18106]

  Jane Kennedy
  We continue to monitor the activities of all paramilitary groups who are on ceasefire. There is a significant threat from dissident republican paramilitaries and from disaffected elements within loyalism who are intent in continuing with their campaign to disrupt the peace process. We congratulate the security
  321W
  forces on their continued success against these groups as evidenced by the recent discovery last month of a fully primed bomb in Armagh.

  Voting Procedures
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Government have introduced for changes to the voting procedures in the Northern Ireland Assembly. [18107]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government have not made proposals to change Assembly voting procedures. However, I have established a review under paragraph 36 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement to look at whether there is scope for some amendment, to which all of the Assembly parties have been invited to participate. The review group will issue a statement after it concludes its discussions next week.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the new police recruitment process; and if he will make a statement. [18108]

  Jane Kennedy
  The new recruitment arrangements for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as recommended by the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, have been implemented in full. The first recruitment competition to be run in accordance with these procedures will enable the Chief Constable to appoint around 300 recruits on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis, as the Commission envisaged. The first tranche of new recruits began training on 4 November.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Chief Constable to discuss recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [18111]

  Jane Kennedy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the Chief Constable on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues, including recruitment. The first recruitment competition to be run in accordance with the new procedures will enable the Chief Constable to appoint around 300 recruits on a 50 per cent. Catholic, 50 per cent. non-Catholic basis, as the Commission envisaged. The first tranche of new recruits began training on 4 November.

  Police Service
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Gaelic Athletic Association on the promotion of a police service that attracts support from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. [18110]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have not had any discussions with the Gaelic Athletic Association on either matter.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the ability of the police service of Northern Ireland to carry out its duties in the absence of a full-time reserve. [18114]
  322W
  Jane Kennedy
  As the published Implementation Plan on the Patten report states, a review of the prevailing security situation and policing requirements is to be carried out by the Chief Constable next spring when the first new recruits complete their training. A decision on the phasing out of the full-time reserve will be taken in the light of the findings of that review.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the prospects for securing the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement; and if he will make a statement. [18117]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government believe that prospects for the full implementation of the Belfast Agreement are very good following the significant progress made in recent weeks. This has included IRA decommissioning; the stabilisation of the political institutions; further normalisation; and the publication of the Criminal Justice Implementation Plan. We are committed to building on these developments to ensure steady and continued progress.

  Assembly and Executive
  Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. [18118]

  Dr. John Reid
  The devolved institutions are now established on a very stable basis following the successful election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister by over 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly. We are committed to working to ensure their continued stability, and we will continue to encourage everyone to facilitate their full and unfettered operation in the future.

  Bombing Campaign
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the capabilities of republican terrorist networks to mount a sustained bombing campaign. [18119]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State continues to monitor the ceasefires of all paramilitary groups. He receives regular briefings from the Chief Constable and his senior security advisers. The decision by the IRA to decommission its weapons has led the Chief Constable to conclude there to be a reduction in the threat to enable further normalisation measures to proceed. However, we are not complacent. There remains a significant threat from dissident republican groups as evidenced by the recent bomb found in Armagh.

  Republican Terrorist Groups
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of threat posed by dissident republican terrorist groups. [18100]

  Jane Kennedy
  The level of threat posed by dissident republican groups remains high. Dissidents are believed responsible for the bomb attack on Woodbourne Police Station in October. The security forces continue to frustrate their attempts to disrupt the peace process. The most recent successes are the arrests and subsequent
  323W
  charges of republicans after the discovery of a bomb in Armagh, ammunition finds in Lurgan and Moira. Anti-terrorist Branch officers also recently made a number of arrests in north London and Liverpool in connection with the bomb attacks in London and Birmingham.

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Gaelic Athletic Association on its change of rules to allow fixtures against teams representing the police in Northern Ireland. [18098]

  Dr. John Reid
  I have not had any discussions with the Gaelic Athletic Association on either matter.

TREASURY

  Unemployment Count
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the average monthly flow from the unemployment count of claimants aged 18 to 24 and unemployed for(a) every six months from April 1993 to May 1997 and (b) each year under the New Deal. [20461]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 5 December 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding average monthly flow from the claimant count for people aged 18 to 24 years. (20461)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Information on the levels of computerised claims by age can be obtained from the Nomis® database at the House of Commons Library. Computerised claims do not include clerical claims which currently make up about one per cent. of the total claimant count.

  Census (Twickenham)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the results of the 2001 census for Twickenham will be published. [20623]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 5 December 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on when the results of the 2001 Census for Twickenham will be published. I am replying in his absence (20623).
  The target date for summary Census results—Key Statistics for local authority areas throughout England and Wales is December 2002. They will be laid before Parliament and accessible through
  324W
  he National Statistics website at www.statistics.gov.uk. Detailed results for local authority areas and wards will be available throughout the first half of 2003.
  Census data for the Parliamentary Constituency of Twickenham are planned to be published in the second half of 2003.
  A prospectus giving more detail on publication dates will be issued at the beginning of next year and will be available on the website.

  Graduate Earnings
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the average annual earnings for graduates in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [20359]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 5 December 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average annual earnings for graduates. I am replying in his absence. (20359)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of average gross weekly earnings for graduates of working age (i.e. men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59) who have a first degree qualification or higher.
  The figures for summer (June to August) 1999, 2000 and 2001, are given in the table below.

  Average gross weekly earnings of working-age1 graduates who are full-time2 employees; United Kingdom; summer (June to August) 1999, 2000 and 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Average gross weekly earnings (£)

  Summer 1999

  538

  Summer 2000

  567

  Summer 2001

  601

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 The definition of full-time is based on respondents' self-assessment not on the number of hours worked

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Financial Products (Quality Standards)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to define quality standards for retail financial products. [20207]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have already introduced benchmark standards for Individual Savings Accounts and mortgages. These standards apply to charges, access and terms, and are known as CAT standards.

  In response to proposals in the March 2000 report of the Banking Review led by Don Cruickshank, the Treasury consulted on possible new CAT standards for credit cards and basic bank accounts earlier this year.

  The consultation document, "Standards for retail financial products", explored the case for such standards in detail.

  The Government are considering the many responses that were received.
  325W
  In the case of stakeholder pensions the Government require provider companies to comply with a set of minimum standards, which have similar aims in seeking to offer decent value to consumers.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the plans for 2000–01 on the basis of the Department's listed resource/capital distinction set out in Table B.16 of the pre-Budget report. [20291]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Spending within departmental expenditure limits for resource and capital budgets for 2000–01 was set out in the 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318). Plans in resource and capital terms were last stated in table C13 of Budget 2001 (HC 279).

  Cross-border Payments
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to include sterling denominated payments within the scope of the proposed regulation on cross-border payments in euros. [21456]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not intend to extend the scope of the proposed Regulation on cross-border payments in euro to sterling denominated payments. The approach taken in the Regulation is inconsistent with the competition-based approach that we believe is the better way of tackling the problem of market failure in cross-border payments. Such an approach would be consistent with our commitment to introduce a new regime for regulating competition in domestic payment systems—as recommended by the Cruickshank report. Not including sterling denominated payments would also avoid the potentially counter-productive effects arising from the proposed Regulation that could be damaging to consumers.

  Regulatory Standards (Crown Dependencies)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he takes to monitor and scrutinise the regulatory standards in the Crown Dependencies. [20209]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's policy is to encourage all offshore centres, including the Crown Dependencies, to meet the highest international standards of regulation, supervision and fair tax competition.

  Financial Regulation (British Overseas Territories)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the recommendations are of the KPMG report on the state of financial regulation in the British overseas territories; and what steps have been taken to implement them. [20208]

  Ruth Kelly
  The KPMG Review of Financial Regulation in the Caribbean Overseas Territories and Bermuda recommended: the establishment of independent regulatory authorities; the introduction of investigative powers to assist inquiries by overseas regulators; and the establishment of comprehensive anti-money laundering networks.

  All the overseas territories now have comprehensive money laundering frameworks fully in place.
  326W
  Good progress has been made in providing the legal basis for the introduction of powers to obtain information to assist foreign regulators. The Cayman Island, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Montserrat have already introduced relevant provision. Bermuda's existing regulatory powers are being strengthened. Anguilla has compulsory powers legislation in draft.

  Considerable progress has been made in establishing independent regulatory authorities. The Turks and Caicos Islands have introduced legislation to establish an independent authority and legislation is in an advanced stage in the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and Montserrat. Bermuda already has an independent authority for banking and securities; it is now proceeding to complete the process for the insurance sector by the end of 2001. Cayman expects to enact the relevant legislation in the first quarter of 2002.

  The Caribbean Overseas Territories and Bermuda have made a commitment substantially to implement the remainder of the KPMG recommendations by the summer of 2002. They have agreed to publish further reports by February 2002 explaining how their implementation plans are progressing. This should place them in a strong position prior to their forthcoming examination by the International Monetary Fund under the Financial Stability Forum's initiative into offshore financial centres.

  The overseas territories and Bermuda have pledged to play their full part in the international efforts to close off financial networks to terrorism as effectively as dealing with other types of serious criminal activity.

  The UK Government will continue to work closely with the overseas territories both on closing off financial networks as well as on the implementation of the KMPG recommendations with the aim of helping them meet international standards in full.

  Stamp Duty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place a list in the Library of the wards which are to qualify for the exemption from stamp duty up to £150,000; and if he will make a statement explaining the basis of selection. [19989]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: A list of the areas which qualify for the stamp duty exemption for disadvantaged areas was placed in the Library on 27 November 2001. The qualifying areas were identified by reference to each country's most recent index of deprivation.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the(a) Milton, (b) St. Lukes and (c) Victoria wards in Southend on Sea did not qualify for the exemption from stamp duty announced on 27 November. [19990]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: For England, the exemption is available for the 15 per cent. most deprived wards as identified by the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000. The wards of Milton, St. Lukes and Victoria in Southend on Sea do not fall within this category.
  327W

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library his response to queries from the European Commission about regulation of Lloyd's in accordance with Directive 73/239. [20900]

  Ruth Kelly
  The European Commission has made informal inquiries about the regulation of Lloyd's in accordance with Directive 73/239, but it has not notified the UK that in its opinion a breach has occurred. It is not the Government's policy to release informal correspondence of this sort with the Commission. However, the Government remain of the view that the requirements of EC legislation in respect of Lloyd's have been and are being properly implemented.

  Building Insurance
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will regulate the fees by mortgage lenders to customers who choose(a) alternative provision for their building insurance when they take out a mortgage and (b) to switch providers for building insurance at a later stage. [20835]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have no plans to do so.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of total Government capital spending for each year since April 1992. [20477]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table 3.7 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2001–02 provides a breakdown of capital spending for each year back to 1995–96. Corresponding breakdowns are not available for earlier years on a consistent basis.

  Crude Oil Prices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions he made (1) in preparing table B9, page 175 of the pre-Budget report, about the level of crude oil prices in each year up to and including 2006–07; [20192]

  (2) preparing Table B8, page 174 of the pre-Budget report about the level of crude oil prices in each year up to and including 2002–03. [20191]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 3 December 2001]The oil prices underlying the pre-Budget report projections are:

  …/barrel

  2000

  27.9

  2001

  24.5

  2002

  22.9

  2003

  23.3

  2004

  23.6

  2005

  23.9

  2006

  24.1

  As set out in Box B1 on page 169 of the pre-Budget report, the assumption for 2002 is based on the average of independent forecasts, in line with the NAO audited assumption.
  328W

  EU (Fraud)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has he made of the cost to the UK taxpayer of fraud in the European Union. [20479]

  Ruth Kelly
  The European Commission is responsible for publishing statistics on fraud and irregularities against the EC budget. Its latest report including figures for detected irregularities was published in May 2001, entitled "Protecting the Community's financial interests and the Fight against Fraud", and is available on the internet. Details of the developments described in the Commission's report are also set out in the Government's July 2001 "Statement on the 2001 EC Budget and Measures to Counter Fraud and Financial Mismanagement", Cm 5173.

  Care should be taken in interpreting the statistics because the Commission's report does not distinguish between cases of fraud and irregularities. Errors arise when, for example, payments are made outside prescribed time limits or using the wrong exchange rates. Moreover, increases in the level of detected errors may be attributed to improved detection and notification of cases by member states.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) special advisers and (b)press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6877]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340W.

  The number of press officers employed by HM Treasury has remained broadly constant since 1992. There are currently seven, in addition to the Head of Communications.

  Airline Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the Government's temporary underwriting of third party war risk insurance for the UK airline industry. [20118]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's replacement insurance scheme for UK airlines and service providers was due to expire at midnight on 23 November. Assessment of the aviation insurance market demonstrated that commercial capacity for underwriting third-party war and terrorism liabilities above …50 million has not yet returned. It is unlikely that there will be any significant return of commercial insurance until reinsurance contracts are renegotiated at the beginning of January, which will shape the whole of the aviation industry, including aviation, for the next 12 months. Therefore the Treasury announced on 22 November that it had decided to extend the airline insurance scheme until midnight on 22 January 2002.

  Public Expenditure (Health)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of raising public expenditure on health to the EU average by 2005. [19980]
  329W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Health service expenditure plans for the period between 2003–04 and 2005–06 will be set in the 2002 spending review.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he determines whether a tax credit is classed as public expenditure. [19808]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury's calculation of net taxes and social security contributions treats all tax credits as reductions in tax collected since working families and business tax credits appear as reductions in their tax bills.

  The Treasury's calculation of public sector receipts, drawn from ONS' s national accounts, treats some tax credits as public expenditure, as explained in the ONS publication "National Accounts Concepts Sources and Methods", Doggett 1998, 21.69 to 21.71.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 7 March 2001,Official Report, column 297, on debt repayment, on which lines in which tables in the March 2001 Financial Statement and Budget report his statement is based. [17307]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 2001 Budget estimate for the public sector net cash requirement (PSNCR) in 2000–01 is given in the net cash requirement line of table C20 of the March 2001 Financial Statement and Budget report. A negative figure for PSNCR implies the repayment of debt. Historical estimates of the PSNCR from 1963–64 are available from the Office for National Statistics. For the years 1951–52 to 1962–63, ONS estimates of public sector net borrowing have been used. These were positive in each year, implying no significant repayment of debt.

  E-mail Information Service
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason subscribers to the Treasury's e-mail information service do not receive e-mails automatically informing them of news releases, services or documentation being made available by the Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [16708]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has an e-mail information service which provides subscribers with e-mails notifying them of news releases from the Treasury. The service is currently available and can be accessed by visiting the Department's website at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the value for money of public expenditure on(a) education, (b) defence and (c) health care; and if he will make a statement. [18882]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Departments publish performance against their value for money targets in their spring departmental reports or, in the case of the Ministry of Defence, in its autumn performance report.
  330W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18764]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]Information on the outcome of statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/document/par01/index.htm.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 October 2001, the Home Office has received seven new statutory statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. So far, we have responded to six of these cases, and the average time taken to respond overall is 27 and a half days.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his assessment is of the average additional cost of supporting an asylum seeker if the EC draft directive laying down minimum standards in the reception of applicants for asylum in member states were implemented. [6060]

  Angela Eagle
  The European Commission draft directive laying down minimum standards on the reception of applicants for asylum is currently under negotiation. The costs of implementation remain to be quantified and will depend on the final terms of the directive.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people applied for asylum to the UK this year from(a) Russia, (b) Ukraine, (c) Latvia, (d) Lithuania, (e) Estonia and (f) Georgia; and of these how many have been granted leave to stay. [19934]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of asylum applications from nationals of Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia this year is shown in Table 1.

  Table 1: Applications for asylum lodged between January and September 2001 (inclusive) by selected nationalities, principal applicants1,2

  Month

  Asylum applications

  Russia

  335

  Ukraine

  340

  Latvia

  85

  Lithuania

  170

  Estonia

  35

  Georgia

  90

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five

  2 Provisional figures

  The number of initial decisions made this year on applications for asylum from nationals of these countries are shown in Table 2, however information regarding initial decisions does not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.
  331W

  Table 2: Decisions made between January and September 2001 (inclusive) on applications for asylum from selected nationalities, principal applicants1,2

  Total initial decisions

  Granted asylum

  of which: Granted ELR

  Refusals

  Level

  Level

  Percentage

  Level

  Percentage

  Level

  Percentage

  Russia

  760

  15

  2

  35

  4

  710

  94

  Ukraine

  1,000

  5

  1

  15

  2

  980

  98

  Latvia

  350

  3—

  1

  3—

  1

  345

  99

  Lithuania

  585

  3—

  0

  25

  4

  560

  96

  Estonia

  245

  —

  0

  —

  0

  245

  100

  Georgia

  170

  10

  5

  5

  3

  155

  92

  1 Levels rounded to the nearest five

  2Provisional figures

  31 or 2

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those who have failed in their application for asylum status have been removed from the UK in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [20160]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The latest available information is given in the table.

  Asylum removals in 20011,2

  Q1 2001

  Q2 2001

  Q3 2001

  Principal applicants removed

  2,070

  2,375

  2,385

  Dependants removed3

  4—

  215

  355

  Total asylum seekers removed

  4—

  2,590

  2,745

  1 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding

  2 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the IOM

  3 Data on dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001

  4 Not applicable

  Information on the number of asylum removals is published on a quarterly basis. The next set of data will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target is for removing asylum seekers whose application for asylum in the UK has failed; if this target has recently changed; and if he will make a statement. [20162]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The current Service Delivery Agreement target relating to the removal of failed asylum seekers from the United Kingdom is to remove 3,000 in 2001–02; 33,000 in 2002–03; and 37,000 in 2003–04. The totals include dependants.

  The 30,000 target for this year has always been extremely ambitious and high risk. No European country has achieved levels of this kind and the Home Secretary announced in the House as early as 27 June that the target would not be met. We aim to remove at the rate of 2,500 per month from early next year.
  332W

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) uniformed full-time officers, (b) special constables and (c) civilian staff there are per thousand of population in each English constabulary. [8625]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the numbers of special constables and civilian staff per 1,000 population are given in the table. Numbers of uniformed full-time officers are not collected centrally; number of full-time equivalent police officers per 100,000 population by police force area are given in table three in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/01, entitled "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 31 March 2001", published on 28 June 2001.

  Strength as at 31 March 2001, by police force area—England

  Police force

  Special constables per 1,000 population1

  Civilian police staff per 1,000 population2

  Avon and Somerset

  0.27

  0.97

  Bedfordshire

  0.20

  0.87

  Cambridgeshire

  0.30

  0.85

  Cheshire

  0.30

  0.85

  Cleveland

  0.17

  1.05

  Cumbria

  0.32

  1.20

  Derbyshire

  0.28

  0.90

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.51

  0.93

  Dorset

  0.39

  0.99

  Durham

  0.24

  0.93

  Essex

  0.28

  0.89

  Gloucestershire

  0.33

  0.90

  Greater Manchester

  0.14

  1.11

  Hampshire

  0.26

  0.83

  Hertfordshire

  0.19

  0.90

  Humberside

  0.24

  0.92

  Kent

  0.25

  1.13

  Lancashire

  0.25

  0.96

  Leicestershire

  0.17

  0.86

  Lincolnshire

  0.26

  0.89

  London, City of3

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  0.39

  1.01

  Metropolitan Police3

  0.11

  1.41

  Norfolk

  0.33

  0.87

  Northamptonshire

  0.30

  1.12

  Northumbria

  0.21

  1.00

  North Yorkshire

  0.24

  0.79

  Nottinghamshire

  0.32

  1.01

  South Yorkshire

  0.14

  1.01

  Staffordshire

  0.38

  0.88

  Suffolk

  0.52

  0.92

  Surrey

  0.14

  0.83

  333W

  Strength as at 31 March 2001, by police force area—England

  Police force

  Special constables per 1,000 population1

  Civilian police staff per 1000 population2

  Sussex

  0.20

  0.96

  Thames Valley

  0.20

  0.89

  Warwickshire

  0.44

  0.81

  West Mercia

  0.35

  0.96

  West Midlands

  0.23

  1.07

  West Yorkshire

  0.20

  1.05

  Wiltshire

  0.25

  1.02

  1 Special constable figures are based on number of staff.

  2 Civilian figures are based on full time equivalents.

  3 Staff per 1,000 population figures for City of London and Metropolitan Police are combined.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers in South Yorkshire. [10385]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the Chief Constable that on 31 August the force had 3,203 police officers. This is six more officers than the force had in March 2001 and is a record number of officers. South Yorkshire Police has set a budgeted workforce total for 31 March 2002 of 3,200 officers. On 31 March 2001 the force had 1,312 civilian support staff, 21 more than in March 1997.

  Sixty-seven recruits to South Yorkshire Police were funded by the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) in 2000–01 and the force expects to recruit 61 CFF officers in 2001–02.

  Crime Rates (Bromley)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many notifiable offences there were in the London borough of Bromley in each of the last five years; [9993]

  (2) what the crime clear-up rate was in the London borough of Bromley in each of the last five years. [9994]

  Mr. Denham
  The requested details are given in the table. For the reason given, detection rates are not directly comparable over the years 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  Recorded crimes and detection rates—borough of Bromley

  Year ending March

  Number of recorded crimes

  Detection rates (Percentage)

  1996–97

  22,176

  23

  1997–98

  20,356

  24

  1998–991

  24,172

  20

  1999–20002

  26,474

  14

  2000–01

  26,142

  13

  1 There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which expanded the offences covered, and placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of numbers of victims. Numbers of recorded crimes and detection rates after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  2 There was a change in the guidance for counting detections on 1 April 1999, with the new guidance providing more precise and rigorous criteria for counting a detection. Detection rates after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17594]
  334W
  Angela Eagle
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about taskforces, and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library and this publication may be accessed via the Cabinet Office's website http:// www.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/ pb00.htm. Copies of the annual report on taskforces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library and the annual report is being made available on the Cabinet Office's website.

  Home Office Ministers now appoint members to the following bodies, which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000:

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (NDPB)

  Annual Reviewer of the Criminal Justice (Conspiracy and Terrorism) Act 1998

  Annual Reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000

  Asylum Support Adjudicators

  Charity Commission

  Criminal Justice Consultative Council

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales

  Immigration Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee

  Independent Assessor of Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice

  Metropolitan Police Authority

  Ministerial Advisory Group to the Retail Crime Reduction Action Team

  National Probation Service

  Prisons and Probation Ombudsman

  Property Crime Reduction Action Team

  Retail Crime Reduction Action Team

  Selection Panels for Independent Members of the Police

  Authorities for 42 Provincial Forces

  Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Service Authority for the National Crime Squad

  Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team

  Visitor Committees for Immigration Detention Centres:

  Campsfield House

  Dungavel

  Harmondsworth

  Oakington

  Tinsley House

  Yarl's Wood.

  In addition to the above, the Home Office also has responsibility for the following bodies, to which appointments are made by Her Majesty the Queen or the Prime Minister:

  Investigatory Powers Tribunal (NDPB)

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  Intelligence Services Commissioner

  Interception of Communications Commissioner

  Police Advisory Board.

  335W

  Immigration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he routinely takes to monitor immigration through south coast ports; and how that has increased since 11 September. [18393]

  Angela Eagle
  Passengers arriving at south coast ports are routinely examined by an immigration officer in order to establish their nationality and identity and whether they require leave to enter. The personal details of all such passengers are checked against the Immigration Service Warnings Index, a computer system, which provides information to immigration staff for the purpose of immigration control, national security and the prevention of crime. All Immigration Service staff at points of entry on the south coast have access to this system.

  The Immigration Service also routinely conducts vehicle searches in order to detect people attempting to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely. Advanced scanning equipment including x-ray machines and carbon dioxide detectors have been introduced in order to assist in the detection of such people.

  The Immigration Service is developing closer liaison with the French authorities and carriers in order to control the flow of passengers arriving in the United Kingdom without any identifying documentation. A United Kingdom liaison officer from the Immigration Service now operates alongside French colleagues in Paris and juxtaposed immigration controls were established at Waterloo and Paris this year, which enables passengers to be cleared before they pass through the channel tunnel. It has also had significant success in taking forward, in conjunction with the police, the prosecution of people suspected of having attempted to facilitate the illegal entry of inadequately documented foreign nationals.

  Since 11 September all ports throughout the country have been put on a heightened state of alert. The Immigration Service has issued instructions to all operational officers advising them of the procedures to be followed, including closer liaison with the Security Services in the event of known or suspected terrorists being encountered.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is to be adopted by those seeking to enter the UK via ports without immigration controls or personnel; and how that has changed since 11 September. [18395]

  Angela Eagle
  Immigration Officers routinely attend ports which are normally unstaffed, in order to examine passengers arriving on services originating from outside the European Economic Area. Other services are closely monitored and carriers are required to fax passenger manifests to a designated local immigration office. The personal details of the passengers are checked against the Immigration Service Warnings Index. The Warnings Index computer system is the primary tool for providing information to staff operating the immigration entry control; it also provides information on matters of national security and the prevention of crime. All Immigration Service staff at points of entry have access to this system. If the passenger is a national of a country from outside the European Economic Area, and the immigration officer is 336W
  satisfied that he qualifies for entry under the Immigration Rules, he will grant him leave to enter, normally following a telephone interview.

  In order to preserve the integrity of the control immigration officers also make regular unannounced visits to unstaffed ports in order to ensure that the correct procedures are being followed. The Immigration Service maintains close links with Customs and Excise and the police, sharing intelligence where appropriate in relation to arriving passengers.

  All ports around the country have been put on a heightened state of alert since 11 September and the Immigration Service has issued instructions to all officers advising them of the procedures to be followed, including close liaison with the security services, in the event of known or suspected terrorists being encountered.

  Mr. Andrew
  Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are engaged in monitoring immigration and immigration control through each south coast port; and how that has increased since 11 September. [18394]

  Angela Eagle
  Immigration staff are deployed on a permanent 24 hour basis at all designated points of entry on the south coast. As of 26 November, provisional figures indicate that 367 immigration officers and 106 assistant immigration officers are currently based at Dover, covering a range of functions including interviewing arriving passengers, searching freight vehicles and working at Coquelles, the point of entry for the Channel Tunnel in France. As of 26 November 2001, the staffing figures for the other south coast ports are given in the table.

  Port

  Immigration Officers

  Assistant Immigration Officers

  Dover

  367

  106

  Newhaven

  11

  —

  Portsmouth

  38

  6

  Southampton

  5

  —

  Poole

  15

  5

  Plymouth

  11

  2

  Total

  447

  119

  I regret that the specific information requested on the increases in staffing levels since 11 September is not currently available. There is however an on-going national recruitment campaign for the Immigration Service. Between April 2000 and October 2001 staffing levels at Poole, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Southampton increased by 113 per cent., 47 per cent., 43 per cent. and 45 per cent. respectively. Additional resources will be targeted for the south-east region over the next 12 months.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are known to have entered the UK via ports without immigration personnel,(a) in the last 12 months and (b) since 11 September. [18396]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that the information requested is not currently available.

  Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the
  337W
  efficiency of the proportion of the drugs budget that has been spent on (a) treatment, (b) the criminal justice system and (c) anti-drugs education in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Council of Europe countries. [19716]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Proactive expenditure directly targeted at tackling drug misuse and drug trafficking will total some £932 million in 2001–02 (excluding devolved spending). This is broadly allocated as follows:

  £328 million treatment:

  £92 million protecting young people (education, prevention and early intervention);

  £135 million safeguarding communities (including criminal justice measures and the new Communities against Drugs (CAD) programme);

  and £373 million reducing the availability of drugs, particularly class A drugs; and

  an additional £5 million to support the work of local Drug Action Teams in delivering the strategy locally.

  A number of studies have been published which support the value of Government investment in tackling drug misuse and drug related crime. These include the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS), whose reports are published by the National Addiction Centre at www.ntors.org.uk and "Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final Evaluation Report, Home Office Research Study 21", published October 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  On anti-drugs education I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6 November 2001, Official Report, column 183W.

  We have not undertaken any assessment of allocation of drugs budgets in other Council of Europe countries.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of Britain's anti-drug budget was devoted to treatment in each of the past six years for which figures are available. [19711]

  Mr. Bob
  Ainsworth: Information in the form requested is available only for the year 1998–99 onwards. The data refer to proactive investment directly aimed at tackling drug misuse.

  Treatment1 (£ million)

  Total anti-drug budget (£ million)

  Treatment as percentage of total

  1998–99

  168

  525

  32

  1999–2000

  209

  619

  33.8

  2000–01

  234

  695

  33.7

  2001–02

  328

  932

  35.2

  1 The amounts detailed comprise mainstream spending by Department of Health, local authorities and the pooled National Treatment Agency budget. They exclude additional Prison Service treatment spend which is under the Communities aim

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance in the UK were received in the entry clearance office in Dhaka in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; of those, how many were refused at first instance; of those refused, how many were the subject of an appeal; and of those appeals, how many were successful. [179861
  338W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Data on entry clearance applications which are received, refused initially and granted following an appeal in Dhaka are given in the table. Statistics on the number of appeals lodged in Dhaka are not available.

  Applications for entry clearance1 made in Dhaka, 1997 to 2000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Received

  18,310

  17,290

  19,460

  22,410

  Refused initially

  5,940

  4,570

  4,530

  5,340

  Granted on appeal

  500

  400

  390

  360

  1 Entry clearance applications for settlement, temporary purposes and certificates of entitlement to the right of abode.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry clearance were handled by joint entry clearance offices in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 in (i) Pakistan, (ii) India, (iii) Bangladesh, (iv) Australia, (v) New Zealand and (vi) Canada; and how many of them were allowed at first instance. [17987]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Statistics on entry clearance applications granted and refused are given in the table.

  Applications for entry clearance1 made in selected countries2 1997–2000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Pakistan

  Initial decisions

  52,740

  71,080

  68,840

  84,500

  Granted initially

  43,660

  60.430

  54,010

  69,400

  Refused initially

  9,070

  10,640

  14,830

  15,100

  Granted on appeal

  940

  620

  270

  540

  Total decisions

  53,680

  71,700

  69,110

  85,040

  India

  Initial decisions

  137,910

  157,270

  175,300

  186,140

  Granted initially

  125,130

  143,000

  157,100

  165,540

  Refused initially

  12,780

  14,260

  18,190

  20,590

  Granted on appeal

  310

  270

  220

  250

  Total decisions

  138,220

  157,540

  175,520

  186,390

  Bangladesh

  Initial decisions

  18,850

  17,480

  18,300

  22,980

  Granted initially

  12,920

  12,920

  13,770

  17,640

  Refused initially

  5,940

  4,570

  4,530

  5,340

  Granted on appeal

  500

  400

  390

  360

  Total decisions

  19,350

  17,890

  18,690

  23,340

  Australia

  Initial decisions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Granted initially or on appeal

  26,080

  30,980

  33,280

  30,500

  Refused initially

  40

  30

  40

  60

  Total decisions

  26,130

  31,010

  33,320

  30,550

  New Zealand

  Initial decisions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Granted initially or on appeal

  12,580

  12,970

  12,900

  11,460

  Refused initially

  20

  20

  40

  70

  Total decisions

  12,600

  12,990

  12,940

  11,540

  1 Entry clearance applications for settlement, temporary purposes and certificates of entitlement to the right of abode.

  2 The country shown is that where the application was made and is not necessarily the nationality of the applicant.

  3 Not available due to differences in data collection in the countries concerned.

  Victims of Crimes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received from victims of crimes of violence in the last 12 months. [20428]
  339W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department receives letters from victims of crimes of violence on a wide range of issues. Numbers are not collated centrally.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implementation of Article 5(3) and 5(4) of the ECHR by other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [20145]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]All other European Union member states are signatories to the European convention on human rights and are obliged, except in times of war and national emergencies when certain derogations may be made, to comply with its provisions.

  Either-way Offences
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many defendants charged with either-way offences consented to trial in magistrates court and pleaded not guilty in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [19730]

  (2) how many defendants charged with either-way offences (a) elected for trial by jury and (b) were directed by magistrates to the Crown court in each year since 1987; [197291

  (3) what was the average period (a) between committal to start of trial in Crown courts and (b) from first appearance or mode of trial decision to verdict in

  Table A1: Number of defendants who pleaded "Not guilty"2 at the Crown court, who were either convicted or acquitted3 for all offences, England and Wales 1996 to 2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Number of defendants who pleaded not guilty

  28,434

  29,272

  30,195

  29,802

  30,500

  Number of defendants who pleaded not guilty who were convicted

  11,869

  11,592

  10,807

  10,226

  9,864

  Number of defendants who pleaded not guilty who were acquitted

  14,894

  15,843

  17,563

  17,829

  18,955

  1 Table excludes the figures of those defendants who pleaded "not guilty" who were not tried (ie bench warrants issued, indictment to lie on file, unfit to plead, defendant died etc).

  2 Not guilty plea to the principal offence.

  3 Acquitted—includes not guilty, no evidence offered, charge withdrawn, judge rules no case to answer.

  Table B: Number of triable either-way cases and all other cases1 that were committed for sentence to the Crown court after trial in a magistrates court, England and Wales 1999 and 2000

  Defendants committed for sentence

  Offence type

  1999

  2000

  Triable either-way

  19,324

  16,445

  Others

  1,093

  851

  Total

  20,417

  17,296

  1 Indictable only and summary offences

  Conspiracy
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the review of the conspiracy provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. [21429]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am please to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has accepted my invitation to carry out the annual review of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998.
  340W
  magistrates courts for cases triable either-way which were contested in each year since 1987; [19731]

  (4) how many (a) contested cases, (b) convictions after trial and (c) acquittals there were in (i) magistrates courts and (ii) Crown courts in each year since 1987; [19728]

  (5) how many (a) either-way and (b) other cases were committed to Crown court for sentence after trial in a magistrates court in each year since 1999. [19558]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information collected centrally by the Home Department does not include information on the number of defendants charged with triable either-way offences who consented to trial in a magistrates court, nor does it contain details on defendants' plea at magistrates courts (nor, therefore, data on the number of contested cases), nor information on whether defendants elect Crown court trial or are directed there.

  I am informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department that the average time by stage of proceedings for triable either-way cases is not available centrally.

  The available information is contained in Tables A and B. Table A provides figures on the number of defendants who pleaded "not guilty" for the principal offence at Crown court, who were either convicted or acquitted in England and Wales, for the years 1995 to 2000. Plea data at the Crown court were not collected centrally by this Department before 1996.

  Table B shows the numbers of defendants who were committed for sentence at the Crown court for triable either-way offences and all other offences for England and Wales, for the years 1999 and 2000.

  Written observations about the operation of the Act should be submitted to Lord Carlile c/o room 324, 3rd Floor, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT by 31 April 2002.

  Missile Technology
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next scheduled meeting of MTCR members will be at which the draft International Code of Conduct for its members will be discussed. [20506]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) agreed at their plenary meeting in Ottawa in September 2001 to separate the draft International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (ICOC) from the regime. The UK has been active in the development of the ICOC and hope that it will become a universally accepted international agreement establishing global standards of practice in an area where currently

  341W
  there are none. France has offered to host the first international negotiation session in February 2002. The next meeting of the MTCR will be in March 2002.

  Breakfast Clubs
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the pilot breakfast clubs set up by the Government are going to be extended. [18213]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has funded the piloting of over 250 breakfast clubs across England as part of an evaluation of their effectiveness. In addition, many breakfast clubs have been funded from a variety of different sources. The piloting is now complete and we will be considering the results of the evaluation and assessing the implications for future breakfast club provision in the context of our wider food in schools programme.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define nuclear weapon as it is used in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, clauses 47 to 49. [19875]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  This subject was discussed in another place on 3 December during discussion of this Part of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. I refer my hon. Friend to 3 December 2001, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 643–44.

DEFENCE

  Donald Rumsfeld
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings he has had with Mr. Donald Rumsfeld since 11 September. [17206]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had one meeting with Donald Rumsfeld since 11 September and have spoken to him many times by telephone.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been provided to(a) local authorities and (b) emergency services on dealing with an accident involving defence nuclear materials. [17938]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence publishes the Local Authority and Emergency Services Information (LAESI) document to provide information to assist local authorities and emergency services in planning their response in the very unlikely event of an accident during the transportation of defence nuclear materials. The most recent version of the LAESI document (Third Edition) was published on the MOD Internet site in October 2001.

  In addition, MOD nuclear sites and defence-related nuclear licensed sites have nuclear accident response contingency plans that are developed in conjunction with local authorities and emergency services.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armour piercing and hard target penetrating warheads containing depleted uranium have been tested in(a) Scotland and (b) Dumfries and Galloway in each of the last 10 years. [18233]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]The number of depleted uranium projectiles fired in Scotland in each of the last 10 years is listed. These tests have all taken place at the Kirkcudbright training area in Dumfries and Galloway.

  Year

  Number

  1991

  666

  1992

  781

  1993

  682

  1994

  4,555

  1995

  280

  1996

  147

  1997

  749

  1998

  134

  1999

  111

  2000

  272

  2001

  1109

  1 To date

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) items of equipment, (b) munitions and (c) all other property of his Department (i) which contain depleted uranium and (ii) in which depleted uranium has been used in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [18819]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 519W, and the answer on 12 November 2001, Official Report, column 523W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) which indicate the uses to which depleted uranium is put by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in munitions and in other ways which mirror the widespread use of this material in the United Kingdom. No central record exists of where DU is or has been used or held over the past 10 years—in view of the nature of its use in MOD, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I can say that DU in munitions will at various times have been found in ammunitions depots at Kineton, Longtown and Dean Hill, on ships fitted with Phalanx weapons systems, at the ranges at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright, and at locations involved in nuclear weapons programmes. DU used for other purposes has been present in a number of the aircraft listed in the earlier answer that are the property of MOD, at RAF Stafford, at the research establishment at Fort Halstead, at sites involved in the naval propulsion programme, and at the Royal hospital, Haslar.

  Gulf War (Immunisation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what drugs were combined in the vaccine used in the immunisation programme for armed forces personnel in the Gulf War; how many personnel were immunised with the vaccine; whether there were any advance tests done of the effects of combining the drugs into one vaccine; and if he will make a statement. [19765]
  343W
  Dr. Moonie
  The immunisation programme for armed forces personnel in the Gulf conflict involved a number of vaccinations. These can be divided into three categories: those which were part of the anti-biological warfare (BW) immunisation programme; routine service health immunisations and third, travel and specific immunisations against the risks associated with individuals' particular employment.

  Details of the anti-BW immunisation programme, including datasheets on the vaccines used, were published in the Ministry of Defence paper: "Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)" in October 1997. A further paper entitled: "Implementation of the Immunisation Programme against Biological Warfare Agents for UK Forces during the Gulf Conflict 1990–91" dated January 2000 provides details on how the anti-BW immunisation programme was implemented, including estimates of the numbers immunised. Detailed information on the numbers of routine service, travel and employment specific immunisations administered is not available. Copies of both documents are available in the Library of the House and on the MOD's website at: www.gulfwar.mod.uk.

  As the January 2000 paper makes clear, some individuals would have received a typhoid and tetanus vaccination which is routinely given as one combined immunisation referred to as TABT (typhoid, paratyphoid strains A and B plus tetanus). All of the other immunisations were administered singly. No tests were carried out in advance of the effects of combining a number of drugs into a vaccine because no such combination was intended. Details of such tests as were carried out in advance are set out in the October 1997 paper; some of these are being replicated in MOD's vaccines interactions research programme which is studying whether the vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. This work is due to complete in 2003. The findings will be published in scientific literature.

  Afghanistan
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answers of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 668, on Afghanistan, if he will provide details of (a) the number of British armed force casualties suffered to date, (b) where, and under what circumstances, the casualties were caused, (c) when the injured personnel were evacuated back to the United Kingdom and (d) what injuries were suffered; and how many (i) injuries and (ii) deaths have been caused to allied forces operating in Afghanistan. [19877]

  Mr. Hoon
  I can confirm that four British military personnel were wounded on operations in Afghanistan, one seriously. They are all now back in the UK receiving treatment. An additional member of the armed forces has also had to return to the UK for a medical assessment. I am withholding further details of the circumstances and the injuries in accordance with Exemptions 1 and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  It would not be appropriate for me to provide information about casualties sustained by other coalition members.
  344W
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to clear unexploded(a) cluster bombs, (b) land mines and (c) other ordnance from Afghanistan. [20004]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the steps that will be taken to clear unexploded cluster bombs after the end of the military action in Afghanistan. [20418]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is a large amount of unexploded ordnance in Afghanistan, a legacy of years of conflict. The international community will provide assistance in clearing it. Detailed plans have yet to be developed, though humanitarian agencies specialising in mine clearance are already present in Afghanistan.

  The UK forces at Bagram include a number of Royal Engineers, who have some explosive ordnance disposal capability.

  Base Security
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the security issues associated with the Peel Circus/Pockeridge Lane development adjacent to Basil Hill Barracks, Cariton, and Defence Communication Services Agency, Copenacre; and if he will make a statement. [19574]

  Mr. Ingram
  Security is always a prime concern. The security arrangements at Corsham have been examined in the light of the proposed civilian housing development and appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that military and civilian personnel at the site are properly protected.

  Gulf War (Medical Records)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many medical records have been requested by armed services personnel who served in the Gulf War; how many have been found; whether all requests for medical record information have been granted; and if he will make a statement; [20266]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the management of medical records from the Gulf War and their accuracy. [20265]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information is not readily available that would enable the Ministry of Defence to identify, from the large number of requests for medical records received, how many were in respect of individuals who served in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict and, of those, in how many cases medical records were available. However, in view of the Government's undertaking to be as informative and thorough as possible in addressing issues of concern to Gulf veterans, I have asked that the information requested be researched. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible placing a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. The policy of the MOD for some years has been that no medical records should be withheld except where legislation so requires.

  In October 2001, MOD's Gulf Veterans Illnesses Unit updated and re-issued a paper previously produced in April 1999 entitled "Medical Records in the Gulf'. This is available on MOD's website at: www.gulfwar.mod.uk. I have arranged for a copy of this paper to be placed in the Library of the House. The paper describes

  345W
  arrangements for medical record keeping during the Gulf conflict; discusses a number of reasons why records that were kept may not have been complete, and provides guidance to Gulf veterans on how to obtain their service medical records.

  Service Aircraft
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average age of aircraft is in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [19962]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the board members of International Military Services Ltd. are. [20186]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The board members of International Military Services Ltd. are:

  Sir Kenneth Macdonald KCB

  Mr. D. G. Jones

  Mr. N. A. D. Sharvell.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the provisions for contingent liabilities in respect of International Military Services Ltd. have been drawn upon since the company became inactive; and if he plans to change the size of the contingent liability provision. [20187]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The contingent liabilities in respect of International Military Services Ltd. have not been drawn on since the company ceased trading but they remain under review.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been made of the upgrading requirements of Fylingdales. [20739]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since RAF Fylingdales was established in 1963, there have been numerous studies that have led to the upgrading of equipment and infrastructure. The most recent addressed security, and its recommendations are currently being implemented.

  Aircraft Movements (Nuclear Weapons)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many movements of(a) UK aircraft and (b) US aircraft occurred within UK airspace in the last year for which figures are available where nuclear weapons were carried; and if he will make a statement. [20170]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]It is current UK policy not to transport UK nuclear weapons by air. The number of US flights carrying nuclear weapons each year within UK airspace depends on programme requirements which are confidential between 346W
  the two Governments. I am therefore withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Royal Marines
  Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on undermanning in the Royal Marines. [20633]
  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Marines continue to be challenged by overall undermanning of about 6 per cent., although recruiting is meeting current targets, retention rates need to be improved and a range of measures are in hand to achieve this. We are confident that the Royal Marine forces deployed on operations will be manned to the appropriate level for any likely task arising.

  Spanish Airspace
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1055W, on Gibraltar, if he will initiate discussions to permit the overflight of Spanish airspace by UK military aircraft. [20776]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no plans specifically to discuss the overflight of Spanish airspace by UK military aircraft, but the on-going discussions with Spain under the Brussels Process aims to resolve all outstanding issues between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the efficiency savings that have been secured by the United Kingdom armed forces in each of the last three years. [18803]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1998–99, the Ministry of Defence has achieved the following efficiency savings, against the challenging targets in our public service agreement.

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Cumulative target

  505

  998

  1,499

  Cumulative savings

  594

  1,126

  11,472

  Annual target

  505

  475

  430

  Annual savings

  594

  511

  1318

  1 Achievement still being validated

  Note:

  All figures expressed at outturn prices (uprated where appropriate to take account of inflation)

  These efficiency savings help ensure that the MOD is able to invest in increasing the military capability of the armed forces.

  Military Personnel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel are serving(a) in and around Gibraltar, (b) in and around Cyprus and (c) in and around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [18797]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of UK regular forces serving in and around Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Falkland Islands as at 1 September 2001.
  347W

  Gibraltar

  Cyprus

  Falkland Islands

  Naval Service

  237

  8

  92

  Army

  70

  2,053

  457

  RAF

  114

  1,089

  726

  Total

  421

  3,150

  1,275

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Armed Forces Housing Stock
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the value of the armed forces housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [18811]

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

  Armed Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been allocated to service in Northern Ireland for 2001–02; and how many there have been in each of the last 20 years. [18823]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of military personnel (Army, Navy and RAF) stationed in Northern Ireland for the last 15 years is set out in the table (figures for the Navy and RAF prior to 1985 are not available):

  As at 31 October

  Number of security force personnel

  1985

  16,536

  1986

  18,851

  1987

  18,003

  1988

  18,295

  1989

  18,626

  1990

  17,628

  1991

  17,962

  1992

  18,982

  1993

  19,022

  1994

  18,345

  1995

  17,070

  1996

  16,490

  1997

  16,716

  1998

  15,566

  1999

  14,459

  2000

  13,640

  2001

  13,820

  As well as those troops stationed in Northern Ireland there are troops under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI) that are rear based on the mainland and can be called forward to the Province as and when required. In addition other troops can be made available to the GOC NI from Land Command, if required, to help out during the height of the summer marching season.

  The security situation is the determinant as to how many security force personnel are stationed in the Province at any given time. Therefore, we cannot say how many personnel may be needed in Northern Ireland next year.
  348W
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the level of expenditure on armed forces based in Northern Ireland for each of the years 1984–85 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [18808]

  Mr. Ingram
  The General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland was vested as a Top Level Budget (TLB) holder on 1 April 1994. Figures for the total expenditure in his TLB are in the annual Appropriation Account, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Personnel Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of personnel in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force for each year from 1975 to 2001 and for 2002 to 2004 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [18816]

  Mr. Ingram
  Estimates of the number of regular personnel by individual service for each year from 1975 to 2001 are shown in the table:

  Trained strength of UK regulars

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  1975

  68,943

  151,422

  90,329

  1976

  68.7

  151.2

  85.6

  1977

  68.9

  150.2

  81.7

  1978

  68.8

  143.3

  79.1

  1979

  65.9

  138.6

  79.7

  1980

  63.8

  139.0

  82.2

  1981

  65,539

  146,833

  86,180

  1982

  67,269

  150,757

  86,485

  1983

  66,085

  147,700

  84,488

  1984

  65,394

  145,401

  86,116

  1985

  64,196

  145,916

  87,119

  1986

  61,529

  145,289

  86,945

  1987

  59,473

  145,030

  87,578

  1988

  58,874

  142,568

  87,639

  1989

  57,475

  139,409

  86,149

  1990

  56,771

  137,240

  83,475

  1991

  55,714

  135,522

  82,621

  1992

  55,767

  133,366

  81,973

  1993

  55,282

  126,486

  78,863

  1994

  52,414

  116,113

  74,209

  1995

  48,193

  104,532

  69,431

  1996

  45,550

  100,077

  62,510

  1997

  41,680

  97,756

  54,196

  1998

  40,356

  97,452

  52,677

  1999

  39,071

  96,300

  51,761

  2000

  38,535

  96,475

  50,993

  2001

  38,023

  96,285

  49,847

  Note:

  The figures for 1976 to 1980 have been rounded because precise data are not available.

  Current estimates of the number of personnel planned for 2002 to 2004 for the Navy, Army and Air Force are shown in the table:

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  2002

  39,257

  96,724

  48,641

  2003

  39,048

  97,240

  47,690

  2004

  38,581

  98,256

  48,717

  349W

  Kosovo
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what occasions injured service men have been evacuated from Kosovo in the last month; [20449]

  (2) what delays have taken place when providing air transport to evacuate service casualties from Kosovo in the last month; [20450]

  (3) what transfers of service men evacuated from Kosovo have taken place between Birmingham hospitals in the last month; and if he will make a statement giving reasons for the transfers. [20451]

  Mr. Ingram
  Eight service personnel were aeromedically evacuated from Kosovo to the UK in November. The return of three patients to the UN on 6 November took around four hours longer than originally scheduled, due to the distance some members of the Critical Care Team had to travel to reach RAF Lyneham, the subsequent requirement to undertake a crew change in Italy, and the failure of airfield lights there. We would normally expect aeromedical evacuation from Kosovo to take around 24 hours. On this occasion it took around 26 hours.

  Seven of the eight patients went to the Centre for Defence Medicine. Six were admitted to the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust and one was admitted to City Hospital, Birmingham. None of these were transferred from one Birmingham hospital to another. However, one of them was subsequently transferred to a hospital in Scotland for rehabilitative care closer to his family.

  EU Deployment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) tanks, (b) fixed wing aircraft and(c) military personnel are serving in (i) Germany and (ii) other European Union countries; and if he will make a statement. [18802]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 216 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks in Germany, and none in other European Union countries (excluding the United Kingdom).

  There have been no fixed wing aircraft based in Germany since September 2001.

  There are 17,350 military personnel serving in Germany and 1,400 serving in other European Union countries (excluding the UK) at 1 September 2001.

  Overseas Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the proportion of the United Kingdom army serving overseas as at 31 December in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [18820]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following represents the proportion of UK trained Army personnel (excluding Gurkhas and Full-time Reserve Service) serving overseas as at 31 December in each of the previous 10 years:350W

  Percentage

  As at 31 December

  Proportion serving overseas

  19911

  44

  19921

  41

  1993

  35

  1994

  31

  1995

  33

  1996

  33

  1997

  31

  1998

  31

  1999

  32

  2000

  30

  1 The figures for years 1991 and 1992 are as at 1 April as these were the only data available from Defence Analytical Services Agency

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assets owned by(a) his Department and (b) the armed forces have been sold over the last three years; which of these assets were registered in the National Asset Register; what the sale proceeds were from these assets; and if he will make a statement. [18805]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on significant asset disposals in Financial Years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is contained in the Ministry of Defence section (Section 7) of the National Asset Register (NAR) published by the Treasury in July 2001. The NAR provides information by Top Level Budget Holder and Agency Chief Executive, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Detailed information on disposals in 2000–01 is not yet held centrally but I will write to the hon. Member when the information becomes available.

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent action he has taken to reduce the number of civilian employees of his Department and of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [18817]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to civilian employees of the Department whether working in direct support of the armed forces or elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence. As explained in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper (Cm 3999), changes in civilian personnel numbers result from the drive for greater effectiveness and better value for money. Para 30 section 2.1 of the UK Defence Statistics 2001 contains details of the changes and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Orders
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to order(a) the Eurofighter and (b) heavy lift transport aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [18796]

  Dr. Moonie
  In respect of Eurofighter, the order for the first tranche of aircraft, including 55 for the United Kingdom, was placed in 1998. The contracts for the second and final tranches are expected to be placed during 2003 and 2007, respectively.

  On A400M, the UK, together with other nations, signed a Memorandum of Understanding at the Paris Air Show in June 2001 covering the development and production phase

  351W
  of the A400M military transport aircraft. Negotiation of the associated commercial contract is almost complete and the aim is to sign it by the end of this year.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need to renew and refit Lynx helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [18798]

  Mr. Ingram
  Our assessment of renewing or refitting the Army Lynx helicopters has shown that it could not provide the capability required. The Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter project is intended to replace the capability provided by the Lynx Marks 7 and 9. It is planned to enter service from the middle of this decade. Plans announced in the Strategic Defence Review to convert 10 Naval Lynx Mk3 helicopters to Mk8 standard have been put on hold pending the outcome of studies into a potential alternative, a Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft capability.

  Apache Helicopters
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Apache helicopters he has ordered; and what plans he has to increase this order. [18827]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have 67 WAH-62 Apache helicopters on order. We have no plans to increase this order.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters are in service in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force; if he will break these down by number and type; and if he will make a statement. [18804]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of helicopters in service in the Army, Navy and Air Force as at 26 November, broken down by number and type are shown in the table.

  Helicopter

  Actual operating fleet

  Sustainment fleet1

  Disposal2

  Comments

  Navy

  Merlin Mk1

  20

  15

  0

  —

  Sea King AEW Mk2/7

  10

  3

  0

  —

  Sea King HU Mk5

  10

  5

  2

  —

  Sea King ASW Mk6

  18

  0

  263

  —

  Lynx HAS Mk3

  31

  7

  0

  —

  Lynx HAS Mk8

  22

  14

  0

  —

  Sea King Mk4

  33

  4

  0

  JHC Asset

  Army

  Lynx

  834

  40

  0

  JHC Asset

  Gazelle

  1204

  14

  0

  JHC Asset

  Bell 212

  3

  0

  0

  JHC Asset

  A 109

  3

  1

  0

  JHC Asset

  Apache AH Mk1

  10

  8

  0

  JHC Asset

  RAF

  Sea King Mk3

  19

  0

  0

  —

  Sea King Mk3a

  6

  0

  0

  —

  Merlin Mk3

  6

  1

  0

  JHC Asset

  Wessex HC2

  8

  2

  0

  JHC Asset

  Puma

  35

  6

  0

  JHC Asset

  Chinook Mk3

  0

  4

  0

  JHC Asset

  Chinook Mk2/2a

  28

  12

  0

  JHC Asset

  1 The sustainment fleet includes helicopters undergoing scheduled base maintenance, those that are in development and those held in reserve.

  2 Helicopters awaiting disposal.

  3 This figure reflects the airframes awaiting disposal following the introduction of the Merlin aircraft.

  4 Includes nine aircraft that are School of Army Aviation assets.

  352W

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the(a) purchase cost and (b) running cost of the two aircraft carriers which he plans to secure for the Royal Navy. [18826]

  Dr. Moonie
  The purchase of the two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy is expected to cost up to £2.9 billion. It is too early in the programme to provide definitive figures on the anticipated running costs of the carriers, since much will depend on the eventual design that is selected. Reliable forecasts for the carriers' running costs are being developed to inform the main investment decision on their build, which is currently scheduled for the end of 2003. As the ships are being designed to reduce support costs from the outset and will not undergo long refit periods while in-service, it is our intention that the overall running costs for the enhanced capability that CVF will offer should be less than that for the current class of ships.

  QuinetiQ
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on external expertise and advice in connection with the flotation of QinetiQ. [18242]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since work began on a PPP solution for the future of DERA following the Strategic Defence Review in 1998, external advice has been received on most aspects of the PPP process. This includes advice in support of the detailed options study and the subsequent further work on selected options, legal and financial aspects of the split of DERA and on the eventual transaction. £6.4 million has been spent so far. These costs are subject to continuous scrutiny to ensure that the services of advisers offer value for money. The costs of QinetiQ's advisers are being met by the company.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) heritage and (b) historic buildings are owned by his Department; and what is their value is in each case. [18812]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the historic and heritage properties and scheduled monuments, which are in the Ministry of Defence's care. I regard these properties as very valuable in both national and departmental terms, and we seek to maintain them to the highest appropriate standards.

  Valuation of such properties is, however, difficult whether in terms of the contribution they make to our business, or in open market terms. For MOD accounting purposes we record only the replacement value of operational assets (for instance, an historic building used for administrative purposes would be valued as an office with certain capacity). The National Asset Register records historic/heritage properties as having nil value. Given the number of properties in the keeping of the MOD, as well as their often unique history and location, the information required is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, which would in any case be of questionable practical use.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the additional planned spending which would be needed to stabilise the share of UK defence spending in relation to UK gross domestic product at the 2001 level until 2005; and if he will make a statement. [18815]

  Mr. Ingram
  Using the resource based figures announced in the 2000 Spending Review, defence budget expenditure is expected to represent the following share of GDP for 2001–02 to 2003–04:

  Financial year

  Percentage GDP

  2001–02

  2.4

  2002–03

  2.3

  2003–04

  2.3

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 October 2001, Official Report, columns 565–66W, which reported the figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Those figures imply that a further 0.1 per cent. of GDP would be required in 2002–03 and 2003–04 to maintain UK defence spending at a constant percentage of UK GDP, though the figure for 2001–02 includes estimated conflict prevention funding (which cannot be forecast for subsequent years). The defence budget will, however, increase in real terms over each of these years. The defence budget for 2004–05 will be agreed during Spending Review 2002.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his estimate is of total United Kingdom defence spending over the last 25 years; what value for money assessment of defence expenditure he has conducted; and if he will make a statement; [18818]

  (2) what (a) underspends and (b) overspends have been recorded against his Department's total budget in each of the years 1996–97 to 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [18838]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence spending for the last 25 completed financial years was as follows:

  £ million

  1976–77

  6,158

  1977–78

  6,788

  1978–79

  7,596

  1979–80

  9,408

  1980–81

  11,451

  1981–82

  12,806

  1982–83

  14,630

  1983–84

  15,732

  1984–85

  17,450

  1985–86

  18,263

  1986–87

  18,410

  1987–88

  18,922

  1988–89

  19,221

  1989–90

  20,777

  1990–91

  22,207

  1991–92

  24,438

  1992–93

  22,910

  1993–94

  22,757

  1994–95

  22,562

  1995–96

  21,517

  1996–97

  22,345

  354W

  £ million

  1997–98

  21,610

  1998–99

  22,475

  1999–2000

  22,549

  2000–01

  23,538

  Note:

  These figures are not adjusted for inflation

  The following underspends/overspends were recorded during the period 1996–97 to 2000–01:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  1246

  1997–98

  2225

  1998–99

  274

  1999–2000

  2318

  2000–01

  272

  1 Overspend

  2 Underspend

  More detailed breakdowns are available in the Department Appropriation Accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is committed to the pursuit of efficiency and value for money. The MOD's Public Service Agreement was published in December 1998, and set key targets for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02, reflecting the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. The PSA set many challenging value for money targets, and the Department has made good progress against these. MOD's Departmental Performance Report (DPR) was recently published and set out in detail progress against each target. A copy of the DPR has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Warships
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the orders for new warships which he has(a) placed and (b) plans to place for delivery prior to 2015; what his estimate of the cost of these new ships is; when the in-service expected date is in each case; and if he will make a statement. [18795]

  Dr. Moonie
  This Government are undertaking the largest programme of new warship building for many years. Since May 1997 the Ministry of Defence has placed:

  (a) contracts for four Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSLs) at an overall value of about £300 million, expected in-service between late 2004 and late 2005. The ALSL class is now expected to be in service earlier than previously envisaged, due to good co-operation between the two shipbuilders (Swan Hunter Tyneside and BAE Systems Marine) concerned;

  (b) a prime contract, valued at about £1.3 billion, for three new Type 45 Destroyers, the first of which is expected to enter service in 2007. We announced earlier this year our intention, subject to commercial negotiations, to amend this contract to increase our commitment to a total of six ships.

  (c) a lease contract for three new offshore patrol vessels, expected to enter service between autumn 2002 and autumn 2003. The total cost of the lease package is approximately £60 million.
  355W
  (d) a contract for two Survey Vessels, at an approximate cost of £130 million for the vessels and 25 years of support, expected in-service in winter 2002 and summer 2003.

  As to our future plans, we expect to purchase two new Future Aircraft Carriers, for which an order is planned in 2004, costing up to £2.9 billion at outturn prices. We currently plan that the first ship will enter service in 2012. Other orders over the next few years will include further ASTUTE class submarines and Type 45 Destroyers.

  Our longer-term plans include the future surface combatant programme to replace the current Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates and a variety of other vessels. We are also investigating options to replace the capabilities currently filled by those ships in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary fleet which are scheduled to leave service towards the end of the decade. It is not possible to provide accurate details of the cost or individual in-service dates of these vessels at this stage.

  It remains our policy that all new warships will be built in the UK.

  Submarines
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines are in service in the Royal Navy; and how many there were in each of the past 25 years. [18799]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of submarines in service in the Royal Navy, inclusive of vessels which are operational, at extended readiness, or in refit and repair, for this year and in each of the past 25 years is as follows:

  Number

  2001

  16

  2000

  16

  1999

  15

  1998

  15

  1997

  15

  1996

  15

  1995

  16

  1994

  21

  1993

  23

  1992

  23

  1991

  27

  1990

  31

  1989

  31

  1988

  31

  1987

  32

  1986

  33

  1985

  32

  1984

  31

  1983

  30

  1982

  31

  1981

  32

  1980

  31

  1979

  30

  1978

  31

  1977

  31

  1976

  31

  1975

  32

  Note:

  Figures are as I April in each year
  356W

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) aircraft carriers, (b)
  cruisers, (c) destroyers,(d) frigates and (e) mine-sweepers have been in operation with the Royal Navy in each of the last 25 years; and if he will make a statement. [18806]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of(a) aircraft carriers, (b) cruisers, (c) destroyers, (d) frigates and (e) minesweepers that have been in operation with the Royal Navy, for this year and in each of the past 25 years is as follows:

  Aircraft carriers1

  Cruisers

  Destroyers

  Frigates

  Mine Counter measures vessels2

  2001

  3

  0

  8

  18

  19

  2000

  3

  0

  10

  20

  20

  1999

  3

  0

  10

  22

  18

  1998

  3

  0

  10

  20

  16

  1997

  2

  0

  10

  19

  16

  1996

  2

  0

  10

  22

  16

  1995

  2

  0

  10

  20

  18

  1994

  3

  0

  10

  22

  18

  1993

  2

  0

  11

  27

  30

  1992

  2

  0

  11

  32

  31

  1991

  2

  0

  10

  31

  35

  1990

  2

  0

  12

  31

  37

  1989

  3

  0

  11

  30

  36

  1988

  2

  0

  11

  31

  35

  1987

  2

  0

  13

  33

  36

  1986

  3

  0

  13

  34

  39

  1985

  2

  0

  12

  34

  32

  1984

  3

  0

  13

  39

  34

  1983

  3

  0

  13

  42

  34

  1982

  2

  0

  11

  38

  31

  1981

  2

  0

  12

  35

  30

  1980

  2

  0

  10

  38

  34

  1979

  2

  1

  10

  42

  35

  1978

  3

  2

  10

  43

  34

  1977

  2

  2

  8

  40

  34

  1976

  2

  1

  8

  46

  37

  1975

  3

  2

  10

  47

  40

  1 Aircraft Carriers include Commando Carriers and the Landing Platform Helicopter.

  2 Mine Counter measures vessels incorporates Minesweepers and Minehunters.

  Note:

  Ships 'in operation' include those that were operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training as at 1 April in each year, but does not include ships in refit or those held at extended readiness.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent estimate he has made of the defence budget as a share of UK gross domestic product; and how this compares with other(a) European Union and (b) NATO countries; and if he will make a statement. [18807]

  Mr. Ingram
  The defence budget share of gross domestic product for financial year 2000–01 was 2.5 per cent. From data supplied by nations, we estimate the NATO average to be around 2.2 per cent. for a comparable period. Although there are no equivalent EU data, we believe the average was around 1.8 per cent.

  Tanks
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to order a new tank for the Army. [18801]
  357W
  Dr. Moonie
  We are not currently planning to order a new tank for the Army. Deliveries of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2) have only recently been completed. The CR2 provides an excellent capability, ensuring that British forces will continue to be properly equipped to conduct high intensity warfare for many years to come. However, as one would expect, research and evaluation into its potential successor is taking place now. It is too early to properly identity the type of vehicle that will eventually replace the CR2.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tanks are in service and how many have been operational in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [18822]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 28 November 2001,Official Report, columns 913–14W to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), regarding the number of armoured vehicles currently in service. It is not possible to state how many have been operational during the last 20 years as this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a submission to Her Majesty's Treasury on his Department's expenditure plans for the next comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement. [18824]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 25 June 2001,Official Report, columns 38–39W to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence), which set out the Government's priorities and broad timetable for the spending review 2002.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the guidelines which his Department issues in relation to low flying by(a) helicopters and (b) fixed wing aircraft in UK airspace. [18813]

  Dr. Moonie
  Routine low flying by fixed wing aircraft takes place between 2,000 feet and 250 feet Minimum Separation Distance and for helicopters from 500 feet Minimum Separation Distance down to ground level. Guidelines for all military aviators on the conduct of flying in the UK Low Flying System are contained in departmental regulations and are reinforced on training courses and supplemented as appropriate by briefings. Information is also promulgated through Notices to Airmen enabling aircrew to plan and execute sorties that reflect the daily situation in the UK Low Flying System. General information is available to the public on the website www.lowflying.mod.uk and in a leaflet entitled "Military Low Flying an Essential Skill", that may be obtained on request from the following address:

  Directorate of Air Staff (Lower Airspace) Complaints and Enquirie

  Room 664

  Ministry of Defence

  Metropole Building

  Northumberland Avenue

  London WC2N 5BP.

  358W

  Procurement
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the percentage share accounted for by procurement costs as a portion of the total budget of his Department for(a) each of the past 10 years and (b) the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [18821]

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

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of spending on defence procurement for the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force for each of the years from 1980–81 to 2001–02. [18809]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures for Ministry of Defence spending on defence equipment for the years 1980–81 to 1990–91 are contained within the respective "Volume 2 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates". From 1991–92 they have been included in the "UK Defence Statistics". Copies are held in the Library of the House.

  The data in these documents are broadly split by type—ie whether it is air, land, sea or 'other' equipment for the years where this information is available. The 'other' category refers to equipment not specific to a particular environment. This division (air, land, sea and other) does not necessarily match the particular end destination of the equipment (ie RAF, Army and Navy). For example, not all aerospace equipment is used by the RAF.

  From 1999–2000, the division of equipment expenditure into air, land, sea and other is not available due to changes in the Departments accounting procedures and a move to Tri-Service based procurement.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the 10 most expensive procurement projects planned by his Department for the period 2001 to 2011; and if he will make a statement. [18825]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Comptroller and Auditor General published his report on the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report 2001 (MPR 2001) on 23 November. This report contains details of the top 20 projects that have passed the main investment decision based on forecast future spend and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  The 10 projects with the highest total project cost in MPR 2001 are as follows:

  Eurofighter

  Merlin HM Mkl Maritime Helicopter

  Attack Helicopter

  Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance and Attack Mk4

  Astute Class Submarine

  Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo

  Hercules C130J

  Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile

  Tornado Mid-Life Update

  High Velocity Missile.

  359W

  Fixed Wing Aircraft
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many operational fixed wing aircraft there are in the Royal Air Force; and if he will break down this figure by aircraft type and number. [18800]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 23 November 2001, there were 676 fixed wing aircraft in the RAF's Actual Operating Fleet. The Actual Operating Fleet comprises all aircraft which are fully operational or in 1st or 2nd line maintenance. The breakdown of this figure by aircraft type and number is detailed in the table:

  Aircraft type

  Number of aircraft

  BAe 125 ccMk3

  5

  BAe 146 ccMk2

  2

  C-17

  4

  Canberra

  6

  Chipmunk

  2

  Dakota

  1

  Dominie

  10

  Harrier GR7

  50

  Harrier T10

  9

  Sea Harrier FA2

  27

  Sea Harrier T8

  4

  Hawk

  110

  Hercules C-13OJ

  23

  Hercules C-130K

  26

  Islander

  1

  Jaguar

  43

  Jetstream TMk

  21

  Nimrod

  19

  Sentry E-3D AEW Mk1

  6

  Tornado F3

  86

  Tornado GR1/4

  117

  Tristar

  8

  Tucano Mk1

  77

  VC10

  19

  The RAF also operates the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, which comprises seven fixed wing aircraft. The breakdown of this figure by aircraft type and number is detailed in the table:

  Aircraft type

  Number

  Hurricane

  2

  Lancaster B1

  1

  Spitfire

  4

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much has been spent on financial arrangements to encourage NHS trusts to achieve waiting time targets set by the Defence Secondary Care Agency in each year since the arrangements have been in place; [18240]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 293W, what financial arrangements exist to encourage NHS trusts to achieve waiting time targets set by the Defence Secondary Care Agency. [18239]

  Dr. Moonie
  The financial arrangements with Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) Trusts referred to in my answer to the hon. Member of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 293W, are based on provisions set out in Health Service Circular 1999/112, dated 21 May 1999. They provide financial incentives for the individual
  360W
  trusts to achieve waiting time targets set by the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA), in the form of two stages of premium, set at a percentage of the basic tariff. The first stage premium is payable so long as there is clear evidence that the trust is attempting to achieve the targets. The second, small premium, is payable on a specialty by specialty basis, separately as regards the targets for out-patient attendance and in-patient admissions, and is dependant on the full achievement of the target.

  In the two years since these arrangements have been in place, the total expenditure on the premiums has been £1.230 million in 1999–2000 and £1.242 million in 2000–01.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to the EU of the EU structures that have been created to support the European Security and Defence Policy. [19826]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The annual cost to member states of maintaining the European Council structures supporting ESDP on the European Council Secretariat budget for the last financial year was £5,800,000. This has been met within existing EU resources.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  NHS Reform
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those areas of NHS reform under this Government which he described as having gone backwards on 25 November. [19081]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 28 November 2001,Official Report, columns 961–62.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target for delivery of the Civil Service reforms programme. [21238]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department continues to drive the Civil Service reform programme across Departments, and good progress has been made against the many actions which were set out in Sir Richard Wilson's initial Reform Report which was published in December 1999. A report on progress was published in December 2000, and a further report is planned early in the new year.

  These reports, and information on progress across the many separate strands of the Civil Service reform programme are published on the dedicated website: www.civil-service.gov.uk/reform.
  361W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress on the Public Service Agreement target for the review of corporate human resources systems which was subsumed within the Civil Service reforms programme. [21275]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office continues to drive forward the programme of Civil Service reform across Departments, and intends to publish the second annual report early in the new year. I am pleased to be able to give some examples of progress already made.

  By April 2002, around 80 per cent. of all Departments will have reviewed their pay and performance management systems. A new corporate performance management system for the Senior Civil Service, based on a new competency framework, was introduced in April of this year, and payments under the new system will be made commencing April 2002.

  The Cabinet Office has undertaken a review of the Fast Stream, with the aim of retaining the scheme's appeal with the best of the current applicants and adding applications from the best graduates from underrepresented groups.

  A new E-recruitment gateway has been established, which is currently being used by over 50 Departments and agencies and attracting over 52,000 hits a month.

  Following wide consultation, a new and more flexible pension scheme has been developed for Civil Servants and is being introduced with effect from October 2002.

  A copy of the Civil Service Reform Report 2000 is available in the Library of the House and can be accessed through the following website: www.civil-service.gov.uk/ reform.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will list the(a) renovations and (b) other works being carried out to the Ripley buildings; when this work was agreed to; and what is the total expected cost of this work. [20344]

  Mr. Leslie
  The project to refurbish Admiralty Arch, Kirkland House and the Ripley Building was announced to the Public Administration Select Committee by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 8 December 1998.

  The work to the Ripley and Kirkland Buildings (collectively known as 22 Whitehall) is a major refurbishment including the installation of new lifts, new mechanical and electrical and plumbing services. In addition, both buildings have required major structural repairs.

  A contract in 1999 to undertake structural repairs to the Ripley Building cost £2.079 million excluding VAT. The major contract currently under way to undertake the refurbishment of 22 Whitehall as a whole is subject to an incentivised arrangement with the contractor. In the light of this arrangement, the final cost to the Cabinet Office cannot be precisely estimated at this time. However, the current expectation is that the cost will be of the order of £27 million (excluding VAT).
  362W

WALES

  Local Health Boards
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local health boards he expects to be created in Wales under the NHS Reform Bill. [20895]

  Mr. Touhig
  The NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill provides a power for the National Assembly for Wales to establish bodies called local health boards. It will be for the Assembly, through subordinate legislation, to determine how many local health boards are to be set up. The Assembly's Minister for Health and Social Services has stated her intention to set up 22 local health boards following her consultation on the structural proposals for NHS Wales.

  Pupils' Transport
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly for Wales regarding the transport of pupils from Llandogo to Monmouth. [15797]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 842.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contribution he has made to the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review. [15794]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office, is a member of the PIU Energy Review Advisory Group and has been engaged in the review since it began in June this year. The PIU held a seminar in Wales on 27 September to take the views of Assembly representatives, Assembly sponsored public bodies and the energy industry in Wales.

  Departmental Name Change
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was of rebranding his Department following its name change after the General Election. [17862]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The name of my Department did not change after the 2001 General Election.

HEALTH

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work his Department has undertaken to explain the trends in prescribing of(a) atypical and (b) traditional antipsychotic medication within the NHS; what the key findings are; and if he will set out the number of prescription items dispensed within the NHS in England for antipsychotic drugs in each of the last five years for each regional and health authority for the age groups (i) 0 to 15 years, (ii) 16 to 59 years and (iii) 60 years and over. [10998]
  363W
  Jacqui Smith
  No work has been done at this stage to explain the recent trend in prescribing of atypical and traditional antipsychotic medication although the figures are monitored.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is undertaking an appraisal of the use of atypical antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia. Guidance is expected to be issued this year. The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England for antipsychotic drugs, 1999 and 2000 by health authority, have been placed in the Library. Similar information for earlier years is not available. Information about antipsychotic drugs dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were dispensed in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 for (i) atypical antipsychotic medicine, (ii) traditional antipsychotic medicine and (iii) all antipsychotic medicine, to hospital patients by each health authority in England for patients (A) up to 16, (B) 16 to 59, and (C) 60 years old and over. [17829]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Private Hospitals (Complaints Procedures)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his discussions with private hospitals on complaints handling arrangements. [14722]

  Ms Blears
  Independent health care providers will be required to have in place effective arrangements for handling complaints as part of the new regulatory system to be introduced from April 2002 under the Care Standards Act 2000. The regulations and standards that it is proposed to apply were issued for consultation in July 2001. Organisations representing private hospitals were among those consulted. The consultation comments are currently being considered.

  Freedom of Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date his Department established a working group of officials to prepare his Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14776]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 366W.

  The Department has established two committees to work on the implementation of Freedom of Information. The steering group was set up on 20 July and first met on 10 October. The working group was set up on 31 August 2001 and first met on 13 November 2001.

  Radiation Hazards
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent communications his Department has had with the working party on research implications of health and safety standards of radiation protection measures of the Article 31 Group of Experts appointed by the European Commission. [15576]
  364W
  Ms Blears
  Professor R. H. Clarke, who is Director of the National Radiological Protection Board, which advises the Department and others on radiation hazards, is a member of the Research Implications of Health and Safety Standard Working Party of Article 31. Officials in the Department receive information routinely on the programme of the working party and attend its seminars.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost in 2001–02 of the Medicines Control Agency. [16937]

  Ms Blears
  The budgeted costs of the Medicines Control Agency for the year 2001–02 are £39.6 million. The actual costs for the year will not be available until after March 2002. These costs are funded by fees from industry and others. The MCA does not receive any direct funding from the vote.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure is on items below £0.5 million in Annex A of the departmental report 2001. [17164]

  Ms Blears
  Items in Annex A1 through to Annex A8 of the Departmental report that are below £0.5 million are denoted with the sign `#' in the report. These items, in total, relate to planned income, not expenditure, of £181,000 for 2001–02.

  Departmental Environmental Strategy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is in 2001–02 of his Department's environmental strategy. [16935]

  Ms Blears
  The Department supports the Government's strategy to put sustainable development—of which environmental matters are but one strand—at the heart of all its business. All activity related to environmental policy and operational matters is an integral part of departmental business and cannot be costed as a discrete item.

  Directorate of Counter Fraud Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost in 2001–02 of the Directorate of Counter Fraud Services; and what level of fraud it has detected. [16941]

  Ms Blears
  The Directorate of Counter Fraud Services (DCFS) is the central unit of the National Health Service Counter Fraud Service (NHS CFS). The DCFS budget for 2001–02 is £1,344,200.

  Since its inception, the NHS CFS has investigated 1,022 cases of alleged fraud, with an appropriate sanction being applied in every case where fraud has been proven. A 100 per cent. success rate has been achieved in 76 criminal prosecution cases. A further 131 civil and disciplinary sanction cases have been successfully progressed. A total of £11.9 million has been recovered and fraud through evasion of NHS prescription charges has been reduced by £48 million (41 per cent.) by the year 2000–01.
  365W

  Prescription Fraud
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of prescription charge evasion for each of the last five years. [16858]

  Ms Blears
  The National Health Service Counter Fraud Service has carried out two patient prescription charge evasion exercises, measuring (to an accuracy of plus or minus 0.6 per cent.) the levels of fraud by patients from samples taken in November 1998 and July 1999. The amount of money lost to the NHS is estimated at £117 million in 1998–99 and £69 million in 1999–2000, demonstrating a reduction in losses from evasion of £48 million (41 per cent.). The NHS CFS will continue to measure prescription fraud on a regular basis.

  There was no accurate measurement of prescription charge evasion prior to these exercises.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were prosecuted for prescription fraud in each of the last five years. [16856]

  Ms Blears
  Between the establishment of the Prescription Pricing Authority Compliance Unit on 1 April 1996 and June 2000 there was one criminal prosecution of a patient for fraudulently claiming prescription exemption. This case was handled by the police and occurred in 1999.

  The unit was not involved in the prosecution of any contractors.

  In June 2000 a new pharmaceutical fraud team was formed from the existing PPA Fraud Investigation Unit and integrated into the National Health Service Counter Fraud Service.

  This has so far brought four successful prosecution cases against contractors to the NHS for prescription fraud. Two of these were completed in 2000 and two in 2001.

  A further 17 cases are at various stages of the prosecution process, many of which are nearing fruition.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what anti-counterfeiting features have been introduced in prescription forms since 1997. [16857]

  Ms Blears
  A number of features were introduced in 1998. Among these are an ultra violet light sensitive mark in the forms, as an anti-counterfeiting device and serial numbering, primarily to aid tracking of prescription forms. There are a number of other security features which, for obvious reasons, must remain confidential.

  Bed Census
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the 30 November bed census will include an audit of the number of beds in(a) mixed sex wards and (b) nightingale wards. [16839]

  Ms Blears
  The bed census scheduled for Friday 30 November is part of preparations for winter and will compare the number of general and acute beds in the national health service with numbers at the same time last year. It will inform the winter plan which is due for publication in December. The census will not collect information on mixed sex wards or nightingale wards.
  366W

  Welfare Foods
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the funding of welfare foods in 2001–02. [17318]

  Jacqui Smith
  Plans for this year envisage expenditure of £79 million on liquid milk, £37 million on dried baby milk and £0.03 million on vitamins (England). Administration costs are estimated at £8.5 million (Great Britain).

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the £130 million allocated in 2001–02 to health authorities to adjust for health inequalities will be spent in 2001–02. [17316]

  Jacqui Smith
  The health inequalities adjustment of £130 million forms part of the total allocation to health authorities for 2001–02. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Generic Drugs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the savings to public funds in 2000–01 from price reductions in generic drugs and the effect of the maximum price scheme. [17317]

  Ms Blears
  Following the introduction of the maximum price scheme in August 2000 the resulting price reductions on generic medicines produced estimated savings of £330 million to the national health service in the year to August 2001 compared to March 2000 prices.

  Community Dental Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of community dental services in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [17315]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask, the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients from the Buckingham constituency contracted hospital-acquired infections in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [17853]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Comprehensive information about bacteraemias, including MRSA, has been collected from all acute trusts since 1 April 2001 and this will be published showing individual Trust data from 1 April 2002.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations on residents of the Buckingham constituency have been cancelled in each quarter in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 as a result of hospital beds being occupied by delayed discharge patients who (i) were

  367W
  awaiting social services funding or assessment and (ii) who had fully funded social services packages arranged. [17855]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Statistics on the number of operations cancelled for non-medical reasons in each health authority are collected on a quarterly basis. Copies are available in the Library. The latest figures are for quarter 1 (April-June) of the 2001–02 financial year.

  Tuberculosis (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis in schools in the Buckingham constituency. [17857]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our policy is that all school children should be BCG immunised between ages 10–14 if they have not previously been immunised. Initially, in Buckinghamshire, this vaccine was offered to those students who were due to leave school in summer 2001. Where there has been sufficient vaccine and resources year 10 pupils were also offered testing and immunisation. Any current years 10 and 11 pupils who have not yet been offered the vaccine will be offered testing and immunisation during this academic year.

  Further local information can be obtained from the chairman of the Buckinghamshire health authority.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the Chief Medical Officer's Working Group report on ME/CSF. [17961]

  Jacqui Smith
  The myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome working group members are currently considering amendments to their report. We hope to be in a position to publish the final report shortly.

  Smoking-related Deaths
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths there have been since May 1997 from stroke; how many of these were smoking related; and what plans he has to introduce a bill on tobacco advertising and promotion. [18463]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested. Based on 1995 figures it has been estimated that each year 18,250 deaths are caused from stroke of which 7,300 deaths are smoking related.

  We are committed to bring back the Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship Bill during the lifetime of the current Parliament.

  Water Fluoridation
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make drinking water fluoridation more easily available in those areas which express a desire to have such water treatment; and if he will make a statement. [18650]
  368W
  Ms Blears
  We have commissioned the Medical Research Council to provide scientific advice regarding the health effects of water fluoridation and suggest priorities for the further research required. Their report is expected early next year and we will be reviewing our policy in the light of the report.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of NHS Direct on the number of patients visiting general practitioners in Leicestershire. [18497]

  Ms Blears
  Since NHS Direct east midlands was launched in February 1999 it has handled over 695,000 calls. This year alone it has handled over 340,000 calls. Where NHS Direct has acted as the first point of contact for patients seeking medical help out-of-hours, up to 50 per cent. of calls are handled without the need for onward referral to an out-of hours-doctor. By 2004 NHS Direct will be a one-stop gateway to out-of-hours health care passing on calls where necessary, to the appropriate general practitioner co-operative, including those in Leicestershire

  NHS Direct is improving access to health care by advising callers which part of the national health service to contact. NHS Direct nurses routinely advise two out of three callers to use a more appropriate setting of care than the caller said they would otherwise have used. One in three callers are advised how to look after themselves at home.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in(a) Leicestershire and (b) the Loughborough constituency are registered with an NHS dentist; [18496]

  (2) how many dentists in (a) Leicestershire and (b) the Loughborough constituency provide NHS treatment. [18495]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of patients registered with a dentist in the general dental service (GDS) in Leicestershire health authority at 30 September 2001 is shown in the table. The table also shows the number of GDS dentists who carry out the majority of their work in the area covered by Leicestershire health authority.

  Information on the number of patients registered and number of GDS dentists is not available by constituency.

  General dental service: number of registrations and dentists in Leicestershire health authority at 30 September 2001

  Number

  Registrations:

  Adults

  330,478

  Children

  136,141

  Total

  466,619

  Total number of dentists1

  282

  1 Dentists who do the majority of their work in Leicestershire health authority. Excludes dentists in Leicestershire health area who do most of their work in other health authorities.

  369W

  Walk-in Centre, Loughborough
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the Loughborough walk-in centre; and if he will make a statement. [18476]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has put in place systems to gather monthly management information on the operation of national health service walk-in centres, which are three-year pilot initiatives. In addition, it has commissioned an 18-month national evaluation of walk-in centres, which is being carried out by the University of Bristol. This began on 1 June 2000 and is due to report at the end of this year.

  In Loughborough, general practitioner and primary care group (PCG) support was achieved on the basis that the impact of Loughborough NHS walk-in centre on local GP services would be assessed. To achieve a realistic and effective evaluation, a comparison of the "before" and "after" opening positions was considered essential.

  Therefore, data have been collected by Leicestershire health authority since January 2000 until the end of June 2001. This data are in the final stages of being analysed by the local health community and it is expected to be published in a report scheduled for presentation to the local PCG some time early in the new year.

  Early indications are that the walk-in centre has rapidly become an integral part of the local health community, which is greatly valued by local GPs, patients and other stakeholders.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of(a) capital and (b) revenue funding he has made available to Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust for the Loughborough walk-in centre. [18475]

  Jacqui Smith
  The level of capital and revenue funding for Loughborough national health service walk-in centre since it was established and opened on 3 July 2000 is set out in the table.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  capital

  61,000

  —

  Revenue

  363,000

  471,000

  Loughborough General Hospital
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the new Loughborough general hospital; and if he will make a statement. [18474]

  Jacqui Smith
  The full business case (FBC) for the development of Loughborough Hospital was approved by national health service Trent Regional Office in November 1999. Since that time, Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust has continued to develop the design and costing of the scheme.

  Outstanding planning issues have been resolved and construction work started on this £9.4 million, publicly funded scheme earlier this year. The project is on time and within budget with an expected completion date on site of 22 November 2002. It is due to come into use at the end of December 2002.
  370W

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations have been cancelled in Devon, in each quarter in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, as a result of hospital beds being occupied by (i) delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding or assessment and (ii) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged; [18285]

  (2) how many hospital beds were unavailable in Devon to incoming patients as a result of their occupation by (a)delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social services funding and (b) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social services packages arranged in each quarter in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [18286]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally in the requested format. The available information on delayed discharges in north and east Devon health authority has been placed in the Library.

  MMR Inoculations
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children aged(a) one to two, (b) two to three and (c) three to four years have been given MMR inoculations in Devon in the last five years. [18280]

  Ms Blears
  The information available about children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  Nursing and Residential Care Beds
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b)beds have closed in Devon in each year since 1997. [18287]

  Ms Blears
  The number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with the number of new registrations, are shown in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number of beds associated with closures or new registrations.

  Number of care home establishment closures and new home registrations in Devon

  Year ending 31 March

  1999

  2000

  Number of establishment closures

  Residential1

  49

  99

  Nursing2

  5

  18

  Number of new registrations

  Residential1

  58

  104

  Nursing2

  6

  9

  1 Information for 1999 is presented for Devon county council only as information for Plymouth and Torbay unitary authorities is not available. Information for 2000 is presented for Devon county council and Plymouth and Torbay unitary authorities. Therefore the figures are not strictly comparable.

  2 Information presented for south and west Devon and north and east Devon health authorities.

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey
  371W

  Trolley Deaths
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died while on trolleys in the Leicestershire health authority while awaiting admission in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [18737]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no recorded instances of patients dying on trolleys in the Leicestershire health authority area while awaiting admission in accident and emergency, with the exception of Brenda Jones, who died in Leicester Royal infirmary on 20 November.

  After being assessed and waiting on a trolley for several hours, Mrs. Jones was being seen by a doctor in Leicester Royal infirmary accident and emergency department when she collapsed. She was taken to a resuscitation room, where sadly she died. A post mortem has revealed that she died of a pulmonary embolus. The trust's initial investigations suggest this could not have been foreseen from her presenting condition. Nevertheless, a full investigation is being carried out and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust has already revisited and strengthened its procedures and has apologised to Mrs. Jones' husband.

  Mrs. Brenda Jones
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the death of Mrs. Brenda Jones. [18740]

  Jacqui Smith
  The University Hospitals of Leicester national health service trust is carrying out an urgent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Jones' death in the accident and emergency department at Leicester Royal infirmary (LRI) after a considerable time spent waiting on a trolley. Initial investigations indicate that Mrs. Jones' treatment in accident and emergency was appropriate to her presenting condition. A post mortem revealed that she died of a pulmonary embolus and it is believed that this could not have been foreseen. Nevertheless, procedures have been revisited and strengthened and the trust has apologised to her husband.

  Following visits to Leicester Royal infirmary by the National Patients Access Team and the Winter and Emergency Services Team (WEST), a remedial action plan has been put in place, to address the problems of long waiting in accident and emergency at the LRI. The regional office continues to work closely with the trust and WEST to help Leicester to meet the new national target, which states that by the end of March 2002 no one should have to wait more than four hours in accident and emergency before admission.

  We are determined to tackle the problem of long trolley waits in some parts of the country. The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust has received £3.7 million to modernise its accident and emergency department, as part of our £115 million accident and emergency modernisation programme. A further £366,011 was announced last week for extra emergency care nurses at the trust between now and 2003.

  University Hospitals of Leicester Trust
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual budget of the University Hospitals of Leicester trust for the latest financial year. [18738]
  372W
  Jacqui Smith
  The latest published figures for the University Hospitals of Leicester national health service trust are for the financial year 2000–01. The total income (or turnover) for this period was £346.83 million.

  Source:

  Summarisation schedules

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants there are in the University Hospitals of Leicester. [18739]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of hospital, public health medicine and community health services medical and dental consultants within the University Hospitals of Leicester national health service trust is 360.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census, as at 30 September 2000

  Strokes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the stroke standard published within the National Service Framework for Older People is implemented across different health and social care settings; [18916]

  (2) what action he plans to take to address the variation in the death rate from stroke in hospitals in England. [18915]

  Jacqui Smith
  The stroke standard in the National Service Framework for Older People (NSF) provides a detailed service model and specific milestones for the local development of specialised stroke services throughout England. The achievement of milestones will be monitored and will ensure improvements in access to, and delivery of stroke care and as a consequence help to reduce variation in death rate across England. The NSF milestones are:

  By April 2002 every general hospital which cares for people with stroke will have plans to introduce a specialised stroke service as described in the stroke service model from 2004.

  By April 2003 every hospital which cares for older people with stroke will have established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of the Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for stroke care.

  By April 2004 primary care groups/trusts will have ensured that:

  every general practice, using protocols agreed with local specialist services, can identify and treat patients identified as being at risk of a stroke because of high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation or other risk factors

  every general practice is using a protocol agreed with local specialist services for the rapid referral and management of those with transient ischaemic attack

  every general practice can identify people who have had a stroke and are treating them according to protocols agreed with local specialist services

  every general practice has established clinical audit systems for stroke.

  By April 2004, 100 per cent. of all general hospitals which care for people with stroke to have a specialised stroke service as described in the stroke service model.

  373W

  Nursing Cadet Scheme
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Gateshead Health NHS Trust's nursing cadet scheme; and what plans there are to encourage other NHS trusts to practice similar recruitment techniques. [19060]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Gateshead Health national health service trust nurse cadet scheme, established in partnership by the trust and the University of Northumbria, creates a seamless career pathway for students into nurse training. The two year scheme commenced on 24 September 2001 with 12 participants. Cadets undertake both practice placements, supported by a mentor, and theoretical learning. On completion of their level 3 NVQ in Care they will step immediately into nurse training at the university.

  Date

  Minister

  Place

  Purpose

  3 November 2000

  Secretary of State

  New School of Health building, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough

  Official opening of the new School of Health

  30 March 2001

  Secretary of State

  University of Durham, Stockton campus, Stockton, Teesside

  Extra medical school places announcement

  6 September 2001

  Minister of State (Jacqui Smith)

  Bankfields Court, Normanby, Middlesbrough

  Community Care conference at Teesside University followed by visit to Tees and North East Yorkshire Trust

  None of these have been set up with the intention of meeting locally based businesses.

  Protection of Children Act
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many social services departments have not complied fully with the Protection of Children Act 1999; [19095]

  (2)what monitoring of social service departments he has undertaken to ensure that the vetting procedures laid out in the Protection of Children Act 1999 are undertaken; [19102]

  (3)what measures he has taken to ensure that the vetting measures contained within the Protection of Children Act 1999 are fully complied with. [19101]

  Jacqui Smith
  All children's services are regularly inspected by the Department's social services inspectorate. These inspections include scrutiny of the provisions for children's safeguards to ensure that the requirements of the Children Act and subsequent legislation and regulations are being implemented. This scrutiny therefore covers recruitment policies and practices and I can confirm that of the 60 councils whose children services have been inspected since August 1999, all have developed policies and procedures to check the suitability of staff working with children which are consistent with the requirements of current legislation and guidance. All councils will have been covered by 2004.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have been brought under the Protection of Children Act 1999 of(a) employers who fail to vet applicants for child care jobs and (b) individuals who have been banned from working with children applying to do so. [19097]
  374W
  In September 1999 there were only 30 cadet schemes in England. By March 2001 this had more than doubled to in excess of 60 schemes. Following a national seminar on cadet schemes earlier this year, the Department undertook a varied work programme to ensure the continued expansion of cadet schemes throughout England.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times since November 2000 Ministers from his Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet with locally based businesses. [19075]

  Jacqui Smith
  Visits to the area have been made as follows:

  Jacqui Smith
  The Protection of Children Act 1999 makes no provisions for prosecutions in this way. The type of offences referred to are to be found in Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Information is not yet available centrally on the number of convictions relating to offences under this section of the Act.

  Victoria Climbié
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Victoria Climbie Inquiry will publish its findings. [19378]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and the Home Department will publish the findings of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry as soon as possible after receiving the report from Lord Laming, who is chairing the Inquiry. My right hon. Friends are expecting to receive the inquiry report next year.

  Winter Pressures
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) method and (b) criteria he will use to apportion and spend the additional £300 million for social services departments to assist in tackling winter pressures. [19283]

  Jacqui Smith
  The grant determination under section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000 of the Building Care Capacity Grant for 2001–02 was published in November and placed on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/ jointunit/delayeddischarge. This sets out the allocations for all councils of the £100 million to be spent this financial year. Fifty five councils have been targeted for extra help on the basis of their high rates of delayed discharge or on the basis of a risk assessment using information drawn from
  375W
  our performance monitoring arrangements. No decision has yet been taken about the allocation of £200 million to be made available for 2002–03.

  Child Protection (Unborn Children)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unborn children were(a) placed on the child protection register and (b) taken off the child protection register in the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will list the reasons given for (i) placing an unborn child on the child protection register and (ii) removing an unborn child from the child protection register. [19434]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of unborn children who were placed on, and removed from, child protection registers during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001 are given in the table.

  Registrations to and de-registrations from child protection registers, of unborn children, during the years ending 31 March 1997–01 and number of unborn children on the registers at 31 March each year

  England

  numbers of unborn children1

  Year ending 31 March

  On the register at 31 March

  Registrations during the year

  De-registrations during the year

  1997

  300

  600

  60

  1998

  200

  600

  100

  1999

  300

  800

  60

  2000

  200

  900

  30

  2001

  200

  1,000

  70

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 100, figures less than 100 are rounded to the nearest 10

  Where inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 give rise to concern that an unborn child may be at future risk of significant harm, the social services department may need to convene an initial child protection conference prior to the child's birth. Such a conference will have the same status, and should proceed in the same way, as other initial child protection conferences, including decisions about registration on the child protection register. The involvement of midwifery services is vital in such cases.

  An unborn child will be registered on the child protection register if a decision is taken at the initial child protection conference that the unborn child is at continuing risk of significant harm. The act of registration itself confers no protection on a child, and should always be accompanied by a child protection plan.

  An unborn child will be de-registered from the child protection register if the child dies or it is judged that the child is no longer at continuing risk of significant harm requiring safeguarding by means of a child protection plan. De-registration will also take place if the child's family have moved permanently to another local authority area. In this case, the receiving local authority should convene a child protection conference within 15 working days of being notified of the move, only after which event may de-registration take place in respect of the original local authority's child protection register.
  376W

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many strategic health authorities will be created in England under the powers in the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill. [20012]

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many strategic health authorities he expects to create under the NHS reform Bill. [20897]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation exercises on the proposed boundaries for 28 new, larger and more strategic, health authorities ended on 30 November 2001. The Department is still considering the final responses to the consultation exercises but expects to be in a position soon to announce the number and configuration of the new health authorities, to be established from 1 April 2002. Subject to passage of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, the new health authorities should become strategic health authorities by October 2002.

  Diabetes
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Gluco Watch Biographer will be available on prescription to diabetes sufferers in the NHS; [18145]

  (2)if alto sensors will be made available to diabetes sufferers, on prescription, under the NHS; [18144]

  (3)what assessment he has made of the Gluco Watch Biographer, for regular blood checking in diabetes sufferers; and what plans he has to use this device in the NHS. [18146]

  Jacqui Smith
  In order to be prescribed by general practitioners on the national health service, appliances must be listed in Part IX of the Drug Tariff. Such listings are made only in response to, and after consideration of, applications from the manufacturers. No application has been made by the manufacturer of the Gluco Watch Biographer or its accessories. We would expect the applicant to provide any evidence needed to support the application.
  377W

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Graham Browne
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the prosecution costs were in the case against Graham Browne; what the result of the prosecution was; and what further costs arose from the result of the prosecution. [20903]

  The Solicitor-General: Graham Browne stood trial at the central criminal court between 29 October 2001 and 7 November 2001 on a charge of blackmail. It was alleged by the Crown that he, a former employee of Barclays bank and the head of an encryption team, wrote to them under an assumed name, informing them that their security was at risk and demanding that 14 named individuals (of whom he was one) should be employed at a cost of £25 million to ensure that security was not breached. Key security codes were included in the correspondence. The jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty.

  The time and overhead costs of the lawyer caseworker and administrative staff engaged in the case were about £10,000. A total of £1,942.65 has been paid in witness expenses. The actual costs to the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing the prosecution have not yet been finally determined. These costs do not include the fees of prosecution counsel which are currently being negotiated.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Rail Track Capacity
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what timetable he has for(a) work on upgrades to rail track capacity around (i) Birmingham, (ii) Manchester and (iii) Coventry, (b) construction of the (1) Thameslink 2000 rail project, (2) west coast main line rail project, (3) upgrade to the London to Stansted train route, (4)upgrade to the north Transpennine train route, (5) Brighton train line upgrade, (6) east coast main line, (7) Sunderland Metro and (8) rail flyover at Shortlands in Kent, (c) train station upgrades to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, (d) redevelopment of Gatwick train station and (e) implementation of (x) the programme of platform extensions and stations into London Waterloo and (y) the Train Protection Warning System; and which targets have been put back in the past month. [13520]

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Design capacity

  Actual numbers of people

  Line

  Busiest section

  Time

  Hour capacity

  1/4 hour capacity

  Hour demand

  1/4 hour demand

  Bakerloo

  Charing Cross to Piccadilly Circus

  08:45–09:00

  27,954

  6,989

  13,260

  3,315

  Central

  Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street

  08:45–09:00

  45,582

  11,395

  22,328

  5,582

  Victoria

  Victoria to Green Park

  08:45–09:00

  42,363

  10,591

  22,016

  5,504

  Waterloo & City

  Waterloo to Bank

  07:45–08:00

  14,818

  3,704

  6,800

  1,700

  Jubilee

  St John's Wood to Baker Street

  08:45–09:00

  22,820

  5,705

  13,108

  3,277

  Northern

  Clapham North to Stockwell

  08:45–09:00

  35,011

  8,753

  17,096

  4,274

  Piccadilly

  Earl's Court to Gloucester Road

  08:30–08:45

  33,216

  8,304

  17,452

  4,363

  Circle

  Sloane Square to Victoria

  17:30–17:45

  8,958

  2,240

  3,948

  987

  H&C

  Liverpool Street to Moorgate

  08:30–08:45

  8,958

  2,240

  5,276

  1,319

  Metropolitan

  Finchley Road to Baker Street

  08:30–08:45

  35,964

  8,991

  11,616

  2,904

  378W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority will publish shortly their Strategic Plan, setting out their priorities for investment in rail projects to deliver the Government's 10 Year Transport Plan core targets of 50 per cent. passenger growth, 80 per cent. freight growth and a reduction in London overcrowding to SRA standards, by 2010. The SRA continues to base its investment plans on the delivery of these targets. There has been no change to this approach.

  London Underground
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the latest available figure is on capacity on the London Underground, broken down by(a) movement of passengers per 15 minutes at peak times for each line, (b)the amount of spare capacity as expressed in potential passenger movement per 15 minutes at peak times and (c)the use of capacity at peak times, expressed as a percentage for each line. [13998]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU), but they advise that the measures requested do not form part of their regular monitoring and management reporting process. I understand that the most recent available survey on passenger numbers at peak times was completed by London Underground during 2000 and the resulting information on this and on measures of capacity was given by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), in answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 283W. Regrettably, some of the information given in answer to that earlier PQ was inaccurate and the table provides corrected information.

  For each line, the table provides a snapshot of the busiest quarter-hour period on the busiest section. The table shows in columns D and E the figures which London Underground record as the "theoretical design capacity" of trains, as determined by the manufacturer and set out in an earlier answer of 2 February 2001, Official Report, column 315W; and in columns F and G the actual numbers of people they recorded as using those lines at the busiest period. 1 regret that the earlier figures were misleading: the corrected figures show that the Underground is not as crowded as the previous answer appeared to show.

  However, it should be noted that in practice some trains may have a higher and some a lower crowding. This could be caused by either any unevenness in the time between consecutive trains or in the uneven distribution of customers along platforms.
  379W

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Design capacity

  Actual numbers of people

  Line

  Busiest section

  Time

  Hour capacity

  1/4hour capacity

  Hour demand

  1/4 hour demand

  District

  Victoria to St James's Park

  08:30–08:45

  30,380

  7,595

  16,092

  4,023

  East London Line

  Surrey Quays to Canada Water

  08:15–08:30

  6,815

  1,704

  3,908

  977

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will bear the financial risk for unforeseen circumstances in improving the London Underground under PPP. [20115]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's modernisation plans for the London Underground follow the principle that risk should be allocated to whoever is best able to manage it. The aim is not to transfer risk for its own sake, as this would lead to a decline in value for money, but rather to optimise the transfer of risk. The private sector infrastructure companies will be liable for all cost overruns that result from their acting in an uneconomic or inefficient manner. However, the financial risks associated with 'force majeure' events are retained by London Underground, as long as they are not caused by and are beyond the control of the infrastructure companies.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the changes in London Underground's costs since 1997. [20112]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground's costs have primarily increased because of work to maintain and improve performance and reliability against a background of increased demand and past underinvestment.

  The increase in London Underground's operating costs also, however, reflects its adoption in 1999 of the mandatory Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15, which set out revised principles of accounting for tangible fixed assets. The impact of the adoption of FRS15 on London Underground's accounts for 1999–2000 was set out in the reply given by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on 23 January 2001, Official Report, column 525W. The full impact on its accounts was also confirmed in London Transport's Annual Report 2000–01, published in July of this year.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays of 15 minutes or more of trains on the London Underground were caused by problems with(a) track, (b) signals and (c) rolling stock for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995£96, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1997–98 and (v) 1999–2000. [20596]
  380W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who inform me that this information is not held in the form requested for full years before 1999–2000, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The table shows the requested information as measured by London Underground during 1999–2000.

  Train delays of 15 minutes or more in 1999–2000

  Cause

  Total

  (a) Track

  142

  (b) Signals

  713

  (c) Rolling Stock

  608

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes there were in the rules during the bidding for the public-private partnership for the London Underground. [20362]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rules under which these procurements are conducted are determined by European law and have not changed during the procurements.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the urban regeneration implications(a) around St. Pancras Station, (b) for London and (c) for the United Kingdom as a whole, of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [15737]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department assessed the urban regeneration implications of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link in 1998 to inform the appraisal of the value for money of the restructured financing deal with London and Continental Railways announced in June 1998. The assessment considered the impact of the link on commercial property development, house building and job creation in the main areas affected by the link, that is, around St. Pancras, Stratford, and Ebbsfleet stations and the Royal Docks. Impacts in the rest of the United Kingdom were not assessed. The assessment of the gross direct regeneration implications associated with the link is shown. The cost of creating a similar number of additional jobs through other regeneration programmes was estimated to be £1,000 million (at 1998 prices).
  381W

  St. Pancras/ King's Cross

  Stratford

  Ebbsfleet

  Royal Docks

  Total

  Floorspace (sq ft)

  4,682,190

  5,960,140

  12,168,780

  2,798,190

  25,609,300

  Number of dwellings with CTRL

  3,285

  1,200

  16,260

  0

  20,745

  Jobs created:

  With CTRL

  14,078

  21,587

  36,210

  6,861

  78,736

  Without CTRL

  10,764

  6,457

  5,627

  5,382

  28,230

  Additional Jobs

  3,314

  15,130

  30,583

  1,479

  50,506

  The estimated impact of the link on development values was around £650 million (net present value at 1997–98 prices). The table shows the results of the assessment by area.

  £ million NPV

  Without CTRL

  With CTRL

  Uplift due to CTRL

  St. Pancras/King's Cross

  175

  385

  210

  Stratford

  50

  255

  205

  Ebbsfleet

  35

  255

  220

  Royal Docks

  10

  20

  10

  Total all areas

  270

  915

  645

  Passenger Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what powers a local authority has to terminate a contract with a bus operator for transporting pupils from home to school if the service is deemed to be unsafe. [17876]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government attach the greatest importance to the safety of all bus passengers, including children, and try to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are maintained. There are various controls on bus operators aimed at ensuring that all their operations are safe. The powers to terminate a contract if a service is found to be unsafe will be determined by the terms and conditions contained in the contract with the bus operator.

  Road Accidents (Somerset)
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reduce road traffic accidents in Somerset. [17929]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local transport authorities have a statutory duty to produce a local transport plan (LTP). They are required to set out five-year integrated transport plans which cover all forms of transport and include a set of locally devised aims and objectives, a long-term strategy to meet them, a costed implementation programme and a set of targets and performance indicators to measure progress. They also provide annual progress reports. The first full LTPs were produced in July 2000 and cover the period from April 2001 to March 2006. Capital resources for local transport improvements are provided through the annual local transport capital settlement; we will announce shortly the allocations for 2002–03 which will include provision for road safety improvements.

  Road safety is an important component of the local transport plan (LTP) process and we will expect to see all transport authorities to be making progress in this area.
  382W
  Somerset's first LTP annual progress report reports progress in several inter-related strategies, eg. a 14 per cent. reduction in killed and serious injury (KSI) accidents on the county's roads in 2000 over 1999 and a 50 per cent. reduction (50) in child KSI accidents over the same period. The county has introduced 90 local safety schemes on its roads in the last five years, such as speed management and improving facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, and in 2000–01 nine primary, six middle/secondary schools and one FE college have committed to the Safe Routes to School initiative.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what calculation he has made of the amount of lost interest per day arising from the lack of proceeds from the sale of the Dome site; [198491

  (2) if it is his policy to obtain the best possible value from the north Greenwich peninsular site; if he will publish the conditions of sale of the Dome site; and what discussions he is engaged in with potential bidders for the (a) site and (b) structure of the Dome. [19851]

  Ms Keeble
  The process being followed is driven by the need to secure long-term regeneration of the peninsula and the wider area.

  Evaluation of proposals for the future use of the Dome and any associated land includes a thorough assessment of value for money. Any sale of the Dome will also be required to provide a worthwhile and sustainable future for the Dome; and we will want to be assured that any proposal can be successfully delivered.

  On-going market testing is exploring all avenues, and on the basis of professional advice we are in discussion with a small number of serious contenders. To reveal details of the discussions would not be conducive to a successful conclusion and would be against the public interest.

  Renewco
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W, on Renewco, for what reason this information is commercially sensitive. [19717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is covered by the exemption from disclosure under the code of Practice on Access to government Information because it relates to confidential communications between the Department and the Strategic Rail Authority about matters including commercially sensitive issues relating to the financial position of Railtrack.
  383W

  White Papers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the date of publication of the(a) Regions White Paper and (b) the Local Government White Paper. [19888]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As the Deputy Prime Minister announced to Parliament on 2 July, the Government's White Paper on regional governance in England will be published when it is ready.

  The local government White Paper will be published shortly.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many staff the administrator of Railtrack employs; [19428]

  (2) what are the day rates of the administrator of Railtrack; and what different levels of staff has it been using. [19430]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the administrator who was appointed by the High Court.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed restrictions are in force on the Railtrack network. [19959]

  Mr. Spellar
  I understand from Railtrack that as at 26 November there were 659 temporary speed restrictions in force.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the terms of the Hartwell agreement in relation to the west coast main line project; whether members of his Department were involved in that agreement; and what financial guarantees his Department gave to the companies involved with that agreement. [20088]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Hartwell agreement was the result of negotiations between Railtrack and Virgin Trains. Neither the Government nor the Strategic Rail Authority were involved in the negotiations or party to them.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Part 1 of the passenger upgrade agreement for the west coast main line was to be completed; and what plans the Government have for completing Part 2: what stage the Government's discussions with the SRA have reached regarding engineering access from the Virgin cross country franchise to the west coast main line; and whether completion of Part 2 is dependent on price. [20089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Finalisation of phase 1 is likely to be in May 2003. Options for completing phase 2 are still under discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, Virgin, other users and stakeholders. Value for money is one of the considerations in these discussions.

  NATS
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 384W
  recent assessment he has made of the financial health of the consortium which will take over the National Air Traffic Services; and if he will make a statement. [20244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The role of the Government's strategic partner in the public private partnership for National Air Traffic Services was awarded to the Airline Group, a consortium of seven airlines, on 26 July 2001. We maintain regular contact with the Airline Group over a range of issues including their financial situation.

  Standing Committee on Regional Affairs
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will table a motion to call for a sitting of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. [19916]

  Dr. Whitehead
  A motion was tabled on the 3 December calling for the Committee to meet on 18 December to discuss 'Regional Governance in England'.

  Urban Regeneration
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of funding for urban regeneration schemes has been spent buying out right-to-buy occupiers in the past three years. [20105]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Property Purchases
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy that acceptance of an offer to purchase a property be a binding legal contract. [20006]

  Ms Keeble
  There is nothing to prevent buyers and sellers agreeing to building contracts when offers are accepted, but we do not believe it would be right to require this by law. Our 1998 consultation exercise showed widespread support for this stance.

  As set out in our manifesto, we are committed to making it easier for people buying and selling homes through a new seller's pack. The seller's pack will provide, at the very start of the process, most of the documents and information needed to enable the transaction to proceed speedily and successfully. It will provide prospective buyers with most of the information they need to make an informed offer. The disclosure of this information at the outset will greatly improve transparency and reduce the risk of the transaction failing or the parties having to renegotiate terms due to problems being revealed later on. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards gazumping and gazundering in house purchases. [20005]

  Ms Keeble
  We believe the answer to the problems caused by gazumping and gazundering lie in increasing transparency and speeding up the home buying and selling process. That is what our proposals for seller's packs will achieve. Seller's packs will bring about earlier certainty and reduce the period of time during which gazumping
  385W
  and gazundering can occur. The necessary legislation for this will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Edinburgh Waverley Station
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he has been advised of a request for a financial subsidy towards the cost of a site survey of Edinburgh Waverley Station in connection with its proposed redevelopment; [19926]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding funding for the redevelopment of Edinburgh Waverley Station. [19927]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are not aware of any request for a financial subsidy towards the redevelopment work at Edinburgh Waverley station. This is a major redevelopment scheme, including retail development and the Strategic Rail Authority are considering a number of proposals put forward by Railtrack.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20674]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department's main programmes departmental expenditure limit (DEL) is planned to increase by £2.2 billion between 2001–02 and 2002–03. Based upon expenditure forecasts for 2001–02 and 2002–03, we estimate the increase in departmental pay costs to be £15.5 million which is equivalent to 0.7 per cent. of this increase.

  Parking Taxes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which have expressed an interest to his Department in participating in(a) workplace parking taxes pilot schemes and (b) congestion tax pilot schemes. [20376]

  Mr. Byers
  Outside London, road user charging schemes are being developed by Durham county council, Derbyshire county council and Bristol city council. Nottingham city council is developing a workplace parking levy scheme.

  Other authorities which have indicated in their local transport plans that road user charging or a workplace parking levy might play a part in local congestion management are:

  Bath and North East Somerset council

  Cambridgeshire county council

  Cheshire county council Cumbria county council

  Derby city council

  Hampshire county council

  Isle of Wight council

  Leeds city council

  Leicester city council

  Greater Manchester (10 authorities)

  Milton Keynes council

  Reading council

  South Gloucestershire council

  386W

  Southampton city council

  Staffordshire county council

  Surrey county council

  Warwickshire county council

  West Midlands (excluding Coventry, Solihull and Walsall)

  City of York council.

  Statutory Off Road Notification Scheme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures he has in place for determining the impact of the Statutory Off Road Notification Scheme. [20597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) scheme was one of a number of measures introduced to enhance the accuracy of the vehicle register maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). It is designed to keep DVLA's unlicensed vehicle keeper records up to date. Since introduction over 2.5 million SORN declarations have been made recovering revenue of £6 million. The number of SORN declarations received is constantly monitored and DVLA is carrying out an in depth review of the accuracy of the vehicle register.

  SORN prevents unlicensed vehicles from "dropping off' the vehicle register and measuring vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion is a useful way to assess impact. At the last full survey in 1999, evasion rates showed a fall from 4.1 per cent. to 3.9 per cent., a saving of £17 million a year.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the cost of enforcing the Statutory Off Road Notification scheme since inception. [20598]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cost of enforcing the Statutory Off Road Notification scheme is approximately £1 million a year. Since enforcement commenced in April 2000, enforcement action has raised over £6 million in fines and penalties.

  Road Accidents (Fire Service Costs)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give fire services powers to claim from car insurers the cost of road accident rescue work. [20489]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In common with other local authority services, the fire service is funded primarily through the revenue support grant system. Local authorities secure most of their funding from Government grants, supplemented by council tax. Levies on the insurance industry contribute to the central Government funds from which revenue support grant is paid.

  The Government raised the general question of charging policies for discretionary services provided by local authorities in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" which was published in September 2000. Our conclusions, in the light of the consultation responses, will be set out in the Local Government White Paper which is due to be published shortly.
  387W

  Single Sky Agreement
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety of people from Bromsgrove travelling to Gibraltar following the failure of Gibraltar to be included in the European single skies agreement. [20403]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The people of Bromsgrove can be assured that when travelling to Gibraltar their safety will not be impaired by the proposed treatment of Gibraltar under the European single sky proposals.

  Port Health Budget
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what are the areas of expenditure contained in the port health budget for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [20819]

  Mr. Raynsford
  English local authorities have reported the following expenditure on port health.

  Port health expenditure 1995–96 to 1997–98

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Expenditure

  Employees

  2,443

  2,671

  2,794

  Running expenses

  3,645

  3,612

  3,839

  Joint arrangements

  61

  0

  0

  Total expenditure

  6,149

  6,283

  6,633

  Income

  Sales

  41

  5

  0

  Fees and charges

  1,393

  1,675

  2,386

  Other income

  289

  204

  137

  Joint arrangements

  91

  173

  70

  Total income

  1,813

  2,057

  2,593

  Net current expenditure

  4,335

  4,226

  4,040

  No further expenditure details are available.

  Audit Commission Inspections
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what directions he has given to the Audit Commission on inspections into the running of services by(a) Walsall MBC, (b) Hillingdon LBC, (c) Derby city council, (d) Malvern Hills DC and (e) Waltham Forest LBC. [20535]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]I have given the Audit Commission no directions on inspections into the running of services by these authorities.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 394W, on records kept under Clause 9 of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, if he will list the internal purposes to which he referred. [20384]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]These are set out in the clause to which the hon. Member refers.
  388W

  Rural Bus Challenge
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 943W, how much of the money spent on Rural Bus Challenge projects was spent in 2001–02; and where it was spent. [20704]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities have to date received the following amounts in Rural Bus Challenge grant in 2001–02. We expect challenge payments in the year as a whole to total about £20 million.

  £

  Local authority

  Payment to date

  Bedfordshire

  116,791

  Cumbria

  343,500

  Devon

  271,000

  Dorset

  201,092

  East Riding

  166,863

  East Sussex

  466,888

  Essex

  571,805

  Hampshire

  521,260

  Herefordshire

  41,518

  Hertfordshire

  87,692

  Kent

  193,000

  Lancashire

  396,914

  Leicestershire

  279,540

  Milton Keynes

  101,965

  Norfolk

  75,055

  North Lincolnshire

  114,313

  North Yorkshire

  509,000

  Northamptonshire

  83,050

  Northumberland

  372,600

  Nottinghamshire

  185,764

  Plymouth

  141,400

  Redcar and Cleveland

  20,000

  Shropshire

  238,176

  South Yorkshire

  318,500

  Staffordshire

  97,548

  S tockton-on-Tees

  12,000

  Suffolk

  404,025

  Thurrock

  97,000

  Torbay

  111,340

  Tyne and Wear

  630,050

  Warwickshire

  135,405

  West Yorkshire

  208,928

  Wiltshire

  458,080

  Worcestershire

  757,645

  Total

  8,729,707

  Building Regulations (Domestic Boilers)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the reduction in anticipated carbon savings in 2010 resulting from the delay in implementation for a further five months of the requirements set out in part L of the Building Regulations for improvements to domestic central heating boilers. [18243]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Deferring implementation of the replacement boiler efficiency standards by five months will cause a slight reduction in the savings expected to accrue. My Department estimates that the cumulative effect of this reduction will be no more than 0.03 Mtonnes per year in 2010, and could be less. The outturn will be dependent on how market factors influence the take-up of the better heating control requirements that were introduced with the deferral to compensate for the lower boiler performances.
  389W

  Headlights
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to implement regulations in respect of vehicles' use of headlights during the hours of daylight; and if he will make a statement. [19606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During daylight hours vehicles are already required by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 to use headlamps in seriously reduced visibility.

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has no plans to amend the regulations to mandate their use throughout the hours of daylight.

  The European Commission's proposals to introduce pedestrian protection features in new cars by a negotiated agreement with car manufacturers included a commitment to fit daytime running lamps. This element of the agreement has been deferred for further consideration.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many Health and Safety Executive inspectors are working in the field carrying out inspections; and how many(a) routine visits and (b) accident site examinations they made in 2000–01. [20722]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are 1027.4 full-time equivalent inspectors working in the field carrying out inspections. This number does not include 125.3 full-time equivalent specialist inspectors who in the main carry out investigations rather than planned inspections.

  In the year 2000–01 they made 80,447 planned inspections and investigated 15,489 incidents. There is no available data on the number of accident site examinations, instead HSE records the number of incidents investigated. In more serious cases several inspectors may make several site examinations for an individual incident investigation.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total funding provided to the Health and Safety Executive for 2001–02 is; and what the proposed funding is for 2002–03. [20721]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total funding for HSC/E for 2001–02 and proposed funding for 2002–03 is set out in the table. Budget data are provided in the HSC Strategic Plan 2001–04 published in October 2001.

  Budget settlements for 2001–02 to 2002

  £million

  2001–02 plan

  2002–03 plan

  Administration costs

  193.7

  195.9

  Programme expenditure

  49.4

  54.4

  Income

  -59.4

  -58.3

  Total HSE resource budget

  183.7

  192

  HSE capital budget

  6.9

  9.9

  HSL resource budget

  -2.2

  -2.2

  HSL capital budget

  4.2

  4.2

  Total managed expenditure

  192.6

  203.9

  390W
  Note:

  From 2001–02, the Government have changed the way they budget and account for public expenditure. Under the new resource accounting and budgeting arrangements Departments and bodies such as HSE have to budget for non-cash costs such as depreciation on fixed assets and a 6 per cent. capital charge on net assets. This budget is reviewed on an annual basis. HSC/E's budget for non-cash costs in 2001–02 is £12 million. (The figures do not include this.)

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the promptness of the response of the Health and Safety Executive following the gas explosion in Newton Heath, Manchester on Saturday 17 November; and if he will make a statement. [17148]

  Mr. Byers
  Pursuant to the answer of 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 393W, I personally received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. I share his concerns about this issue and have asked the Director General of the Health and Safety Executive to provide my hon. Friend with full progress reports of the investigation being conducted by Transco.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make extra funding available to fire authorities to pay for anti-terrorist strategies; and if he will make a statement. [20720]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the light of the events of 11 September, we have established with the fire service stakeholders a group, chaired by HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services. The group is evaluating, among other things, the existing response capabilities of, and the need for specialist appliances and equipment for, local authority fire and rescue services. The group will be reporting shortly and we shall consider the implications of its report, including the resource requirements, as a matter of urgency.

  Electoral Pilots
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether local authorities operating electoral pilots for the May 2002 local elections involving all-postal ballots will be required to(a) ensure that ballot papers are fully accessible to visually impaired voters through the use of (i) standard ballot papers which conform to clear print guidelines, (ii) tactile templates, and (iii) notices in alternative formats and (b) offer visually impaired and other print disabled people an alternative means of casting a secret ballot independently. [19846]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The criteria for assessing applications to conduct electoral pilot schemes at the May 2002 local elections include the criterion that no elector, including anyone who is visually impaired, should be disadvantaged in casting their vote in any proposed pilot compared with the standard procedure for conducting elections. We will consider any alternative means for visually impaired electors to vote in secret provided the basic principles for secrecy of the ballot are maintained.
  391W

  Visually Impaired Voters
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that electoral administrators comply with the duty to display at least one large print notice and have available a voting template for the benefit of visually impaired voters at every polling station in the May 2002 local elections; and what assessment he has made of the availability of these devices at the 2001 General Election. [19847]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Returning officers are under a legal duty to display a large print ballot paper and to provide a voting device for the visually impaired in each polling station. Any returning officer failing to comply may, therefore, be subject to prosecution. The Home Office ensured that sufficient voting templates were available to every returning officer free of charge to supply each polling station at the 2001 General Election.

  Public Service Agreements
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress is being made in concluding local public service agreements. [21426]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The national roll-out phase of local PSAs is now under way. Almost 120 local authorities have said they want to take part in the programme over the next two years. We have signed the first of these further agreements with East Riding of Yorkshire council, and expect to sign agreements with Leeds city council, Peterborough city council and Buckinghamshire county council before Christmas. Copies of local PSAs will be placed in the House Library as they are concluded.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of loss in(a) turnover and (b) tax revenue caused by the closure of livestock markets. [19741]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The Department is working to establish the economic losses resulting from the closure of livestock markets. The tax revenue losses from closure are very uncertain.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 28 November 2001, how many rural households were within 10 minutes walk of an hourly bus service in(a) 1992 to 1994, (b) 1995 to 1997 and (c) 1998 to 2000. [20703]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to provide figures of numbers of households because the appropriate total numbers of households in rural areas for multiplying up the proportions are not available. Rural areas are all areas which are not defined as urban areas, plus urban areas with a population less than 3,000, as defined by the 1991 census. Information on the proportion of households within 10 minutes walk of an hourly bus service (based 392W
  on information from the National Travel Survey) was provided for the hon. Member on 21 November 2001, Official Report, columns 327–28W, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble).

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what submission her Department has made to the performance and innovation unit's inquiry into long-term energy policy. [18238]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department submitted six papers to the performance and innovation unit's energy review, all of which can be seen on its website. The papers are entitled: Introduction and Projections Methodology; Low Carbon Options for the Domestic Sector; Scope for Demand Side Measures in Industry; Energy Projections for the Service Sector; Transport Energy Efficiency; and Additional Savings and Associated Costs. I am a member of the advisory group to the review, and my Department has also been in regular contact with the unit throughout the review.

  Animal Holdings
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many holdings in each of the last 10 years had(a) one animal, (b) two to five animals, (c) five to 10 animals, (d) 10 to 100 animals, (e) 100 to 200 animals and (f) more than 200 animals. [20715]

  Mr. Morley
  Number of main holdings in England by animal size group is provided in the table.

  Animal size groups

  1

  2–5

  6–10

  11–100

  101–200

  201 and over

  Total

  1990

  537

  3,438

  3,878

  34,806

  17,148

  37,885

  97,692

  1991

  569

  3,586

  3,930

  34,644

  16,850

  37,160

  96,739

  1992

  665

  3,677

  3,988

  34,849

  16,689

  36,745

  96,613

  1993

  779

  3,825

  4,161

  34,864

  16,557

  36,414

  96,600

  1994

  745

  3,874

  4,080

  34,495

  16,446

  36,164

  95,804

  1995

  593

  3,173

  3,517

  32,891

  16,177

  35,102

  91,453

  1996

  589

  3,279

  3,447

  32,254

  16,162

  34,524

  90,255

  1997

  648

  3,036

  3,207

  32,657

  15,647

  34,192

  89,387

  1998

  645

  2,995

  3,381

  31,433

  15,337

  33,984

  87,775

  1999

  476

  3,291

  3,311

  31,070

  15,200

  33,640

  86,988

  2000

  665

  4,088

  3,510

  27,372

  13,649

  31,650

  80,934

  Note:

  Animals include total cattle and calves, total pigs, total sheep and lambs, total goats and farmed deer (except for 1990 where no figure for farmed deer is available).

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census (main holdings only).

  Trade Effluent
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 46W, on trade effluent, if she will answer all the questions listed. [20691]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]In my answer of 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 46W, I informed my hon. Friend that the information he

  393W
  requested was not held centrally. I now have this information which I am pleased to make available to him. The following tables contain this information.

  The total number of prosecutions for breaches of trade effluent discharge consents between 1 April 1999 and 31 July 2001 is 21, with total fines of £141,500. Unfortunately no information is available for 1998 as records only began in April 1999.

  Environment agency region/sector

  Total fines (£)

  Anglian

  None

  None

  Midlands

  None

  None

  North East

  Food Processing

  32,000

  Mining/quarries

  500

  Local authority

  1,500

  North West

  Brewery

  9,500

  Board Manufacturer

  10,000

  Timber Merchants

  2,000

  Mining/quarries

  4,000

  Paper Manufacturers

  17,500

  Southern

  Food Processing

  14,000

  Mining/quarries

  2,000

  Food Processing

  2,000

  South West

  Textiles

  2,000

  Mining/quarries

  1,000

  Food Processing

  3,000

  Mining/quarries

  500

  Mining/quarries

  1—

  Thames

  Brewery

  align="right"9,000

  Wales

  Water

  4,000

  Water

  2,000

  Water

  10,000

  Energy

  15,000

  13 year conditional discharge

  Percentage

  Compliance of discharge consents in force

  Environment agency region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Anglian

  73.5

  74.3

  78.6

  Midlands1

  83.5

  85.9

  84.7

  North East

  85.9

  86.5

  83.8

  North West

  88.6

  86.4

  82.3

  Southern

  62.8

  59.6

  70.7

  South West

  49.2

  61.3

  61.9

  Thames

  87.0

  84.2

  86.5

  England

  80.1

  81.5

  79.5

  Wales

  77.3

  52.2

  71.8

  All regions

  79.6

  78.3

  78.5

  1 Midlands Region data for 1998 and 1999 are for all trade discharges as it is not possible to breakdown this historic data to significant discharges only

  394W

  Percentage of consents in force monitored

  Environment agency region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Anglian

  91.1

  92.8

  87.3

  Midlands

  82.5

  72.8

  66.6

  North East

  45.7

  45.0

  49.2

  North West

  73.5

  58.5

  61.6

  Southern

  77.7

  77.3

  56.0

  South West

  100.0

  91.0

  80.4

  Thames

  93.5

  87.4

  59.2

  England

  74.8

  69.1

  64.1

  Wales

  62.2

  72.9

  89.8

  All regions

  72.7

  69.6

  67.3

  Percentage of trade discharge consents reviewed

  Environment agency region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Anglian

  2

  1

  1

  Midlands

  5

  6

  19

  North East

  2

  2

  2

  North West

  3

  5

  2

  Southern

  9

  17

  9

  South West

  12

  8

  14

  Thames

  35

  18

  18

  England

  7

  6

  9

  Wales

  15

  20

  19

  All regions

  8

  8>

  10

  Percentage of discharge consents containing red list substances

  Environment agency region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Anglian

  7.0

  6.1

  6.1

  Midlands

  3.0

  2.8

  5.1

  North East

  2.2

  2.3

  2.2

  North West

  3.9

  2.8

  0.7

  Southern

  12.2

  16.3

  9.9

  South West

  11.6

  9.7

  8.5

  Thames

  4.0

  3.5

  2.9

  England

  4.6

  4.2

  4.4

  Wales

  0.5

  0.8

  0.8

  All regions

  4.0

  3.8

  3.9

  Number of industrial discharge consents in force

  Environment agency region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Anglian

  313

  374

  378

  Midlands

  1,186

  1,329

  680

  North East

  982

  958

  950

  North West

  559

  675

  586

  Southern

  188

  141

  232

  South West

  362

  442

  541

  Thames

  277

  317

  377

  England

  3,867

  4,236

  3,744

  Wales1

  740

  531

  528

  All regions

  4,607

  4,767

  4,272

  1 The figure for 2000 is an estimate, accurate data are unavailable

  Advisory Group on Veterinary Medicines
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report,

  395W
  column 850W, on veterinary medicines, for what reasons the minutes of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Medicines are considered confidential. [20701]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]The Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues (AGVR) was set up in 1995 under different arrangements from those that are currently in place for its successor, the Veterinary Residues Committee. Members of the AGVR included a number of independent experts from several fields, including a consumer representative. They were aware that a summary of their deliberations would be published each year in the Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues. However, at no stage were they advised that their comments in meetings, which were minuted, would be made public. There are also elements in the minutes which may be commercially sensitive.

  As indicated in the answer of 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 850W, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) is considering how the minutes might be released. However, before they can be released the VMD will need to seek the agreement of all of the former members of the AGVR to the release of information since they had supplied the information in confidence. This is in accordance with Part II, Paragraph 14 (a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, Second Edition (1997).

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to eradicate fuel poverty in the UK. [7753]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK fuel poverty strategy was published on 21 November. This set out the Government's goal to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty, with the first target to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household—older people, families, disabled and long-term sick—need risk ill health due to a cold home or spend more than 10 per cent. of income to keep warm.

  The strategy is based on a range of programmes and measures to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty: programmes to improve the energy efficiency of fuel poor households. These include the individual home energy efficiency schemes within each country as well as programmes to improve the standard of social housing. As part of their reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1996, we have asked energy conservation authorities to report on their efforts to tackle fuel poverty; continuing action to maintain the downward pressure on fuel bills, ensuring fair treatment for the less well off; continuing action to tackle poverty and social exclusion.

  We will also be working with interested groups to further improve these programmes, and also to develop programmes that can identify and assist those healthy adult households at risk from longer-term fuel poverty.

  Foot and Mouth
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update and publish the information given in the letter of 6 August from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for the Vale of York concerning the 396W
  contingency plans to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease in the Vale of York, North Yorkshire and the Humber region (ref 3469). [12071]

  Mr. Morley
  My letter of 6 August provided the following information:"On 9 July you tabled a parliamentary question which I was unable to reply to before the House rose for summer recess. You asked what contingency plans there were to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease in (a) Vale of York, (b) North Yorkshire and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber region.
  I am sorry that I was unable to reply, but had I had done so, I would have told you that a contingency plan has been drawn up that will enable the Department and field staff to respond rapidly to an outbreak occurring in any of the three areas. The current plan emphasises the continued adherence to and rigorous enforcement of the existing control strategies, including tight bio-security. It is a working document that will be refined in the light of any developments including up to date advice. In addition, DEFRA has now announced that in an area surrounding Thirsk, additional, stronger biosecurity measures will be introduced. A Press Release (59/01) was issued on 23 July."

  A copy of my letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Since the date of that letter, the plan has been further developed to ensure that strict biosecurity measures, along the lines of those applied in the Thirsk area, can be rapidly implemented should a new case occur in any part of the region. These measures coupled with the ongoing message on biosecurity continue to be successful in preventing the spread of the disease.

  In addition, we maintain the capability, both in terms of infrastructure and resources, to respond to any recurrence of disease expeditiously. This capability is being taken forward so that it forms part of an integrated contingency response for the north of England as a whole.

  It is encouraging that North Yorkshire has had no outbreaks since 18 August, but we continue to maintain our guard.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many diagnoses of foot and mouth disease in the current outbreak have subsequently been proved incorrect; and if he will make a statement. [R] [12924]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2001]As of 27 November 2001, the total number of infected premises (IPs) in Great Britain was 2,026. In 299 confirmed cases samples were not taken, for example where clear clinical signs of FMD were observed and where disease had already been confirmed in the locality. Of the 1,727 cases where samples were taken, 1,326 (74 per cent.) were recorded as having a positive laboratory result. However, a negative laboratory result does not necessarily mean the disease was not present and does not change the status of an IP confirmed on clinical grounds.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what scientific evidence her Department has evaluated which supports the assumption that animals vaccinated against foot and mouth can pass the disease on to uninfected animals. [15667]
  397W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department has drawn on all of the available scientific research conducted worldwide, as well as relevant epidemiological findings from natural outbreaks of disease, on vaccination against foot and mouth disease in examining potential control policies involving vaccination. A comprehensive review of the use of emergency vaccines against foot and mouth disease will be published shortly in the scientific journal Vaccine.

  The current scientific evidence is that ruminants can, but not invariably, become infected following vaccination and this depends on the strain of the virus and the length of time between vaccination and exposure to the virus. Such animals therefore present a potential risk and the international guidelines on the movement of vaccinated animals take this risk into account. More research of the long-term carrier state is needed in countries with the disease, and where vaccination has been used, as long-term studies of sufficient size are not possible in the laboratory.

  More information about the science of vaccinating against foot and mouth disease is on our website www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/vaccination/science.htm.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what are the criteria for imposing a ban on animal movements in Devon; and when these criteria were last met; [15592]

  (2) when she expects to lift the ban on the movement of animals in Devon following the restrictions introduced as a result of foot and mouth disease. [15627]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]Livestock movement restrictions are imposed throughout Great Britain using powers contained in the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 (as amended). A total ban on movements applied only for one week (23 February to 2 March). Since then, movements have been permitted under licence to abattoirs and from farm to farm subject to conditions. Movement restrictions reflect the disease status of the county, which is based on veterinary advice. FMD free status is awarded on the basis of extensive blood testing of sheep. Devon was classified as an FMD free county on 27 November.

  Details of permitted movements, county classification (updated weekly) and the criteria for classification may be found on the DEFRA website at www.defraweb/footandmouth.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 196W, (Ref. 12294), what percentage of the payments made to valuers in the foot and mouth disease epidemic totalled £1,500. [17712]

  Mr. Morley
  Seventeen per cent. of the payments made to valuers during the foot and mouth epidemic totalled £1,500.

  Cattle Markets
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what risk assessment she has received on the reopening of cattle markets; when she plans to allow Chippenham cattle market to reopen; and if she will make a statement. [15531]
  398W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]The decision to reopen livestock markets in England and Wales will depend on scientific and veterinary advice, taking account of the inherent risks of farmers and animals mixing and potentially spreading the disease mechanically or biologically. An initial veterinary risk assessment is currently being considered and will be published shortly. Depending on progress towards eradicating the foot and mouth disease, it is hoped that it may be possible to reopen cattle markets in the early part of next year.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will relax the regulations which prevent farmers moving livestock on the hoof in the area surrounding their farms. [15532]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]The provisions of a "sole occupancy" licence on animal movements do permit 'on the hoof' movements up to 500 m as long as they are made in accordance with the regulations. All the licensing provisions on animal movement are kept under review in the light of the developing disease situation. I will continue to announce changes as they are introduced.

  Elvaston Landfill Site, Derbyshire
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints have been received by the Environment Agency concerning smells from the Elvaston Landfill site in Derbyshire since October 2000; and if she will make a statement. [17305]

  Mr. Morley
  Since October 2000, the agency has received 189 complaints in respect of smells from the Elvaston Landfill site.

  I am aware that the site was affected by the serious flooding across the country that occurred on 7 November 2000. The Environment Agency is working with the licence holder to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. As a result of the odour problems, a notice was served on the site operator on 19 November 2001 under section 42(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring the operator to provide the agency with a plan for controlling leachate from the site. The operator complied with notice by the deadline set by the agency, who are in the process of reviewing the proposed plan.

  Fishing (Scotland)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what occasions Scottish Ministers have spoken formally at the Council of Ministers on Scotland's fishing interests. [18179]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]I lead for the United Kingdom at the Council of Fisheries Ministers and speak to an agreed line on matters affecting all parts of the UK. Following the long-standing tradition of Scottish ministerial participation in Fisheries Councils, the Scottish Minister attends as part of the United Kingdom delegation and speaks in support of the agreed UK line—usually on issues of particular concern to Scotland. No record is kept of the occasions on which Scottish Ministers speak.
  399W

  Sea Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the need for(a) consolidation and (b) updating of the legislation and regulations under which Sea Fisheries Committees operate. [19276]

  Mr. Morley
  The primary legislation was consolidated in the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. Subsequently, section 102 of the Environment Act 1995 has added to the 1966 Act provisions to allow each Committee to act for marine environmental purposes. In addition the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992 requires appropriate Ministers and relevant bodies (including the Sea Fisheries Committees) to have regard to the conservation of flora and fauna in the discharge of their functions under the sea fisheries Acts.

  It would be sensible to wait for consolidation and/or updating of the legislation and regulations under which Sea Fisheries Committees operate until the EU review of the Common Fisheries Policy has been completed at the end of 2002.

  Timber
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that all timber imports into the UK come from sustainable sources. [19605]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are working with the timber trade, environmental pressure groups and other stakeholders to encourage a greater demand for sustainable timber across all sectors of the economy. The Government are also working with many stakeholders in different producer countries to promote sustainable forest management as well as tackling illegal logging. The Forest Law Enforcement Conference held in Bali in September, which the Under-Secretary of State for International Development attended on behalf of the Government, has added a new dynamism to efforts to curb illegal logging through effective measures at a national, bilateral and international level.

  For their own operational activities the Government are committed to actively seek to purchase the timber and timber products they need from legal and sustainable sources. To this end Government buyers have been instructed to implement this policy and to report annually on their purchases. An interdepartmental working group is monitoring progress and will provide further guidance and advice to buyers. The Government's approach should help to transform the market into supplying more timber and timber products from sustainably managed sources. More information is given in the Third Annual Report on Greening Government, published on 27 November 2001 and available on the internet (http://www.sustainabledevelopment.gov.uk).

  These steps are a tangible measure of the Government's commitment to implement the G8 Action on Forests agreed at its 1998 Birmingham summit.

  Fridges
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to enable local authorities to collect and dispose of old fridges and freezers free of charge. [19539]
  400W
  Mr. Meacher
  Waste disposal authorities have a statutory duty to provide reasonably accessible sites where householders can dispose of their waste free of charge but they may restrict the availability of particular sites to specified descriptions of waste. Waste collection authorities have a statutory duty to arrange for the collection of household waste. However, they are entitled to impose a collection cost charge for certain wastes, including items over 25 kg.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for facilities to recycle foam from fridges. [19538]

  Mr. Meacher
  In order to speed up investment in domestic treatment facilities my Department has finalised guidance on standards to be applied to treatment facilities. Decisions on investment in plant are for individual companies to take.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will be able to comply immediately with the EC regulation on the disposal of fridges. [19541]

  Mr. Meacher
  As from 1 January 2002, there will be an obligation to recover ozone depleting substances (ODS) (including CFCs and HCFCs) from insulation foam in refrigeration equipment before such appliances are scrapped. Stakeholders are aware of the requirements of the regulation and measures have been put in place to facilitate the storage of waste refrigeration units pending treatment facilities becoming available.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to part-fund the costs incurred by local authorities storing end-of-life refrigerators prior to recycling; [19955]

  (2) what plans she has to launch a local government funding initiative to part-fund the costs incurred by local authorities storing end-of-life refrigerators prior to recycling. [19954]

  Margaret Beckett
  I announced on 4 December an extra £6 million in the local government finance settlement to help local authorities with the extra costs of dealing with fridges to the end of this financial year. We are urgently assessing the impacts of the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation (EC Regulation No 2037/2000) and will determine what further action will be necessary beyond that.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact she anticipates(a) flood clean-up expenditure and (b) flood prevention expenditure will have on the level of council tax in English local authorities in the next financial year; and if she will make a statement. [19750]

  Mr. Morley
  Through the Bellwin arrangements, Government expect to contribute some £26 million to the costs incurred by local authorities affected by flooding in 2000. Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for flood defence for English local authorities were announced on 4 December. Government provide grant which covers some three quarters of SSA with the remainder assumed to be raised from the standard level of council tax.
  401W
  The Government's expenditure under Beliwin, coupled with their meeting a major proportion of the SSA, will substantially mitigate the effect on council tax bills arising from flooding, though the actual effect will depend on each local authority's spending decisions across all its functions.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much new public money(a) has been spent in 2001 and (b) will be spent in 2002 on improving flood defences in (i) Bewdley, (ii) Hertfordshire, (iii) Shrewsbury, (iv) Malton, Yorkshire,(v) Norton, Yorkshire and (vi) East Anglia. [19540]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department provides grants for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. Further to increases in spending plans in the last two spending reviews, additional funding of £51 million over the four years from 2000–01 was announced in November 2000 following the severe flooding last year. An increased priority was given to urban flood defence and the grant rates for all river flood defences was increased by 20 per cent.

  Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. The operational authorities are invited to submit applications for DEFRA funding, and we do not differentiate between "old" and "new" money. The information given relates to flood defence improvement works to be undertaken by the Environment Agency (information on the same basis, from internal drainage boards and local councils, is not readily available).

  £000

  Bewdley

  Spent in 2001–02

  750

  Planned expenditure in 2002–03

  2,500

  Hertfordshire

  Spent in 2001–02

  480

  Planned expenditure in 2002–03

  3,230

  Shrewsbury

  Spent in 2001–02

  750

  Planned expenditure in 2002–03

  2,500

  Malton/Norton

  Spent in 2001–02

  800

  Planned expenditure in 2002–03

  5,000

  East Anglia

  Spent in 2001–02

  24,600

  Planned expenditure in 2002–03

  28,800

  Flooding Costs
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the overall cost of flooding in the last three years in(a) Bewdley, (b) Shrewsbury, (c) East Anglia,
  402W
  (d) York,(e) Hertfordshire, (f) Stratford upon Avon, (g) Leamington Spa, (h) Yalding, (i) Uckfield, (j) Lewes, (k) Malton, Yorkshire and (l) Norton, Yorkshire. [19533]

  Mr. Morley
  Such information is not available though the Environment Agency has commissioned research into the costs of flooding in areas affected by the late 2000 floods.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what are the objectives of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [19629]

  Mr. Meacher
  The objective of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is to improve the energy efficiency of private sector homes occupied by those householders most vulnerable to cold-related ill-health who are either in, or at risk from, fuel poverty.

  Older householders, families with young children, the disabled and long-term ill are all regarded as being vulnerable to cold-related ill-health.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff from her Department have been assigned to deal with tuberculosis in cattle in each of the last 12 months. [19800]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures are not available in the format requested. However, various figures are available which show the staff input into the TB programme. These are shown in the tables.

  In order to make a reasonable comparison, the figures have been recalculated as number of staff days worked on TB each month.

  Number of days spent on dealing with tuberculosis in cattle

  SVS and LVIs

  TVIs

  Administration

  2000

  November

  3,760

  315

  585

  December

  3,112

  218

  624

  2001

  January

  4,584

  361

  615

  February

  2,910

  242

  518

  March

  725

  23

  314

  April

  609

  24

  160

  May

  407

  13

  119

  June

  561

  20

  156

  July

  780

  26

  202

  August

  533

  13

  227

  September

  521

  18

  242

  October

  557

  32

  1242

  Total

  19,059

  1,305

  4,004

  1Estimate

  Note:

  The figures for the State Veterinary Service, local veterinary inspectors and temporary veterinary inspectors are for England only. The figures for administrative staff are for England, Wales and Scotland although the bulk will be for England.
  403W

  Tuberculosis eradication—administration staff

  ADC

  CVO

  US

  ED+Z

  EXO

  TSE

  Total

  Staff employed on TB eradication1,2,3

  November 2000

  23.77

  0.40

  —

  2.30

  —

  0.13

  26.60

  December 2000

  31.26

  0.80

  0.20

  2.25

  —

  0.15

  34.66

  January 2001

  24.06

  0.40

  —

  3.30

  0.02

  0.15

  27.93

  February 2001

  23.47

  —

  0.30

  2.10

  0.01

  —

  25.88

  March 2001

  13.07

  —

  —

  1.20

  —

  0.01

  14.28

  April 2001

  7.77

  —

  0.02

  0.60

  —

  0.02

  8.41

  May 2001

  4.17

  —

  0.02

  1.45

  —

  0.02

  5.66

  June 2001

  5.72

  —

  0.02

  1.65

  —

  0.02

  7.41

  July 2001

  7.33

  —

  0.04

  1.80

  —

  0.02

  9.19

  August 2001

  8.15

  —

  0.04

  2.10

  —

  0.02

  10.31

  September 2001

  10.00

  —

  —

  2.10

  —

  0.02

  12.12

  October 20014

  8.49

  —

  0.03

  2.00

  —

  0.02

  10.54

  Total

  167.26

  1.60

  0.67

  22.85

  0.03

  0.58

  192.99

  Recalculated in days—above figures multiplied by the number of working days in the month—eg November 2000: 23.77 x 22

  November 2000

  522.9

  8.8

  0.0

  50.6

  0.0

  2.9

  585.2

  December 2000

  562.7

  14.4

  3.6

  40.5

  0.0

  2.7

  623.9

  January 2001

  529.3

  8.8

  0.0

  72.6

  0.4

  3.3

  614.5

  February 2001

  469.4

  0.0

  6.0

  42.0

  0.2

  0.0

  517.6

  March 2001

  287.5

  0.0

  0.0

  26.4

  0.0

  0.2

  314.2

  April 2001

  147.6

  0.0

  0.4

  11.4

  0.0

  0.4

  159.8

  May 2001

  87.6

  0.0

  0.4

  30.5

  0.0

  0.4

  118.9

  June 2001

  120.1

  0.0

  0.4

  34.7

  0.0

  0.4

  155.6

  July 2001

  161.3

  0.0

  0.9

  39.6

  0.0

  0.4

  202.2

  August 2001

  179.3

  0.0

  0.9

  46.2

  0.0

  0.4

  226.8

  September 2001

  200.0

  0.0

  0.0

  42.0

  0.0

  0.4

  242.4

  October 20014

  195.3

  0.0

  0.7

  46.0

  0.0

  0.5

  242.4

  Total

  3,463.0

  32.0

  13.3

  482.4

  0.6

  12.0

  4,003.4

  1 Totals include full-time and part-time

  2 Figures from GIS sheet

  3 Average last three months

  4 Estimated over previous three months

  Note:

  Average last three months

  All figures are in days

  2000

  2001

  Office

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  WRS output for chapter 23 for all SVS staff excluding TV Is

  Carlisle

  56.3

  49.1

  74.4

  38.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leeds

  30.4

  25.7

  21.8

  18.9

  0.6

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.7

  0.4

  1.2

  0.6

  Preston

  27.0

  21.9

  26.2

  16.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Stafford

  127.1

  125.9

  267.6

  150.3

  53.7

  60.06

  32.6

  26.3

  51.2

  46.0

  39.1

  47.2

  Lincoln

  12.6

  14.0

  30.4

  19.5

  6.2

  7.8

  8.7

  2.5

  2.6

  3.1

  1.9

  2.3

  Leicester

  32.9

  23.6

  44.9

  28.2

  9.7

  7.8

  6.5

  10.8

  13.2

  5.9

  4.0

  4.3

  Chelmsford

  7.7

  8.1

  20.4

  11.1

  1.0

  0.5

  1.0

  0.8

  1.0

  0.4

  0.0

  0.5

  Reading

  59.0

  47.6

  68.2

  45.8

  11.9

  5.1

  6.9

  18.0

  18.9

  6.7

  10.3

  15.9

  Bury

  13.1

  7.8

  22.1

  13.4

  5.2

  4.4

  4.4

  10.7

  6.5

  4.7

  3.7

  0.6

  Reigate

  26.8

  29.0

  51.7

  24.4

  27.9

  22.6

  15.6

  12.0

  19.2

  15.8

  14.2

  20.4

  Gloucester

  510.0

  463.9

  656.4

  359.4

  10.1

  16.1

  29.1

  41.0

  91.9

  59.4

  67.2

  9.3

  Taunton

  177.9

  154.5

  236.1

  122.3

  38.7

  60.8

  32.6

  38.1

  80.5

  49.8

  53.0

  52.0

  Exeter

  448.6

  413.0

  550.0

  325.8

  48.8

  43.8

  32.3

  21.0

  26.9

  40.3

  43.8

  87.5

  Truro

  312.3

  255.2

  384.7

  351.4

  207.5

  197.7

  109.7

  191.4

  250.1

  154.3

  155.8

  140.1

  Worcester

  257.9

  235.4

  318.9

  186.7

  19.1

  23.8

  17.1

  17.8

  41.6

  38.6

  41.8

  65.2

  WLU Exeter

  27.1

  20.2

  34.9

  20.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.0

  0.0

  5.9

  7.2

  13.5

  WLU Aston Down

  762.3

  521.2

  795.8

  518.6

  145.2

  80.7

  64.7

  95.6

  95.0

  40.2

  24.8

  0.0

  WLU Polwhele

  871.2

  696.5

  979.4

  659.5

  139.5

  76.3

  45.3

  73.8

  81.0

  61.8

  53.3

  97.1

  Total

  3,760.1

  3,112.4

  4,583.9

  2,909.8

  724.9

  609.0

  406.6

  560.8

  780.3

  533.4

  521.3

  556.5

  Grand total

  19,059.1

  WRS output for chapter 23 for TVls only

  Carlisle

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leeds

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Preston

  0.0

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Stafford

  5.7

  4.9

  3.4

  1.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Lincoln

  0.0

  3.4

  1.0

  1.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Leicester

  3.0

  2.2

  1.9

  0.8

  0.0

  0.0

  0.6

  0.0

  1.7

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  Chelmsford

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Reading

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Bury

  2.3

  2.3

  4.3

  4.4

  0.5

  3.6

  1.5

  1.4

  1.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Reigate

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  404W

  405W

  All figures are in days

  2000

  2001

  Office

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Gloucester

  100.8

  74.2

  121.5

  83.2

  0.0

  4.0

  2.0

  1.0

  10.6

  6.8

  3.3

  8.5

  Taunton

  0.0

  1.8

  9.4

  5.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.5

  0.0

  0.0

  4.2

  Exeter

  68.3

  50.1

  79.5

  64.4

  0.0

  0.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Truro

  74.7

  43.1

  73.6

  51.0

  20.9

  15.8

  8.3

  17.2

  10.3

  3.8

  13.8

  14.3

  Worcester

  60.6

  35.7

  66.1

  29.4

  1.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.9

  2.6

  0.5

  3.6

  WLU Exeter

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  WLU Aston Down

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  WLU Polwhele

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Total

  315.4

  217.6

  360.8

  241.7

  22.5

  23.9

  12.5

  19.5

  26.4

  13.3

  17.7

  31.9

  Grand total

  1,303.3

  Waterways (Freight)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what policies she has for maximising the use of inland waterways for(a) carriage of freight, (b) leisure and (c) tourism. [19532]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's policies for the inland waterways are set out in the publication "Waterways for Tomorrow", published in June 2000, copies of which are available in the Library. The Government want to promote a modern, integrated and sustainable approach to the use of inland waterways. This includes greater carriage of freight, when this is practical, economic and environmentally desirable, and to encourage people to make more use of the waterways for leisure and tourism.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the national flock to be free of scrapie; and if she will make a statement. [19602]

  Mr. Morley
  The elimination of scrapie from the national flock is the objective of the national scrapie plan for Great Britain which I launched in July. Modelling work undertaken early last year suggested that it would be possible to have a significant increase in the resistance of the national flock within 10 years. We are currently updating the model to reflect current information, including the level of actual uptake under the plan. We will then be taking the views of stakeholders on what would be an appropriate target date, or dates, to work towards for the achievement of a scrapie-resistant sheep flock. The Animal Health Bill currently before Parliament would give the Government the ability to underpin a target date by using compulsory genotyping powers.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards people working after the age of 65 years; and how many such people are so employed(a) by her Department and (b) on a sub-contracted basis. [19904]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]The Department's maximum age of retirement for staff of all grades is 65. Exceptionally staff may be retained beyond that age, for a short period, where it is essential to meet business needs. Two such staff are currently employed.
  406W
  In addition, records show that 110 temporary veterinary inspectors aged 65 and over were appointed during the foot and mouth disease emergency.

  Departmental contracts for subcontracted work do not specify an age criterion.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, columns 319–20W, on farm incomes, if the (a) total farming, (b) individual, (c) total off-farming and (d) individual off-farming income levels include income from subsidy payments; and what the (i) total income from farming and (ii) total off-farming income was by region in (A) England, (B) Wales and (C) Scotland in each year since 1996. [19238]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures for farm incomes presented in the answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, columns 319–20W, included all the subsidies to farming. In addition to that answer, the figures show the total incomes from farming and the average off-farm income per farm in England, Scotland and Wales. These figures will be revised next year to be consistent with the latest UK figures. The total off-farm income is not available at country level.

  Total income from farming (TIFF)

  £million

  March/February

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1996

  3,904

  343

  524

  1997

  2,452

  180

  344

  1998

  1,986

  68

  246

  1999

  2,093

  59

  261

  2000

  1,552

  -2

  228

  Total of farm income per farm

  £000

  March/February

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  1996–97

  5.0

  4.5

  7.2

  1997–98

  4.9

  4.2

  6.0

  1998–99

  5.3

  4.3

  6.9

  1999–2000

  4.6

  4.6

  8.0

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the qualifying
  407W
  criteria are for the countryside stewardship scheme; and what assessment she has made of the practicability of the conditions of the scheme with reference to (a) grazing levels and sward height, (b) winter housing of bovine livestock and (c) use of outdoor cattle feeders in winter. [201351

  Alun Michael
  The principal qualifying criteria for the countryside stewardship scheme are:

  (a) meeting the scheme's objectives for landscape, wildlife, history and amenity;

  (b) meeting the national and regional environmental priorities of the England Rural Development Programme;

  (c) being within one of the scheme's county target areas; and

  (d) representing good value for money.

  Depending on the scheme options involved, most stewardship agreements include detailed requirements for reduced grazing levels and sward height, and the need to prevent poaching caused by, for instance, the use of outdoor cattle feeders in winter. Full account is taken of individual circumstances when setting these requirements.

  The winter housing of bovine livestock is a farm animal welfare issue and not dealt with by the scheme.

  Finisher Feed
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what proportion of poultry was slaughtered in the United Kingdom before the withdrawal period for finisher feed was completed in November and December of(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [17103]

  (2) what proportion of poultry was slaughtered in the United Kingdom before the withdrawal period for finisher feed was completed in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [17102]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]DEFRA do not collect these statistics. It is the responsibility of producers of livestock destined for the food chain to ensure that the appropriate withdrawal period for a veterinary medicine or feed additive has been observed before slaughter.

  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) carries out a large-scale annual residues surveillance programme which fulfils our obligations under EC Directive 96/23.

  The results of the programmes for 1998, 1999 and 2000 are fully reported in the VMD's Annual Reports on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues for those years, which are available free of charge from the VMD and are accessible on the VMD's website. The results of the 2001 surveillance programme to date are published in the VMD's quarterly newsletter Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service (MAVIS) and are also regularly updated on the VMD's website in the interests of openness.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what progress has been made in implementing the Human Rights Act 1998; [19972]
  408W
  (2) what action (a) has been taken and (b) is planned by the Human Rights Unit to promote the awareness of human rights in the UK. [199731

  Mr. Wills
  The Human Rights Act 1998 was brought into full effect on 2 October 2000. Courts, Government Departments and public authorities received written guidance, training and publicity material about the Act. All Departments reviewed their legislation and procedures in the light of the new provisions. In addition, measures were put in place for necessary co-ordination and monitoring across Whitehall. A £1.2 million blitz advertising campaign was mounted last autumn with advertisements in the national, local and ethnic press. A competition for young people, centred on the Act, attracted over 280 entries involving over 1,000 young people. Research showed that awareness among the public of the Act and the fundamental rights it protects nearly doubled during the period of the campaign.

  The Human Rights Unit has continued after commencement of the Act, and maintains a dedicated helpdesk and an extensive website. It remains a focal point of knowledge and good practice on human rights. Its activities include presentations at a range of seminars, conferences and training events, as well as providing 'roadshow' training events outside London. The Unit has contributed to the work of the Department for Education and Skills to introduce the subject of citizenship in schools, which will be a part of the national curriculum for secondary schools from September 2002, and is working with other organisations on an ambitious new youth awards scheme directed at all UK schools and youth organisations based on the values of the Human Rights Act. The Unit is currently revising guidance for Whitehall Departments about the Act and, with the Bar Council, the popular Study Guide to the Act. These will be re-issued early in the New Year.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement (1) on the date for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; [19974]

  (2) on the decision to defer the implementation of Freedom of Information Act 2000. [19971]

  Mr. Wills
  There has been no decision to defer the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act itself makes it clear that it must be implemented by November 2005 and the timetable announced on 13 November by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor ensures that the Freedom of Information Act will be fully implemented by January 2005, 11 months before the deadline set out in the Act itself.

  The Publication scheme provisions of the Act will be implemented first, on a rolling programme, starting with central Government in 2002. This roll out will be completed in June 2004 and the individual right of access to information held by all public authorities will be implemented in January 2005.

  This approach will give public authorities the time they need to put into effect the change of culture necessary to ensure that new legal rights are delivered effectively in practice. It also aligns with the 2004 target for the completion of the Government's electronic records

  409W
  management. This initiative will enable the fast retrieval and accurate creation and storage of records that will be necessary to meet the demands of the Freedom of Information Act.

  Criminal Courts
  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of Lord Justice Auld's report on the operation of the criminal courts. [20323]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are grateful to Sir Robin Auld for his very substantial and important review of the criminal courts at every level. The Government have taken no decisions on his report and we are keen to encourage wide debate on these issues before we reach decisions. The on-going period of public comment ends on 31 January.

  Gravesend County Court
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 830W, on Gravesend county court, how many cases were dealt with by Gravesend county court in each six month period beginning in January 1999. [20821]

  Mr. Wills
  The table contains the total number of default and fixed date claims issued and the number of small claims hearings held during the period requested. It should be noted that Gravesend county court has one district judge assigned to it and as such hears no civil trials, which are dealt with by the trial centre at Croydon county court. Further, the court does not have divorce, family or bankruptcy jurisdictions.

  Claims issued, small claims hearings and possession applications heard at Gravesend county court during selected periods

  Total claims issued1

  Small claims hearings

  Mortgage and rent possession applications

  January to June 1999

  769

  46

  197

  July to December 1999

  802

  34

  252

  January to June 2000

  699

  33

  215

  July to December 2000

  724

  35

  182

  January to June 2001

  575

  17

  190

  July to October 2001

  531

  21

  187

  1 Includes default and fixed date claims

  Victims of Crime
  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what means of communication there are between a(a) victim and (b) victim's family and the prosecuting counsel during court sittings; and if measures are under review; [20327]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that (a) victims and (b) victims' families have the opportunity to draw the attention of the prosecutor to material matters with which they disagree. [20328]

  The Solicitor-General
  Communications between the prosecuting advocate and witnesses prior to a trial are governed by the Bar's Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work. The standards provide that a barrister may have contact with a witness with a view 410W
  to introducing himself or herself, explaining the court's procedure and answering any questions about it which the witness may have. They also place upon the barrister a responsibility to ensure that witnesses are put as much at ease as possible. Victims, or the members of a victim's family, should be treated in the same way. Crown Prosecutors who are solicitors should also adhere to the same standards.

  In the Crown court the prosecuting barrister will be supported by a CPS caseworker. If the victim or members of the victim's family wish to contact the prosecution barrister during the hearing itself, the first point of contact will be the caseworker. In many cases, the caseworker will be able to deal with the query without reference to the prosecuting barrister. In some cases the caseworker will need to refer the victim's comments to the prosecuting barrister. If the caseworker is engaged on another case in a different court, the usual means of communication between the victim or the victim's family and the prosecuting barrister will be via the usher or a police officer.

  In the magistrates court the prosecutor will not have the support of a caseworker and is, as a result, reliant in practice on the usher or a police officer to communicate to him or her any comments that the victim or the victim's family may have during the hearing.

  The Crown Prosecution Service believes that more could be done to encourage victims or the families of victims to make the prosecutor aware of things said in court that are material and are factually incorrect.

  The CPS is therefore currently considering in consultation with Victim Support how victims could be better informed as to when it is appropriate to communicate with the prosecutor and the means by which it can be done.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Bar Code of Conduct in respect of guidance that defence counsel should advise the prosecution with sufficient advance notice of the proposed use of any derogatory remarks to be made against an alleged victim; [20330]

  (2) what (a) representations he has made to and (b) discussions he has had with the Bar regarding its Code of Conduct (i) in respect of the notice given by the defence to the prosecution of any derogatory remarks proposed to be made by them about the alleged victim of a crime and (ii) in respect of other matters where the reputation, honour or naming of a victim is liable to be drawn into controversy or in any other way besmirched. [20329]

  The Solicitor-General
  The guidance to defence counsel is set out in the Standards Applicable to Criminal Cases, which are annexed to the Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales. The relevant paragraph (Annex F12.2(k)) is worded as follows:"A barrister acting for the defence … should as to anything which he is instructed to submit in mitigation which casts aspersions on the conduct or character of a victim or witness in the case, notify the prosecution in advance so as to give prosecuting counsel sufficient opportunity to consider his position…".

  All practising members of the Bar are expected to be familiar with the Code of Conduct and to apply its principles and standards. The Code is issued subject to the

  411W
  approval of the Lord Chancellor. Neither the Bar nor the Lord Chancellor routinely monitors compliance with the Code but the Bar, through complaints referred to its Professional Conduct Committee, is able to assess the effectiveness of particular parts of the Code upon which a complaint is based. No complaints have been made about individual barristers failing to observe the guidance set out above.

  I have made no representations, nor had any discussions with the Bar in relation to the Code of Conduct and the operation of the specific guidance on derogatory mitigation. I am able to confirm that no such discussions have taken place involving the Attorney General or the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that alleged victims of crime have adequate time in which to(a) consider the decision of the CPS to accept an alteration of a plea and (b) be told when the appeal is to be heard. [20326]

  The Solicitor-General
  The right hon. Lord Williams of Mostyn QC, published guidelines 12 months ago outlining the approach that should be adopted by a prosecution advocate when considering the acceptability of a defendant's plea. The guidelines emphasise that the prosecution should keep victims or victims' families attending court informed of developments in a case and, whenever practicable, speak to them so that their views and interests can be taken into account as part of the decision-making process.

  The police are responsible for keeping the victim or victim's family informed of the progress of Court of Appeal cases. The police receive this information from the Criminal Appeals Office in all cases involving a death or sexual offence and in any other case in which the victim has indicated that he or she wishes to be kept informed of case progress.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Supply Teachers
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many supply teachers are on register; and how many were on the register in each of the past five years. [6548]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department does not hold a central register of supply teachers.

  The numbers of qualified occasional teachers (short-term supply teachers on contracts of less than one month) employed in the maintained schools sector in England for the whole day, on the third Thursday in January were as follows:

  January

  Number

  1997

  13,600

  1998

  13,200

  1999

  14,100

  2000

  16,700

  2001

  19,600

  412W
  Supply, temporary and agency teachers on a contract of at least one month cannot be separately identified from teachers in regular service.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures she is taking to ensure that agencies which supply temporary teaching staff check their qualifications; [20518]

  (2) what guidance she offers head teachers employing supply teachers; [20519]

  (3) what measures she is taking to ensure that head teachers who discover supply teachers lack appropriate qualifications report them to the police; [20520]

  (4) what measures she is taking to ensure that head teachers who discover supply teachers behaving in an inappropriate manner report them to the police; [20521]

  (5) what measures she is taking to ensure that supply teachers are properly vetted. [20522]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department's "Guidance Notes for Teacher Employment Businesses and Agencies" describes the requirements for checks which the Department considers must be made by agencies providing supply teachers to schools in order to comply with the law. These include checks to establish that supply teachers have the necessary qualifications and checks of identity, health and fitness to teach, as well as against criminal records and the register of barred teachers. Regulation of agencies and employment businesses is provided under the Employment Agency Act 1973 and Conduct Regulations, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate enforces this legislation.

  Circular 7/96, issued to schools in parallel with the "Guidance Notes for Agencies" mentioned, provides guidance to head teachers taking on temporary teachers. It emphasises that schools should be clear about the checks that have been carried out, even where by an agency; that it is a school's responsibility to ensure that all checks have been made; and that schools should ask for written assurance that any agency used has carried out these checks.

  My Department also issued further guidance to local education authorities (LEAs), schools and agencies in 1998 reminding them about the checks that should be made on teachers, and others seeking to work with children. Schools were advised that cases of serious or deliberate deception by an applicant might constitute a criminal offence, and should be reported to the police and to my Department.

  The White Paper "Schools Achieving Success" proposed a Quality Mark for agencies and LEAs. I would expect any Quality Mark to lay out expectations of agencies and LEAs in terms of their recruitment and management practice and their relations with schools.

  Teacher Vacancies (Upminster)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time teacher vacancies there are in (i) secondary, (ii) primary and (iii) special schools in Upminster; and if she will make a statement. [6550]
  413W
  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Numbers of full-time vacancies for teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Havering local authority at January 2001 were as follows:

  Number of vacancies

  Nursery /primary

  0

  Secondary

  38

  Special

  0

  Teacher Vacancies (Havering)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were on 31 March(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001 in the London borough of Havering; and if she will make a statement. [6551]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Havering local authority were as follows:

  January1

  Number of vacancies

  1999

  13

  2000

  18

  2001

  38

  1Teachervacancydetailsat 31 marchof the year not available

  School Repairs and Maintenance (Upminster)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the backlog of school buildings repair and maintenance work in Upminster; and if she will make a statement. [6632]

  John Healey
  We have not made an estimation of the backlog of buildings repair and maintenance work in Upminster. Havering local education authority may be able to provide this information.

  In connection with the Department's arrangements for appraising asset management plans, we are planning to begin publishing asset management plan data on the condition of school buildings later this year.

  Teachers (East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher vacancies there were in the East Riding of Yorkshire on 31 March in each year since 1996. [10730]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows full-time teacher vacancies in maintained schools at January of each year.

  Year

  Nursery/Primary

  Secondary

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  1

  0

  1999

  4

  0

  2000

  2

  0

  2001

  0

  6

  414W
  The East Riding of Yorkshire authority was created as part of the April 1996 local government reorganisation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17583]

  (2) if she will list those public bodies to which her Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17582]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about taskforces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website ("http:// www. official-document s. co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/ pboo.htm)". Copies of the annual report on taskforces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

  The NDPBs to which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills makes appointments which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000 are: the Adult Learning Inspectorate; the Learning and Skills Council; and, the National College for School Leadership.

  Public Spending Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of her Department and its predecessors since May 1997. [17584]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since May 1997 11 new local public spending bodies have been established, nine are Further Education (FE) Institutions, two are Higher Education (HE) Institutions. They are:

  New Institutions

  The Brooke House Sixth Form College (FE)

  The Conservatoire for Dance and Drama (HE)

  New Institutions established as a result of the merger of existing Institutions

  The Bolton Sixth Form College (FE)

  The Leicester College (FE)

  The East Durham and Houghall Community College (FE)

  The Harrow College (FE)

  The Wiltshire College (FE)

  The Thurrock and Basildon College (FE)

  The Sussex Downs College (FE)

  The Derby College (FE)

  Former Private Institution designated to receive public funding

  The Royal Agricultural College (HE).

  415W

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the average cost of a full-time nursery place in(a) England and (b) the Buckingham constituency. [17842]

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost is of a full-time nursery place in(a) England and (b) Arundel and South Downs. [18329]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the average cost of full-time nursery education places is not collected by my Department.

  All funding for full and part-time nursery education places for 4-year-olds, along with the majority of funding for 3-year-olds, in the local authority maintained sector, is determined locally.

  In 2001–02, the Government are funding new, free, part-time early education places for 3-year-olds at the rate of £1,188 per child. This funding can purchase five two and a half hour sessions per week, for 11 weeks per term, for 33 weeks per year. Government funding of nursery education for 4-year-olds is channelled through the standard spending assessment. This Government have increased spending on nursery education from £1 billion in 1996–97 to £1.8 billion in 2001–02. Expenditure is planned to rise to £2 billion by 2002–03.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on average class sizes in primary and secondary schools in the Leicestershire local education authority from 1992 to the most recent year for which figures are available. [185041

  John Healey
  Information on average class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools in Leicestershire local education authority area is shown in the table.

  Average class sizes1 in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Maintained

  Year/Local education authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Leicestershire LEA2 area

  1992

  25.8

  20.7

  1993

  26.1

  21.4

  1994

  25.8

  21.5

  1995

  26.5

  22.2

  1996

  26.7

  22.4

  1997

  26.7

  22.3

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  n/a

  n/a

  2001

  n/a

  n/a

  Leicestershire LEA2 area

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  26.9

  22.3

  1999

  26.7

  22.4

  2000

  26.7

  22.8

  2001

  26.3

  23.2

  416W

  Average class sizes1 in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Maintained

  Year/Local education authority

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Leicester City LEA2 area

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  27.4

  23.1

  1999

  26.6

  22.7

  2000

  26.8

  22.9

  2001

  26.1

  23.3

  Rutland LEA2 area

  1992

  n/a

  n/a

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  25.6

  23.8

  1999

  25.8

  23.3

  2000

  24.9

  22.6

  2001

  26.2

  24.0

  England

  1992

  26.4

  20.6

  1993

  26.6

  21.2

  1994

  26.9

  21.4

  1995

  27.1

  21.5

  1996

  27.3

  21.7

  1997

  27.5

  21.7

  1998

  27.7

  21.7

  1999

  27.4

  21.9

  2000

  27.1

  22.0

  2001

  26.7

  22.0

  n/a = Not applicable

  1 Classes taught by one teacher

  2 As a result of local government reorganisation in April 1997, Leicestershire local education authority divided to form the following local education authorities: Leicestershire, Leicester city and Rutland

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if data showing the average class sizes in(a) individual primary and (b) individual secondary schools (i) are and (ii) could practically be made available centrally to her Department. [18267]

  John Healey
  Information about class sizes has been collected from maintained primary and secondary schools as part of the Annual Schools Census in January for over 20 years. In order to provide a true representation of the sizes of classes experienced by children, each school is randomly allocated a specific time on the census day at which class sizes should be reported. The current collection asks for the number of pupils, teachers and teaching assistants in the class at the appropriate time and also for its Key Stage and National Curriculum Year Group. The activity in which the class is engaged is also requested.

  The September Class Size Count is a separate collection started in 1998, introduced to monitor class sizes at Key Stage one. The statistical method used is the same as in the January Census, but, in order to lessen the burden on schools, information is collected only from primary schools and about classes where the majority of children will reach the appropriate age during the school

  417W
  year. The information required about each class in September 2001 was the number of pupils, teachers and teaching assistants and the activity in which the class was engaged and, for classes of 31 or more, the number of excepted pupils.

  Information on individual schools is not normally published. Where individual school information is published as in the School Performance tables, the information is first checked with the schools concerned.

  Asset Management Plans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 866W, on asset management plans, if she will place a copy of the results in the Library. [18334]

  John Healey
  A copy of the results was placed in the Library on 30 November.

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms in each learning and skills council, January 2001

  Learning and skills council

  Total number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms with 50 or fewer pupils aged 16 –19

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms with 100 or fewer pupils aged 16 –19

  Bedfordshire

  18

  0

  1

  Berkshire

  46

  1

  11

  Birmingham and Solihull

  45

  0

  7

  Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole

  25

  1

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  24

  2

  4

  CheshireAVarrington

  39

  1

  6

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  38

  4

  10

  Cumbria

  27

  2

  6

  Derbyshire

  34

  0

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  56

  1

  4

  Durham

  17

  0

  5

  Essex

  56

  2

  6

  Gloucestershire

  28

  2

  7

  Greater Manchester

  28

  0

  0

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  16

  0

  3

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  27

  0

  8

  Hertfordshire

  74

  3

  16

  Humberside

  25

  1

  7

  Kent/Medway

  98

  4

  25

  Lancashire

  19

  0

  Leicestershire

  22

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  32

  2

  6

  London Central

  36

  0

  11

  London East

  68

  0

  10

  London North

  46

  0

  7

  London South

  46

  1

  12

  London West

  58

  3

  11

  Merseyside/Halton

  68

  1

  15

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  69

  4

  21

  Norfolk

  25

  0

  6

  North Yorkshire

  28

  1

  3

  Northampton

  35

  1

  7

  Northumberland

  15

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  52

  5

  20

  Shropshire

  11

  0

  5

  Somerset

  8

  0

  1

  South Yorkshire

  30

  0

  2

  Staffordshire

  51

  2

  17

  Suffolk

  29

  0

  1

  Surrey

  29

  1

  4

  418W

  Wiltshire Schools
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the state of the fabric of Wiltshire schools. [18414]

  John Healey
  Detailed information on the condition of school buildings in Wiltshire should be currently available from the Local Education Authority.

  The Department plans to publish information on the national condition needs of schools at the end of this month, based on data collected as part of the Department's arrangements for appraising asset management plans.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school sixth forms there are with(a) 50 and (b) 100 or fewer pupils in each local learning and skills council. [18430]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]The Learning and Skills Council will be responsible for the funding of school sixth forms from April next year.

  The information requested is contained in the following table.

  419W

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms in each learning and skills council, January 2001

  Learning and skills council

  Total number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms with 50 or fewer pupils aged 16 –19

  Number of maintained secondary schools with sixth forms with 100 or fewer pupils aged 16 –19

  Sussex

  38

  0

  4

  Tees Valley

  4

  0

  0

  The Black Country

  47

  4

  13

  Tyne and Wear

  31

  1

  4

  West England

  40

  0

  9

  West Yorkshire

  85

  5

  15

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  20

  0

  1

  England

  1,763

  55

  345

  Research Assessment
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to assess the parameters of the Research Assessment Exercise. [19460]

  Margaret Hodge
  The operation of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise will be reviewed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK funding bodies after the exercise has been completed. The current review of higher education announced by the Secretary of State on 22 October is considering research more generally.

  Community Colleges
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many UK students are studying at(a) the European Union Institute, Florence and (b) at Community colleges of a similar nature; what subjects they are studying; and if she will make a statement. [19599]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the 2001–02 academic year, my Department is supporting 16 English and Welsh students (six of whom are in their second year of study) at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence. In addition the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly support two students. EUI students undertake study and research in one of four departments; Economics, Law, History and Civilisation or Political and Social Sciences. Most of these students are undertaking a three year doctorate, but there are some students who undertake a one year Masters in Law.

  There are two other European institutions where students are supported by my Department. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate arrangements. Fifteen students are supported at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium and Natolin, Poland. Students follow a one year course and enrol in one of four departments; Economics, Human Resource Development, Political Sciences or Administrative Sciences. All follow a compulsory programme of European General and Interdisciplinary Studies.

  In addition two students are supported at the Bologna Center, part of John Hopkins University, in Bologna, Italy. Students study an interdisciplinary course, including a modern language, International Economics, International Relations and European Studies.

  The Government are keen to see greater collaborative links between Higher Education Institutions across Europe, both by encouraging EU students to study in the UK and by funding students at the three institutions to which this question refers.
  420W

  School Budgets (Spending Streams)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the average(a) primary and (b) secondary school budget in England was covered by specified funding streams in 2000–01. [19610]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individuals are repaying student loans through the Student Loans Company. [19812]

  Margaret Hodge
  At the end of the 2000–01 financial year, there were 1,170,000 borrowers repaying loans of which 652,000 had accounts retained in the ownership of the Government and repayable to the Student Loans Company (SLC). The remaining borrowers had accounts which were sold to the two private sector owners, but where the administration remains with the SLC. The number of borrowers with accounts classified as being in repayment status includes some 543,000 borrowers whose repayments were deferred because their income level was below the repayment threshold.

  The accounts in the retained portfolio include mortgage style loans where repayments are made directly to the SLC, and income contingent loans where accounts are administered by the SLC but repayments, for those within the UK taxation system, are collected by Inland Revenue and refunded to the Department. Repayments from borrowers outside the taxation system, and from those with small loans, are made to the Company.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answers of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 927W and 27 November 2001, Official Report, column 601W, on Sure Start, if she will provide data on the same basis for each Sure Start area. [19837]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]The following table shows the funding allocation for Sure Start programmes in 2000–01 and the amount claimed by each programme. The allocated revenue and capital columns show the funding agreed at the start of the year, it does not include any changes to allocation made during the year.
  421W

  (£)

  Allocated

  Claimed

  Programme name

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Programmes announced January 1999

  Abingdon—Middlesbrough

  405,405

  710,117

  342,989

  716,566

  Aylesbury Plus—Southwark

  1,297,173

  332,250

  1,082,909

  89,231

  Barkerend—Bradford

  698,000

  721,000

  496,988

  20,695

  Barrow—Barrow-in-Furness

  477,104

  955,242

  477,104

  368,998

  Beaumont Leys—Leicester

  775,163

  1,088,838

  566,986

  372,377

  Billesley—Birmingham

  525,351

  1,497,087

  565,337

  70,928

  Bilston and Ettingshall—Wolverhampton

  763,900

  461,450

  542,950

  229,250

  Bridgwater—Sedgemoor

  729,200

  906,500

  477,016

  436,161

  Brighton and Hove Centre—Brighton and Hove

  670,560

  619,216

  670,561

  96,183

  Clayton—Manchester

  704,158

  798,854

  505,147

  752,811

  Denaby Main—Doncaster

  583,600

  680,000

  592,564

  767,000

  East Cleveland—Redcar and Cleveland

  468,627

  722,250

  344,617

  455,294

  Edmonton—Enfield

  923,796

  478,083

  824,406

  109,357

  Euston—Camden

  570,340

  702,390

  397,203

  108,965

  Huyton—Knowsley

  845,608

  485,567

  564,343

  152,106

  Foxhill and Parson Cross—Sheffield

  941,302

  255,000

  923,354

  218,000

  Great Yarmouth—Great Yarmouth

  928,465

  719,615

  476,868

  67,411

  Greenwich—Greenwich

  713,674

  288,550

  360,286

  106,758

  Hailsham—Wealden

  404,000

  1,230,000

  201,907

  1,154,000

  Hartcliffe, Highridge and Wiithywood—Bristol

  946,712

  889,462

  559,141

  272,265

  Hollinwood—Oldham

  350,390

  575,000

  411,618

  293,796

  Howdon—North Tyneside

  521,183

  945,183

  374,940

  704,586

  Lawley and Overdale—Telford and Wrekin

  299,322

  673,294

  240,770

  375,092

  Marsh Farm—Luton

  655,300

  322,280

  203,231

  0

  Mereside and Clifton—Blackpool

  442,441

  870,270

  463,808

  1,026,085

  North Canning Town—Newham

  793,000

  100,000

  179,041

  0

  North Prospect—Plymouth

  535,092

  266,000

  215,000

  258,000

  North West Nottingham—Nottingham

  647,767

  725,073

  593,216

  48,512

  Northern Hull—Kingston Upon Hull

  977,056

  68,119

  14,750

  0

  Nunsthorpe and Bradley Park—North Ease Lincolnshire

  633,300

  657,500

  680,443

  145,080

  Ocean Estate—Tower Hamlets

  405,401

  270,000

  252,036

  0

  Ore Valley—Hastings

  923,790

  335,740

  661,185

  253,953

  Osmaston/Allenton—Derby

  744,235

  500,000

  586,860

  136,000

  Parr—St. Helens

  519,000

  745,000

  300,600

  15,700

  Pen Green—Corby

  981,807

  824,500

  787,236

  129,500

  Lescudjack—Penwith

  739,182

  815,000

  222,429

  176,962

  Queensbridge—Hackney

  1,476,627

  314,800

  435,834

  188,707

  Ravensdale—Mansfield

  718,200

  406,500

  525,824

  329,068

  Rawmarsh—Rotheram

  820,410

  400,000

  239,992

  133,457

  Rose Hill/Littlemore—Oxford

  812,573

  1,038,766

  803,992

  517,589

  Rowley Regis—Sandwell

  551,402

  1,125,273

  110,841

  36,922

  Seedley, Langworthy and the Precinct—Salford

  582,200

  807,000

  383,374

  741,367

  South Fenland—Fenland

  717,729

  499,256

  444,164

  104,995

  South Seacroft—Leeds

  678,000

  246,000

  396,170

  74,974

  St. James Street—Waltham Forest

  381,400

  632,000

  211,628

  0

  Stoke on Trent North—Stoke on Trent

  1,070,690

  366,027

  886,907

  357,848

  Sudell and Central Darwen—Blackburn with Darwen

  705,823

  1,146,655

  335,150

  217,254

  Thorney Close—Sunderland

  735,586

  814,100

  835,192

  1,140,291

  Thornhill—Kirklees

  455,868

  1,058,943

  218,661

  1,003,252

  Thorpe Hamlet—Norwich

  538,992

  690,500

  270,675

  114,202

  Tilbury—Thurrock

  746,081

  1,136,618

  567,646

  902,679

  Tulse Hill—Lambeth

  1,125,601

  905,000

  452,212

  0

  West Everton and Breckfield—Liverpool

  433,356

  1,289,564

  253,616

  78,570

  West Green—Haringey

  869,627

  696,762

  523,172

  746,762

  Weston—Southampton

  227,000

  482,000

  173,734

  436,740

  Whitehaven—Copeland

  677,232

  739,173

  586,942

  168,733

  Widnes—Halton

  844,761

  457,680

  605,466

  238,912

  422W

  423W

  £

  Allocated

  Claimed

  Programme name

  Revenue

  Capital

  Revenue

  Capital

  Programmes announced November 1999

  All Saints—South Tyneside

  267,598

  135,000

  61,866

  0

  Ashfield—Ashfield

  330,000

  363,000

  126,691

  0

  Barton Tredworth and White City—Gloucester

  413,001

  545,000

  37,328

  24,622

  Bedlington and Scotland Gate—Wansbeck

  165,000

  390,000

  76,505

  0

  Bellingham—Lewisham

  212,321

  45,000

  157,834

  0

  Benchill—Manchester

  475,611

  233,400

  259,715

  9,882

  Birchwood—Lincoln

  250,000

  195,000

  156,760

  0

  Birkenhead North—Wirral

  394,500

  266,500

  140,806

  21,519

  Blaydon Winlaton—Gateshead

  196,880

  50,000

  86,619

  0

  Blyth—Blyth Valley

  121,000

  257,000

  68,136

  0

  Bolton—Bolton

  334,916

  217,350

  334,916

  26,690

  Boston—Boston

  200,175

  0

  70,455

  0

  Bournemouth—Bournemouth

  179,224

  299,360

  115,941

  50,000

  Bramley—Leeds

  407,257

  626,000

  396,507

  119,200

  Brierley Hill—Dudley

  345,360

  0

  101,562

  0

  Britwell—Slough

  588,000

  365,000

  89,540

  47,333

  Broad Green—Croydon

  259,079

  200,000

  41,580

  0

  Burngreave—Sheffield

  200,000

  77,000

  220,000

  0

  Cannock Chase—Cannock Chase

  408,360

  306,610

  170,000

  0

  Chatham—Medway Towns

  311,700

  62,000

  47,503

  0

  Chelmsley Wood—Solihull

  247,704

  39,775

  87,262

  0

  Church Street—Newcastle

  222,766

  147,000

  97,398

  43,400

  Coningham—Hammersmith and Fulham

  275,300

  100,000

  176,044

  0

  Copenhagen—Islington

  448,250

  200,000

  1,711

  0

  Coventry—Coventry

  377,658

  274,113

  10,000

  0

  Daneshouse and Stoneyholme—Bumley

  219,870

  0

  112,872

  0

  Dover—Dover

  525,000

  210,000

  165,362

  0

  East Bolsover—Bolsover

  218,089

  49,880

  90,668

  15,686

  Elland—Calderdale

  171,000

  0

  103,359

  0

  Ferryhill and Chilton—Sedgefield

  404,000

  150,000

  158,844

  0

  Gladstone—Peterborough

  276,000

  98,573

  192,817

  60,000

  Hattersley—Tameside

  316,480

  35,000

  112,701

  11,949

  Hindley/Hindley Green—Wigan

  238,493

  143,000

  86,304

  0

  Hounslow—Hounslow

  152,000

  62,500

  101,001

  19,418

  Hyndburn—Hyndburn

  254,404

  100,000

  132,157

  5,573

  Keighley—Bradford

  175,000

  100,000

  160,245

  45,810

  Kendray—Barnsley

  252,300

  137,300

  88,109

  7,230

  Knowle West—Bristol

  382,900

  195,000

  49,025

  34,500

  Lady wood—Birmingham

  214,462

  193,871

  197,029

  34,498

  Litherland—Sefton

  386,904

  397,000

  271,136

  183,729

  Loxford—Redbridge

  200,000

  244,180

  100,689

  0

  Lupset, Thornes and Lawfield Lane—Wakefield

  354,762

  150,000

  199,463

  33,237

  Marfleet—Kingston Upon Hull

  350,000

  720,000

  157,637

  281,733

  Newcastle East—Newcastle

  208,069

  322,500

  87,289

  37,068

  Newcastle Westgate—Newcastle

  377,650

  0

  202,239

  0

  North Washington—Sunderland

  464,995

  459,000

  214,516

  31,100

  North West Kensington—Kensington and Chelsea

  300,000

  100,000

  36,129

  0

  Nuneaton—Nuneaton and Bedworth

  300,949

  91,899

  169,670

  0

  Parnall Wood—Harlow

  236,210

  89,000

  161,179

  0

  Pendle—Pendle

  299,592

  141,350

  179,546

  10,022

  Peterlee—Easington

  262,399

  145,000

  10,000

  0

  Ribbleton—Preston

  268,356

  326,798

  89,449

  20,551

  Rochdale—Rochdale

  236,369

  400,000

  134,528

  100,000

  Ryde—Isle of Wight

  93,000

  76,200

  53,160

  0

  Seaton Grange, Owton Rossmere—Hartlepool

  230,607

  105,000

  144,588

  27,529

  Somerstown—Portsmouth

  375,200

  430,000

  172,445

  47,000

  South East Ipswich—Ipswich

  356,600

  688,250

  309,365

  100,000

  South Northolt—Ealing

  158,000

  45,885

  93,771

  17,067

  Speke—Liverpool

  291,864

  93,000

  107,600

  0

  St. Ann's—Nottingham

  331,603

  109,450

  118,779

  0

  St. Matthews—Leicester

  225,897

  117,772

  84,194

  3,942

  Stanley—Derwentside

  303,467

  50,000

  10,000

  0

  Stockton—Stockton on Tees

  242,406

  326,400

  138,668

  0

  Thames View—Barking and Dagenham

  200,000

  135,000

  46,590

  0

  Trevu—Kerrier

  —698,908

  314,182

  171,740

  372,000

  Battersea—Wandsworth

  290,000

  500,000

  111,042

  14,210

  Wear Valley—Wear Valley

  225,500

  100,000

  10,000

  0

  424W 425W

  Student Loans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individuals repaid student loans early in the last year for which figures are available. [19913]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the 2000–01 financial year, there were 1,600 borrowers with accounts paid off in full before liability for repayment had arisen. This figure does not include borrowers who have made accelerated repayments nor borrowers who have made repayments even though their obligation to repay has been deferred because their income has fallen below the repayment threshold.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance is issued to the Student Loans Company Ltd. to enable individuals to make early repayments of a student loan. [19914]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Student Loans Company Ltd. (SLC) operates under the terms of a remit letter, which I send to it annually. This requires the company to administer the student loans schemes in line with the legislative framework.

  Provisions for the early repayment of mortgage style loans are covered under schedule 2 of the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1998, which state that the borrower can make early repayments at any time, and that he should ask the SLC for a written statement giving the exact amount owed. A borrower can repay all or any part of their income contingent student loans at any time under Education (Student Loans) Regulations 2000, regulation 11 (1). The Student Loans Company Ltd. makes arrangements directly with the borrower for the method of repayment.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individuals are repaying student loans in Wales. [19915]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information broken down by home country of domicile is not held centrally but we are asking the Student Loans Company Ltd. to write to my hon. Friend further on this.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 926W, Ref. 18771, on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on which date each of the five new statutory statements of complaint was received; and on which date the response was made. [20099]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on the outcome of the statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's web site at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/ document/par01/index.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 October, my Department received five new statutory statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Each was received and responded to as follows:

  1. Letter received 11 April 2001, responded 2 May 2001

  2. Letter received 3 May 2001, responded 17 May 2001

  3. Letter received 30 July 2001, responded 15 August 2001

  426W

  4.Letter received 31 August 2001, responded 21 September 2001

  5. Letter received 14 September 2001, responded 27 September 2001.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 926W, Ref 18771, on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, how many formal notices her Department received between 1 November 2000 and 31 March 2001; and in respect of each notice, how long it took to respond. [20100]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on the outcome of the statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/ document/par01/index.

  Between 1 November 2000 and 31 March 2001, my Department received six new statutory statements of complaint from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. My Department has responded to all six of these cases. The average time taken to respond overall is 21 days.

  Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time teachers have become supply teachers in the past three years. [20108]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in special schools. [20111]

  Mr. Timms
  In January 2001 there were 280 full-time teacher vacancies in maintained special schools in England.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Buckinghamshire in October(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [20130]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available for the dates requested. Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools reported by the Buckinghamshire local authority were as follows:

  As at January

  Number

  1998

  35

  2001

  59

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will reply to the letter to her dated 23 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. C. K. Abbass. [20365]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied yesterday to my right hon. Friend's letter of 23 October.
  427W

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the companies listed by guarantee which received financial assistance from her Department in financial year 2000–01. [20422]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Admissions Criteria
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if an appeal panel hearing an appeal against a primary school's decision not to admit a child to their school is entitled to alter that school's approved admissions criteria; and if she will make a statement. [20502]

  Mr. Timms
  No—an appeal panel cannot alter a school's general admission arrangements, including admissions criteria. Their role is to decide in individual cases whether the school should admit a child, having regard to the case presented by both the admission authority and the parents. The panel decides first whether one of the statutory grounds for refusing admission applies. But even if the panel decides that it was proper to refuse to admit the child, they proceed (except in the case of infant classes, to which special rules apply) to a second, discretionary stage of consideration. At this stage, they balance the effect on the school of admitting another child against the parents' reasons for wanting the child to be admitted.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the grounds on which an appeal panel hearing an appeal against a primary school's decision not to admit a child to their school can overrule the school's decision, if the school has followed its approved admissions criteria; and if she will make a statement. [20503]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no grounds on which an appeal panel can overrule a primary school's decision not to admit a child to an infant class size because that would take the class size above 30, if the school has followed its published admission arrangements. The panel can uphold that infant class appeal only if the decision was not one which a reasonable admission authority would make in the circumstances of the case or the child would have been offered a place if the admission arrangements had been properly implemented.

  For appeals other than for infant class size, the panel must weigh up the cases of the school and the parents. The effect on the school of admitting another child is balanced against the parents' reasons for wanting the child to be admitted. If the panel decides that the parents' case is the stronger, the school must admit the child.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many appeals against decisions not to admit a pupil by primary schools in England and Wales were(a) heard and (b) granted by appeal panels in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01. [20504]
  428W
  Mr. Timms
  The figures for primary schools in England are:

  Appeals heard for 1998–99: 21,219

  Appeals decided in parents' favour: 9,341

  Appeals heard for 1999–2000:

  18,712 Appeals decided in parents' favour: 7,290.

  Figures for 2000–01 will not be available until summer 2002.

  The National Assembly for Wales does not keep statistics on appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained schools.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans her Department has to reduce the number of primary and secondary school teacher vacancies. [20627]

  Mr. Timms
  We have put in place a range of measures to boost the recruitment and retention of teachers including: £6,000 training bursaries for graduates starting postgraduate teacher training and £4,000 "Golden Hellos" for those who train in and go on to teach shortage subjects; above-inflation pay increases for the third year running; measures to encourage returners back into teaching such as "refresher" courses with training grants of up to £150 a week and child care for those taking part; and £33 million extra funding distributed direct to those schools in the areas with the highest vacancies to put in place local initiatives. These are starting to pay off with 12,500 more teachers than in 1998 and an increase in the number entering teachers training for the second year running. We are also working on a scheme that will pay off, over a set period of time, the student loans of new teachers who enter and remain in state education and we are determined to tackle issues about teacher workload. It is all part of our strategy of recruitment, retention and reward that will deliver 10,000 extra teachers and 20,000 more support staff over the Parliament.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the different accounting headings under which further education colleges in England must apply for standard fund grants,(a) immediately before and (b) after the establishment of the learning and skills council. [20694]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]In 2000–01 the standards fund had six categories: College Improvement; Improving Teaching and Learning; Training and Development for Principals and Senior Management Teams; the Good Governance Programme; Dissemination of Good Practice; and the Achievement Fund.

  This year, which is the first year of the learning and skills council, there are five categories for the standards fund for 2001–02: Provider Improvement; Professional Development; The Good Governance Programme; Centres of Vocational Excellence; and Dissemination of Good Practice.
  429W
  From April 2002 there will be a single, unified Learning and Skills Standards Fund with no individual ring-fenced funding streams within it.

  Funding Agency for Schools
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the administration costs of the Funding Agency for Schools were in 2000–01; and what she expects them to be in 2001–02. [21293]

  Mr. Timms
  The Funding Agency for Schools was dissolved on 1 November 1999.

  Language Teaching
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on progress in improving language teaching in primary schools. [20386]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the White Paper "Schools Achieving Success", we have stated our commitment to actively promote modern language teaching in primary schools so that more older primary children learn a second language. We are already doing a great deal to support language teaching in primary schools, although we do not have a statutory curriculum for languages at primary age. The National Curriculum contains guidance for teaching 7 to 11-year-olds, and we have published a scheme of work for primary French, and further materials for primary German and Spanish. We are supporting the Early Language Learning initiative, through which we are piloting approaches to extend language teaching in primary schools, and developing a curriculum guide to good practice and classroom materials. A national advisory centre on early language learning has been set up with an accompanying website.

  We will be building on existing links between primary schools and specialist language colleges. The increasing number of specialist colleges and the developing focus on their roles as "hubs" of excellence will enhance opportunities for primary schools to access language expertise.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what studies her Department has made of the impact on language learning in the UK of the emergence of English as a world language. [20389]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Despite the importance of English as a world language, we recognise the valuable contribution that foreign language learning makes to our social and economic success. The Department has not studied the impact on language learning in the UK of the emergence of English as a world language, but we are doing a great deal to support and enhance foreign language teaching and learning. All pupils in England have a statutory entitlement to learn at least one foreign language from the age of II. The growing number of specialist language colleges, with their role as "hubs" of excellence, means that more schools are able to benefit from access to languages expertise.

  Commercially and vocationally, languages have a great deal to offer. We have committed over £900,000 over three years to support regional language networks. These networks will address language skills needs, demands and provision within regions and sectors. They will raise
  430W
  awareness of the importance of language skills for companies and will provide a point of contact and a support structure for regional initiatives to promote language learning.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18594]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Information on the volume of correspondence received by Departments, and their performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W.

  Information on letters received between 20 June and 20 July 2001 is not available in the format required. However, Ministers sent a total of 516 replies in this period. 483 (93 per cent.) were sent within 20 days, 18 (4 per cent.) between 21 and 40 days, and 15 (3 per cent.) in over 40 days.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters his Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18572]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by Departments, and their performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W.

  Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, this Department received 1,176 letters for ministerial reply, most of which were from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Second State Pension
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the second state pension, how to qualify for it and the future of SERPS. [19365]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]From 6 April 2002, the State Second Pension reforms SERPS to boost the state additional pension of low earners, and allow qualifying carers and long-term disabled people to build up an additional pension. People accruing SERPS will automatically start to accrue State Second Pension. Already accrued SERPS rights will be fully protected.

  The reforms introduce a Low Earnings Threshold (£10,400 in today's terms). Employees earning up to the threshold will have their additional pension calculated as

  431W
  if they earned at that level. In addition, the amount of additional pension they receive will be twice the amount that they would have got from SERPS.

  Qualifying carers who look after a young child, or a sick or disabled person at home, and disabled people who have lost their link with the labour market will also be treated for additional pension purposes as if they had earnings at the threshold.

  Employees earning up to about £23,600 (in today's terms) will also benefit from the reforms, with the amount of extra help tapering off as earnings rise.

  Those earning above about £23,600 (in today's terms) will receive the same from the State Second Pension as they would have done from SERPS.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the changes to cost and coverage of the proposed pension credit if the maximum savings credit were revised to(a) £14.80 single/£18.60 couple, (b) £15.80 single/£19.60 couple and (c) continuing for each £1 up to a maximum of £18.80 for single people and £23.60 for couples. [20297]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension credit will ensure that no pensioner need live on an income below a guaranteed minimum level and will provide a reward through the savings credit for those who have made their own provision for their retirement. The formula for the savings credit is set out in "The Pension Credit: the Government's proposals" published on 28 November, copies of which are in the Library. The cost and coverage of the savings credit depends on a number of factors including the range of income rewarded and the percentage of this specified as the savings credit.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the size of a pension fund which would generate an annuity capable of establishing eligibility to an element of pension credit on its introduction in 2003 on a(a) single life flat and (b) single life indexed basis for (i) men and (ii) women, assuming no change in current rates. [20298]

  Mr. McCartney
  The introduction of pension credit will mean that no pensioner need live on less than £100 a week, or £154 for couples. For the first time we will reward, not penalise, savings to ensure those who have worked hard to save modest amounts will gain from having done so. Even small private pension funds will attract the savings credit.

  The information in the table shows the estimated funds required to generate an annuity sufficient to raise people above the point they are eligible for the savings reward element of pension credit.

  £

  Flat-rate

  Index-linked

  Male

  36,000

  48,000

  FemaleM

  39,000

  52,000

  Notes:

  All figures rounded to nearest £1,000.

  Figures calculated using annuity rates provided by Annuity Direct. Assumes retirement at age 65.

  Assumes entitlement to Basic State Pension only.
  432W

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the period of payment of bereavement allowance to widows and widowers following the death of a spouse. [19328]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Bereavement benefits were introduced on 9 April 2001 and are available to both men and women for the first time. They concentrate the help available where and when it is needed most, on immediate needs and on families with children.

  We recognise that people need breathing space to come to terms with the emotional and practical upheaval caused by the loss of their spouse. Bereavement allowance is therefore payable for 12 months. As with all benefits this will be kept under review.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what are the(a) local authorities who have been subject to an inspection by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and (b) authorities who have implemented all the recommendations made by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report. [11817]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A list of those local authorities which have been subject to an inspection by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has been placed in the Library. Copies of those inspection reports which have been published can also be found in the Library.

  BFI recommendations are not binding on local authorities, who may put forward alternative proposals for improving performance. Where there are continuing concerns, authorities are asked to submit progress reports to ensure that their planned improvements are being implemented and achieved. If it is thought necessary to gain additional assurance that improvements have been implemented, the BFI may be asked to undertake a further inspection. Where following a further inspection it is considered that the authority has failed to improve its performance to a satisfactory standard, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will seriously consider using his powers to direct the authority to attain specified standards within a set timescale.

  Therefore information is not available in the format requested.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what independent expert studies he has commissioned into each of the New Deal programmes since January 2000; [11592]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect of the New Deal for Partners on levels of unemployment and benefit take-up. [116501

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  New Deal independent research projects commissioned by the Department since January 2000 (with dates where reports have been published) are:
  433W
  New Deal for Young People (NDYP):

  New Deal for Young People: Young Rough Sleepers Awareness and Attitude Survey, A Report to the Employment Service—December 2000

  New Deal for Young People: Implications for Employment and the Public Finances—December 2000

  New Deal for Young People: Survey of Leavers to unknown destinations—January 2001

  New Deal for Musicians: Report on programme leavers—March 2001

  Experiences of New Deal: Qualitative Profiles of Young Participants—March 2001

  Evaluation of the New Deal Innovation Fund—Rounds One and Two—July 2001

  New Deal for Young People: Third Summary Report

  The Impact of the 26 week Sanctioning Regime

  New Deal 25+:

  Evaluation of New Deal for Long Term Unemployed People Enhanced National Programme—June 2001

  Evaluation of re-engineered New Deal 25 plus

  New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP):

  Employers, Lone Parents and the Work-Life Balance—February 2001

  Jobfinders Grant: Research Among Lone Parents—April 2001

  Case Studies on Delivery—July 2001

  NDLP: An Evaluation of the Innovative Pilots—August 2001

  An Evaluation of Lone Parent Personal Adviser Meeting Pathfinders—September 2001

  BA Visiting Officer Pathfinders Evaluation

  Synthesis Report 2002

  In-Work Training Grants

  Innovation Fund

  Personal Adviser meetings: National Case Studies on Delivery

  Personal Adviser meetings: National Qualitative Research with individuals

  Personal Adviser meetings: National Quantitative Survey

  Personal Adviser meetings: National Administrative Data Analysis

  New Deal for Partners:

  New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People: Case studies on Delivery Phase 1—June 2001

  New Deal for Partners: Case Studies on Delivery Phase 2—August 2001

  Workless Couples: Characteristics and Labour Market Transitions—June 2001

  Workless Couples: Modelling Labour Market Transitions—October 2001

  New Deal for Partners: Qualitative study of participants and non participants

  New Deal 50+:

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: first phase—July 2000

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from ES and BA staff: first phase—August 2000

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from ES and BA staff: second phase—March 2001

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: second phase—March 2001

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: Research with Individuals (Wave 1)—September 2001

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: Research with Individuals (Wave 2)—September 2001

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: qualitative evidence from clients: third phase—November 2001

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus: Summary Report

  434W
  New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) Extension:

  Innovative Schemes Evaluation (phase 2)—July 2001

  Evaluation of NDDP Extension.

  Ageism
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action his Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [14956]

  Mr. McCartney
  Since 1997, this Government have consistently shown their commitment to tackling age discrimination against older people through a wide-ranging programme of research, consultation and development initiatives.

  We have overseen a range of co-ordinated strategies through consultation with older people and representative groups, that identify and address their needs including overcoming age discrimination. These include the Better Government for Older People Programme, the 10-year Transport Plan, Quality and Choice for Older People's Housing: A Strategic Framework, the National Service Framework for Older People and the Performance and Innovation Unit report "Winning the Generation Game".

  Our jobcentre network, including the new employer direct call centres, are working to eliminate age discrimination through a range of options. They have a policy of not accepting job vacancies with an upper age limit unless the employer can show genuine reason for the restriction. They deliver a wide range of programmes which are available to older people including new deal 25+, new deal for disabled people, work based learning for adults, work trials and programme centres.

  In April 2000. the new deal 50 plus was launched and up to September this year had helped over 51,000 over 50s back to work. The programme is currently developing third age apprenticeships, which are new work based training opportunities designed to help older people retrain, particularly in sectors which have been reluctant to recruit older people.

  The Government are committed to implementing age legislation in employment by 2006 and in the lead up to legislation, our AgePositive campaign will be intensified; vigorously promoting the business benefits of employing young and older people in the workplace.

  The campaign includes three national and regional annual awards for employers who demonstrate their commitment to employing an age diverse work force, promotion of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, a wide ranging research programme and a range of media advertising.

  On 3 December the campaign launched a new AgePositive website www.agepositive.gov.uk and new research studies including the Evaluation of the Impact of the Code of Practice and Good Practice in the Recruitment and Retention of Older Workers.

  Winter Fuel Allowance (Residential Care)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the cost of payment of winter fuel allowances to fully funded residents of residential and nursing homes. [18087]
  435W
  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Winter fuel payments are not made to people who are permanently resident in a residential care or nursing home, and receiving higher rates of income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. This is because they already receive public assistance with their living costs. Details of how many of these people receive full funding is not available.

  Pensioners
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Amber Valley will be affected by the measures contained in the pre-Budget announcement. [19093]

  Mr. McCartney
  There are 16.9 thousand people in receipt of Retirement Pension in Amber Valley. They will all gain from the measures which increase pensioners' income.

  Notes:

  1. Figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Based on a 5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2001.

  3. Parliamentary constituencies derived by matching claimant postcodes on PSCS with ONS Postcode Directory, version 1 2000.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency are(a) benefiting from the minimum income guarantee and (b) entitled to claim that benefit. [19978]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at May 2001, there were 3,500 minimum income guarantee (MIG) recipients in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  Estimates of the numbers of people who may be eligible for, but who have not claimed the MIG, are not available below national level.

  Benefit Reductions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reductions are applied to a payee's(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance, (c) state retirement pension, (d) invalidity benefit and (e) income support during a period of in-patient (i) NHS hospital treatment and (ii) private hospital treatment. [19114]

  Mr. McCartney
  Disability living allowance is withdrawn after four weeks in hospital, or after 12 weeks in the case of a recipient aged under 16. Attendance allowance is withdrawn after four weeks.

  A limited reduction is made to retirement pension and incapacity benefit after six weeks in hospital. The reduction is currently £28.30 a week, or £14.50 if the recipient has a dependant. After 52 weeks payment is reduced to
  436W
  20 per cent. (£14.50) of the basic retirement pension for a person without a dependant and by 40 per cent. of the basic retirement pension for a person with a dependant.

  Income support for a single person is reduced to £18.15 a week after six weeks and to £14.50 after 52 weeks. In the case of a couple, it is reduced by £14.50 a week after six weeks. Each partner should make a separate claim after 52 weeks, and the one in hospital will receive £14.50 a week.

  People who pay the whole cost of accommodation and services provided for them by the hospital are not subject to these reductions.

  Knowsley Local Authority
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of the partnership with Knowsley local authority to introduce e-mail links through digital television. [18984]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department secured £1.9 million from the Treasury Invest to Save fund to run a two year iDTV for the pensions project starting in April 2001. The original intention was to deliver a local pilot, partnering Knowsley local authority. However, we decided on a national pilot and have partnered with Inland Revenue to deliver information and services through satellite and cable iDTV providers to approximately 7 million users across Great Britain. The pilot service, which will be evaluated, is due to be launched in the spring of 2002 and will run for an initial one year period. Further developments beyond the pilot period will be dependent on the pilot evaluation findings.

  Office of the Pensions Ombudsman
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the reasons for the increase from 1997–98 to 2002–03 in the administrative costs of the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman. [19525]

  Mr. McCartney
  The staffing and workload levels of the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman have remained constant throughout this period. The increase in administrative costs largely reflects the year on year increases for pay and prices. The administrative costs for 1998–99 and 2000–01 reflect a reduction in the level of expenditure on non staff costs in those years.

  Pension Provision Group
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish the Pension Provision Group's reports on pension provision and self-employment and on pensions and the labour market. [21457]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Provision Group have completed their reviews and both reports have been placed in the Library. These are the group's final reports and we would like to thank the group for their work and commitment over the last four and a half years.

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

Drugs Prescribing: NICE Advice
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of Health's current discussions with pharmaceutical companies regarding beta interferon and glatiramer acetate represent a loss of confidence in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, no.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that unusually brief reply. I welcome the creative steps that the department has taken to ensure that MS sufferers are able to benefit from proper treatments. But does not the so-called risk-sharing arrangement currently being negotiated demonstrate how embarrassed the department is by NICE's actions and the fact that it has been thwarted by the very body which it set up in the first place? Does this demonstrate a new willingness on the part of the Government to take direct political responsibility for the rationing of these treatments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we set up NICE to deal with the problem of postcode prescribing whereby drugs were available in one, but not a neighbouring, health authority. We asked NICE to provide advice and guidance to the NHS on which drugs and treatments were clinically and cost effective. Beta interferon is still going through NICE's processes. The final appraisal was determined some weeks ago and is the subject of an appeal. We do not know the outcome of that appeal. But as part of the final appraisal NICE recommended that the department discuss with manufacturers the possibility of securing supplies to the NHS on terms that could he regarded as cost-effective. In its current discussions with manufacturers the department is following NICE's own recommendation.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Association of British Neurologists—I declare an interest as a past president—the MS Society and patients who suffer from multiple sclerosis regard the provisional agreement between the Department of Health and the drug manufacturers as a major step forward that is greatly welcomed? Can the Minister tell the House who is to pay for these drugs which are very expensive?
828
Will the cost fall upon health trusts and authorities? As part of an evaluation exercise, would it not be proper to charge some of it to the Government's R&D initiative?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is far too early to say what the outcome of the discussions with the manufacturers will be. The department is in the process of negotiation. It is right that in general the cost of NICE's judgments should be met by the NHS as part of its normal expenditure processes. That is how we shall continue in future.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that NICE can take full account of the social and economic costs of the diseases that these drugs are meant to alleviate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, those are factors which NICE can take into account. Most people who have looked at NICE consider that in the two years or so that it has been in operation it has been extremely thorough in reviewing the best available evidence in relation to efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The whole point of establishing NICE was to have independent guidance. I believe that NICE has undertaken its work with great care and thoroughness.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister on taking forward NICE's proposals to conduct clinical trials with beta interferon. In future will the Minister try as far as possible to include patients in the evaluation of drugs which NICE is considering?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As part of the evaluation process NICE fully consults and liaises with patient and carer groups, as is right. Next year NICE will also establish what is described as a citizens' council. That will not advise NICE on specific evaluations but the general process by which it undertakes its work.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have before me a report that Edwina Hart, AM, Minister for Finance in the National Assembly for Wales, has already set aside £1.7 million a year to assist with the funding of the proposed scheme. If that is correct, why is funding not available to other parts of the United Kingdom?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the way in which NICE decisions are dealt with in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. As far as concern the Government and their relations with the NHS in England, we believe it is right that the impact of these decisions should be funded at local level by NHS authorities out of their general allocations. Noble Lords will be aware that, in the light of the Chancellor's announcement last week, the NHS budget for this year and next will allow for considerable growth. It is surely right that out of that

829
growth money for NICE judgments, alongside many other developments in the health service, should be provided at local level.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House how soon beta interferon in particular will be available to all patients in the NHS suffering from relapsing and remitting MS, and is there any prospect of it being available to those who suffer from progressive MS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord for two reasons. First, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is still considering the guidance that eventually will be given to the health service. It would not be proper for me to comment on the specifics until the institute has published that guidance. Secondly, we are still holding discussions with the manufacturers. Because of that, I cannot provide the responses that the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how strongly are the Government, along with the governments of Europe, exerting their undoubted power to screw the manufacturers down on the price? From his reply, it appears that this is a new approach. Does the Minister agree that the practice of driving down the price of these drugs should be widespread throughout Europe in order to secure the cheapest form of support for MS sufferers and to lower the cost of their medication?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not see the situation in that light. We are following the recommendations made by NICE by discussing with the manufacturers whether it would be possible to obtain supplies in a cost-effective manner. The noble Lord developed his question to consider the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry in this country and in Europe. I should say to the noble Lord that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important elements of Britain's business sector. For example, it is responsible for 23 per cent of all commercial R&D undertaken in this country. It is also responsible for making a huge positive contribution towards the balance of trade. The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme negotiations, which set the parameters within which prices are set and profits made in this country, allow for value for money but also recognise the enormous research and development contribution made by the industry. I believe that we have struck the right balance in this area.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as well as considering how to stop deterioration which leads to further disability, what value does NICE attribute to the quality of life of disabled people when assessing drug treatments?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I responded earlier, such factors are considered by NICE, but judgments about cost-effectiveness are
830
based very much on reviewing the results of clinical work and providing robust advice to the NHS based on the best-known clinical research being undertaken throughout the world.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is the Minister able to confirm that the negotiations will be held within the parameters of the existing PPRS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not prepared to go into further detail because we are in the middle of our negotiations and discussions with the industry. However, what I can say to the noble Lord is that in pursuing those discussions, in no way do we wish to undermine the integrity of the PPRS process. As I pointed out, we regard that process as an excellent means of achieving a proper balance between recognition of the research and development contribution made by the research-based drug industry in this country and ensuring value for money for the National Health Service.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether, in reaching its determination on this matter, or indeed on others, NICE has operated to a benchmark; namely, a cost of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year? If that is the case, can the Minister tell the House who set that benchmark?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I cannot respond specifically to the noble Earl because such matters are for NICE to consider in order to develop its own methodology and hence to offer advice. I cannot answer also because the work being undertaken by NICE in relation to beta interferon is still under way. Of course many factors have to be taken into account by NICE; that is for the institute to do. As I said, it is for NICE to set the methodology, not the Government.

32 County Sovereignty Movement
2.47 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will designate the 32 County Sovereignty Movement as a proscribed international terrorist organisation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, a clear distinction needs to be made between the expression of political attitudes, opinions and beliefs and the actual commission or instigation of terrorist crime. The Real IRA remains a proscribed organisation. The Government believe that the Real IRA and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement are inextricably linked. However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, the Government assess that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not concerned in terrorism, as defined in statute.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He mentioned the

831
evidence available on this matter. On 18th May this year the United States designated the 32 County Sovereignty Movement as a foreign terrorist organisation and then proscribed it. Following the events of 11th September, the movement has been recertified. That was done at least in part based on evidence supplied by Her Majesty's Government. Why do not Her Majesty's Government take similar action here?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the legislative framework in place in the United States is quite different and distinct from the legislative framework in place in the United Kingdom. An organisation can be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Real IRA is so proscribed. In this country it is a criminal offence to raise funds for an organisation concerned in terrorism. However, in the United States the legislation in place against fund-raising requires a statutory step to be taken. Thus a different legislative framework brings about the same legal conclusions.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the most practical action that our Government could take in seeking to undermine the work of the 32 County Sovereignty Movement and its affiliated organisations would be to follow the example of the Bush Administration and to place a ban on its fund-raising activities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the ban on fund-raising activities in the United States is in the context that I have already described. It is not unlawful to raise funds for purposes which are not terroristic. I repeat, in this country it is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to raise funds for the purposes of the encouragement or the pursuance of terrorism.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, do the Government have any indication that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is passing any funds to the Real IRA?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know of no sufficiently admissible evidence which would sustain a criminal charge.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in this very serious situation it would be wise for all noble Lords to be very cautious about what they say?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. However, my experience in this House is that noble Lords are extremely responsible in the questions that they put and in the way that they approach these matters generally.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I find the noble and learned Lord's answers slightly confusing. I hope that he has been briefed. I assume that he has been. Is he aware that the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, under its chairman, Mr Mackey, held an event one evening, in a pub in London, for the purpose of raising
832
funds? Should not these people have been prevented from raising funds? Should not they have been arrested? They are well known, they are known about and the event was widely known about.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am aware of the event to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred. It is not an offence to raise funds in this country for political purposes. It is an offence under the Terrorism Act, punishable, on my recollection, by 10 years' imprisonment, to raise funds for criminal terroristic activity. Your Lordships can rest content that there is ample in the armoury of the law of this country to deal with all aspects of the terrorism that we are discussing.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, in circumstances such as the rather delicate ones that we are in at the moment, it is quite useful on occasions to have a proxy organisation with which to negotiate? Certainly the recent demise of the UDP means that we now have no effective conduit to the UDA, which is currently the most violent Protestant paramilitary association at work in Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree that a proposition such as the noble Lord's, taking great care and caution and recognising that one is compromising on these occasions—and no one wishes to do that—is sometimes useful. However, the 32 Country Sovereignty Movement is not in that category. It is a despicable organisation and is sufficiently capable of being controlled by the present law. I agree with the general thrust of the noble Lord's point. However, I do not put the 32 County Sovereignty Movement in that category, headed and founded as it was by those who are well known to your Lordships.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that the legal basis of terrorism does not apply to the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. Can he say what description it would have, especially in view of the question of my noble friend Lord Glentoran about fund raising?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord must have misheard me. I said nothing of the sort. I have said several times today that any movement in this country is subject to the law. Proscribed organisations are the subject of distinct laws because it is a particular offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation. Other organisations which unlawfully raise funds for terroristic criminal purposes are subject to the Terrorism Act 2000, as are individuals who partake in such activities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the distinction between international terrorism and other kinds of terrorism which is found in the Bill currently before the House does not apply to the power and proscription contained in the 2000 Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, 'the noble Lord is right.

National Health Service: Funding
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to raise taxes in order to increase United Kingdom health spending to the level in the euro-zone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor has made it clear that decisions on tax will he taken as part of the normal Budget process. New budgets and targets for health spending for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will be announced when the Spending Review 2002 reports next year.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Given that the Health Secretary described the National Health Service on television as a command and control system, what plans do the Government have to make the NHS more locally accountable and user friendly to both staff and patients? Should not the discussions centre around how to facilitate medical practice rather than how funding constraints may be applied?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the approach to the 2002 Spending Review, we have done something that has not been done in the health service since 1948. We have commissioned Mr Derek Wanless, from outside the health service, to produce an independent review on the funding of the health service. He has given his preliminary results, which were previewed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, but his major analytical report will be published in April next year and will be an input to the spending review. The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, will, of course, form part of that review.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer previewed only a small part of Mr Wanless's report, which also contained a damning indictment of the present condition of the National Health Service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had hoped that we would not talk about the damning indictment of the condition of the health service because that goes back over many years, including the period of the previous government. It is certainly true that at the present time the health service is under financed. That has been the situation for very many years and action is required in terms of both resources and reforms of the health service itself.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on realising, after five years in office, that there is something wrong with the National Health Service. Why is it necessary to increase funding when it cannot spend the money it has at the moment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have to throw the noble Earl's congratulations back in his teeth. An understanding of the problems of the health service has been evident in this Government ever since we took office—and, indeed, for a long time before. A major part of the problem—but not all of it—has been underfunding. Spending on health services in this country under the previous government was 6.2 per cent of GDP. That has gone up from 6.9 per cent, to 7.2 per cent, to 7.4 per cent this year, with plans for 7.6 per cent and 7.7 per cent in the next two years. I think we can see the difference.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Secretary of State for Health correct in saying that a hypothecated health tax would be desirable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State has not said that a hypothecated health tax would be desirable. Clearly there are arguments for a hypothecated health tax—there are presentational arguments for a hypothecated health tax—but we have to look at what would happen if the revenue from a particular hypothecated tax was to go down rather than go up, and whether that would be desirable for the health service. That is another consideration to be taken into account.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, in the other place, the Prime Minister committed the Government to substantial additional expenditure on health services. Would it not be responsible for the Government to give some indication of how this very large sum of money is to be provided within the time span?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our existing plans for expenditure on the health service within the period of the spending review are set out in the Pre-Budget Report and in previous Budget documents. There is no doubt about the capability of public finances to meet those demands. As to the future, after the next two years—in other words, under the next spending review—I have made it clear that the judgments to be made next summer will be based on extensive and independent analysis.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, although many of us welcome the conversion of the Opposition to EU benchmarking, would it not be logical to ask Members opposite the following: if they find that we are trailing behind on a particular benchmark, what financial proposals will they make to correct that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely wrong—and it is seldom that I have to say that. The Opposition have not been converted to EU benchmarking in any sense. The Opposition are continuing to run two horses which are running off in opposite directions. On the one hand they are still residually attempting to claim that there will be tax cuts—indeed, Mr Michael Howard said only on Monday that the Conservatives would reduce the so-called tax burden to 35 per cent, which would mean a

835
£50 billion a year cut in public expenditure. On the other hand, they are attempting, not very convincingly, to match the commitments that this Government have made to the proper funding of the health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does the Minister agree that waiting times are now longer than they were when the Conservative government left office?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are many definitions of waiting times.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a matter of fact. Waiting lists are down by 100,000, and the noble Baroness can take any other measure that she cares to choose.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, first, will the noble Lord confirm that the Opposition are not responsible for answering Questions at Question Time? Secondly, why is it that in our small rural locality in Worcestershire you now have to wait up to a month to see a general practitioner? You can be dead by then!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know about rural Worcestershire, but in my part of north London you cannot get to see your GP as quickly as you ought to be able to do. Of course, there are defects in many parts of the country. That is why we have set targets for the specific question raised by the noble Countess; namely, the issue of waiting times to see a general practitioner.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, on the crucial question of public health, would not people be more willing to forgive the Government for all their splits at the top between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, their wriggling from pledge to aspiration, and their twists and turns over dates and amounts, were it not for the fact that this is the Government who rose to power under the cynical and ruthless banner "24 hours to save the NHS"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have always found that scripted abuse goes down very badly in this House. The noble Lord has not added very much to the debate.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in almost every European country the percentage of health spending that comes through private health insurance is higher than it is in this country? Furthermore, Mr Wanless has said that he did not look in any great detail at the operation of private health insurance in France and Germany. Surely it would make sense for the Government to look more closely at the effectiveness of private health insurance and what contribution it can make before taking any final decisions on how the NHS should be financed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with part of the noble Lord's premise. I do not agree with the conclusion that he draws. Yes, it is true that in many other European countries expenditure on private health insurance is substantially greater than it is in this country. The preliminary report by Mr Wanless—which is a serious report of 222 pages—states that there is no evidence that to extend the role of private insurance in this country would improve the efficiency of our health service. Indeed, the evidence is in the other direction. In this country we have—I am not saying that this is the only judgment—probably the most efficient health service in Europe. We have better bed use. We have better equity, in the sense that fewer people are being deprived of treatment because of the cost. Of course, there are other considerations. However, the importation wholesale of other people's solutions, when they themselves are questioning them, is slightly dubious.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, in a major debate on the National Health Service in this House on 21st November, one of the problems highlighted was that we have approximately half the number of GPs and consultants, in all specialties, compared with our European competitors? Is that not one of the major problems causing the difficulties that we are presently encountering in the NHS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do riot know that one-half of the European average is the correct figure. I do not have exactly that figure. But we have increased the number of nurses since 1997 by 17,000 and an additional 5,000 are in training. That is huge increase. We have also increased the number of doctors by 7,000 since 1997. Those are real achievements.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister—whom we all hold in high regard—tell the House whether the NHS could afford some throat pastilles for him?
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, can the noble Lord shed any light on the Government's target for NHS spending compared to the European average? Is that target to be achieved in 2005 or, as we now understand, 2006? How is the average to be calculated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the most recent figure for the European average is 7.9 per cent of GDP. Clearly, the figures are not immutable. Governments will make changes in their decisions on health spending, and changes in GDP will affect the average. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have highlighted, very effectively and in vivid terms, the extent to which our health service does in some respects fall behind the best in Europe and the extent to which, in order to correct the position, the NHS needs additional resources which were denied to it by the previous government.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, between the two short debates this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on police reform. Following that, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will repeat as a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Government's policy towards recent developments in the Middle East.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Goodhart set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Taverne to two hours.(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may first give a one-minute "English translation" of it. There is a note in the Printed Paper Office setting out the areas of the Bill involved for tomorrow's debate. This is merely a suggestion. The list is as follows: disclosure of information; police powers, retention of communications data; immigration and asylum; and terrorist property and freezing orders. The suggested list for Monday is: the Justice and Home Affairs Council, race and religion, and the remaining parts of the Bill as set out on the Order Paper. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 17,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 18 to 20,

Clauses 90 to 102,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 103 to 107,

Clauses 21 to 36,

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 6,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 7 to 16,

Clauses 111 to 121,

Clauses 37 to 59,

Schedule 5

838

Clauses 60 to 71,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 72 to 89,

Clauses 108 to 110,

Clauses 122 and 123,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 124 to 127.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, has tried to give some justification for the appalling confusion as regards the consideration of the Bill on Report which taking the clauses and schedules in the order in which they are listed on the Order Paper will create.
Clause 17 comes first, followed by Schedule 4 and then Clauses 18 to 20; then Clauses 90 to 102. Not until we have dealt with still more clauses, up to Clause 107, shall we begin debating Clause 1. I have often seen these confusing sequences, but I have never seen a more confusing one than this. Why has this Motion been placed before the House?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer is that it is thought by the opposition parties that it is for the convenience of the House to take first on both days the key issues that they want to debate. Clearly, Clause 1 is not one of them. Therefore, it is wholly sensible to make this arrangement. It is certainly consistent with normal parliamentary procedures to debate the big issues in the early part of both days. It makes sense to split them between the two days, so that we do not spend the whole of the first day on the big issues, with nothing to debate on the second day. It is a much more sensible arrangement than to debate the issues in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the Minister's comments. He was right to say that the list was drawn up at the request of myself, my colleagues and also the Liberal Democrats. Debate on the second day is likely to begin at Clause 111.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may say so, there ought to be greater and wider consultation on the matter than simply a conspiracy between the two Front Benches.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information
3.10 p.m.
Lord Goodhartrose to call attention to the case for individual rights of access under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information held by central government departments to come into force at the same time as publication schemes are implemented in November 2002; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, exactly five years ago in December 1997 the Government published a White Paper entitled, Your Right to Know. It was published in pursuance of the Government's

839
manifesto commitment to freedom of information. The Minister responsible for the White Paper, Dr David Clark, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and now the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere;—I am delighted that he is to speak in the debate—said in the first paragraph of his foreword to the White Paper:
"Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information. This right is central to a mature democracy".
The first two paragraphs of the White Paper state:
"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance arid defective decision making. The perception of excessive secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence in government. Moreover, the climate of public opinion has changed: people expect much greater openness and accountability from government than they used to.
That is why we pledged before the election to introduce a Freedom of Information Act. The purpose of the Act will be to encourage more open and accountable government by establishing a general statutory right of access to official records and information".
Those are sentiments with which I could not agree more powerfully.
The introduction of freedom of information legislation was not before time. As the White Paper points out, Sweden has had a public right of access to official information since the 18th century; the US since 1966; France since 1978; Canada, Australia and New Zealand since 1982; and the Netherlands since 1991. In addition, Ireland adopted a Freedom of Information Act in 1997.
Since 1994 the United Kingdom has, of course, had a non-statutory code of practice on access to government information which is overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman. That was undoubtedly a step forward. We are happy to acknowledge the role of John Major's government in achieving that step. But the code is no substitute for proper freedom of information legislation. I note in passing that the Government, in the person of the Foreign Secretary, have in the past two days for the first time rejected a recommendation of the ombudsman for the release of information under the code.
The 1997 White Paper received an almost unconditional welcome from people concerned with freedom of information. Unfortunately, in July 1998, the noble Lord, Lord Clark, lost his place in the Cabinet and responsibility for freedom of information was transferred to the Home Office. At that point, unfortunately, the rats got at it. In May 1999, the Home Office published a further consultation paper containing a draft Bill. Supporters of freedom of information reacted with horror to some of the contents of that Bill. The draft Bill was the subject of reports from the Select Committee on Public Administration in the other place and from an ad hoc Select Committee in your Lordships' House chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I am glad that several members of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House are among the
840
speakers today. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is not able to contribute. Although wishing to do so, he has another engagement.
Both reports were highly critical of many of the provisions in the draft Bill. As a result of the reports and pressure from Members of both Houses of Parliament, the eventual Freedom of Information Act was a considerable improvement on the draft. But it remains far from perfect and undoubtedly needs significant further amendment.
For the purposes of today's debate, it is important to note that the Act requires public authorities to adopt publication schemes relating to the pro-active publication of information by authorities. But, separately and much more importantly, the Act requires public authorities to comply, subject to exemptions, with requests from members of the public for information held by those public authorities.
Under the commencement provision of the Act, in the usual way rule-making powers come into force immediately on enactment. But the substantive provisions of the Act are to come into force five years after the date of enactment, or on such earlier date as the Secretary of State will direct.
I return to the history of the Bill's enactment. It was introduced in the 1999–2000 Session and received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 20th April 2000. In opening that debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thornton, said,
"I draw your Lordships' attention to the commencement provisions … The provisions of the Bill must be brought into effect within five years of Royal Assent. This is a failsafe provision. It is the Government's intention to bring the legislation into force as quickly as possible. It will take some time to get the commissioner's office up and running. Most of the 50,000 or so public authorities to be covered by the Bill will need time to get systems into place and to train staff. However. I can assure your Lordships that there will be no backsliding. Central government already operate an openness regime. I expect that central government at least will be covered by the Bill's provisions as soon as the commissioner indicates that she is ready to enforce the legislation".—[Official Report. 20/4/00; col. 829.]
The Bill obtained Royal Assent on 30th November 2000, so commencement must take effect not later than 30th November 2005. At the time of enactment it was made clear that the Government intended to introduce a public right of access under the Freedom of Information Act by a phased programme starting with central government departments in the summer of 2002. Other public authorities would follow in due course. Central government departments had already had over six years' experience of compliance with the code of practice.
A target date of July 2002 for central government information was predicted by Mike O'Brien, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Home Office, at a conference which I attended in March this year. A similar target date had been given by David Lock, then the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, in the Committee stage of the Bill in the other place. Internal government circulars made similar assumptions.

841
At no time until 13th November this year did the Government make any public statement indicating a departure from that timetable. As I have already mentioned, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said at Second Reading that he expected that the Act's provisions would apply to central government as soon as the Information Commissioner was able to enforce them.
On 10th October this year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor met Elizabeth France, the Information Commissioner, and asked her to let him have her suggested timetable for publication schemes and access rights under the Act. She replied in a letter of 18th October. The commissioner made it clear that in her view adoption of publication schemes should coincide with the implementation of the public right of access to information. Her letter states:
"It seems sensible to me to implement the Act in tranches, bringing public authorities onstream sector by sector. This will enable us to concentrate on groupings of public authorities operating in similar areas, with broadly comparable responsibilities and often holding similar classes of information".
Then, omitting a paragraph, the letter continues:
"Another point of principle on a phased implementation programme which has been raised in the past is whether to make a distinction between implementing the duty to adopt and operate a publication scheme and implementing the duty to respond to requests for information not included in a publication scheme. One model would be to have, say, a 3 month period elapsing between publication responsibilities being introduced and individual rights of access coming onstream. Whilst this might be convenient for public authorities, further reflection suggests to me that it would be confusing and possibly frustrating for the citizen. If information for publication has been identified and is available under a publication scheme, surely the public authority ought to be ready to deal with individual requests for other information. Citizens will not understand why they can have information referred to in a publication scheme but cannot be told whether they can have other information".
She added:
"I would therefore not favour splitting the implementation of a publication scheme from the implementation of related individual access rights".
The commissioner went on to suggest what she described as,
"a realistic and comprehensible timetable for implementing the Act".
She proposed that the Act should be implemented in respect of government departments on 1st October 2002 and should proceed by a series of steps ending on 1st October 2004, by which time the Act would be fully implemented.
The views of the commissioner seem to have coincided with those of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. His preference for phased implementation rather than a "big bang" is on record, most recently in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place on 16th October this year. But phased implementation is not what happened. On 13th November, the Lord Chancellor published a timetable providing for publication schemes to be brought into effect by stages, starting with central government in November 2002 and ending in June 2004. But the much more important
842
right of public access to information will not be implemented at all until January 2005 and will then be implemented in a single big bang.
That raises important and unanswered questions. First, why did the Government reject the Information Commissioner's recommendation that publication schemes and right of access to unpublished information should be implemented at the same time? Secondly, why did the Government decide to defer the right of access to public information for central government until January 2005 instead of October 2002, as recommended by the commissioner? Thirdly, when were those decisions taken? Was the commissioner being led up the garden path by being asked to comment on issues which were already decided? And, fourthly, was the Lord Chancellor's preference, stated as recently as 16th October this year, for phased implementation overruled, and, if so, by whom?
The inference that I shall draw, unless those questions are answered very persuasively, is that the noble and learned Lord and the commissioner were mugged by a gang of departmental Ministers who did not want freedom of information at all. I suspect that January 2005 was chosen as the last date which would avoid the embarrassment of fighting a general election in the spring or summer of 2005 with the Freedom of Information Act still not implemented.
The time that will be taken to implement the Act is unnecessarily and unacceptably long. The lapse between legislation and implementation was seven months in New Zealand, nine months in Australia, one year in Canada and, for central government, one year in the Republic of Ireland. Why do we need more than four years in the United Kingdom? Central government have had seven years' experience of working with the code. Therefore, the changeover to the Act should not create serious problems for them.
I began by talking about the White Paper of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, Your Right to Know. The last sentence of that report states:
"The long wait for the right to know is nearly over".
Even now, the long wait is not nearly over. The wait will last for another three years and it will have lasted for seven years from the date when the White Paper was published. That is far, far too long. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the opportunity he has given the House to debate aspects of the Freedom of Information Act, and I acknowledge his long-term commitment to its creation.
This Act will bring about an irreversible culture change in the transparency of government and of the entire public sector. Of course, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it did not go as far as some noble Lords would have wanted. From my time on the House of Lords ad hoc Select Committee on the

843
Bill in 1999, I well remember the arguments and the controversy over content and over the famous 23 exemptions.
But one should never lose sight of the fact that this Government have been the first ever in our history to enact a general statutory right of access to information. Of course, the present code of practice, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was brought in by the Official Opposition when in government. However, the code is extremely limited: it is discretionary and cannot be enforced. It also covers only central government and some quangos and is largely unknown and unused by the public.
The need for an Act that went beyond the rights that individuals already have to access their information held on computer under the Data Protection Act was rightly accepted by the Government. But I hope that, in the period leading up to full implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, the code of practice will be viewed in the context of the new Act and that those seeking information under the code will be taken extremely seriously in their endeavours.
Our debate this afternoon is specifically about the timing of the Act's implementation. In order to grasp the scale of what is involved in implementation, I believe that it is useful to look at the list of public authorities covered by this most important Act. They are: all government departments; local authorities; and NHS bodies, including hospitals, dentists, pharmacists and opticians. Schools, colleges and universities are also covered, as are the police, both Houses of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. There is also a long list of other public bodies, ranging from various official advisory and expert committees to regulators and organisations such as the Post Office, the National Gallery and the Parole Board—70,000 authorities in all.
This is the most determined unlocking of information to public scrutiny that we have ever attempted in this country. It will, over time, transform the way that we are governed. Transparency will become the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, given the enormity of the task ahead and the fact that government have a responsibility to ensure that public administration continues to run effectively as the duties set out in the Act are imposed, I am persuaded that the Government are wise to bring the new duties and rights created by the Act into force incrementally, with an individual's right to access created in January 2005. Provided that the time between now and 2005—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Although I follow her argument completely, she will appreciate that the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, focuses only upon central government. Is it her argument that the fact that many other public authorities are affected justifies not bringing the Act into force for central government for another several years? Is that her argument?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, no. My argument is that the time between now and 2005 used productively
844
will relate to central government and all the departments within central government. However, it will also relate to the effectiveness of the other public authorities beyond central government. Even within central government, it is better to have the measure delivered effectively, rather than speedily but ineffectively.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the noble Baroness reject the view expressed by Mrs France—the Government appointed her to advise on the implementation—that it would not only be more timely but better to move, first, on central government and to do so by 1st October of next year? Does she specifically reject the advice of the person appointed by her right honourable friend?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. It is important for government to listen to all expert advice including that important source. It is then the responsibility of government to make decisions on that advice but also on their own analysis of what is possible.
I am persuaded that the Government are wise to bring the duties into force incrementally with the "big bang" date for individual rights of access in 2005. Provided that the time between now and 2005 is used productively, it will ensure that those rights are delivered effectively after proper time for planning. Setting up the public schemes first allows departments to get their records in order in readiness for the individual right to apply. It also spreads the workload and cost over three years, ensuring that the work of the department can continue without disruption while the necessary cultural change, which will be massive, is delivered.
In getting the balance right between the speed of implementation—that is what we focus on today— and delivering new rights, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was criticised during debate on the Human Rights Act. But it is accepted now that the preparation period taken to implement that Act was in fact very worth while.
Critics of the Government's chosen method of implementing the Act have referred to overseas legislation to support their case. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the implementation timetables of other countries. Ireland is often used as a comparison. Yet Ireland's legislation is riot retrospective, as is ours; and I understand that four years after its Act has been passed, it has not rolled it out to anything like the equivalent number of bodies that the Government intend on their timetable.
Approximately 70,000 public authorities and their work are covered by the Act. The preparation and awareness-raising of both the public and the authorities must begin in earnest as soon as possible. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would set out today in his response how that awareness-raising is to take place. The best delivery of people's legal rights under the Act is what concerns us all and must be our ultimate goal.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the difficulties with this form of debate is that we get to the meat of it only when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies. Many of us would like to know what he will say so that we can deal with it in the course of our speeches. Thankfully, someone has provided the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, with a brief. It was pretty tedious and boring but at least it gave an idea of the Government's attempted defence.
I believe that we did the Government an injustice when we debated the Freedom of Information Act. At that time, we accused them of backsliding and producing a mouse rather than a lion of an Act. We were generally abusive about what they put before us. We should have been extremely grateful. It is clear that we were lucky to get anything and that had we left the issue another few months any commitment to freedom of information would have disappeared entirely.
The Government are now making the maximum possible use of the timescales under the Act to backslide from what was a clear, open and ministerial commitment to begin the publication of the availability of central Government information in late 2002. That commitment was backed up by departmental understanding of what it meant to have a Freedom of Information Act because departments have operated the code for so long. They clearly understood that late 2002 was the likely timescale. Ministers have committed themselves to that timescale on many occasions in public. We are now told that we are not to be allowed that access until early 2005, two and a half years after it had been promised.
What are the possible reasons for that change in date? Let us consider briefly some of the practical arguments.
Could it be that government departments could not get ready in the time between the passing of the Act and late 2002? That is not what government departments said at the time. It is not what has happened in other countries. There has been no indication that government departments find any difficulty with that timescale.
Could it be that the preparation of publication schemes has to come long before public access? No, my Lords. Publication schemes are only a peripheral activity. One could have, as we have now, public access before publication schemes. The two need not go in tandem.
Could it be that the electronic records management system which the Government are supposedly to have in place by late 2004 is needed before we can have an effective public access to information? No, first, because we can have such access now; secondly, because most of the access which the Government are said to be finding difficult concerns past records which will not be subject to the electronic records management system; and, thirdly, because the idea that the Government will succeed in introducing the system in late 2004 is laughable. It is a major IT project within Government. It is bound to be late and extremely useless. There is no chance of the two
846
coinciding. Even in early 2005 the Government will have to use the information system that they use at present.
Could it be that all those who have said that phased implementation was best were wrong? I do not envisage that. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is right: an awful lot of bodies come under the Act. If they are to learn what is involved, they will need people to trailblaze for them. They will need to see how it is working in practice. A body of experience needs to be built up within the public service, starting with departments, to inform the smaller agencies and, beyond that, bodies such as schools. There will need to be a gradual process whereby skills and expertise are built up and transmitted. The idea that central government will come on line the same day as my local primary school is ridiculous. On receiving the first request the school will have no precedent. The local authority will have no expertise to assist it and there will be no expertise within government to help the local authority. Everything will be theoretical rather than practical, based on some sort of training scheme but no real experience.
It was always going to be better to have a phased implementation; that was the one proposal that sugared the pill of the 2005 date in the Act—that there was a real and practical reason for the date and for allowing the system to be rolled out gradually. Central government will be ready for that by 2002: why not let them be subject to it?
Since there are no practical reasons for not doing so, there must be political reasons. What difference would it make to government if we were given access to information by late 2002? We should have two and a half years before the next election in which to discover what a pig's ear the Government are making of public services. I understand why Alastair Campbell would object to that and why it might worry the Prime Minister, who has always been focused on winning the next election. Their concern was that details about the state of the health service and about the mismanagement of education were going to be publicly available to so many digging journalists and individuals for so long that the truth might become evident before the next election. I can see no other reason for the move. No convincing case involving practicalities is being made.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, is that the reason why the noble Lord's party did not bring in an Act at all?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not defend my party for what it did not do. Looking back at Conservative governments of those days makes it clear that there was a lack of commitment to freedom of information, with which I would not find myself in tune. I find myself entirely in tune with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said in his opening speech; namely, that openness and freedom of information are a key to good government, to government by consent and to a healthy polity. Secrecy did us a lot of harm in government. The Government should have learnt from that, but they clearly have not. There has always

847
been a great deal of opposition to freedom of information in this Government. Peter Mandelson spoke against it even before the Government came into office. There has clearly been a rising feeling in the Government that secrecy is what is important.
When I debated with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the subject of civil defence in the face of terrorist threats, it became clear that all preparations for civil defence are a matter of utmost secrecy. We will simply be told by government that they are looking after us and we are not allowed to know what we should do in the event of a serious terrorist attack. We are not allowed to know—the Department of Health will not tell us—what is going on in relation to the sterilisation of instruments that are used in operations. A serious report has been prepared on the deficiencies of the health service, but it has not been published. The idea that there is a right to know is clearly anathema to many parts of this Government. It is no surprise—but it is a great disappointment—that the Government are now backsliding on the commitment to allow us a right to look into the goings on of government until the last possible moment under the Act, which they passed.
I hope that, in the fullness of time, the Government will find a practical way to phase in the right to know, even if 2005 becomes the date for the implementation of the formal right. I hope that before then we shall start to have an informal right to ask and to receive. It will he such a mess if all the provisions come into play on one day. I cannot see how that could work. With great sadness, I support the Motion.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on introducing this debate. He has a long history of promoting the cause of freedom of information. This afternoon's narrow debate is a further example of his commitment.
While I am handing out plaudits, I publicly acknowledge, perhaps for the first time—certainly for the first time in this House—the stalwart defence of and commitment to freedom of information shown by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. My experience in government, when I was trying to devise radical and progressive freedom of information legislation, was that I received support from my noble and learned friend whenever I asked for it. I publicly thank him for that commitment and I look forward to his comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned the White Paper of December 1997 and kindly acknowledged that it was widely and well received. We did much work in that White Paper. People were pressing us to publish it earlier.
I was determined that the White Paper and the legislation should be based on three pillars. First, I passionately believe that no modern democracy can build trust with its constituents—its citizens—unless they have a right to know what is being done on their behalf. Secondly, I happen to believe—this is where I disagree marginally with the noble Lord, Lord
848
Lucas—that good governance and good administration will come about by having more freedom and greater accountability than we currently have. Thirdly—this may be the most critical pillar—when we were devising the White Paper and the legislation, we looked at the situation in the rest of the world and decided that we would design a Bill that was not for what my noble friend Lord Rooker would call the legal trade, the press or commercial interests but for the ordinary men and women of this country. That is why this debate is so critical.
The whole point about the Freedom of Information Act is that the individual—the ordinary citizen—has the right to apply for information. If that right is delayed, the Act is clearly not being fully enforced. I therefore find myself at a loss to understand the Government's position. On grounds of good politics and good governance, there is nothing to be gained from delaying the phased introduction of the right. If one delays the right, we as a government throw ourselves open to the charge—it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that we are trying to hide something before the general election. I happen to believe that we have nothing to hide. For the sake of good politics, we should be up-front and open in this respect. There is a fundamental weakness in terms of practicalities. I shall return to those two points.
During the momentous 1997 general election campaign, we had a fantastic amount of good will on this issue and in terms of practical politics, we made great headway. We united the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and, at last, we also converted the Conservative Party to our cause. There was cross-party support for the initiative that we were pushing forward.
I also claimed that the effort had international support. I want to make that point in a rather amusing way. One of the most radical freedom of information systems is that in Canada. In the Information Commissioner's annual report for 1997–98, he said that even Canada might be being left behind with regard to freedom of information and that the Canadian provinces had already overtaken the federal government. He said that it was sad that Canada was being left behind compared with our country, and he continued:
"But by the nation that raised secrecy to an art form, that produced Yes Minister and Sir Humphrey's law? That is the cruellest cut of all".
There was much good will and support for our initiative.
I was clearly disappointed that the Government refined the White Paper. However, that is the nature of politics. We have clawed back some of the disadvantages and made some progress during the draft Bill process—a very open process—and in debates in both Houses of Parliament.
It is interesting to note that throughout the toing and froing there was one consistent aspect. Generally it has been accepted that the timing of release to individuals would be phased in. That has never been challenged. It has been accepted that that is the

849
sensible way to bring about a piece of legislation that covers more public bodies and is the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. Clearly there was a problem.
As recently as 16th October this year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appeared before a Select Committee of the other place and said,
"There is a powerful case for not going for a big bang, for doing it gradually, and modulating how you go according to the readiness in particular areas".
However, something has happened to change the debate, which I believe is to the disadvantage of the Bill and the ordinary citizen. After so many years of consistency, I simply cannot understand why the Government have changed their tack.
I turn to the argument on practicalities. I hinted at this point when I spoke about the comprehensive nature of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, emphasised that particular point. It needs to be emphasised. The Bill is very wide. It seems to me that the argument for phasing in the right of the individual—I emphasise the right of the individual—to information outweighs the big bang theory. We accept that there will be difficulties and some resistance. Some civil servants are not over the moon about this piece of legislation.
By introducing the Act gradually we can learn from experience. We can iron out some of the hitches that will occur. We can redefine more precisely the role of the information officer and the compliance officer within the department or within the public body. We can learn by proceeding gradually. There are other advantages. If there is a delay, we could find that government departments and the Information Commissioner's office are swamped. I also believe that we could lose momentum as we move towards a more radical access to information.
I am disappointed. I am at a loss to understand why the Government have taken this line. But we are where we are. Perhaps I can make some suggestions and press the Government to see whether we can make the best of this bad job. As a member of the Cabinet, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor be prepared to write to his Cabinet colleagues, pointing out that we have a code of access and that this Government's policy is to interpret that code as openly and as freely as possible? Perhaps the Government's policy could be emphasised to the group of officials who are studying or monitoring freedom of information and to the parallel ministerial committee.
As I understand the matter, the Government are trying to make progress in an orderly fashion. I understand that early in the new year there is to be a ministerial seminar on how to proceed. Perhaps on that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could draw to the attention of Ministers the need to be as open as possible in interpreting the code.
I understand the Government's situation, but I believe that the Government have made a mistake. They have thrown away good will. I return to my two
850
basic points: it does not make sense in terms of politics and good governance and it does not make sense in terms of practicalities.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. I suppose that his White Paper was the high-water mark of enlightenment by this Government in relation to freedom of information. I do not know how he accomplished it. I am sorry to say that if the present Government were taking key decisions now they would never have dreamed of putting their names to that White Paper any more than they would dream of introducing the Human Rights Act now.
One has to be very fit to campaign for freedom of information. This is probably the longest running Whitehall farce of my lifetime. My memory of this matter goes back to 1974 when I was special adviser to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead at the Home Office. The then Labour government—the first Wilson government—had pledged in its manifesto to introduce a measure to put the burden of proof on public authorities to justify the withholding of official information. I suppose they realised that official information is the property of the citizens and not the government. People are entitled to know about the workings of government and in 1974, with an enlightened view of democracy, they wrote that into their manifesto.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins and I went to the United States to look at the freedom of information legislation there in the hope that we might be able to introduce some such legislation in this country. Only four members of the Cabinet were in favour of freedom of information legislation despite what appeared in the manifesto. One was my noble friend Lord Jenkins, another was our present leader, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, and the other two were the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and Mr Wedgwood Benn. The rest of that Cabinet displayed total opposition or complete indifference. So we got nowhere, except for a string of Green Papers, very Green Papers and no papers at all.
Then a Conservative government came into power. I pay tribute to the government of John Major, which made significant progress on the voluntary code of access. I believe that that was a real step forward. Unfortunately it was unenforceable in practice, although it made an important cultural change.
The present Government came into office in 1997. Sitting on our Front Bench, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember—he sat only a few feet away from me—I was fulsome in my tributes on the government White Paper. Perhaps we on these Benches were over-fulsome. We praised it extremely highly. Unfortunately, the forces of conservatism took over. I doubt that they came only from the Home Office; I suspect they came also from the Cabinet Office after the noble Lord, Lord Clark, had been removed. The draft Bill that was introduced, and on

851
which there was a Joint Committee, was like colander—full of holes. It was wholly unsatisfactory and much attacked.
The Government produced the Bill and the three guilty men now sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches, my noble friends Lord McNally, Lord Goodhart and myself, were induced by the blandishments and pressure of government as we approached the second general election to strike a compromise with the Government. We were under very heavy pressure indeed. Just before the election we were told that if we did not compromise we would lose the Bill. We were told to accept half a loaf rather than no bread. We decided to accept half a loaf. The Campaign for Freedom of Information roundly denounced us for our cowardice. It told us that we should have gone to the wire. Perhaps in retrospect it was right.
However, we made the compromise. I must say to the Lord Chancellor whose misfortune it is to have to reply to the debate and to put as brave a face and as subtle an argument as he can upon this appalling tale that I am becoming a little cynical in my old age. I shall now think much more carefully before I advise my colleagues to enter into compromises on a pragmatic basis with the present Government. Why do I say that? I say it because we have been given assurance after assurance about the speedy implementation of at least the part of the Bill that deals with central government.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart referred to part of the story. I want to supplement that by giving one or two other facts. On 16th March 2001, not very long ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave a Written Answer to my Question as to whether the Government had revised their timetable for bringing the Act into force. The noble Lord explained that the Act must he implemented across the whole of the public sector by 30th November 2005. He went on to say:
"However, the Government, as part of their commitment to increasing openness, have stated that they intend to implement the Act much earlier than this".—[Official Report, 16/03/01; col. WA 115.]
That is to say, much earlier than 30th November 2005. That was a statement of intent which proved to be written in water and is completely worthless because of the volte-face which has recently occurred about the bringing into force of the Act.
We are concerned only with the bringing into force of the Act in relation to central government. I put down a number of other Questions asking about the pattern of implementation in other countries. My noble friend Lord Goodhart has referred to the Answers that I obtained. New Zealand took seven months to implement the legislation. Ireland took one year to fully implement it for central government—I emphasise "for central government". The provisions were not implemented for all public authorities in the Irish Republic. The same situation applies for New Zealand.
What arguments can the Lord Chancellor properly make as to why what happened in New Zealand, in Ireland and in Canada should not apply in this
852
country? In the Written Answers that I was given, some arguments were: "Well, these are very small countries; they have fewer people than we do; our Bill is a much wider Bill and will affect many more public authorities". I fully accept that the statute is much wider, that it affects many more public authorities, and that that is a reason for delaying for several years its implementation in respect of the many regional and local authorities. But what we on these Benches cannot accept is that a further delay of more than one year is justifiable for central government.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked what was the Government's real reason for dragging their feet. There was a brilliant article published in the London Review of Books on 10th August 2000 by one of our wisest judges, Sir Stephen Sedley, a member of the Court of Appeal. He was writing about the right to know. Sir Stephen wrote:
"We have come some way over the past half-century towards recognising information as more than a discretionary gift from those who hold it. Governments pay constant tribute to its importance, and the present Government is in the throes of legislating to give the public an enforceable right of access to some official information".
He continued:
"It is important to appreciate why Governments are perennially cautious about opening their cupboards and filing cabinets. It is not the product of some Freudian hang-up affecting Permanent Secretaries, nor of mere nervousness or embarrassment on the part of Ministers. It is because the absence of direct access to Government information is a necessary condition of the ability of Ministers to feed their versions of fact through lobby journalists to the public".
I agree with Sir Stephen Sedley. That may seem cynical. However, I believe it to be true. Sir Stephen aptly began his article with a quotation from George III on his deathbed:
"Oh God, they have deceived me".
I am sorry to say that in this respect I believe that we, at any rate on these Benches, have been deceived.
Finally, and only half jokingly, perhaps I may remind the Lord Chancellor of an illustration of the lack of glasnost or perestroika in the Government. It is about correspondence that he and I had when I sought to obtain the policy studies upon which the Human Rights Bill was based for the purpose of writing a little book. After long and protracted correspondence in which I undertook humiliatingly to accept the Cabinet Secretary's diktat to submit the manuscript in advance, not to publish it for five years and not to see any documents referring to any Minister or his responsibilities. I pointed out that I would have to wait another 30 years and that I was already 64.
The Lord Chancellor's reply was that he had every confidence that I would live to be 94 in order that. I could write the book. I replied that I did not know whether he had consulted an actuary but that I did not intend to wait that long in any event. As an individual I cannot go to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for relief because we now know that the Government do not accept rulings by the Parliamentary Commissioner on the code and its access. Therefore, if I go to him and the Parliamentary Commissioner disagrees with the Government they

853
will or may disregard his decision. So I personally must wait apparently until 2005 even to go to the Information Commissioner in order to ask her to examine the ludicrous posture adopted by the Government towards this non-ministerial and non-collective responsibility piece of official information.
That is why I began by saying that we must all keep fit and live a very long time in order to act as watchdogs and bloodhounds in seeking to call the Government to account and in getting the Act implemented sooner rather than much later.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for initiating the debate. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere. He has such a long and distinguished record in the campaign to secure a Freedom of Information Act.
I share the delight of my noble friend Lady Crawley that it is this Government which have finally put a Freedom of Information Act on the statute book. Whatever its shortcomings, it will begin to break down the doors behind which so much of what the citizen is entitled to know has been kept hidden for far too long.
As a nation, we have had this obsession with needless secrecy. I am old enough to remember when we did not name the head of the security services although we named the person who held the personally more risky job of General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. If one published what was on the menu at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food one ran the risk of prosecution. One can continue with even more idiotic examples of this obsession with keeping everything secret.
After having personally campaigned for freedom of information for more than 20 years with others—including my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell who cannot be here today—and once even tabling a right-to-know Bill in the other place just ahead of the 1987 general election, I think that congratulations are more in order than carping. I also congratulate the director of the campaign for freedom of information, Maurice Frankel. Over the best part of a quarter of a century he has been a persistent and insistent campaigner in the cause.
Of course, the provisions of the Act could have been brought in sooner and its various provisions made operative in a different order. But I do not believe that those complaints should be allowed to mask the important culture change which the passing of this Act involves. It is a huge and very significant step forward in the governance of this country.
In my view it is more important in an age of what I call "Big Brother" and "Pop Idol" politics. In such programmes television viewers are invited to watch a programme and then to dial a dedicated phone line and watch as "Nasty Nick" is thrown out of the Big Brother House or "Heavyweight Rick" makes it into the final 10 bidding to be a pop star. What is
854
important about that is that significant numbers of the population, mainly its younger members, go for instant results. They use modern technology, on the basis of the information that they have just received, to press a button and get instant results. That is perhaps a trivial example, but I believe that at a time of increasing disengagement from politics—disengagement not because of apathy, but because increasing numbers of people, especially the young, believe that politics do not matter to them—there are lessons to be learned in the opening up of information which is held on behalf of the citizen.
I shall take the absence of speakers on the Conservative Benches opposite in this debate as an apology for not having brought in a Freedom of Information Act in their 18 years of government. It is all right for the noble Earl on the Front Bench to shake his head, but that is the fact of the matter. Whatever arguments there may have been in the Labour Party about freedom of information, for 18 years the party which he supports had the opportunity and the majority in the other place to put such legislation on the statute book, but did not. I am pleased to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has been a supporter of freedom of information for many years.
As I said to your Lordships, previous Conservative governments had 18 years in which to introduce a freedom of information Bill, but did not. Very reluctantly and hesitatingly, they produced a code of practice which is a long way short of what is now needed and encompassed in the Freedom of Information Act.
I confess I have a tad of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his colleagues over individual rights of access which could have been made earlier. I believe that the Government were stretching things when they claimed that implementation of the Act would be completed 11 months ahead of the timetable set in the Act. The fact of the matter is that a timetable was never set in that sense. The date January 2005 to achieve full implementation was never meant to be a timetable. In both Houses Ministers went out of their way to make that clear. In your Lordships' House on 20th April 2000 (Hansard, col. 829.) my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that the date January 2005 was a "failsafe provision". He added,
"It is the Government's intention to bring the legislation into force as quickly as possible".
In a Home Office paper—and few would believe that that department is among the most ardent advocates of freedom of information—to the Advisory Group on Openness in the Public Sector, it promised,
"There is a clear intention that the Act will be implemented more quickly than that",
which is before January 2005. The reference is AGOPS 13/99.
That said, this is a huge change for government departments and for civil servants who have grown up and spent all their working lives in a climate of secrecy.

855
Of course, that has changed a little over the years, but inherently, those who have information have not felt able, for most days of the week, to share it.
1 understand the points which the Government make that they will need time and resources to tackle the workload and implement the proposed programme of electronic records management, which is due to come into force by the end of 2004. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will confirm that this new system of electronic records management applies only to newly created records and not to what we are told are the miles and miles of paper records with which Whitehall is littered?
The electronic records management programme applies only of course to government departments and not to any of the other bodies covered by the provisions of this Act. Will my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor be kind enough to confirm that all government departments are currently capable of responding to requests under the open government code and that there is no reason why the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act could not be dealt with under these arrangements had a shorter timetable been chosen?
Others will argue that stretching out access to central government information across four years indicates that the Government are not wholly committed to this process. I and your Lordships will know that some Ministers in the present Government were more keen than others on freedom of information on the grounds that access to what could be politically sensitive information around the time of a general election could be embarrassing. If that is the case my answer is: so what? Surely, a government which believe in what they are doing on behalf of the citizen can stand a bit of embarrassment as part of the political process in the course of giving out information to which the citizen is entitled, embarrassing or not.
I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will want to ensure that throughout this timetable there is no loss of momentum in government departments which may have been working to an earlier timetable for implementation. I hope that he can assure your Lordships that the Information Commissioner will have the staff which she needs in place by January 2005 to deal properly with complaints under the new timetable. They are all likely to arrive within a similar period. It will injure the provisions of the Act and its implementation if there is avoidable delay in resolving the complaints.
I conclude by saying that of course speedier implementation would have been welcome and possible. But what matters more is that the public are to gain rights of access for too long denied them. We shall now rightly expect all those working in the 70,000 public bodies affected by this Act, to do their best, and willingly, to make it work as intended and ensure that our citizens are able to get the information to which they are entitled.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Government's attitude to freedom of information is well encapsulated by their decision, to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred, to refuse access, as recommended by the Commissioner for Information. The refusal of the Foreign Office contrasts very sharply with an earlier decision of a Labour Foreign Secretary, shortly after the office of the ombudsman was established, to agree, despite all his reservations, to implement the recommendation of the ombudsman in respect of the Sachsenhausen case, which was the first to be considered, and with which my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank was closely involved as a junior Minister at the Foreign Office at that time.
The focus of our discussion today is more sharply on the implementation of legislation which was conceived well before the Labour Government took office in 1997. I had very good cause to be aware of and remember the decision of the Labour Party to secure by law the right of access to information held by public authorities. In the early spring of 1997, Mr Robin Cook and I, on behalf of both our parties, announced a joint platform of proposed constitutional reforms on which Labour and Liberal Democrats would campaign and which we would together seek to implement within the lifetime of the next Parliament.
That agreement led to the establishment after the election of a Joint Committee, on which I served under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, to oversee the implementation of that programme. Some elements of it have caused considerable difficulty and compromises have been required to reach agreement, for example, on the issue of electoral reform; but on the subject of freedom of information there were no pre-election difficulties for either party. Both parties were convinced that although the code introduced by the Conservative government marked a valuable advance, it was insufficient to secure the right of access to information that both parties saw as a necessary ingredient of our common programme to strengthen our democracy.
It is worth recalling the twin arguments that exercised our minds. The first was that information held by public authorities is in effect held in trust for the public. It is not so much government information as public information stored by government for use in the government of the people, for the people and, we believe, by the people. The second consideration was that the quality of decision-making by government would be improved by more widespread dissemination of the information available to decision makers. What Labour spokesmen described as the "Whitehall culture of secrecy" was widely held to he inimical to good government. That judgment was strongly reinforced by the arms-to-Iraq affair, which led to the Scott inquiry, and the BSE epidemic, which has been so devastating to our livestock industry.
I mention this pre-legislative history in part because it is generally less well known than what followed, and in part to remind Ministers of it. It is difficult to explain, as several of your Lordships have said.

857
Perhaps an earlier aperçu of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill went some way towards explaining the position when he said that power delights and absolute power is absolutely delightful.
Others have observed the paradox at the heart of new Labour. I am speaking of the Prime Minister himself. No previous Prime Minster has presided over the implementation of a more considerable programme of constitutional reform than the present one, and none has taken less pride in the achievement. It is remarkable that following the 1997 election the Prime Minister fell publicly silent on the issue of constitutional reform, while others proceeded with its enactment. Not one word of explanation or justification was heard. There was no manifestation of satisfaction and still less of pride in the programme, which may be thought to be the most lasting contribution to the United Kingdom's development in the previous Parliament—the first under the present Prime Minister. It is almost as if his programme, having done its work in lining up the bien pensants behind Labour, was more important than its implementation.
It is worth recording the pre-legislative history of the freedom of information programme as it marks the last period before the Prime Minister himself was significantly influenced by what he called, "the Civil Service culture of secrecy". The Bill, which was enacted, fell far short of what was initially proposed in the White Paper and championed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. We shall not know for many years who got at which Ministers.
This House is enriched by the membership of the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who is not present for this debate. I do not doubt that, without betraying any secrets, he could give us something of the flavour of the atmosphere in which he moved at the time and the concerns that led to the emasculation of the Bill, without of course pointing fingers.
We are often advised that the strength of your Lordships' House is drawn from the unrivalled experience of its Members. None of us has experience of the culture of secrecy to match that of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. His historical contribution to our deliberations could be correspondingly of unrivalled value.
Lest it be thought that I am casting blame on the Civil Service for this rather difficult to explain enforced delay of implementation, I should make it abundantly clear that the announcement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the new timetable took your Lordships by surprise because so many Ministers have on previous occasions given an entirely different account of the Government's intention. Much of that has been alluded to already, so I shall not repeat the quotations, many though there are.
Most telling of all was the letter from which my noble friend Lord Goodhart quoted from the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth France, which was written as recently as 18th October. It refers to the
858
phased implementation of the Act, mirroring the well-known and expressed preference of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, starting with central government on 1st October next year. That mirrors the publicly expressed views of Ministers on the matter.
The advice of Elizabeth France was clearly not just casually dropped into the Government's lap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, implied. It is the deliberation of someone who has been appointed to carry out the obligations of the Act, to oversee its implementation and to consult with all departments. I am a new boy in this House, but I have rarely heard in the House of Commons speeches of such deference to political leadership as that which passed from the lips of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, today.
It has come to my notice that the reappointment of Elizabeth France falls due long before the Government's proposed date for allowing access to the information that they hold. I must express the strong hope that in the resignation of Ms Filkin from her office, which oversees standards in another place, we are not witnessing a trailer for the resignation of Elizabeth France, whose advice has been similarly rejected and who has been similarly denied the co-operation of the Government in the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
If the buck stops at the Prime Minister's door, we should bear in mind the example of Winston Churchill. In just over four years following his appointment as Prime Minister in May 1940, he managed to achieve victory in Europe. It seems rather less to ask the present Prime Minister to seek to implement the Freedom of Information Act in just under four years. We hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose contribution to the modernisation of our constitution has been outstanding in other spheres, will prevail upon his more timid colleagues to take the plunge and not to stand shivering at the edge of the pool.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships believe that individual rights of access to information held by central government departments should come into force as soon as is reasonably practicable. I particularly emphasise the point about the practicalities. A number of other noble Lords have made a similar point.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says that access should be provided in November 2002. It follows that the issue for debate is a narrow one. Is it reasonably practicable to achieve the November 2002 target? That is essentially a question of fact. It does not lend itself naturally to assertion and counter-assertion.
Other noble Lords have given or will spell out the detailed background. In brief, the Freedom of Information Act received Royal Assent on 30th November 2000. It was always appreciated that the Act would be brought into force progressively over a period of years and that it would be fully in force by 30th November 2005.

859
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told the Home Affairs Select Committee:
"The Act will be fully implemented by January 2005".
That is nearly a year ahead of the failsafe end date specified in the statute. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, it is not the last possible moment, as I think he put it.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also explained that the publication scheme provisions would be implemented on,
"a rolling programme starting with central government in November 2002".
I think that that is where the date given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, comes from. My noble and learned friend also said that individual access rights to information held by all public authorities, including government departments, would happen in January 2005.
I do not pretend to have immersed myself in the detail, but I understand that the preparations that are necessary to meet those time limits are complex and that the relevant management structures across government have been put in place. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could say something about those structures when he replies.
The Freedom of Information Act is an example of modern legislation that brings with it the need to ensure that the underlying arrangements for the associated public administration are in good working order and well able to accommodate the demands made by the Act. The other examples that I have in mind are the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Acts.
A common feature of all those Acts is that civil servants and administrators have to be educated and trained into a more modern way of thinking. That takes time and expense. For example, it will be necessary to tie in the arrangements with the completion of the Government's electronic records management project. No doubt my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will deal with this point, which has already been raised by at least one other noble Lord. As I understand it, only new records will be created and stored electronically, but the work done to that end will improve the organisation of the existing paper records. In the result there should be a clear audit trail from what will be the old paper records into the new electronic ones.
I am sure that we are all very keen for the legislation to work. We do not want administrative chaos. The experience of the human rights and data protection legislation is that the time that was taken before the Acts came fully into force was time well spent. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes and is advised that time is needed on this occasion, I shall accept that. I do not understand what has happened since the Freedom of Information Act was passed—which was not too long ago—that enables the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to contend that the target of November 2005 can safely be replaced by November 2002.
860
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the remarkable suggestion—I suspect that it was made only in good humour—that the apparent change of position was the result of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor having been the victim of a mugging. Over the past 30 years or so, on and off, I have had quite close relations with the noble and learned Lord. The suggestion that anyone would ever have the guts to try to mug him, still less that they would have had the capacity to get away with it, is interesting and, one might say, perhaps laughable. No doubt that was the noble Lord's intent ion in any event.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am not an expert on the implementation of the Act, but can the noble Lord think of anybody who is likely to be in a better position to judge it than the Information Commissioner, who has made her views clear?
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, the comments of the Information Commissioner are extremely important and should be taken into account, but she is not the only person who contributes to the debate. The views of the Civil Service and of the administration generally should be taken into account. Everybody involved in the exercise has something to say about how long it is going to take. We would all like to see it done tomorrow, but that does not seem possible do not understand how the Act ended up with a November 2005 date. What was the reason for that delay? Surely the answer is that it was to accommodate the sort of debate that we are now having.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord has rightly said that whether one can implement the statute within a year for central government is a question of fact. He is concerned, on behalf of the Government, about the need to train staff. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that, almost a year after Royal Assent was given to the Freedom of Information Act, in a Written Answer to me about the timetable for training civil servants and Ministers, the noble and learned Lord the Lo rd Chancellor explained:
"A seminar for Ministers on the implications of the Freedom DI Information Act is being arranged by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office. We expect this to take place in January next year.
The training of officials is a matter for each department" —[Official Report, 30/10/01; WA149.]
Does the noble Lord think as a matter of fact that that indicates that the Government are really concerned to bring the Act into force with all deliberate speed?
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that I do not and cannot speak on behalf of the Government. I respectfully suggest that that question is properly directed at my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that he can answer that question; if he cannot, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will have considerable force.
In conclusion, my final point is in defence of my noble friend Lady Crawley. For what it is worth, I thought that she was unfairly criticised by both the

861
noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. I found her contribution clear and helpful.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for allowing me to speak in the gap. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for initiating this debate.
As chairman of the National Consumer Council in the 1980s and into the early 1990s, I campaigned long and hard for a freedom of information Act. During those long years among many siren voices, I was always mindful of the fact that whatever government were in post, the Treasury would be whispering in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such a provision would cost an enormous amount of money to deliver.
Fortunately, the time had come for something to happen—maybe not the best of Bills, but better than nothing. It truly will cost: I have been to America and seen what it costs to deliver a freedom of information Act effectively and efficiently.
The Government have announced that the right of access under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will not come into force until January 2005. That is an astonishing delay of more than four years from Royal Assent. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to reassure me that it is not Treasury whispering that is causing that delay, when there are so many other calls on the Government's money.
As we have heard, the date of January 2005 represents a major retreat from the original timetable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told Peers that government departments would be covered by the Act,
"as soon as the commissioner indicates that she is ready to enforce the legislation".—[Official Report, 20/04/00; col. 829.]
I must admit that I was not persuaded by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that the commissioner's voice was only one of many being listened to. No other country has required anything like as long as four years to implement a freedom of information law. In most cases, as we have heard, it has been done within seven to 12 months.
As a consequence of the delay, there will be a substantial loss of momentum, especially from government departments, which have been working towards a summer 2002 start date. As my noble friend Lord Lucas so eloquently described, a "big bang" approach removed the opportunity for authorities to learn from the experience of any early implementers. The commissioner's office is likely to be swamped if the right of access comes into force for all authorities on a single day.
I rose to speak in the gap to make my first point about the Treasury and the following point: delay gives a damaging signal about the Government's commitment to the legislation. That is bound to be noticed by officials and will inevitably be reflected in their approach to the Act. My deep concern is that, at
862
the end of the day, officials here will adopt the European Union's method of making access to information a purposely slow and off-putting process. That has made it a frustrating nonsense and a brick wall of bureaucracy. Surely a British Government can do better than that.
4.43 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, implied that this was a rather narrow debate about timing. That is not so. It is also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has just said, about momentum and commitment. To put it baldly, we are anxious to know from the Lord Chancellor whether the Prime Minister has succumbed to the mandarins' embrace that he so feared when in opposition.
As the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Clark of Windermere, made clear in their remarks, the point about freedom of information is that it is fundamental to a modern state and mature democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, put it quite well when he cited the Canadian Information Commissioner. This country raised secrecy to an art form. In all our early debates about freedom of information, the big challenge was seen to be how we removed that culture of secrecy from Whitehall and our other public bodies. We viewed that as a challenge because that culture was an impediment to both good government and effective citizenship.
In fact, there was a kind of pass the parcel. As we heard, it was first under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, when he was in the Cabinet Office. It was then nervously passed to the Home Office. At the time, I said that that was a bit like giving Count Dracula supervision of the blood transfusion service. No matter, it was quickly moved on to the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Lord Chancellor himself.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor can he mugged or intimidated. The reason that the Lord Chancellor has got the job is the same reason why, if ever I were found with a gun in my hand, a bleeding body on the floor and a message on the answerphone saying, "It was McNally what done it", I would send for the Lord Chancellor to defend me. I know that he is a skilled advocate who can defend the indefensible. I suspect that that is why the parcel of freedom of information has ended up in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
As my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said, my interest in the subject dates back to my membership of the Cook-Maclennan committee. It was and is one the proudest events of my political life to have served on a cross-party committee that set a programme of constitutional reform of which both our parties can be truly proud—although, as my noble friend suggested, the Prime Mininster has cooled on it. Between 1997 and 2001, we passed a series of constitutional reforms that will stand as an historic achievement of this Government.
I am afraid that we sometimes now feel like old friends of a lottery winner. As we stand on the pavement shivering, they sweep past in their big cars,

863
having forgotten the radicalism of their youth. That is the real worry: that the Government are losing their radical edge and commitment. Reference was made to the deal that we made with the Government just before the general election. As one of those who made that deal. I defend it now more than ever. It is clear that, as we were warned at the time, if we had not taken that deal, we may have lost the Bill altogether because too many people in government would happily have seen it die. Rather than being a squalid deal, it was an achievement to get the Act on the statute book.
The problem, as we all know, is that the culture of secrecy is getting worse, not better. As the Government have remained in office, they have been too in love with news management and No. 10 control. My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart referred to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. It is a pity that some mandarins do not participate in the debate. If anyone knows where the bodies are buried, it is them. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, was quoted as saying—I do not think that he has ever denied it—that he would accept freedom of information over his dead body. Presumably, that is why he looks in such robust health today.
The press speculates that the big change in government policy has been a pincer effect by Sir Richard Turnbull and Alastair Campbell. Today we are anxious to discover why momentum has been lost and there has been delay. There were about 18 years when the Tories did nothing. None of us thought in 1997, when we attacked, that 18 years would become 25 years. A response is needed.
The question of training has been raised. I served on the ad hoc Select Committee. One of the most powerful pieces of advice came from the Irish Commissioner. He said that one should implement as early as possible an effective training programme of the civil servants who would implement the Act. Unless that mindset changes—and in the case of this country it has existed for centuries—one will not achieve freedom of information simply by legislating. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will explain what proper training programme, not a ministerial awayday, is in place. As the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, rightly said, if no training is in place it is a very serious criticism and exposé of the lack of commitment and momentum in making the Freedom of Information Act really work.
It is not only on these Benches that there are doubts. I understand that some 173 MPs have already signed an Early Day Motion on this matter, and technical concerns about the big bang approach and the danger of the commissioner being swamped by the delayed implementation have already been expressed by other noble Lords.
We are worried that when we probe and ask questions no practical reasons are given which fully explain the delay to 2005. It can be explained fully only by the victory of those who see the merits of spin as opposed to truth. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, got to the heart of the matter. Why we are so deeply concerned is that the delay in bringing about freedom of information reinforces the cynicism about
864
our democracy that is all too prevalent and the apathy, or worse, about participating in democracy. It is extremely worrying that more people in the 25 to 35 age group voted in "Big Brother" than the general election. The director of news of the BBC said that, generation to generation, there is a worrying lack of people who watch news. Once it was the under 25s who did not watch news programmes; now it is the under 35s. He worries that that tendency is moving through the generations. Perhaps that is in part a reflection on news management and the cynicism that that produces.
There is a real danger that the Government, who have been in office for nearly five years, are beginning to lose their radical cutting edge and displaying all the arrogance of power of which we know. When at this very spot I asked the first Question of the new Parliament about progress on freedom of information the Lord Chancellor told me, with a gentle pat on my head, that Rome was not built in a day. The case that he must answer is that although no one has ever mistaken the Lord Chancellor for Bob the Builder, we are worried that he is Derry the Demolition Man. The most important role that the Lord Chancellor can play tonight in replying to the debate is to recommit the Government in both momentum and philosophy to freedom of information.
If the Lord Chancellor looks around the House he will see some of the great campaigners of freedom of information who have made powerful speeches against the delay which now stretches back 25 years. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, said that when he fought his battles in Cabinet he saw the Lord Chancellor as an ally. Tonight in this House can we look to the noble and learned Lord as an ally?
4.56 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for bringing this matter to our attention today. I admit to some embarrassment that. I am a mere layman among the expertise of those of your Lordships who have contributed to this debate and the earlier one. Notwithstanding the august company that I find myself keeping, I shall do my best to maintain the standard and quality of the contributions thus far.
The substantive point that lies at the heart of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that there is no good reason why individual rights of access to information from government departments should not come into force at the same time as publication schemes are implemented in November of next year. After all, as the noble Lord explained in such eloquent detail, there had been a firm expectation within Whitehall and more widely that such a timetable would be adhered to.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already referred to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading, and I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating them. The fact is that on 18th October the Information Commissioner made it clear that she would be ready to enforce the

865
Act in relation to central government by 1st October 2002. In the circumstances, there is some credibility in the contention of my noble friend Lord Lucas that the delay to January 2005 represents back-sliding.
I need not elaborate on the history of the Act. Nonetheless, a little background will help. I recall that a particular feature of our debates on the Bill was the perceived need to change the culture of secrecy by and with which it is alleged Whitehall and Westminster have been cursed. The means by which this would be achieved was to create a presumption in favour of the release of information. Fair enough; I acknowledge the merit of that. But it is worth contemplating how much impact the Act has had on that culture since it received Royal Assent a year ago on 30th November.
The means to assess this can be found in various reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. In this context it is much to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he asked a Question on the ombudsman's report for the period April to December 2000 on 19th February of this year. That serves as the starting point to judge the prevailing mood, if I may put it that way, into which the Freedom of Information Act was thrust. In that report the ombudsman stated:
"The reports show that, while some [government] departments have clear and efficient procedures for the processing of information requests, others fail even to identify the need to deal with such requests under the code [of practice on access to government information]".
The report adds—this is the significant point—
"Given that the code has now been in existence for nearly seven years, there can be no excuse for this".
I shall return to that later. But we can deduce from those comments that as of the date of that report (January 2001)—some 3½ years into the first term of this administration and almost immediately following enactment of the Act—the culture of secrecy within Whitehall was alive and well, at least in some government departments.
I now invite noble Lords to turn to the most recent report from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester. The ombudsman states that,
"there is no valid reason under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information why this information should not be released, and that there is a public interest in making it available".
The report goes on to say,
"this is the first occasion on which a Government department has refused to accept the conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information under the Code of Practice".
By any measure, that represents deeper entrenchment of the culture of secrecy. But to compound matters, it is an entrenchment aimed at Members of Parliament; that is, it has the character of a conscious and deliberate obstacle placed in the way of legitimate scrutiny of the executive. In effect, the regime under which we as parliamentarians are currently operating is one where, if information is not cynically "buried", gaining access to it is akin to trying to extract blood from a stone. Inevitably that invites the question as to what hope the general public have to persuade
866
government departments to release information if the current administration is showing a tendency to be unwilling to release it to Parliament itself. In terms, therefore, the evidence suggests that the culture of secrecy within Whitehall and Westminster has gained ground in the period since enactment and now.
I mentioned that I would return to the longevity of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, generously conceded, this was a construct of John Major's administration. I am bound to say here that I prefer the fulsome tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the gentle criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett; but in passing I would say that I agree with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on disengagement.
Noble Lords will be aware that the terms of the code, albeit not based in statute, were and are more demanding than those of the Act. I make no judgment about that, but rather merely observe, as it were to reinforce the point about the culture of secrecy, that, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the code, its effectiveness is wholly dependent on the willingness of those to whom it applies to comply with it. Indeed, that was the grand premise on which the Act was based—the code required the force of law to be effective. However, as things stand, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's most recent report offers us neither comfort nor encouragement that the code is being operated in a way which could be described as effective. Worse, there is scope for imagining that it is being actively and deliberately ignored.
There has long been a widespread presumption—here I echo faintly the words of the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan and Lord McNally—that one of the unfortunate consequences of the acquisition of power, of being in government, is that it tends to compromise the good intentions of opposition. One could be forgiven for supposing that the apparently shifting sands of government policy towards freedom of information are a case in point. On 19th February this year, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in his capacity as Home Office Minister, waxed lyrical about the Act. He said that,
"the Government's Freedom of Information Act is a profound piece of legislation. I believe that it is as profound as the Human Rights Act. I believe that, over time, it will change the culture of secrecy which many in your Lordships' House sought to defend for far too long. I believe that our Act is effective and robust and provides an important right of access for the people of our country".—[Official Report. 19/2/01; col. 497.]
Unfortunately, viewed from the present, there are perhaps only two words of legitimacy in the noble Lord's eulogy; that is, "over time".
Throughout the debate noble Lords have speculated on the reasons for delay. I do not pretend to have an answer to that question, but I can contemplate factors that might have contributed. There is persistent currency in the view that the Government are overly obsessed with presentation and spin. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, touched on that. Alastair Campbell may have adopted a lower profile and Peter Mandelson may be languishing on the Back Benches,

867
but their spirits linger on in the machine. The furore—wholly justified—about Jo Moore's infamous e-mail attests to that. Of course the difficulty with spin is that the message and its substance become less important than how it is delivered and perceived. It is a selective release of information. In other words, it is antipathetic to proper freedom of information. Here the trend towards institutionalisation of ministerial evasion seems to have gathered momentum. Perhaps it was ever thus, but it does seem that it is being taken to new extremes.
We have had the Government's intransigence over holding a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease. We have had the sorry debacle over Railtrack and Stephen Byers' curious air of reticence. We have had the Government's coyness about their plans for the Dome. Then, of course, as was revealed in a Written Answer yesterday, there is the Government's tangled web of advocates, advisers, champions, envoys, czars and the like, who occupy the hinterlands of the parliamentary process free of adequate scrutiny. All those are areas where the public interest would be best served by information being made much more freely available.
In its place, however, we have the worst of all worlds. We have the force of law by virtue of the Act. But in more ways than one it is a thing of straw because its full implementation to the benefit of the public, let alone Parliament, is to be delayed until 2005. We have the code of practice, which some would argue is being subjected to serial abuse. Yet the culture of secrecy, battered but unbowed, rules supreme, a discredited notion that nonetheless seems to have infected the mindset of the Government. As a leader in today's Daily Telegraph observes, we find ourselves in a position that,
"hardly amounts to the sort of freedom of information and see-through government that were the watchwords of this administration when it came to power".
I have one further thought. At the moment, the greater part of our energies is committed to the scrutiny of the Government's emergency legislation. I could perhaps therefore suggest that it is a blessing to have had this debate to work on as some light relief from the anti-terrorism Bill. Would that it were so. The reality is, as was made so apparent in our debates yesterday, that information figures strongly in that measure in Parts 3 and 11. Is it not extraordinary that, when it comes to information that the Government want from us, they are willing and able to legislate and implement at lightning speed and—again, on the evidence of our debates yesterday—with little or no understanding of the issues involved, yet, when it comes to information that we might wish to glean from the Government, the process slows to an unhurried amble?
5.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, today's debate has been timely. First, let me tell your Lordships a little more of the background.
I chaired the Cabinet Committee appointed after the 1997 general election to consider freedom of information, as I chaired all the other Cabinet
868
Committees concerned with constitutional reform during the last Parliament. The FOI committee succeeded in producing the White Paper entitled Your Right to Know in December of that year. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere who, at the time as noble Lords will know, had ministerial responsibility in this area. I acknowledge his generous observations of my own role. After that, policy responsibility transferred to the Home Secretary and a draft Bill was the subject of a consultation paper and pre-legislative scrutiny during the summer of 1999. The Act gained Royal Assent on 30th November 2000.
The subject area transferred to my department, along with other areas of a constitutional character as a result of the machinery of government changes announced after the general election in June 2001. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is in one of his worrying spasms of cynicism as he speculates with all the fervour of a gossip columnist who has a talent for getting it wrong. It is true that freedom of information has been a parcel that has been passed around the departments, but the noble Lord should applaud and marvel at the fact that it has now reached the safe and hospitable haven of the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am surprised that the noble Lord should even think to ask for confirmation that I am not for turning on freedom of information, but, if it will please him, I shall confirm that I am not.
I made my first detailed comments on the implementation of the Act, as has been referred to, in my evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 16th October. The next day, my evidence appeared on the House of Commons website. I was asked how we would approach the implementation of the Act. I said that there were two basic approaches under consideration, and I said in terms that there was much to be said for both approaches. I mentioned the possibility of a stage-by-stage approach, in which publication schemes could be published on particular dates in particular sectors, followed, a period of time later, in each particular area, by the individual right of access coming into force. I then explained how such a programme might incrementally unfold.
I then dealt with the other option. I said:
"The other way of looking at it would be to roll out the publication schemes, perhaps across a similar model, but then have a big bang so that the individual's right of access does not come until a single date before November 2005, obviously".
I continued:
"I will be quite frank: there is discussion going on around these two alternatives. Both can be argued—I emphasise these words—but what I can say is that one or other, a variant, is going to happen and that we will of course comply with the statutory outer limit of November 2005".
The chairman then asked me:
"Is that not a case for not going for a big bang?".
As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, has quoted, I replied:
"Yes. There is a powerful case for not going for a big bang, for doing it gradually, and modulating how you go according to readiness in particular areas. On the other hand, there are in fact arguments the other way as well, but that is the broad outline".

869
I hope that your Lordships will think that I was very frank with the Select Committee. Not only did I make it clear that the Government were considering two options for implementation, but I set out the details of the two options under consideration and I explained that the choice between the two options was a balanced matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Lord Chancellor agree that in making that choice, which is the Government's choice, one should remember the well-known legal maxim that no one should be judge in his own cause? In this case, the judges of their own cause are the Government themselves, with their own convenience involved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, not at all. I was very clear. In fact, I was remarkably forthcoming by the standards of some evidence that one reads to Select Committees of the House of Commons. I said, quite frankly, what were the policy choices and spelt out the arguments on either side.
What are we doing between now and January 2005? Why do we need this time to bring the individual rights of access into force? I published my first annual report on the implementation of the Act to Parliament on 29th November. I reported that two interdepartmental groups have been set up to support the existing Ministerial Committee on Freedom of Information. These groups are chaired by senior officials in my department. The groups will help to broaden ownership of the legislation, emphasise cross-departmental working and act as a forum for sharing best practice.
I also announced in the report the formation of the advisory group on implementation of the Act, which will be jointly chaired by one of my Parliamentary Secretaries, Michael Wills, and the Information Commissioner. This will bring together representatives of all parts of the public sector and independent experts to advise on all aspects of implementing the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly gave a good deal of credit to Parliament for strengthening the Act. But it is a strong Act. Think of the powers that the Information Commissioner has. She can substitute her judgment for that of the public authority on an issue of disclosure, subject to appeal to the Information Tribunal; she can require information from any public authority to enable her to come to a decision on an issue of disclosure; she can apply to a circuit judge for a warrant to enter premises for the purposes of search; to issue an enforcement notice if she believes that any public body is not fulfilling its duties under the Act—with all these powers reinforced by the contempt powers of the High Court. She has the remarkable power to approve and decide on the adequacy of each and every publication scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why the Government did not accept the Information Commissioner's advice on implementation. Let me
870
say, first, that I asked for the advice—she did not take the initiative—because I wanted to know her views. We certainly took her advice into account. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, essentially asked why we did not act on it. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, gave the answer: the Government had to take account of the views of all departments of state which have to deliver the rights under the Act. The Information Commissioner oversees the Act, but it is the 70,000 bodies covered by the Act which have to deliver. She has made it plain—she is, of course. right—that the decisions on implementation are for the Government.
The noble Lord next asked—and again the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, gave the answer—whether I was collectively mugged by my colleagues. Perish the thought. A collective decision was taken, which, as I predicted to HASC, was a decision between two broad options, and was very much on balance.
I have already dealt with the strength of the Act. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for acknowledging the strength of the Act.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, if the matter was, as the Lord Chancellor said, decided very much on balance, does that not fortify the view that it was extraordinary that the advice proffered by the Information Commissioner did not prevail?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords. I do not agree. Of course close attention is paid to her advice, but she does not deliver the Act. She has a very important function in overseeing and ensuring its delivery, but its delivery is by others.
Critical for the successful implementation of the Act is the Office of the Information Commissioner, which was created on 30th January and subsumes within it the post of Data Protection Commissioner. Let us get down to brass tacks. The staff in her office—currently about 150—associated with data protection will, over time, have to double to manage the Freedom of Information Act. The commissioner must be in a position to approve the publication schemes of around 70,000 public authorities covered by the Act. Detailed guidance and model schemes will need to be prepared, as will guidance on other areas of the Act. Recruitment of the right people in these numbers, with experience of how the public sector operates and with investigative skills, will take time.
My officials are currently working on a review of more than 300 statutory bars to the disclosure of information. Our aim is to repeal or amend a good many of them using the order-making powers set out in Section 75 of the Act. Many of these statutory bars are necessary to fulfil a European Commission directive or some other international obligation, so it will not be necessary to repeal all of them. However, a number have been identified as candidates for repeal or amendment and I expect to make an interim report on the progress of the review in April.
Another initiative which is currently under way, and to which I refer in my report to Parliament, is the pilot publication schemes. The Information Commissioner

871
is liaising with the Medicines Control Agency, the Department for International Development, the Public Record office, the Ministry of Defence and the Health and Safety Executive to set up and run pilot publication schemes. All five schemes should be available by the end of this year and evaluation of these pilots will help to determine the shape of publication schemes for the first wave of authorities—mainly central government—which will have to apply such schemes from November next year.
I draw a parallel with the implementation of the Human Rights Act. We took two years to implement that Act—for which we were, inevitably, criticised. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was, understandably, conspicuously impatient for much earlier implementation of an Act which had been a gleam in his eye over many decades. But that time was used for intensive preparation across Whitehall and with training of the judiciary extending to the 30,500 lay magistrates. The opponents of the Act predicted absurd decisions and chaos in the courts. The implementation of the Act, as I know the noble Lord will agree, has been a triumph and the prophets of doom have been comprehensively routed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am glad to agree with him that people like myself who pressed for early implementation were shown to have been somewhat over-hasty and that the two-year period was well spent. But will the noble and learned Lord tell the House why, in contradistinction to what has happened in relation to the Human Rights Act, there has been no effective progress in a training programme during the first year since Royal Assent; why there is no training programme for civil servants now before the House; and why, dealing with central government, we cannot do what has been done, for example, in Canada, Ireland and New Zealand for central government—namely, implement the arrangements another year from now or, at worst, another 18 months? So far, the noble and learned Lord has given no facts—to return to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner—as to why we cannot do what other democracies have done.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rather thought that that was a short speech dressed up as a series of questions. I am trying to persuade the noble Lord, by reason, not to be over-hasty and over-impatient in relation to the Freedom of Information Act in just the same way as he has been good enough to acknowledge he was in relation to the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
The noble Lord asks about training. A great deal of awareness training has taken place during the past year. My officials undertake regular presentations to a wide range of organisations. Ministers have also addressed conferences. A specific seminar for Ministers has been organised to coincide with the announcement of the implementation timetable. I do not dispute that what is required is a campaign of
872
training and awareness training to win the hearts and minds of the people who have to deliver this legislation in the spirit in which its makers intended.
I agree with the comments by the Irish Information Commissioner, which have been quoted, that training is essential. A programme will begin with the ministerial seminar in January and a minimum of two awareness seminars a week until the end of April, led by the Parliamentary Secretary in my department, Mr Wills. They will be followed up with a further programme in the autumn. We have also produced a blueprint for detailed operational training for departments to use to assist in a battle to win the hearts and minds of those in the Civil Service. I remind noble Lords that freedom of information has not been in this safe haven for very long.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, makes comparisons with other countries. But we must make sure that we compare like with like; otherwise, comparisons are not valid. Some countries did implement their Acts more quickly. The Australian Act came into force nine months after it was passed, but it was not fully retrospective, and it applied only to federal government. Likewise, Canada's Act came into force one year after it was passed, but it was not fully retrospective either and it applied only to federal government. Ireland's Act, which is not retrospective except for personal files, does not, five years after it was passed, apply to nearly as wide a range of public authorities as our own Act will cover. A better comparison would be the Data Protection Act 1984, which created a right of subject access to personal data held on computer, and therefore readily accessible, but the subject access provisions did not come into effect until 1987.
We must take great care with the implementation of freedom of information legislation. It applies to all written requests for information. So all staff in public authorities who will deal with such correspondence must be trained. The Act covers some 70,000 bodies. It applies not just prospectively to future paper, but retrospectively to all paper.
I have told your Lordships about training. Beyond that, my officials are working on the code of practice under Section 45, which will provide guidance on the practice that all public authorities should follow when dealing with requests for information. Officials in the Public Record Office, for which I am also responsible, are drafting a code of practice relating to records management which all public authorities should follow. Both codes will be discussed at the first meeting on 9th January of the advisory group on the implementation of the Act and will then be submitted to the Information Commissioner for formal consultation under the Act. The latest drafts of the code are available on the departmental website and the Public Record Office website. I shall place copies of the versions sent for statutory consultation in the Library in due course.
Noble Lords should appreciate that the fact that the Act applies not merely to future paper but to all past paper creates an enormous challenge for the record-keeping arrangements of central government and of

873
the other authorities—especially as we have also introduced a challenging time limit of 20 working days within which a response must be given.
It has not escaped your Lordships' notice—certainly not that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that the individual right of access will come into force in January 2005, immediately after the target for completion of the Government's electronic records management at the end of 2004. This project will ensure that, by that date, all government records can be created and stored electronically. The work on this project and that of preparing records management for the advent of freedom of information are closely related. Aligning the timetable avoids wasteful duplication of effort.
I do not accept the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we shall not meet our 2004 target. There is the strongest determination across government to do so, and I stick out my neck and predict that we shall.
A very important factor was the achievement of the ERM target by the end of 2004. We need to have a clear pathway from paper records to the new electronic ones. We need to have good and accurate paper records which will be the base from which electronic records go forward. Departments are now, as part of their preparation for ERM, auditing and putting into good order existing records so that the electronic records can be developed from them. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, correctly summarised the position.
Implementation of the individual access rights in January 2005 gives all public authorities the time to make the necessary changes in procedure and culture. I submit that we have the balance right—beating our statutory requirement of implementing the Act in November 2005 by 11 months, and doing so efficiently and after full preparation.
As I have acknowledged, we did consider whether it would be right to bring the right of access in for some authorities ahead of the January 2005 date. Some might be ready earlier, it could he argued. But, on balance, we collectively concluded that it would create an unsatisfactory state of affairs where rights existed in relation to one organisation and not another, even where both were in the same or similar parts of the public sector. Our collective judgment was that a single right of access day across all public authorities would be better understood by the public. It would give a single day to all authorities by which they would know they had to be ready; and meanwhile sector by sector delivery of publication schemes would promote the new culture.
The noble Lord, Lord Clark, asked me about the standing of the existing code. It remains in place. Although we do not believe that the code of itself is an adequate answer to freedom of information, which is why we brought forward the legislation, we shall continue to promote the use of and compliance with the code until the individual rights of access come on stream in January 2005. But when the Act is fully in force, it will generate many more requests
874
than the code. I am more than happy to undertake to draw that assurance to the attention of my Cabinet colleagues.
I listened with the utmost interest to the account of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of his failure to achieve freedom of information legislation in 1974. What the noble Lord failed to say is that where there was failure in 1974 we have succeeded in getting freedom of information legislation on to the statute book. He referred to his repentance of the compromise to which he asserts he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues were party so as to ensure that the Bill did not fail before the general election. In the world of grown-up politics, compromise is an essential component in the art of the possible. How regrettable it would be if he and his colleagues were ever to exclude compromise from their politics when—I think that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this matter—it is often part of fighting the good fight.
Let me reject any suggestion that the Government have lost their commitment to freedom of information. We have followed a radical agenda of constitutional change: delivering devolution to Scotland and Wales, a Human Rights Act, and have begun an historic process of reform of this House by removing almost nine-tenths of the hereditary Peers. Freedom of information is another historic change. I assure noble Lords that we press on.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. I express my particular gratitude to the two speakers on the government Benches who dared to be somewhat critical of their Government, relatively mildly in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, but somewhat more severely in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Clark.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, had almost persuaded me of my need to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for suggesting that he could ever be one of the mugged rather than the mugger. Nevertheless, as we listened to his speech with its reference to collective decisions being taken and decisions being very much on balance, I was left with the impression that whatever the voting was, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been on the losing side and had been defeated by the combined forces of departmental Ministers and the armies raised by Sir Humphrey Appleby.
Whether or not I am wrong in that conclusion, I continue to believe that the Government have got it wrong and that this delay is both unnecessary and something which casts doubt on the Government's commitment to freedom of information, not, I should say, on the noble and learned Lord's commitment which I entirely accept.
We shall keep an eye on the matter and we shall in due course bring it back for a further debate to make sure that the Government are continually under

875
pressure to implement the Freedom of Information Act as fast as they possibly can. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Police Reform
5.36 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place regarding police reform.
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on police reform, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.
"There is not a Member of this House who would not testify that the greatest priority of their constituents is to live free from crime and anti-social behaviour. Freeing people from fear and the insecurity which damages their quality of life is a fundamental tenet of government. That is why I am placing before the House a radical reform agenda for both the police service and those who work alongside them.
"It is time to act to protect the victims of crime and disorder and to help rebuild and renew our communities. I pay tribute to the professionalism and expertise of the police and the civilian staff working with them. We all owe a debt of gratitude for the bravery often displayed by policemen and women.
"Our reform agenda will build on success. The British Crime Survey recently recorded an overall fall in crime of 12 per cent. This is the largest annual reduction in 20 years and the fear of crime has fallen from its peak in 1994. But there is no room for complacency.
"Modernisation is built on increasing police numbers. By the spring of next year we shall have reached an all-time record of 128,290. Today, I am able to announce a new commitment, to meet the target of 130,000 officers by the spring of 2003, a year early. This will be alongside an increase in civilian staff who will be additional to uniformed officers.
"But action is needed to improve consistency and overall performance. Only one in four recorded crimes is detected and only one in 10 results in a conviction. The variations across the country are unacceptable. The time has come to tackle the differences M performance and in absence.
"Detection rates vary from a high of 63 per cent to a low of 15 per cent. For robbery, the rate varies from a low of less than 15 per cent to over 50 per cent. One force achieved as few as eight days per officer lost through sickness, and another twice that rate. One force achieved a medical retirement rate of 9 per cent, in another almost two-thirds retired on ill health grounds.
876
"We have established a standards unit to wok alongside a refocused inspectorate. This will ensure that the best can be replicated by the rest. A new central police training and development authority will draw together leadership, management and training. A new national centre for policing excellence will develop and disseminate best practice on investigation and operational policing.
"We shall seek to improve personnel policies and shall establish a new, locally delivered national occupational health service.
"To achieve the goal of safer communities, there must be a dramatic modernisation of working practices. Through the Police Negotiating Board, we are seeking consensus on a programme of change and reform. We wish to ensure that those at the sharp end of public service are properly rewarded for the difficult job that they do. We are looking to enhance the status of, and rewards for, those doing the most dangerous, difficult or unsociable jobs.
"We want to see more flexible working arrangements and an end to unnecessarily restrictive regulations. The Police Negotiating Board has been asked to agree changes to part-time working, the current 16-hour minimum and the requirement to fix rotas a year in advance.
"Reform must be underpinned by support. We shall cut bureaucracy and halve the number of best-value indicators. The diary of a police officer illustrated that more than two-fifths of police time was spent inside the station. We shall civilianise and computerise many of the tasks undertaken by those who would be better deployed out of the station.
"We shall increase the number of specialist investigatory teams, develop a cadre of specialist detectives and accelerate the expansion of forensic work. Technology can also play a key role in enabling officers to do their job more effectively.
"The Airwave programme will now be extended across the country at a cost of £500 million, ensuring proper communication within and between forces. We shall widen the number of those who can work with and assist the uniformed police. The number of special constables will be accelerated dramatically. Community support officers—sometimes called 'auxiliaries'—will be trained aides to the police. The expanded 'police family' will allow street wardens, traffic wardens and others to be accredited by the police for specific duties within strictly defined limits. They will be trained appropriately.
"Our endeavour is to face down the anti-social and thuggish behaviour which bedevils our streets, parks, and open spaces. This will help with our civic renewal agenda, ensuring that the community becomes part of the solution. The police cannot reduce crime and disorder and tackle the scourge of hard drugs alone. Families have a key part to play in teaching right from wrong and respect for others. Local authorities, schools, the health service and the voluntary and private sectors must work together.

877
All of us have a role to play in combating criminality and social disintegration. Decency and respect are the responsibility of us all.
"It is through the crime and disorder reduction partnerships and our community renewal programmes that we shall be able to restore confidence. By supporting Neighbourhood Watch and other local initiatives and by mobilising the community itself, we really can make a difference.
"The reform is for a purpose. Those whom we represent do not have a choice of policing services. That is why standards are at the heart of this reform. I am proposing today a three-tier approach to ensuring that the public are served to the standard they expect and deserve.
"Regulations setting out mandatory requirements, where it is necessary for all forces to adhere to national standards, will drive consistency across the country. Codes of practice will be issued by and in the name of the Home Secretary. These will be developed by the national centre for policing excellence, drawing on the expertise of the Association of Chief Police Officers. And guidance, where local flexibility and responsiveness require a light touch, will provide a menu of best practice.
"There is no intention that the Government will interfere in the day-to-day operational independence of the police. That would not be in the interests of the people we serve, the police service or the Government. However, where action is needed, it is the duty of government to respond. Using the expertise of the standards unit and the inspectorate, we shall establish new powers of intervention where consistent failure provides inadequate protection for the public.
"Basic command units, as well as the police force area, will provide comparison like with like. We shall work with Chief Constables and Commanders to establish and spread best practice. We shall provide support through multi-disciplinary approaches to tackle the worst repeat offending and repeat victimisation, mobilise the community against drug-related crime and establish policing priority areas. We shall update the role of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
"It is essential that we provide a greater degree of accountability, as well as devolution and delegation. We shall establish pilots for decentralising budgets to basic command units, enabling greater flexibility in the use of resources and in the response to local needs. In addition, we shall support the developing role of the police authority in reaching out and responding to the community. When things go wrong. It is important that people have confidence in the process. That is why I confirm today that in the police reform Bill we shall establish an independent police complaints commission.
"I spoke of our pride and confidence in the police service. That is why the Government have decided that we should award the Queen's Jubilee Medal to
878
the police service. It is a symbol of our support. But the test will be the difference that we make to the well-being of those whom we serve. I want to put to rest forever the cry so often heard: 'There is nothing we can do'. Our job is to make sure that those who need help get it. Those who fear to walk down their local street or in their local park must be able to do so once again. Our job—my job—is to mobilise all the forces at our disposal to make that a reality, and I am determined that we should do so".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. It follows a long and distinguished line of Statements made by many distinguished predecessors. To that extent, this a very welcome.
What is particularly nice about the Statement is the thanks and recognition given to the police service and by the police service to the community. It is particularly gratifying to see that the Government have now decided that the Queen's Jubilee Medal should be awarded to the police. That is very important from the police's point of view. It is also very gratifying to see in the Statement a clear acknowledgement of the important part that families play in setting the tone within the community and in bringing up children with clear ideas of standards, behaviour, morality and of what is right and what is wrong.
I have always held that anything that is done can be done better. As I have already said, this Statement follows many previous Statements, and one hopes to keep improving matters. But British police practice, with local police services, has generally served the country very well. Certainly, some of the individual forces have a dynamic management and do a remarkably good job. It is inevitable that there will always be the good and the less good. Not everyone can perform at the top level because that is a statistical nonsense. Therefore, spreading best practice—the Statement makes much of that—is vital.
However, the Statement causes me some concern because it gives the impression that the Home Office might in future try to undertake a management role.
"Regulations setting out mandatory requirements, where it is necessary for all forces to adhere to national standards, will drive consistency across the country",
is followed in the Statement by:
"Codes of practice will be issued by and in the name of the Home Secretary … developed by the National Centre for Policing Excellence",
and that is followed by "guidance".
As have so many others, I have spent a long time in public life in this country. All too often when I have seen those words I have seen governments of all complexions try to take over the management of affairs locally. One would think that, with all the experience that governments have in this country, they should know better.

879
I ask the Minister for an assurance that the regulations. codes of practice and guidance will, none the less, leave local forces the freedom to organise and manage their affairs to meet local circumstances. Circumstances are not uniform across the country. What is the meaning of the new powers of intervention?
I note that there is to be a new standards unit to work alongside the police inspectorate within the Home Office. I have always had the greatest respect for the work done by the police inspectorate. I have heard nothing to diminish that respect. However, will the Minister say something about the relationship between the inspectorate and the standards unit? How will they work together? What is their precise working relationship?
I was fascinated, too, by a new, locally-delivered occupational health service. I am sure that that is to be welcomed. However, again, I should like a little more explanation as to precisely what is meant. Equally, I welcome the fact that the Home Office intends to use the Police Negotiating Board to modernise work practice and introduce more flexible working. I should like an assurance that the Police Negotiating Board will reach agreement rather than trying to dictate conclusions.
Also welcome is the fact that, where appropriate, the civilianisation of functions within police stations and police headquarters is to be increased. An increase in the use of special constables, community support officers, street wardens and traffic wardens might assist the police. However, what will be the relationship between those people and the ordinary police? Special constables have a known working relationship and are particularly well trained. Community officers are a less well-defined group. What will he their function? How are they to work? What training and function will street wardens and traffic wardens have?
More importantly, there is no suggestion in the Statement of the numbers of those people or of the functions from which they will relieve the ordinary police. I hope that the Minister can assure us that any expansion in those areas will not be at the expense of the existing police service and police force.
There is much to welcome in the Statement. However, a number of points cause concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them when he responds.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the work of our police services. We must never forget that every day they put their lives on the front line to protect society and they deal with a difficult job with dedication, professionalism and purpose. They have been highly successful in their role, particularly in bringing down burglary and vehicle crimes, with an overall fall of 12 per cent in recorded crimes last year. We on these Benches are delighted to hear that it is to be recommended that Her Majesty award the Queen's Jubilee Medal to the service. It is wholly appropriate and timely.
880
I must declare an interest in these matters. I have worked alongside the police for 20 years as a member and latterly as chair of my local police authority. I have seen many changes throughout that time. These proposals are but another stage in the process of the reform that the police service has recognised that it must address.
Police numbers have been a major problem. We commend the work the Government have sought to do to improve the numbers of officers but it is still an issue with the police and the communities they serve. The latest figures, released in June, show that while numbers were up 1,350 on last year, after four years of a Labour Government who came to power promising greatly improved policing services, numbers were still 1,639 lower than those inherited from the previous government. At this rate it would take at least another year to get back to the number inherited from the previous government and two years to reach the proposed target levels. In some forces the numbers have decreased.
The number of special constables is also a great cause of concern us. Their numbers continued to fall dramatically, with 1,609 fewer than last year. We a re very pleased that the Government have recognised that and will act to stop this haemorrhage.
Let us now try to be positive, because that is what the service needs from us. Liberal Democrats support reform of the police but we need to be clear about the aims of that reform and about the principles by which it will be underpinned. I know that talks are under way within the Police Negotiating Board about pay and conditions of service. The Minister referred to that in answer to my recent Question. But we must not underestimate the difficulties ahead and we must carefully weigh every proposal in consultation with all the partners who have an interest in policing.
It is frustrating that it has taken a perceived crisis in the service in relation to recruitment and retention, not to mention morale, before action has been taken. For a long time I worked closely with others on the police reform programme. It has been a long and laborious process to get to this stage. For rushed decisions to be made now will not do the service any good.
The fundamental aim must be to improve the service, to make it more effective at tackling crime. That will be in partnership with others. It will not be achieved without taking hearts and minds with us.
The removal of outdated regulations is essential in order to increase flexibility in the service but not at the cost of damaging recruitment and retention. It is right to consider such issues as giving BCU level commanders more flexibility over use of staff and shift patterns. But, as I pointed out recently, it is also essential to consider how the pension system can be improved in order to encourage people to stay in the service and not be penalised if they wish to do so after they have reached retirement age.
Controversial issues about the use of wardens and other police support agencies must be addressed. We on these Benches have been supportive of expanding the use of a second tier to support the police. We

881
propose that local authorities should be able to create community safety forces. However, we must be clear what we mean. We do not mean that those people will replace police officers. Police officers have a distinct and unique role. They must be freed up to undertake the fight against crime. We think that they need additional support to undertake those areas of their work which have historically been more about visible reassurance. However, while encouraging that area of work we must also ensure that there is local and democratic oversight and accountability of the service.
Finally, perhaps I may make this plea to the Government. Please do not rush this reform. It has been a number of years in gestation and the perception now is that everything has come quickly to a head. A great deal of work has been going on behind the scenes and good will and commitment are being shown on all sides. I urge the Government not to spoil that by putting a firm deadline on negotiations at this stage in order to fit into the parliamentary timetable. Policing reform is far too important to rush through. Let us try to work together to get this reform right. The Home Secretary has committed himself to a dialogue not a diktat on these matters. From these Benches we would seek to help him with that and to keep him to his word.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the warm response from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. We shall not be rushing to parliamentary deadlines. We need to obtain an agreement with the police negotiating board. We want a decision, we hope an agreement, by the end of this month. I understand that there will be a meeting on 27th December. That is why we cannot go into the details of pensions, pay and all the issues which have been raised in parliamentary Questions asked in this House since I have been a Member. They are a most important part of the package.
Some aspects of the plans contained in the White Paper and whatever comes forth from the Police Negotiating Board will require legislation. A police Bill is planned for this Session which will be introduced on the back of the proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, welcomed the recognition that we are all part of the same community and the proposal that we must return to the family and community ethos so that we are all responsible for our own security.
We want to encourage best practice in police forces. It will not be a one-size-fits-all proposal. Comparisons will be made between forces. We are not planning league tables, but comparisons will be made on a like-for-like basis. It would be wrong to compare one police force with another in terms of sick rates, detention rates, action on robbery and street crime if they were not like-for-like forces policing similar areas.
There is diversity in performance and the public are entitled to expect to have answers for the massive variations in performance. It is not as though there is
882
a narrow window through which performance is measured. It is extremely wide, as was made clear in the Statement.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, no attempt is being made to introduce a national police force. There will be 43 chief constables and each is responsible for operational matters in their area—not the Home Secretary, not Ministers, and not politicians. It is the responsibility of the local police forces working with their communities and police authorities.
The standards unit will fill gaps and I draw your Lordships' attention to the extensive White Paper. According to the executive summary, the standards unit has been in embryonic form since the summer and announcements will soon be made about its detailed structure. If there are critical gaps in the system, it will engage the service at basic command level to identify the most successful approaches for plugging them. That is important and it is a tried and tested practice in the health service and local government to see what works in different areas and to discover where it can be used elsewhere.
I was not sure whether criticism had been made of the occupational health facility. There needs to be such a facility for the police as there ought to be in every occupation. There should not be any no-go areas. There have been some remarkable examples of good use being made of occupational health facilities in order to stop the police, if they are injured or ill, having to wait for the necessary treatments, and in the mean time being off duty. That is most important, given the need for skilled police officers to be on the job.
However, although the occupational health facility will be national it must be delivered at local level. It is important that it takes account of the locality. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the relationship between the police and the Specials; in other words, the police family. As regards the accredited community safety organisations, accreditation will be given at the discretion of the chief constable. A bullet-point list is set out at page 88, paragraph 5.15, making it clear that it will be for the local chief constable to take it up; the schemes must be consistent; and there will be an annual review.
Many of those organisations will be local authorities, but that is not necessarily the case because there can be a role for the private sector. There will be proper training and their powers will be limited. I caught the end of a recent "Newsnight" interview with the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie. I arrived home just in time to see it after dealing with the anti-terrorist Bill. He spoke of a matter which used to be raised with me a great deal in my former role as Member of Parliament; that we have lost the "parkies". We have lost much from the days when I was a youngster; for instance, people to keep a bit of order and keep you in check. For various reasons, good and bad, we have lost all that.
The fact is that there is a role for that kind of operation, but it is much better if those engaged in it are working under and in co-operation with the police with proper training and accreditation from the chief

883
constable. There will be no vigilantes. That idea can be killed stone dead. This is not an operation involving vigilantes and I believe that it will be warmly welcomed by the police and local communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, mentioned police numbers. I freely admit that we have to get them back up. There is no secret about the numbers; they are on the way up but they did fall after 1997. When any party leaves government, it leaves more police officers than it inherited. I know that there were more police officers in 1979 than in 1974 and that there were even more in 1997. The numbers then fell, but they are now rising and our projections are as I gave in the Statement. Having brought forward the target of 130,000, we estimate that we can meet that a year earlier than expected. The noble Baroness is right that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of special officers from 19,000 to 12,000 over a four-year period. We must take action in that respect.
Spending on the police service is rising dramatically from £7.7 billion in 2000–01 to £9.3 billion in 2003–04. There is a large role to be played by support staff because, as police diaries show, 40 per cent of an officer's time is spent in the station. We can use technology and expert civilians—perhaps former police officers—to help the police by beefing up this area in detection and forensic work.
There is much work to be done and nothing will happen overnight. The Government have published their White Paper and although we will not be seeking to rush through change, we want to drive it through and to take the police with us. We want to change or eliminate certain practices, but I repeat that there is no attempt to build a national police force. However, we want some national standards for the citizens of this country. They are all paying their taxes at the same rate and they are entitled to have their communities looked after to the same standard.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest as the former Police Commissioner in London. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on bringing forward this exciting and long-overdue package of reforms for the police service. I hope that the Minister will confirm that many past and present members of the service will welcome the measures and have lobbied for them for many years.
I hope that he will also acknowledge that there will he some residual anxieties and I predict that they will probably centre on three or four main issues. I hope that he will confirm some of them. First, the rank and file of police officers will feel some disguised attack on their overall pay and conditions. They will need to be assured that that is not the intention and that, in moving forward in the public interest, the police interest will coincide with the public interest on these issues.
Secondly, there will be anxieties around some of the performance regimes. Some police officers will have lived through the bad old days when detection rates were massaged to the point of almost being crimes
884
themselves. I am aware of police forces whose detection rates were halved overnight because police authorities realised that integrity was being compromised dramatically in the name of performance. I welcome the moves to push up performance, it must not be at the expense of integrity.
Thirdly, chief constables will have some anxieties that units within their long-term command will be micro-managed by transient members of standards units who are here today and gone tomorrow and who have no long-term accountability for policing those areas. I do not share that anxiety, but it will be a real one that will need to be addressed.
My fourth concern involves auxiliary police officers. I congratulate the Minister on the proposals to extend the police family—that debate is long overdue. I predict that within my old service there will be a widespread concern that auxiliaries will be a smokescreen for reducing the number of trained police. Again, I do not share that reservation, but it will be a source of debate and anxiety.
The Minister used the word "consensus"; I encourage that approach. There is a happy coincidence in the interests of the police service and those of the public in terms of advancing the reforms, which I shall certainly support.
In my maiden speech to your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, I expressed my profound disappointment that my former colleagues were not to be awarded the Queen's Jubilee medal. Let me say how excited I was today to hear that they will now be included in the list.
The final measure that I pick out as being of critical importance is the creation of an independent police complaints commission. I have lobbied for that for many years. It is the final piece in a long overdue jigsaw and it will encourage public support for the police complaints process. I congratulate the Minister on these reforms and I hope that he will comment on some of my anxieties.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, particularly in view of his background. I note what he said about the medal and the police complaints commission. On auxiliaries and the police family, I assure him that there is no intention for auxiliaries to be substitute police officers; they are an addition. The funds will also be separate. There is no intention to massage police figures by using auxiliaries and the extra police family. Auxiliaries will be an extra support to the police.
I take the noble Lord's point about chief constables. No manager or director of a company likes the idea of consultants who come in, take all of the best ideas from junior staff, tell people what they should be doing and disappear. I do not expect the standards unit to operate in that way.
Massaging figures is legendary in many areas, and the police service has in the past been no exception. The system will fall apart if that damages the integrity of the police.

885
Finally, I come to the noble Lord's first point. I have listened to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers. I appreciate that the rank and file might think, "Oh no, more change and another review". However, they are not under threat. Rank and file police officers serve their community and are well rewarded and looked after. They do a dangerous job in unsocial conditions and should be highly respected. These proposals are an "add on" to that arrangement. They do not involve a diminution of the esteem with which we hold the police force. The issues involving the Police Negotiating Board are separate but they are intrinsically related to the final operation of the whole process. That is why consensus is important.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. As a former president of the Police Superintendents' Association, I declare an interest. Having lived through the years of the Sheehey proposals, it is clear that these proposals do not involve a Sheehey package; they are far more constructive.
Will the Minister confirm that league tables will not be produced, as is done with schools? I understand the need to examine best practice in different command units, but I would not like to see the production of league tables or superintendents competing and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, suggested, being driven by certain targets. That is not the right way forward.
Does the Minister agree that some of the problems of sickness and early retirement were caused from within, through the management of the service? I refer in particular to tenure, which was originally thought up to fight corruption. The idea was to move people on after two, three or perhaps five years regardless of how well they had been doing. That causes great disruption to experts, such as dog handlers or mounted officers, who may suddenly find themselves thrust into other duties and sometimes suffer stress. That may be a cause of the problem.
Once the security industry is regulated—I again declare an interest, as the president of the Joint Security Industry Council—does the Minister agree that there are many opportunities for greater co-operation between such a properly regulated industry and the police service? I echo the welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, gave to the independent police complaints authority. I do not want a repeat of Operation Lancet and the situation in Cleveland, for example, where a superintendent has been suspended on alleged discipline charges for more than four years, and remains suspended. That would be a disgrace in any occupation and it certainly should not happen to police officers. I hope that these reforms will correct those matters.
886
Finally, the police service is delighted by the decision about awarding the Queen's Jubilee medal. I applaud the Government on a constructive U-turn.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, having people suspended without reaching a decision for such a long period is a failure of human resource management. I regret what is happening. The police are not alone in this respect. Such failures have to be addressed.
We are not planning to have league tables. We have, by the way, cut performance indicators, but we also want to cut the bureaucracy that is associated with the police. The noble Lord's point about sickness being partly self-inflicted is valid. I do not know about tenure—my noble friend has raised that matter previously and I know that it causes problems. Officers with whom I dealt in my constituency were not too pleased about the arrangement but it was put in place for a reason. The Police Negotiating Board should examine the matter, and pay and rations. Perhaps a package is needed in that regard.
My noble friend's final point was absolutely right. Once the security industry authority is up and running and we have a regulated security industry, there will be much more acceptance of the fact that there is a role for the whole community, including the private sector.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, there is obviously much to welcome in the White Paper, and I congratulate the Government in that respect. However, I am particularly concerned about the proposal to introduce street wardens, who will deal directly with the public. Noble Lords will agree that relations between the police and the public—in this respect, I speak for the public—are crucial. Do we not risk going backwards in that regard? Was not the whole reason for having an organised police service in this country that civilian police patrols broke down? Do not the Government think that it would be better to introduce more uniformed police, who are effective and accountable to the public? Is not the case for that even stronger in view of the fact that police numbers reduced during the first four years of this Government's life?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's suggestion. Some of the roles and functions of what I call the extended police family would cover matters that the police are not—we should face up to this—currently doing. I refer to the power to issue fixed penalty notices for litter, dog fouling or drinking in designated places, the power to demand a person's name and address and the power to detain but not to arrest. There will be no power to use reasonable force. Those people should be a properly accredited part of the police service. It will be up to the chief constable to decide whether or not to go down that route. The proposal is an "add on" for the police. The argument is that more uniformed police should be doing such work. People will be uniformed in the sense that they can be identified. The proposal does not in any way undermine or substitute for uniformed police officers.

887
As I said, figures have gone down during the past four years, but they are on their way up and will be at record levels within the next 18 months.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Association of Police Authorities and the Thames Valley Police Authority. The White Paper mentions Specials and says that the Government are considering paying them. I live in an area where, despite the best efforts of the Government and ourselves we do not have more policemen than we had two years ago. The reason is that they leave. They go to country areas where they can live more cheaply and they go to the metropolitan area where they receive much more money. We are caught in the middle and suffer grievously.
One way to help my area would be to pay Specials. I would like the Government to agree that properly trained Specials will be paid in the same way as we pay our retained firemen. That would cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for more policemen in uniform as well as the extended police family, which I fully support.
We are extremely suspicious of the powers of the Home Secretary. Under the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Act we saw the power of the Home Secretary to appoint members of the police authority. We had what I can describe only as a run-in with Michael Howard about appointments to our authority. It is important that we maintain independent authorities that elect their own chairmen and vice-chairmen. They are becoming more and more business-like with best-value regimes and the input from the inspectors, but on these Benches we are suspicious about centralisation and the imposition of league tables.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there must always be a natural, healthy scepticism of governments. That is part of a mature democracy. We have no intention of setting up a national police force. There are 43 chief constables who are responsible for operational matters in their areas. However, it would be irresponsible of the Government to sit back and do nothing when faced with the variation in performance of similar police forces. Therefore, it is legitimate to introduce the changes. There will be legislation. Nothing will be slipped in through the backdoor.
I am not fully qualified to speak about the Specials. I know that they have full police functions so there is no difference between a Special and a police officer. They have the full powers of arrest.
On the areas mentioned by the noble Lord, there will always be services that will be caught in the middle, from a geographical point of view, because we live in an economically unfairly-balanced country. My prejudice against the South East is showing. That unfairness stares everyone in the face. I do not know all the details and ramifications of the negotiations. Apparently officers in the Thames Valley receive, on top of basic pay, a £2,000 allowance. That was agreed in the Police Negotiating Board and approved by the Home Secretary earlier this year. I understand that the
888
Home Secretary pays 75 per cent of the cost of the allowance. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. If there is a further point I shall write to him.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, perhaps the Minister is aware that the Church of England has 43 diocesan bishops. Our links with police forces are deep at every level. Not only ministers of the Church of England, but ministers of every denomination and of other faiths, have much for which to thank our police forces in relation to the support that they provide to the community.
In this short debate I believe that it would be inappropriate if, from these Benches, a tribute were not paid to the Government for the proposals that are being brought forward. I congratulate the Government on what appear to be sensitive moves that are made in a direction that I hope will improve the morale of the police force. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we are greatly blessed with excellent police forces in this country. Sometimes it is taken too much for granted. My hope is that these proposals will enable police at all levels to feel that they are deeply appreciated in what is sometimes a very difficult job.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful for the words of the right reverend Prelate. He has spoken for all noble Lords in paying tribute to the activities and operations of the police forces in this country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke about centralising powers and, in particular, the powers of the Home Secretary. I shall try to be brief, so I shall not mention how glad I am about much of what is in the White Paper, particularly on the complaints authority. I notice that it is proposed that codes of practice should be issued under the authority of the Home Secretary. In the past, codes of practice for police forces have passed through Parliament after close scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that that course is to be taken. Can the Minister tell the House about the national policing forum, which is yet another new body that is referred to in paragraph 7.23 of the White Paper but not, as far as I can see, in the Statement?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, given the size of the White Paper, many of the topics are not referred to in the Statement. By definition, the Statement can give only a broad flavour of the matters. I am not in a position to give chapter and verse. I shall write to the noble Lord on his first point. In terms of codes of practice, I do not know what is issued with the authority of the Home Secretary. My initial reaction is: who else would be expected to do that at a national level? On the issue of scrutiny and debate, there will be legislation which will be dealt with on the Floor of this House as it will be in the other place. If I find that there is something that I can tell the noble Lord before then, I shall write to him.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I commend the Minister for the emphasis in the White Paper on

889
encouraging the community to be part of preventing and combating crime. Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of patient and persistent work by police officers to rebuild the confidence in communities so that those communities co-operate with the police and are willing to give evidence in cases that can lead to the conviction of those charged with serious criminal offences? He will know, as I do, that in many parts of this country, members of communities are absolutely terrified about having anything to do with the police because of threats from communities and from criminals.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. It is estimated that something like 100,000 people are responsible for half the crime in the country. There are persistent offenders and there are persistent victims, and we have tried to address both. One issue related to the extended police family. It is possible that there will be more people in official positions who may be used as professional witnesses. They will be able to give evidence in courts. My noble friend is quite right in saying that people are intimidated into not giving evidence. Incredible patience is required to persuade members of communities, who suffer from threats and victimisation, to give evidence because they believe that afterwards they will be on their own again. We have to ensure that that fear is removed.

Middle East
6.30 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer which was given to a Private Notice Question about the Middle East in another place earlier this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing once again the shock and anger which I felt when I heard the news on Saturday night and on Sunday morning of the series of terrorist atrocities in Jerusalem and in Haifa, in north Israel. These atrocities killed at least 25 and injured over 180 people. They came on top of a series of other such terrorist attacks which have caused many deaths and in turn have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives.
"On Sunday I spoke by telephone to Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and then to President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. To Mr Peres, I expressed my sincere condolences and those of Her Majesty's Government. To President Arafat, I stressed the imperative that the Palestinian Authority now properly detains terrorist suspects of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups and the need for him to take other action to remove this continuing threat which terrorists pose to the stability of the whole region.
890
"Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security. Our approach to the peace process has been well set out by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and myself, including in my address to the United Nations General Assembly on 11th November. We have fully backed the initiative set out by United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on 19th November and his appointment of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns as United States envoys to the region.
"Although the situation is now very grave—indeed, recisely because it is so grave—the case for peace remains as strong as ever. We in the United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government stand ready to do all we can to help the parties resume substantive dialogue and to bring about the swift and full implementation of the Tenet and Mitchell committee recommendations. Distant and difficult though this aspiration may appear, we work towards a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognised borders, as called for by Security Council resolutions."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We on this side totally share the horror and concern that she and the Foreign Secretary on our behalf have expressed about the hideous slaughter in the latest round of suicide bombings of utterly innocent young people, children and others in Israel.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that no state can continue to exist in modern times unless it has the full co-operation and support of its neighbours and other countries. That applies just as much to the future Palestine as to vulnerable little Israel and, indeed, to the Kingdom of Jordan which is next door. I know that there are many different opinions, but whatever one thinks about the heaviness of the Israeli responses to these atrocities and foul deeds, is it not now essential that Yasser Arafat takes command and ceases to harbour terrorists and to preside over a society which teaches terrorism to young children? From the very earliest age it teaches them to kill and to hate their Jewish neighbours in Israel.
"Terrorists" means not just those involved in violence and inevitable reprisals, but those who set out cold-bloodedly and deliberately to kill innocent civilians as part of their campaign. Therefore, is it not time that he quickly rounds up the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad people who openly claim responsibility for these murders before the slide to total war in the region gains momentum? If he cannot do that, is it not time for the democracies to support a search for someone who can effectively lead Palestinians forward to better times?
As we look on this horrific scene and use our good offices as best we can, my question is: have we done everything to ensure that the funds and links and organisations connected to Hamas and Islamic Jihad

891
are completely closed down? We have done a great deal in response to the earlier measures and the terrorism of September 11th. But are we quite sure that we have closed down every loophole and cut off every oxygen tube that we can to the hideous Hamas who are so openly claiming delight and responsibility for slaughtering innocent civilians and children in the streets of Jerusalem?
6.35 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to a PNQ put down in another place.
Over the weekend we have had the terrible suicide bombings in Haifa and in Jerusalem. As the Minister said, they resulted in 25 innocents being killed. The retaliation to that attack resulted in another number of innocents being killed. When we look at the blood-stained and fearful faces of children staring out of our newspapers, in a way it matters no more whether they are Palestinian or Israeli. They are alike the victims of a terrible retaliation, a dreadful battle of tit for tat. From these Benches, we feel that unless the eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth system of revenge ceases in the Middle East we shall inevitably slowly slide over the brink into an open war.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said in terms of there being two certainties—I hope. One is the absolute necessity to protect and underpin the state of Israel. I trust that no one disagrees with that. All of us have an obligation to protect it. The other is that we recognise that there is a Palestinian authority that is on its way to becoming, hopefully, a state. There is no other internationally recognised way out of the crisis. In that crisis up to now, President Arafat, for all his weaknesses and flaws, is the one recognised figure with whom the state of Israel can negotiate.
In that context, it is vital that Mr Arafat identifies those in Hamas and Israeli Jihad and other groups who have been involved in terrorist activities. I ask the Minister whether she regards it as sensible to treat President Arafat himself as a terrorist. To associate him with Osama bin Laden is to make a huge mistake. President Arafat is an internationally recognised figure; he is the head of a state, albeit in the making; and he is not a terrorist in the sense that Mr bin Laden clearly is. It is dangerous to elide the two.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister the following questions. What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to Mr Arafat about identifying those terrorists in the ranks of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? What representations have been made with regard to Israel's continuing building of illegal settlements which does nothing to bring about a better context for peace? What representations have been made about military interventions in the West Bank and in Gaza which go far beyond normal legitimate police activities when they include the bombing by F16 bombers of peaceful communities?
Does the Minister see any new chance to bring back the only hope that there is, which is to resume negotiations as soon as is conceivably possible? Within
892
that context, is the breaking off of negotiations at every point when some crazed or absurd young person throws himself or herself into a suicide bombing a sensible way to continue? I finally ask whether it is altogether sensible that, while we strongly support the US initiative, it alone should be the one international arbiter at a time when, regretfully, it is regarded to some extent as partisan in that discussion in a way that the moderate Arab powers and the European Union are not.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their comments on the Statement. I am sure that the whole House is united in the horror that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness expressed about the weekend's events.
There are probably two guiding principles in our consideration of what has happened and what is happening. First, there should be peace with security for Israel and, secondly, there should be justice and a viable homeland for the Palestinians. I believe that those are the two tenets around which our policies are focused.
I shall deal with what the noble Baroness asked. To equate President Arafat with Osama bin Laden is not something that Her Majesty's Government would do. My right honourable friend, in answering questions this afternoon, made it clear that not only was that a term that we would not use, but it is a term that we will not be using.
Clearly, whatever the violence has been—and we are in a terrible vortex of violence where tit-for-tat reprisals seem the horrible and ghastly inevitability when one hears about one violent action and then a violent reaction—the fact is that dialogue is necessary in order to return to the peace process. For that to occur, a ceasefire is absolutely necessary. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right. Although the Palestinian Authority has condemned violence, and, for example, the assassination of Minister Ze'evi on the day it happened—in stark contrast to a real terrorist organisation, to return to the point made by the noble Baroness—the fact is that the Palestinian Authority has not done enough to apprehend the men of violence. Good intentions here are not enough. There has to be a greater effort to do that.
It is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, that President Arafat does not harbour the terrorists and that he makes efforts to cease to teach hatred in schools and to young people who are, sadly, and all too often, the victims of violence. It is not just a question of apprehending those responsible for violence; it is a question of keeping them under lock arid key once they have been apprehended. All too often it seems that those who are apprehended for dreadful crimes find themselves back in their homes and on the streets very quickly.
As regards the point which the noble Lord raised about the future of President Arafat, let us be clear on one matter. He is the elected leader of the Palestinian

893
Authority. It is essential that we treat him as that; that we treat him as the person with whom we negotiate. It is up to the Palestinians if they choose to change their leader, but while they wish President Arafat to speak for them and to lead them, we must deal with him.
I agree with the noble Lord as regards Hamas funding. We will consider any information which we receive on that organisation and any other terrorist group, and act accordingly in relation to any suggestion about the freezing of assets or other issues concerning the funding of such organisations.
These are very difficult times. I am sure that we all await the next ghastly, bloodstained announcements that follow one reprisal after another. The noble Baroness is quite right: we have to continue to make representations. She asked what representations had been made. I hope that the Statement from my right honourable friend made it clear that he made very strong representations to President Arafat on these points this last Sunday.
As regards illegal settlements, we raised the subject bilaterally. The noble Baroness will know that we raised it through out contacts with the EU and sometimes through a joint démarche.
We are always clear that any military intervention must be proportionate. In saying that, one has to remember that Israel has the right to live securely within its own borders. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made these points and, as luck would have it, I saw the Israeli Ambassador in London this morning. That was a pre-arranged meeting. We hope to resume negotiations.
I take issue with the noble Baroness on some of the points she made about the United States being too parti pris, if I may put it that way. Let us not forget that the United States was behind the Mitchell recommendations and the Tenet recommendations. It has again put forward two ambassadors to the region in the person of General Zinni and Ambassador Burns. There are opportunities for a ceasefire if only the men of violence can be got under control. We have to look to President Arafat to do that.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that atrocities and assassinations are thoroughly bad, whoever commits them and that the level of hate, particularly among young Arabs, is to be deplored? Will Her Majesty's Government, therefore, advise that this is probably the last opportunity for the warring parties to get round the table and discuss the prospects of a lasting peace including that of the settlements?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we constantly ask both sides in this terrible conflict to consider the difficulties of turning back from a cycle of continuing violence. We constantly put before them the absolute necessity of a ceasefire if there are to be discussions about the future. The United Kingdom is possibly in a particular position in this respect because of our own very sad recent history with our experiences
894
in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that gives us the experience to say that, whatever the cycle of violence, nobody should use it as an excuse for not bending every effort possible to work for a ceasefire and to persuade the people of good will, who undoubtedly exist on both sides of the conflict, to work for peace and to do what the noble Lord made clear—that is, to stop teaching hatred to children. That is one of the basic starting points in putting right what has gone so very wrong.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, Mr Sharon wishes the Palestinian Authority to lock up terrorists and he bombs the police posts and security headquarters which will deal with the terrorists. Can the noble Baroness agree with the position of Shimon Peres, which is that the Palestinian Authority must be supported? After all, we in the EU have maintained the authority's institutions. The port was bombed and completely destroyed. I saw that place only a few weeks ago. That is another institution. Are we going to see destroyed all the institutions that we helped to sustain or are we going to accept that there is one party to the settlement which is ready to come to terms and another which is insisting on its own form of state terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on both sides of this terrible conflict we have to look to those who want a long-term settlement to help work towards peace. We should not be concentrating on apportioning the tally of blame at the moment. We need to concentrate on trying to stop the cycle of violence. The more we talk about the tally of blame, the more there is a body count, if I may put it that way, of what has gone wrong, and the more one feeds the hatred that has grown up on both sides.
Part of what we have learned is that there has to come a time when we are able to say to the people of good will on both sides that those perpetrating the dreadful crimes must be put beyond the ability to do that and that Israel has the right to live in peace within its own borders. But we also hope that Israel will return to the negotiating table (on the basis of the Mitchell recommendations and the Tenet recommendations which led to them in terms of trying to establish peace) because there is really no alternative to finding a way through this, other than more and more bloodshed.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the tone of these exchanges shows that no one in your Lordships' House is unaware of the extraordinary gravity of the situation. We may be on the edge of an abyss and it is difficult to know whether there can be a pulling back when the hatred is so deep.
Obviously the situation has serious implications for the coalition and neighbouring territories, not merely Jordan, which must be at considerable risk in the present tensions and challenges. One has a sense of shock and horror and feels the greatest sympathy for the casualties and the human suffering in Israel last weekend.

895
At the same time, another casualty for Israel may be the impact of public opinion. Some of your Lordships may have had the chance to listen to the exchanges in the other place and will have heard the lack of sympathy expressed for the Israeli position at a time when maximum sympathy would be expected.
The Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary responded with great vigour to a question about Iraq and demanded that Iraq observes United Nations Security Council resolutions in respect of weapons inspection in its programme of weapons of mass destruction. I strongly endorse that, but the observation of UN Security Council resolutions does not extend merely to Iraq. For them to be observed by Israel would be a major step forward.
It is difficult to know what resources the Palestinian Authority has, but President Arafat must be seen to be seeking to address the challenge presented by terrorists. That must be accompanied by a positive sign from Israel, perhaps in the area of settlements, to give Palestinians and Arabs the confidence that there will be a response to a demonstration from them of their determination to tackle terrorism.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, sadly, I agree that we are on the edge of an abyss, as the noble Lord said. The situation is extremely serious and has terrible implications not only for those living in the area of the Palestinian Authority in Israel but for surrounding countries, such as Jordan. I agree with the noble Lord that the possibility of the spiral of violence going beyond its current borders is very worrying.
There were times in the recent past when the violence appeared to he lessening, such as before the assassination of Minister Ze'evi. It appeared to be lessening when the United States suggested that General Zinni and Ambassador Burns would go there. On both occasions there were terrible acts of violence by suicide bombers. Recently, my right honourable friend visited Shimon Peres who spoke of his concerns and deep gloom that every time one thinks there is a window of opportunity for negotiation, suicide bombings intervene.
Of course the noble Lord, Lord King, is right about United Nations Security Council resolutions. I am sure that he listened carefully to my right honourable friend's Statement in which those important resolutions were mentioned. My right honourable friend will be seeing Secretary of State Powell tomorrow and he will talk to Minister Védrine of France and Minister Schröder of Germany this evening. I am sure that all our allies will be working together to see what they can do. The noble Lord is right about settlements, which is why we attached so much importance to the Mitchell recommendations, which stress the crucial importance of freezing the settlements, including what is called the natural growth of such settlements.
It is not a question of not knowing what to do but of knowing exactly how to do it.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Government make it clear to our friends in the United States that while we
896
offer our full support in their campaign against terrorism, we shall not support them if they appear to be giving unqualified support to the actions of President Sharon? Some of the Government's statements seem to suggest that they are going back on the dual policy of supporting both security for Israel and justice for Palestine.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will proceed, as always, on the basis of international law. We shall also proceed on the basis of evidence of terrorist activity and the links to such activity in any part of the world. Our sovereign foreign policy is conducted on that basis, not on the diktat of any other country. It is important to keep those points clearly in mind. They will inform Her Majesty's Government's decisions in the future as they have done in the past.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course, my noble friend is right when she says that Israel is entitled to protect her own security. No one would argue with that. The question is whether what it is doing is reasonable and if not, what effect does that have.
I am bound to say that it is extraordinary behaviour to demand that President Arafat should deal with terrorists at precisely the moment when he is being deliberately weakened and humiliated in the eyes of the world. That includes his own people on whom he has to rely if he is to deal with terrorists within the Palestinian entity.
I should like my noble friend to confirm two things. First, will she say that we do not follow the United States in condemning Mr Arafat as a terrorist and condemning the Palestinian entity as one of the hardest terrorists? Terrorists may be there, but the intent of the Palestinian Government is the important point. Secondly, will my noble friend reiterate in clear terms that President Arafat remains the elected leader of the Palestinian people and is therefore the natural interlocutor in any discussions that take place in the Middle East to try to settle this dreadful dispute?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made those points clear, but I shall do so again. We do not believe that it is right to equate Chairman Arafat with terrorist organisations. He is not responsible for suicide bombing. He has condemned terrorism and, as I reminded your Lordships, he quickly condemned the murder of Minister Ze'evi on the day that it happened. He is the elected head of the Palestinian Authority and the representative of the only organisation currently in a position to negotiate anything on behalf of the Palestinian people.
My noble friend is right that Israel is entitled to take steps to ensure its security and to safeguard itself against terrorist attack. My noble friend is also right when he says that those responses should be proportionate and restrained. Civilian casualties should be avoided and international law should be upheld. Having said that, it is also our view that Chairman Arafat must do more to apprehend the men

897
of violence and make sure that they stay apprehended so that they are unable to carry out those terrible crimes that completely undermine any sort of peace process in the Middle East.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I declare an interest as I keep a watching brief on a joint Palestinian-UK project involving BG in the eastern Mediterranean. I also recognise the Prime Minister's determination for a viable Palestinian state. Is the Minister aware that Britain can assist in a substantive way by giving positive consideration to the possibility of ECGD support for two major projects—an area for which the Minister is responsible—to enable Palestine to achieve much-needed economic self-generation? The lack of such economic generation is arguably a cause of today's difficulties.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right that I am responsible for the Export Credits Guarantee Department. If he would like to come and see me about the two issues that he has in mind, I should be happy to listen to his representations.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the running sore at the core of this business is the illegal occupation of territory on the West Bank of the Jordan by the Israeli Government. My noble friend referred to the freezing of the settlements. Will she go a little further? Does she agree that it is impossible for the Palestinians to settle with the Israelis while those settlements exist?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is Her Majesty's Government's view that the settlements are illegal under international law and that they are an obstacle to peace. As a first step towards trying to solve the problem of the settlements, the recommendation of the Mitchell committee is that Israel should cease all settlement activity, including what has been termed the natural growth of existing settlements. We support that as a first step. We then want negotiation about the occupied territories and the settlements as part of the process. The noble Lord is right that we believe that what has happened in the settlement areas is illegal under international law.
We also have to remember that both parties must refrain from unilateral acts that have the effect of prejudicing the permanent state of negotiation. It is important to get the parties round the table to discuss that in the first place.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the outrages committed against Israel are also aimed at President Arafat and that paradoxically, and however difficult it may be, in a sense the outrages ought to bring the leadership of Israel and President Arafat closer together in facing an enemy common to them both.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an entirely accurate statement. We know that
898
President Arafat would like to get round a negotiating table if at all possible. As I said earlier, there have undoubtedly been windows of opportunity in the past few weeks, but it has been when those windows of opportunity have opened, albeit slightly, that such terrible outrages have been perpetrated. That has been exactly counter to President Arafat's stated intention of trying to negotiate a peaceful way through this appalling difficulty. He must now try to get the suicide bombings under control, as he has said he will.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, everyone in your Lordships' House shares a horror of terrorism and of innocent suffering. I have three questions for the Minister. The first follows on immediately from what she has just said and from the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Granted that the Israelis have destroyed the police infrastructure with which they are asking President Arafat to put right the problems and arrest the terrorists, is there any practical or token gesture of help that the United Nations or the European Union can offer to help to rebuild and support the Palestinian police force, its infrastructure, its buildings and its equipment so that it is in a better position to carry out the task that the Israelis have reasonably asked to be done?
Secondly, is there any way in which the security of Israel can be guaranteed by other powers and not left to Israel? As long as it is left to Israel, it will continue with its consistent policy of excessive retaliation. That may be understandable, but it is terribly destructive.
Thirdly, does the Minister genuinely believe that there is still the possibility of a viable Palestinian state? I listened to a lecture recently by a brilliant Jewish academic who passionately wants and believes in such a state, but who believes that even the Barak offer did not go far enough, was riddled with injustice and did not provide for a truly viable Palestinian state. We are now in a much worse plight than we were then. I wonder whether it is realistic for politicians still to talk hopefully about a viable Palestinian state, short of some dramatic change in circumstances that few people can currently foresee.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is still realistic for us to talk in those terms. If we do not, there is very little incentive for those currently living under the Palestinian Authority to seek a peaceful settlement. That is their ambition and, together with the security of Israel, it is one of the cardinal principles of the policy adopted not only by the United Kingdom, but by the European Union, the United States and other nations of good will who wish to help both countries find a peaceful solution to their difficulties.
There is a great deal of speculation about the detail of the negotiations that resulted from Mr Barak's offer. The right reverend Prelate has said that the offer fell way short of proposing a viable state. It is clear that both sides felt that, in the end, the negotiations had fallen short of achieving the permanent status settlement that they wanted, but both parties declared

899
after the negotiations that they had never been closer to reaching a permanent status deal. It is enormously to be regretted that those negotiations were not successful. They came close, but that closeness is just as tragic as having missed by a long way.
Of course the international community must engage itself. I hope that it will be possible to guarantee Israel's security in the future, but we have to keep in mind all the time the balance between the security of Israel and the viability of a Palestinian state. That is enshrined in the United Nations Security Council resolution.
The right reverend Prelate also asked what we could do to support the Palestinian police force in effecting arrests. The Palestinian police force is still able to effect arrests and has done so, even since the weekend. The problem is not just effecting the arrests, but, as I keep saying, keeping people under arrest once they have been taken in. The right reverend Prelate said that the whole police force infrastructure had been destroyed. That is not correct, otherwise it would not be able to effect arrests. However, once those arrests are made, it is essential to keep those people out of the way of the innocent population, who otherwise suffer so tragically.

Euro-zone Membership
7.9 p.m.
Lord Tavernerose to call attention to the case for the Government's decision on British membership of the euro-zone to be based on wider considerations than the five economic tests; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper is rather different from that which appears on the list of speakers. The words on the list of speakers do not make sense.
Most Members of the House—and, indeed, of another place—agree that the question of our choice whether or not to join the euro-zone is immensely important to this country. The Government have called for a public debate; yet we have not often debated the issue, even in this House. I think that the last time that we specifically considered the euro was when we considered the Select Committee report on how the euro was working. We have also discussed Nice, foreign policy and the economic situation.
There are not many speakers from the Government Benches on this Motion. Indeed, when speeches are made in the country by Mr Peter Hain and, lately, by Mr Charles Clarke, if they stray only one inch from the territory staked out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the five economic tests—that is immediately regarded as a case of lèse-majesté. The question of the decision whether to join cannot be the Chancellor's personal prerogative. In any event, the five tests to which he perpetually refers—the mantra that he invokes—was cobbled together at the last minute in October 1997, when it appeared that the Prime Minister was keen to take an early decision.
900
The tests are somewhat arbitrary; they leave out some important issues; and their interpretation can well be subjective. There are wider economic issues and, of course, there is the political decision, which is perhaps the most crucial.
I do not argue that the economic case for entry into the euro is absolutely clear-cut. Those who oppose it sometimes seem full of certainties, but I agree that there are serious arguments against, formidable difficulties that must be faced and uncertainties about the future. Some future developments are hard to forecast.
Let me first consider some of the difficulties. There is the problem of the single interest rate for the whole of the euro-zone. If there is no convergence of the economic cycle, or if there are external shocks peculiar to the United Kingdom, we would lose a useful instrument of policy if we could no longer set our own interest rate. That must he acknowledged. Ireland is the case often cited for that argument. Ireland, which is growing fast, needs higher interest rates; Germany, which is facing stagnation, needs lower interest rates. Ireland is the favourite example cited by those who say that one interest rate policy cannot work.
First, it was interesting to find, during the evidence to the Select Committee on the working of the euro, that the expert witnesses from Ireland testified that they faced no problem that would not be more difficult to solve if they were outside the euro-zone. They also testified that they had found the benefits of membership of the euro-zone even greater than those predicted in the paper that persuaded the government to take the decision to join. Yes, they face higher inflation, but temporary higher inflation is one of the ways in which regions in a single currency area adjust when they grow at a faster rate than they can maintain in the longer run.
My second point is that the biggest shock for Britain has been that of a fluctuating currency. That is the greatest problem that we have faced. In 1989, the pound was worth 3.3 deutschmarks. It declined to 2.2 deutschmarks and has risen again to more than 3 deutschmarks. That has played havoc with manufacturing industry. The best guarantee against that kind of shock is stability of a currency in the area in which most—more than half—of our trade is conducted.
Thirdly, it is significant that after careful examination the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently found that the United Kingdom was broadly convergent with the rest of the European Union and the euro-zone countries, and that there was now more convergence with Europe than with the United States. Interest rates have converged and joining monetary union is likely to increase that pattern of correlation.
I turn briefly to the serious problem, omitted from the five tests, of exchange rates. We can influence the exchange rate. If we announce a decision to join, subject to a referendum, and if we further announce that we intend to negotiate joining within a range of, say, 2.45 and 2.85 deutschmarks, that should have a

901
considerable influence on the market, as was shown by market reactions just before various countries joined the zone.
Another problem is that of the co-ordination of fiscal policy. Fiscal policy must be co-ordinated to match a single monetary policy; that is a problem. Some people—the anti-euro lobby—argue that that can be done only if we have a European government with a big central budget. That argument is mistaken and based on a false analogy with the United States. Europe and the United States have an entirely different set-up. In the United States, individual states have no resources for stabilisation. In many cases, they are under a constitutional duty to balance their budgets. Any automatic stabilisers must be federal.
A completely different position prevails in Europe, where there is hardly any central budget and it is the states that have the resources and the ability to provide stabilisation. That has been carefully considered and well set out in a classic OECD paper in 1996, paper No. 72 entitled Fiscal Relations Within the European Union.
Lastly, although it is not one of the most important problems and has been much overstated, let me mention unfunded pensions. I was recently rapporteur of a Federal Trust working party on the question of whether Europe can pay for its pensions. Broadly speaking, our conclusion was that it can; there is time for adjustment measures to be brought forward. What has been done recently in Germany and initiatives taken in Sweden show what can be done. Much is changing.
The most important issue is whether the actual age of retirement rises. As the OECD, and, indeed, an important report by Merrill Lynch, has shown, if the average retirement age in Europe were 64, there would be no problem about unfunded pensions. In the past year or two, after many years of decline, the actual retirement age in Europe has started to rise. That is a fact of great importance. It started to rise partly because measures have been taken to encourage it.
Let me turn to the opportunities that exist and mention three that I consider to be the most important. First, let us consider the impact on trade. One would expect in principle that the end of exchange rate uncertainty would boost trade. The evidence that that actually happens is now accumulating. A paper by Mr Rose showed that a country conducts three times as much trade with a country with which it shares a common currency as with other countries that are equidistant. A Canadian study has shown that a Canadian province trades 20 times more goods and services with another Canadian province as with an equidistant US state—despite the cultural affinities between Canada and the United States within the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Secondly, let us consider the impact on business organisation. In evidence to the Select Committee on the workings of the euro, Mr Trichet testified that he had not come across a single business inside the euro-zone—any major business—that has any doubts about the beneficial effect of a single currency. Why should
902
British business be any different? A massive reorganisation of business and business strategy has taken place in the euro-zone in the past two years to adapt to the entirely different picture presented by one currency. I fear that if we continue to postpone entry, we will miss out and will not take those strategic decisions, just as we missed out in 1957, when the Common Market was first brought into being.
Thirdly, there is the picture of foreign direct investment in the UK. The UK has many advantages and attracts a very large share of that investment. Those advantages would be enhanced if the UK was inside a single capital market. While there are still many obstacles to a single capital market, there is little doubt that the advent of the euro is accelerating the move towards it. So far foreign investment has held up well, but it takes time for any change of policy to be felt.
At the moment there is an assumption that we shall join the euro-zone. There are warnings by a number of very large manufacturers about what will happen if we do not. There are the first signs of a decline in foreign direct investment. Before the euro became effective, in the sense of the linking of the currencies, we attracted 28 per cent of the total foreign direct investment into the European Union. The latest figure from Ernst & Young indicates that the share has declined to 21 per cent.
I turn to what I regard as the key—the political future. On balance, I believe that the economic arguments, while not conclusive, will work out in favour of joining. They are not all one way. The political choice, however, is the most important factor. I believe that that is overwhelmingly in favour of taking a positive decision. Let us dismiss talk of a single superstate which the "antis" love to trot out as the bogey. The French, the German Länder and a large number of other countries besides Britain do not favour a single superstate, and each of those states has a veto.
At issue is whether we play an important part, because it is likely that there will be closer co-operation and a greater degree of economic integration. Will we play an important part in developing the economic regulation and governance that the European Union needs and the kind of financial services pattern which will be decided in the next few years? Most important of all, as the European Union becomes more economically integrated through the euro it will increasingly speak with one voice, and it is right that it should. It is not healthy that the world should be dominated by one superpower, however friendly our relations with it may be; and it is economically undesirable that it should be so. Indeed, it is important for the euro-zone to speak with one voice.
However, in relation to the matter that we recently debated following the Statement it is also politically true that we in Europe should exercise a separate influence. Yes, it is right to support the United States in its fight against terrorism, but not if it abandons the fight for justice in Palestine or seeks to extend the conflict to Iraq. There are now some disturbing signs

903
in the United States that the success so far against the Taliban is leading to a mood of triumphalism which in turn may lead to a resurgence of the kind of unilateralism which was originally favoured by the new Administration. That could be very dangerous.
Therefore, it is very important that we should maintain a strong European voice which produces a coalition not only against terrorism but also poverty, as the Prime Minister set out in his very imaginative vision for the future. In this Europe will play a vital part. It is really a matter of commonsense—certainly, this view is shared throughout the European Union—that we cannot be at the heart of Europe and exercise influence if we remain outside its central project, which is to make a success of the single market through the single currency. That is the big issue which I believe the Prime Minister sees clearly, but it is not an issue which should be determined by a narrow Treasury interpretation of the five economic tests. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Coblbold: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving us the opportunity to look again at the arguments for and against British participation in the euro. The Motion calls for the decision to be based on wider considerations than the five economic tests. The noble Lord explained what he meant by that in his most interesting speech.
There is inevitably a political dimension as well as an economic one to this historic decision. The fact that the Government are committed to holding a referendum on the subject means that the decision will be dragged into the wider political debate about our future relations with Europe. I believe that joining the euro must be first and foremost an economic decision. Ever since the days of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann the new Europe has been built on the premise: get the economics right and the politics will follow. If the economic rationale of joining the euro were unfavourable no one would suggest that we should join for purely political reasons.
On the other hand, the economic arguments will never be acceptable to those who are politically opposed as a matter of principle to the European ideal. The politics and the economics are inevitably intertwined. Were we to adopt the euro clearly it would represent a further pooling of sovereignty with our European partners and strengthen our political commitment. If, on the other hand, we rejected the euro it would be seen as a political rejection of further European integration, would weaken our influence in Europe and could have long-term implications for our continued membership of the Union.
If it is true that approximately 30 per cent of the population are implacably opposed to further integration with Europe and approximately 30 per cent are positively in favour of it, it is the remaining 40 per cent who will determine the outcome of a referendum. I believe that they will need to be convinced by the economic arguments. The euro must sell itself to the British people, and up to now there is
904
very little sign of it doing so. However, this may be about to change. The arrival of euro notes and coins in euro-land from 1st January will bring the euro to centre stage. So far ordinary citizens in the euro-zone have scarcely been touched by the new currency, but from 1st January it will be the money in their pockets and will affect everyone on a daily basis.
It will be fascinating to watch how the changeover works in practice. Will there be huge problems of acceptability? Will price conversions be rounded upwards, with inflationary implications? Hove quickly will the benefits of cross-border travel and price transparency be realised by the consumer? For British citizens the process will be slower. Travellers to the Continent and Ireland will be the first to experience the euro, and it will certainly be appreciated by those who travel from one member state to another. But for the majority of the population it will have little direct impact. Their attitudes will be formed by our ever-fickle press and television.
If the Government are to win a referendum they must win the media battle in the months to come. They must convince the undecided 40 per cent that genuine economic benefits at the consumer level will flow from the macro-economic decision to join. This brings us back to the five economic tests. The Government must be more proactive and positive in their assessment of the tests, or at least three of them. The first two—sustainable convergence and economic flexibility—are an economist's dream of "on the one hand or the other" and to those involved can never be more than judgmental and subjective. The other three, however, are more amenable to genuine measurement.
Let me consider each of them briefly. First, will joining the single currency create better conditions for business to make long-term decisions to invest in the UK? Britain has already been the recipient of much the highest share of inward investment into the European Union. Our healthy economy, our language and our laws have contributed to that. But there is good evidence that decisions have been made, and will continue to be made, on the assumption that we shall join the single currency sooner or later. Were that understanding to reverse, or a referendum to be held and lost, the flow of inward investment could change rapidly to our disadvantage.
The next test is the impact that joining would have on the UK financial services industry. Much has been made of the ability of the City of London to be Europe's financial centre in or out of the single currency, although Paris and Frankfurt are stepping up the competition. But I think that there can be no doubt whatever that the City and our financial services industry would benefit hugely from membership in the long term.
A unified domestic capital market of 350 million people, rising to 500 million people, must help to reduce the cost of capital to industry. The bond market in the euro-zone totals 2.5 trillion euros compared with 1.7 trillion for the United States. A single capital market would free up UK pension funds to diversify and invest in a much wider domestic pool. The

905
domestic deposit base of UK banks would be denominated in euros, allowing the banks to compete on equal terms with their euro-zone competitors in the massively enlarged domestic market.
The final test is whether joining the single currency would be good for employment. This test is closely linked to a positive reading of the inward investment and financial services tests. It is hard to see how such an enlarged domestic market could be anything other than positive for employment, certainly when compared with the negative impact that would inevitably follow a rejection of the single currency or a lost referendum.
There are of course wider considerations than the five economic tests, but I have tried to show that three out of the five tests are of vital importance if the Government are to persuade the 40 per cent of the population that remains undecided.
In granting independence to the Bank of England, we have taken the first step towards making our currency independent of political manipulation. Joining the euro-zone would carry that process one step further by eliminating the possibility of competitive devaluation among the European nations, which did so much damage in the last century. It would create a world-class reserve and trading currency to stand beside the dollar, the yen and probably the Chinese renminbi. Who knows, by the end of this century, there might be just one world currency.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I believe that I would be looked upon by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as a Euro-creep; that is, I have consistently supported the idea of British involvement in the European Union ever since, during the 1950s, I used to hear the mellifluous tones of the late Lord Boothby telling the Cambridge Union of the benefits of the ideas of Monsieur Monnet and Monsieur Schuman. However, I do not claim that consistency is a good thing. It was described by the American philosopher Emerson as being the "hobgoblin of the mediocre mind".
By that standard, it must be said that the two major parties in this country, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, have been brilliantly mercurial, and that is because there has been no hint of consistency in their positions over the past 50 years. The Conservative Party, which I joined in 1973, was the great party of Europe from 1960 to 1990. The Labour Party veered from scepticism and division in the 1960s and 1970s to hostility in the 1980s. Since 1990, both parties have changed 100 per cent. No greater or more extraordinary transformation has ever taken place in our long and equally extraordinary political history. The controversies of the Corn Laws, tariff reform and imperial preference, profound as they were in their time, cannot compare with the richness of these major and magnificent intellectual somersaults.
906
I find myself in virtual agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I was particularly struck by his concluding remarks, although I was also impressed with what he said about trade and business organisation. I wish to make only two or three comments. The question of whether we enter the European Monetary Union surely is a matter of balancing the benefits of sovereignty and of power. Certainly, to accept a common currency is a surrender of sovereignty of a considerable kind. But if or, I hope I can say, when we join, we shall in fact increase our power because we shall then be able to participate in, to affect and perhaps to dictate the formation of policies on monetary matters by which we shall be affected, whether or not we are inside the palais d'Europe.
Along with the poet Marvell, I would say that sovereignty is a fine and private place, but in certain circumstances it can be extremely cold. All the nations of western Europe enjoyed sovereignty after 1918 and 1919, but that sovereignty did not help them at all when the storms of the 1930s and the 1940s came. Similar storms could affect us in the future. There is no reason to suppose why we should be insulated from such events. Indeed, we were not particularly insulated in the 1930s and the 1940s. That is one reason why I should like to see our entry into the monetary union as soon as possible.
I have two other points that I should like to make. First, the idea of standing outside the ballroom, pressing our noses against the glass to see whether the dance is going well and then saying that we would like to join in provided that the thing is a success, seems to represent the negation of statesmanship, although I think that that was the position taken by the former Foreign Secretary, now the Leader of the House in another place.
Secondly, to begin with, many people supported the UK joining and subscribing to the European experiment because it seemed to be a good substitute for empire. I suspect that I held that view myself. I do not say that, under the present circumstances, we can expect to lead Europe, but one day we could aspire to do so because we have so much to contribute. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, hinted at that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Similarly, we benefit greatly from our close attachments to countries which now are not only allies or neighbours, but partners and intimate friends.
It would be foolish not to accept that membership of the monetary union will necessitate some psychological changes in the way in which we regard our arrangements, as well as political and economic affairs. We were not part of Hitler's empire, we were not part of Napoleon's empire, we were not subsidiary states to Louis XIV and we did not form a part of the Holy Roman Empire. But we were part of the Roman empire. Thomas Hardy wrote a famous and very fine poem about a person who finds a Roman coin, a Constantine, in Dorset in the 1920s. For that reason alone, on this occasion I adjure the

907
House o recall Churchill's remark made in 1910 to the effect that, "The changes which are to come, I do not fear to see".
7.39 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, usually when we hold a debate on the euro and European matters, many speakers come forward from all the Benches in your Lordships' House. They clamour to make their points with great passion. Perhaps it would be instructive to begin my remarks by considering why it is that so few noble Lords are in the Chamber this evening. There may be a number of reasons, but two stand out. First, it is the evening of the concert of the Parliamentary Choir. It is to perform Bach's "Christmas Oratorio". Secondly, it is a crucial evening in the European Champions League. I can certainly bring to mind one or two noble Lords from the Government Benches who have more than a passing interest in the fate of Manchester United and Liverpool. Music and sport are two of the strongest strands of cultural life in this country; they are both European strands. They are two of the many strands of activity which bind us to Europe much more strongly than to any other part of the world. Music and sport bring together the whole of Europe—east and west—just as the EU, with its planned enlargement, will, within the foreseeable future, represent the whole of Europe and not only a fraction of the whole.
I raise these issues not because I believe that whether Manchester United get through to the next round of the European Champions League should be an additional test of whether we should join the euro, but because, when taken together, they demonstrate both the continuity and strength of the European cultural tradition and the rapid, fundamental institutional reform which is taking place within and across our continent at the moment. They form a useful, if somewhat unconventional, starting point to the three key issues that we are debating today.
The first issue requires us to take a step back from the euro and to ask ourselves what we wish our relationship with Europe to be; the second is whether our ever joining the euro is consistent with that role; and the third relates to the timing and the taking of the decision and the tests which will have to be passed before we do so. The first issue—our role in Europe—is relevant to the subsequent ones because it helps to set the overall political context within which the decision on euro membership has to be made.
We on these Benches believe straightforwardly that Britain should play a central, wholehearted role in the EU. We believe that it is in the interests of peace and prosperity in Europe that the EU as an institution thrives. We see enlargement as a means to end decades of division in Europe by the choice of free people who want to be part of a single European family.
We reject the pick-and-mix approach to the EU which dictates that we will decide which rules of the club we wish to follow and which rules we wish to ignore. We are self-confident enough to believe that a British contribution to all aspects of public policy
908
making at a European level will improve the quality of the policy and ensure that it is compatible with our national interests.
We believe that as the pressures on the EU to do more increase—whether on the environment, on defence or on security—we need to have a European constitution which enshrines the principle of subsidiarity and sets limits on the roles and powers of the European level of government.
We believe that the single currency will he durable and beneficial to the European economy, and that we should be part of it as soon as it is prudent to be so. Finally, we believe that British influence on the development of economic policy, thinking and co-ordination within the EU is, and will continue to he, diminished as long as we remain outside the euro-zone.
If you believe these things, the issue of membership of the euro is a question of when and not whether. This gives a clear patch of water—whether blue or yellow, I am not quite sure—between ourselves and Mr Duncan-Smith's Conservative Party. For us, it is a question essentially of when.
My noble friend Lord Taverne has rightly pointed out that many issues beyond the Government's five tests are relevant to the decision. I shall come to those in a moment. It is worthwhile, incidentally, recalling that when Barclays Capital carried out its euro-track summary, only 7 per cent of those currently opposed to membership of the euro, but who are open to changing their minds, said that they could change their minds as a result of an assessment of the Treasury's five economic tests. Perhaps the Treasury has not been as successful as it had hoped in explaining those tests.
As to the five tests, the first question is whether business cycles and economic structures are compatible. My noble friend Lord Taverne has mentioned the OECD report, which refers to growing convergence between the British and euro-zone economies, a convergence which most economists confidently expect to continue.
Secondly, there is the question of flexibility to deal with tax and employment problems. The flexibility that we have at present may be greater than elsewhere in Europe; certainly there is a considerable flexibility which we retain in both employment legislation and taxation. I shall come back to taxation later.
Thirdly, there is the question of investment in Britain. Much has been made of the fact that, in the first year of the existence of the euro, foreign direct investment into Britain increased rather than diminished. However, as my noble friend Lord Taverne pointed out, this trend seems to have gone into reverse. If the Government were not worried about this, they would not find themselves—as Mr Boateng did at the weekend when he met the South Koreans—having to spend much of their time explaining that there is no need to worry about our non-membership of the euro, and giving reasons for it, rather than concentrating on the positive reasons why Britain is a good place in which to invest.

909
The fourth issue concerns the competitive position of the UK's financial services sector. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, has made a powerful and convincing argument as to why, in the medium to long term, it is almost inconceivable that the UK financial services sector would be more prosperous outside a successful euro-zone than with Britain inside it.
The final question in regard to the five tests concerns growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs. In terms of stability, if your major trading partner is locked into a currency, you immediately gain a stability in terms of decision-making by exporters which is completely lacking at the moment. The continuing problems faced by the manufacturing sector would simply not exist if a sensible exchange rate was successfully negotiated. The benefit of a larger market, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, referred, is surely, to any logical mind, one which is likely to benefit the prospects for job creation in this country.
Some other issues go beyond the five economic tests which are clearly hugely important, both in determining the timing and in persuading people in the UK that joining the euro is sensible. First, there is the issue of the exchange rate. The current exchange rate is too high and monetary policy, because it is fixed on inflation primarily and fundamentally, can do nothing to address the problem. But, as my noble friend Lord Taverne explained, if the Government were to set a sensible target for sterling within the euro, there is every reason to believe that the markets would adjust to that target.
Secondly, it is argued by those who are opposed to euro membership that we could not possibly join an organisation with so much labour market inflexibility. Much is made of all kinds of Spanish practices—not only in Spain but across the EU—in respect of labour market regulation. However, when one looks across the EU, on any day a major debate is on-going about changing some aspect of past labour market rigidities. At the moment, the major focus is on Italy, where Berlusconi is trying to change some of the employment protection legislation in a manner which increases flexibility. It is very difficult to do. It was extremely difficult for the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she attempted it in this country; it took a number of years to achieve. But all the evidence shows that, within the EU, political leaders are looking for windows of opportunity to move labour markets in a more flexible direction.
Thirdly, some people argue that the fiscal policy framework is too tight and that there needs to be greater scope for tax competition. Much of this argument is based on the misapprehension that there is some kind of "hidden hand" of tax harmonisation preventing countries in the EU from choosing their own level of tax. Anyone who has brought cigarettes for their private use across the Channel knows very well that, at present, any thought of strict tax harmonisation is for the birds. There remains a considerable degree of flexibility within the EU—as
910
there needs to be—whereby member states can use tax policy to balance their economies within the context of the overall European exchange rate.
The fourth reason—on which the noble Lord. Lord Saatchi, has dwelt in the past, and perhaps will again in this debate—relates to the European Central Bank. The ECB does not operate like the Bank of England in every last respect. It does, however, have as its principal aim an almost identical aim to that of the Bank of England; namely, a low and stable level of inflation. Some of the methodology that it uses is slightly different in deciding how to achieve that. The index of prices that it uses is different from the one that we use. The way in which it explains, or does not explain, its decisions is different from the way in which we do. But no one in their right mind could argue that the European Central Bank has been a failure. No one would argue that, if Jean-Claude Trichet were the president of the European Central Bank instead of Wim Duisenberg, the transparency would not change. Frankly, no one would argue that, if the Bank of England had been part of the European Central Bank. many of the things that we find objectionable about it would never have been in place from the start. The European Central Bank is yet another example of a missed opportunity in setting a framework in which Britain could have played a major part.
Finally, people will look carefully at how the euro works in practice once the notes and coins are in circulation in the New Year. My guess is that the horror stories about little old ladies not being able to understand the new currency, and about counterfeiting, will prove to he exactly that, and will not be borne out.
Earlier today, I attended the euro preparation committee established by the Government, which unfortunately is boycotted by the Conservatives. We discussed with the Northern Ireland representative the effect of the introduction of the euro in Northern Ireland—which will be affected because of its close proximity to a euro-zone member state. The view in the committee, both from the businessmen on one side of the table and from the Unionist politicians on the political side, was that within a short space of time the North of Ireland would in effect have a dual currency. The situation will be very different from the present one in which the punt operates a few miles across the border. Within this country, within months, we shall find a dual currency in operation. If it is successful there, and if we can exchange our euros at Marks & Spencer in Oxford Street for our pair of socks and our other purchases, the practical working success of the euro will be demonstrated and attitudes towards it will change considerably.
To return to football, this debate has been the equivalent of a relatively gentle "friendly". Nothing much is at stake other than a chance to pit our competing arguments against each other. On these Benches, we are looking forward to the real thing.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he like to re-examine his usage of the expression "Spanish practices" in relation

911
to some English practices? Does he not think that, given our friendship with Spain, the phrase should be entirely removed from the vocabulary of a Liberal Democrat?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I hope that before very long it will be an outdated concept and that, therefore, there will be no need to use such vocabulary.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for introducing the debate. I feel sorry for those who are attending musical or sporting events. They have missed out on an interesting debate and, as the noble Lord said, one that is of immense importance—"friendly" though it may be.
The noble Lord made some important points and he tackled head-on some issues that one usually hears dealt with in more opaque terms. For example, he talked about the amount of devaluation that would be required in order to meet a sustainable exchange rate. He talked about tax harmonisation and about unfunded pensions. These are all highly sensitive issues which are normally ducked or swept under the carpet. I admire the straightforwardness that the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Newby, bring to the debate. We shall soon be able to contrast that with the Treasury's approach, which I fear will be slightly less certain and clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, apart from his gentle rebuke of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, rebuked myself and the Minister for the endless mind-changing of our parties over the years and the extraordinary "transformations" that we have gone through. The Minister does not need me to defend him, but perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, of Keynes's injunction when accused of mind-changing:
"When circumstances change, I change my mind. What do you do?".
It seems to me that we are not debating whether the euro is good or had but, in the terms of the Motion, whether there are wider considerations or whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said, the economic tests are indeed a sufficient test. In other words, we are examining whether economic tests are an appropriate way to assess the question.
I want to put forward the view that they are not. The word "test" suggests a spurious objectivity which is beyond the reach of economics. Economics is not a science. It is not susceptible to scientific measurement; nor do the phenomena that it tests occur in a laboratory. Scientists have always dreamed of the illumination of the whole of knowledge by systematic computation. But it has not worked out quite like that. Instead, we find that it is an inconvenient and stubborn fact that, outside Newton's universe where physical laws do govern reality, the world is conditioned by perception. Perception is conditioned by the distorting factors of society, genetics, class, upbringing and the conscious or unconscious interests of the perceiver.
The modern authority for that rather sceptical view is the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who reminded me last week that "perception is not
912
reality". He is right. All of us know that the sensations produced by the same object can vary with the circumstances. Lukewarm water will seem hot to a cold hand and it will seem cold to a hot hand. Colours look very different under a microscope. Even the sun in the heavens is seen by us only as it was eight minutes previously. It seems that once we describe what we perceive in terms of what we feel or believe—once we express opinions or beliefs or attempt to offer explanations, descriptions or forecasts—error, doubt and uncertainty come to the fore. It is not like hydrogen plus oxygen equalling H20.
The appeal by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was essentially a warning. It was an appeal to the fear that we shall "miss out". The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said much the same. He said that we should be pressing our noses on the window of the ballroom in perpetuity. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, was warning us, as was the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that if two parts hydrogen do not quickly mix with one part oxygen, we shall have no water and we shall die of thirst. It was a warning that had things will happen: foreign investment will fall, trade will decline and jobs will be lost.
These are not scientific observations; they are forecasts and predictions. That being the case, economic tests cannot help. That is made clear by the Treasury's paper on preliminary and technical work to prepare for the assessment. It makes the job appear far more scientific than it is. The language is of rational methods: of observation, experiment and verification.
The Treasury document sets out a wide range of sub-topics for analysis, such as trade and investment linkages, the behaviour of housing markets, sectoral output and monetary transmission. But none of those is relevant because, as the editor of the FT says,
"These interesting questions might occupy a dozen doctoral students for as many years without greatly increasing the sum of human certainty".
The objects under study are different in their nature. Hydrogen and oxygen are not the same in France as they are in Britain. For example, Britain is the only EU country besides Denmark that exports more oil than it imports. So the way in which a change in the oil price affects Britain is not the same as the way in which it affects, say, Germany.
Likewise, Britain has a much smaller stock of unfunded pension liabilities than the rest of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that that was not a cause for concern. Perhaps it is not, but the difference is still there. More money is invested in UK pension funds—I believe that it is over £800 billion—than in all the pension funds in the rest of the EU put together. That is a significant difference.
Similarly, British firms and households are more sensitive to interest rate changes than euro-zone countries because of a higher level of home ownership and a larger proportion of variable rate mortgages. As regards the prescription of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for around a 15 per cent devaluation of the pound in order to achieve a sustainable rate for entry into the euro, I am sure he is aware that on some

913
forecasts that would lead to a 1·5 per cent increase in UK inflation; that the Bank of England would then have to raise interest rates; that that might itself raise the level of the pound; and that the matter is not quite so easily resolved as simply to say that that is the right rate, announce it and the market will adjust to it. That would create its own problems, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware.
I hope that I can rest my case on these vital differences between the objects that are under study and these tests with the Chancellor himself, for it is he, is it not, who tells us, as he would see it, because of his own skill rather than the legacy that he inherited—but we shall not debate that—that, for whatever reason, Britain is in a completely different position from that of other countries in Europe. We see that in headlines in newspapers and in economic forecasters' documents every day. We are forecasting 2·5 per cent growth in the next few years as compared with near recession in Germany.
I am afraid that the closest science seems to come to economics is the chaos theory of mathematics, the most potent symbol of which is the butterfly that flaps its wings over the Amazon rainforest and sets off an electrical storm over Chicago. But the next time it flaps its wings nothing happens. The Chancellor's five tests are so far from being scientific that any scientist would blush for him. Economics has not yet found its Newton. Even if it had, these tests are testing the wrong thing. It is rather like the scientists who measured sheep's brains rather than cows' brains when studying BSE.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that the matter we are discussing is "above all a matter of politics". That is why the Select Committee of your Lordships' House under the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, was right to look at other matters—I refer to the "wider considerations" in the Motion—that is, whether or not the euro would,
"increase the pressure for closer political union".
Noble Lords will remember that its excellent report concluded in the last paragraph that,
"The will to create the euro was political".
The public know, as does Sir Eddie George, that,
"monetary union is fundamentally a political rather than an economic issue".
So, too, does the editor of the Financial Times, who says,
"Ultimately the question will turn on broader political arguments".
Therefore, the question I put to your Lordships' House is: why do we not have five tests of that? Is it because the Government do not like it when the president of the Bundesbank says,
"A single currency does not require a single government hut a single government will follow"?
Or is it because the Government do not like it when the governor of the Bank of France explains that we must have monetary union because,
"It is the essential precondition of political union"?
914
But when the leaders of France and Germany pressed their citizens to join the euro it was not on the basis of economic tests; in fact, it was not on economic grounds. Do noble Lords remember Chancellor Kohl's famous Louvain speech in which he echoed Hamlet's words:
"I have something in me dangerous, which let thy wiseness fear"?
I am told by my German friends that that was what led the German people to give up what they consider their heimat, or homeland; that is, to give up the mark.
Do noble Lords remember hearing President Mitterrand declare that,
"Nationalism is war"?
My French friends tell me that that is what led the French people to give up the franc, as they would lose that war to America unless they joined forces with others.
So why are we alone in being told that economics is all? Why cannot we have five tests of sovereignty, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, rather brilliantly defined, or shared sovereignty, as the Prime Minister puts it? I think that we could have five tests of sovereignty. I should like to put them forward.
First, are we ready for a new culture, that of a continent of humanist values, of the Magna Carta, of the Bill of Rights, of the French Revolution, of the fall of the Berlin Wall? Secondly, do we see Europe as a power in its own right; a power which will have a leading role in the new order of the planet; a power which resolutely mounts campaigns; a power which wants to encompass globalisation; a Europe with greater say in external affairs, security and defence?
Thirdly, do we accept that the single currency is a cornerstone for the harmonisation of the economic, financial and tax environment? Fourthly, do we know who does what? Is there a clear distinction between the exclusive competence of the Union, the competence of the member states and the competence shared between the Union and the member states? Is the role of the national parliaments to be that of a third legislating institution alongside the European Council and Parliament? Fifthly, who will be in charge? Do we plan to encourage the creation of real European political parties and a European political area by creating a European electoral district for the election of a party of European Members of Parliament? Will we make provision for the direct election of the president of the European Commission or the European Council? Do we want to make the qualified majority vote for the adoption of legislation more general?
Noble Lords may imagine that those five tests I have just described arise from the fevered imaginings of paranoid Conservative Eurosceptics. In fact, they are taken verbatim from the Laeken declaration of the EU of 23rd November 2001—last week. They are considered the vital issues for the future of the Union. Only in Britain do our Government have such a low opinion of the intelligence of the public that we are asked to restrict our deliberations to economics alone.

915
I close with the following thought. I for one am sad to find the great Labour Party sidestepping these great issues and returning to the materialist determinism of Karl Marx in which economics determines politics. I find it depressing to see Labour reduced to the view that money is all. Was that what the new Jerusalem was all about? Sidney and Beat rice Webb would turn in their grave.
8.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall make a boring speech. It may well be a long boring speech. It certainly will be if I am interrupted. However, I have no alternative on these occasions; I have to take this opportunity to address the issues and to explain the rationale behind our policy on economic and monetary union. That is my duty.
The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997 and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999. In principle, the Government are in favour of UK membership of EMU; in practice, the economic conditions must be right. The Government believe that, given the right economic conditions, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.
The determining factor underpinning any government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. If it is, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU. The five economic tests set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made.
Here I must pause for a moment. Although there has been considerable support in the speeches tonight for the principles of what I have been saying, I was taken aback by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, saying that somehow, in the end, it would be the Chancellor's prerogative. We have made it clear that that is not the case. Clearly, having made the assessment on the basis of the five economic tests, the Treasury will recommend to government what the conclusion should be. Government will then take a collective decision. It will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people. How that can be described as the prerogative of one man escapes me.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the noble Lord's speech, but the assessment in itself will be very influential. It should not be confined to the Treasury. As many speakers have pointed out, there are subjective elements in that assessment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not deny that. In fact, the next point that I was coming to was the role of the five economic tests. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, believes that those tests are irrelevant. I must say that he has come some way from his business success because, if one is making business decisions—this is in substantial part a business decision; it is a decision about our
916
economy—one does so on the basis of tests. One makes those tests as objective as possible and recognises that, under certain circumstances, the tests which one has set oneself will have an element of subjectivity.
Perhaps I may make it clear for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that the tests are not the same as a recital of the advantages. I admired his eloquent recital of the advantages, and I agreed with very much of what he said. But the self-evident advantages of, for example, the reduction of transactional costs between our currency and a common European currency do not need to be restated; they are evident to everyone. They are not part of the tests of the issues which, inevitably, are or could be in doubt. The issues of sustainable convergence, of flexibility to cope with economic change, of the effect on investment, of the impact on the financial services industry, and whether they are good for employment are, I believe—despite the element of subjectivity—the correct tests. In adding to them, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, did not attempt to subtract from them.
I considered the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, to be particularly interesting. He said that the first two tests were judgmental, but he took the view that the five tests were important. Indeed, in its 2001 Article IV Report, the IMF stated that the tests were,
"consistent with the economic considerations that would he important in the decision whether or not to join".
Therefore, it is not only the Chancellor or the Government who take that view.
Clearly these issues must be resolved before a decision is taken. We do not deny that the tests are challenging; nor do we deny that, even if it is considered that they have been achieved, there must be a period of stability and settled convergence before we can seriously consider membership. In speaking to the CBI conference on 4th November, the Chancellor said,
"the assessment as to whether it is in the British national economic interest or not will be comprehensive and rigorous. It is only on this basis—taking into account all relevant economic information—that the Cabinet will decide whether to recommend membership to Parliament and then to the British people".
We have said—this is a firm commitment—that we shall produce an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of the Parliament. What we shall not do is to make a running commentary on whether or not we are achieving the tests. The criteria are set out in the tests in the intervening period. We listen with great respect and great interest to all the comments made by Members of this House and by economic commentators in the press and, indeed, to those in other countries as well.
I do not need to prolong the debate by describing the preliminary assessments that are being made—they have not featured in the debate—except to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, about the media battle. I agree that it is necessary that the single currency should sell itself and that we should help to sell it. I believe that he was right—a number of noble Lords also said this—when he said that the effect of the

917
existence of the euro on the ground, in the pocket and in the wallet in less than a month's time would have a major effect on the views that the public of this country took about the success and the relevance of the euro to them.
I had always believed that the word "Euro-creep" applied to a thing rather than to a person. But I suppose that if it applies to a person, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and I are Euro-creeps and I do not believe that we are too unhappy about it.
We have had some discussion of the other tests, but, except for those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, they have been mainly economic tests, and rightly so. I do not believe that it is right that we consider the exchange rate or a putative exchange rate as being the sixth test. We have made it clear that in our view there is no sixth test. But, clearly, the exchange rate at which sterling entered the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the United Kingdom and compatible with sustainable convergence between the United Kingdom and other euro economies.
However, I believe that the key here is what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. It is not so much a case of a particular rate that could be different at different times; it is a case of stability of exchange rates. That, of course, comes back to the idea of a clear advantage—an indubitable advantage—rather than one of the five tests.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says about the European Central Bank. He is right that the Bank of England and the Treasury have different views from the European Central Bank about transparency and many other matters. But he is also right to say that what we have in common is most important; that is, a view of the objective of a low and stable rate of inflation.
Interestingly, there has been little discussion of the stability and growth pact and the fiscal policy framework. Perhaps that is because it is becoming more widely recognised that some of the scare talk which has circulated about a superstate does not in fact bear any relation to reality. Fiscal policy in EMU remains the responsibility of individual governments, subject to the avoidance of excessive deficits. That, I am glad to say, thanks to the wise management of the economy over the past four-and-a-half years, is not a problem for this Government. A centralised system of fiscal transfers in EMU is not on the agenda and no member state is arguing that it should be.
Similarly, I was glad not to hear talk of tax harmonisation in the debate. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, set that agenda correctly in his speech. There is no reason why EMU should lead to a fiscal authority for Europe. The distance that we are from a fiscal authority—which may be wanted by some of the people quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, when we have a commitment in the current perspective to no more than 1.27 per cent of gross national product in the European Union budget—is evidence of how far away we are from the economic superstate which some Eurosceptics fear.
918
We have talked about the success of the euro and how close we are to the reality of it. I like the analogies of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about our pressing our noses to the glass outside the dance. I think that the dance will come outside to us even if we were not to join the euro. The effect of not joining the euro does not mean that we shall be isolated from the euro. That is what I understand by the phrase "euro-creep". With an increasing number of retailers and other businesses, including Government in their financial relations, saying that they will be prepared to deal in euros, I suspect that we shall find that the experience in Northern Ireland—it has been referred to—will apply to other parts of the country as well.
I do not want to say much about constitutional issues. I do not accept the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about surrender of sovereignty, apart from the fact that I do not think of sovereignty as being in any way analogous to,
"The grave's a fine and private place, But none, I think, do there embrace".
It is a pooling of sovereignty. In many respects it is a gain of sovereignty rather than a surrender. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, spoke about the Belgian presidency's proposals for Laeken next week. Let us see what comes out of Laeken rather than what goes in from the presidency.
It has been a constructive debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for raising the issue. I am sorry if my speech has to be as boring and repetitive as it always is on these subjects. However, I leave the House with gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and all who have taken part in the debate.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord. We know the difficulty he is in. He must, inevitably, sometimes repeat himself. I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short but interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Channel Tunnel
8.22 p.m.
Lord Berkeleyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to ensure the free movement of goods by rail through the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a summary of the present situation. Since 7th November, French railways (SNCF) has suspended all rail freight service through the tunnel through fear of attack on its workers by the potentially illegal immigrants seeking to come into this country. Subsequently, some traffic has restarted under police supervision. About 100 trains a week come into the UK; 32 ran last week. Some might say that that is not much of a problem.

919
However, the real challenge is that none of the operators or customers knows which trains are coming and when, so although one-third are getting through, everyone is extremely upset. It is a chaotic and unsustainable situation.
The virtual suspension of rail freight represents about £8 million-worth of business lost every week. It has put 6,000 extra lorry journeys on to the roads and has caused congestion in the ports and on the approach roads. Equally importantly, there are many losers. There are the customers. I was privileged last week to visit the Marble Arch store of Marks & Spencer and to be shown the thousands of bottles of wine which normally arrive by train from the south of France and Spain, but which did not do so—at considerable extra cost to Marks & Spencer. Bottled water is a favourite; and it all comes by rail. Many of the parts for Ford cars in Dagenham and Halewood normally come by rail, but are not doing so.
Some of the terminal operators have already said that they will close at Christmas. Some operators are large American multinationals. One wonders what they think of the present situation. They have invested in rail, and look what has happened. The operator, ESW Railway, and Combined Transport Limited recently announced suspension of services. I calculate that there are probably about 8,000 jobs at risk.
What are the Government doing about it? I perceive much talk and correspondence. It was good that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Prime Minister of France. I was slightly underwhelmed by his threat to reimpose fines on the French railways. I think everyone accepts that French railways will not pay. However, I liked his offer to help French railways with security and the offer of a meeting. I hope that those offers will be taken up.
SNCF, which runs the terminal, is in the process of raising the fence. There are doubts about its effectiveness, but that is an improvement and will help to keep out some of the people who gave rise to the original cause. Who will police it? How much will it cost? Eurotunnel recently put up a better fence. It is keeping many of the people out and probably diverting them to the rail freight terminal. But I am told that it costs Eurotunnel £8,000 a week to mend the holes cut in the fence by the illegal immigrants. It is employing 300 extra people on security. I do not have a clue about that cost, but it must be an enormous sum. French railways will be faced with similar costs.
Therefore it is worth reflecting on how the two governments have got into this mess. It started some time ago with the Conservative government requiring airlines to be unpaid frontier guards. The Government have extended that to lorries and then trains, adding—I suppose just for fun—fines of £2,000 per person imported, making those truckers and railway workers act as unpaid guards to boot. Many noble Lords and people in the industry warned the Government of the disaster ahead. I feel that that has now arrived. Some of your Lordships may have seen today's headline in the Evening Standard that,
920
"the High Court delivered the crushing blow, saying that the fines [on lorries] were 'legislative overkill' and incompatible with the right of a fair trial under the European human rights convention".
That should, I hope, make the Government think again. They have said that they will appeal, but perhaps they will have second thoughts on that because it is not helping. Fines have not helped. In the year 2000, when there were no fines, 1,553 people came in illegally on rail freight. This year, with fines, the figure is 1,482; and we have not reached the end of the year. I do not think that anyone can say that tines have made any difference.
I turn to some principles of frontier control. Although I am no expert, it is worth pointing out one or two issues. Some countries want to keep people in; others want to keep them out. The UK wants to keep people out. France does not want to keep the same people in, but does not really mind where they go. As the UK does mind, I believe that it is up to the UK Government to provide the measures—they may be fences, or whatever—and to police them.
At the time of building the Channel Tunnel and subsequently, the UK Government decided that the fence to keep people out should be located on its neighbour's land, in Calais. It is clear that the French Government accepted that. But I do not believe that that removes the obligation on the British Government to pay for suitable fences and patrols. It is illogical to expect France to pay for fences that it does not want. One cannot expect France to keep those fences very "people-tight".
I turn to the European legislation. Articles 28 to 30 of the European treaty prohibit the restriction of movement of goods between member states. It is possible that the definition of "goods" may be excluded for reasons of security. That is Article 30. It is clear that the exclusion applies to items such as guns; in other words, one can exclude guns, explosives or other nasty things which one does not want brought in. However, it cannot apply to keeping people out. It does not allow the Government to ignore those basic rights because there are too many people around. I believe that security is an irrelevant excuse.
Governments have an obligation to allow the free movement of people and goods. I and several other people have complained to the European Commission under Regulation 2679/98 that the inaction of the two governments in failing to keep rail freight operating through the tunnel prevents that free movement. We await a response and it will be interesting to see what the Commission says.
I believe that it is a government problem and largely one for the British Government. I hope that they will recognise that rather than continue to threaten French railways and the French Government with more fines. Action is necessary before the industry bleeds to death.
What must be done? First, I urge the Government to stop the fines. In fact, they have stopped them, but they keep threatening to reimpose them. It really would he a good thing if they stopped them. It is more important to take action to save jobs.

921
Secondly, I suggest that the Government offer funding towards the cost of the fence in France and towards the cost of policing it. It could be simplified by extending the existing designated UK-controlled zone at the Eurotunnel terminal to include the French railways terminal because that would allow UK officials to operate there. Furthermore, perhaps the Government would like to send, say, four kilometres of razor-wire coils as a Christmas present to SNCF. It is a wonderful opportunity for Ministers to gain some good PR before Christmas and it would enable the fence to be built sooner.
Thirdly, and more importantly, the Government must begin to consider compensating the businesses which will fail due to their inability to maintain the trade routes. Eight million pounds a week is being lost. It was done in respect of the lorry blockades in France a few years ago and I believe that it should be done for the rail freight blockades.
In the longer term, it is essential that the Government sort out the immigration policy differences with France and the EU. In the mean time, the British Government must pay for the consequences of that difference.
In conclusion, I cannot over-emphasise the seriousness of the stoppage. I urge the two governments to stop playing this ping-pong game of blame and to take responsibility for the problem and for solving it. The Government must offer to provide and to pay for the fence; no quibbles. That would fit in with the Government's SRA strategy for rail freight, one of its objective's being:
"To realise the potential for international rail freight through the Channel Tunnel".
At the moment, the inaction is achieving the exact opposite, to the detriment of the environment and transport and with the loss of thousands of jobs. Do the Government really want three months' bad news of job losses, terminal closures and other such headlines? I hope that the whole Government have heard that they have little time to prevent a disaster which I fear will haunt them for years.
8.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for asking his Unstarred Question today and I strongly support his concerns. I intend to be brief. The noble Lord identifies a crucial weakness in our trade arrangements with the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I both have interests in transport but in different sectors. He is, effectively "Mr Rail" and I am, effectively, "Mr Road". However, there is plenty of work in both sectors. It is not an either/or situation because each mode complements the other.
The poorer regions of the EU tend to be concentrated at the extremities of the EU; for instance, Calabria in southern Italy, Cornwall in the UK and Portugal. One obvious reason is that they enjoy poor
922
transport links with the richer and more prosperous parts of the EU. Therefore, if we improve the transport links, we improve trade and prosperity for all.
Road transport to southern Italy, for example, is slow, environmentally unsound and probably not economic. However, it is relatively reliable at the moment, as the noble Lord explained. But it should not be: rail should be far more reliable than road haulage, which is an inherently unreliable system. I believe that rail haulage for freight is the preferred mode for long distance cross-Channel freight. There are various means of moving freight by rail—for instance, containers, piggy-back systems and so forth—but it is still an efficient system.
Does the Minister agree that we must quickly overcome the problems identified by the noble Lord and that we must take vigorous action in order to improve the prosperity of all the regions of the EU?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the Channel Tunnel opened for business in June 1994. It has therefore been in existence for only a short time. According to forecasts, by now we had hoped to move 10 million tonnes of freight by rail. This year, we have moved 2.3 to 2.5 million tonnes and next year we shall move very little if things go on as they are.
The reasons for that are manifold. We must admit that SNCF, the French railways, is chronically short of locomotives and drivers. Therefore, freight forwarders do not receive the service that they want from the railways. Little has been done to speed up the movement of freight on the railways in Europe and we should be doing a great deal better. According to the European White Paper, we should be setting up trans-European freight networks. We should be moving forward to through-freight trains in the very regions to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred.
We on this side of the Channel should not be talking about running freight trains from Willesden down to the Channel on our side, examining them, running them through the Channel, stopping again at Frétun, examining them again and then moving gradually on into Europe. We should be talking about running through-freight trains from places such as Wembley to places such as Lille. That can be done. We have the technology available to do it and French railways have the locomotives because they run a pool similar to ours. They can travel through the tunnel and on the railway lines in both England and France. We have the tools available so that trains do not stop in Calais, and the more through-trains there are the fewer opportunities there are for illegal immigrants to board them. However, that does not preclude the immediate need for measures to be taken in Calais to stop illegal immigrants boarding. The erection of a fence would he an extremely cheap means of achieving that.
At present, the British Government are paying £26 million a year simply because they are not taking up the paths through the Channel Tunnel for freight trains. We have a minimum usage agreement with Eurotunnel which means that we must use a certain

923
amount. If we do not use it, we have to pay for it. Therefore, the Government are faced with paying it out of one pocket if they do not use it. It might not be the Treasury pocket, it might be the SRA pocket or the Department of Transport pocket, but it is coming out of one pocket or another and it is money wasted.
We on these Benches believe it to be essential that the Government put up a decent fence—not something which people can easily cut through. The suggestion of extending the Coquelles terminal to include the freight marshalling yards at Frétun giving jurisdiction for the British Special Branch to arrest people has some logic.
That is not to suggest that freight through the Tunnel is not doing very well; it is, but on the roads. There were 1.3 million lorry movements through the Tunnel last year. Road freight has grown rapidly; the market is there. The figures have fallen not because of the market but because of the poor services, to which I have referred, and the effect of illegal immigrants. When they get on trains, they do not simply stow away; they also damage the goods that are in transit and they foul up the wagons because they often stow away for several days. That is not a minor problem that can be brushed away; it is a major problem. We have not raised the matter this evening—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not do so—for it to be brushed aside, and we want an answer from the Minister.
Much of British industry wants the arrangements to work, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that they do. Only the Government can take such action. Idly sitting by and watching while Rome burns will not do.
We have to pay £26 million a year until 2006. I repeat that plenty of money is available for taking effective measures. The traffic will return, provided that we have not done so much damage to our reputation that people give it up as a bad job.
Investors have spent much money—we tried to calculate how much—and the Government have spent £500 million on freight facilities for the Channel Tunnel. A huge sum is involved, which has been used on locomotives, the depots that have been constructed and other facilities. When the Channel Tunnel rail link is open, the priority should be to speed up trains, not trail them around the country, as is currently done. Trains should run directly to France and we should get on with the job of providing an efficient service. This sad story leads to fewer trains running in Britain and the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred; namely, redundancies, depot closures and much bad news for the Government during the next few months.
My noble friend Lord Greaves will deal with other issues, including illegal immigrants, about which I do not know very much. The Government have done very little and the danger is that business will be killed. We want the Government to explain the actions that they propose. Otherwise, international rail freight will be dead in the water, and the carcass will be laid at the Government's feet.
8.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, many justifiable criticisms have been levelled at the privatisation of this country's rail system, but rail freight has been the big success story of privatisation.
There has been a catastrophic decline in the share of freight that goes by rail within the UK—from 42 per cent 50 years ago to 15 per cent in the 1970s and 6.5 per cent in 1993. That was because of the cynical running down of freight by BR. The situation was dramatically turned around, following privatisation, by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and Freightliner, despite the continuing loss of some core traffic and of coal in particular.
There was a further brief decline after 1993. The figure is now back to 7.5 per cent and we are—or were—on target to reach the objective that was set by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1994 of having 20 per cent of freight travelling within this country by rail by 2020. There has been enormous investment in new locomotives and new wagons, York Works has re-opened and much new business has been gained.
That is the background to the Channel Tunnel disaster, which has been unfolding since the beginning of November. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was forecasting the tripling of freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel between its opening and 1999. That has not been achieved. It has proved difficult to achieve growth in that vital traffic, despite the great efforts of extremely dedicated and hard-working businesses. Very long distance traffic—very long journeys, from the extremities of western Europe—is involved, which is ideal for rail freight. Potentially, rail freight can be very fast and efficient. However, that service has in reality been considerably frustrated by the dinosaur railway systems of continental Europe, particularly SNCF, and by the problems that are created by our own smaller loading gauge. The Government need to carry out serious work on that to ensure that we have at least a core route—from Scotland, Merseyside and the West Midlands, round London and to the Channel ports—that will take Berne gauge wagons.
It is heartbreaking and deeply dismaying to the many people who have been deeply committed to this important development in rail transport to see it falling apart because of the ridiculous crisis that has been unfolding during the past five weeks or so.
Why is this matter so important? It is not just a matter of one business taking over from another. That would involve saying, "If you have a problem with freight, we can put it on the lorries. That would not much matter; so long as the stuff gets through, that is all right". But that is not all right. For environmental reasons, there have been huge increases in CO2 emissions from road freight. The figure has risen from 4.6 million tonnes in 1972 to 10.5 million tonnes in 1999. That enormous increase in CO2 emissions runs directly counter to our obligations to reduce CO2 emissions dramatically.

925
The famous Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced a report in June last year, which stated that we had to reduce those emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. We are already backsliders in respect of the percentage of rail freight domestically. Belgium, France and Germany all carry roughly twice the percentage of rail freight, measured by tonnes per kilometre, compared with the UK's figures.
We were beginning to turn that situation around in significant ways—we were beginning to win new traffic and significant customers were coming on board, particularly in terms of the long-distance traffic that requires the quick transit of perishable items. Some supermarkets are beginning to sign up to that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the traffic from Spain and the south of France. Cava and wines from the Languedoc come to Marks and Spencer, which was an extremely valuable customer and which signed up to that form of international rail freight.
Since 7th September that has virtually stopped. As noble Lords have heard, the number of trains has been cut by about 75 per cent. That requires an additional 6,000 lorry journeys a week; because the journeys are long, about 1.5 million lorry miles are involved. Traffic once lost is very difficult to regain. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, pointed out the extremely damaging effect that that is having on fragile new businesses, which are environmentally important and which are very significant in terms of business.
There is an extraordinary mismatch between, on the one hand, the Government's rhetoric about wanting there to be a significant transfer of freight from road to rail and their praiseworthy investment in much of the infrastructure, and, on the other hand, their incredibly feeble attitude towards the problem that arose recently.
I hope that following this debate Her Majesty's Government will take vigorous and effective action. The solutions are relatively simple. What currently seems to be lacking is the will and a sense of urgency.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, if only the solutions were as simple as the right reverend Prelate suggested.
I am one of those who habitually takes part in debates in your Lordships' House on railways. I want to consider the matter in terms of the underlying problem; that is, the large number of people who are trying to get to this country to claim political asylum.
The current position is a scandal. The rail freight industry and pretty well everyone else in this country support the policy of having more freight moving on railways, but that policy is being utterly undermined. People who have nothing whatever to do with the illegal movement of people or asylum seekers are being made to suffer because of what is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.
One government policy—trying to keep people out of the country—is undermining another government policy—trying to get more freight on the railways and
926
more freight through the tunnel. Until the Government understand that, understand that the problem is not related to the railways and tackle the problem at its root, they will not solve it.
This crisis has arisen as a result of government action. Earlier this year regulations were introduced: the Carriers Liability (Clandestine Entrants) (Application to Rail Freight) Regulations 2001 and subsequent regulations on a code of practice for freight shuttle wagons. Those government actions, which have allowed the imposition of fines on the rail operators, have caused this crisis.
Will we keep these people from entering the country on rail wagons by using all the technical methods that have been suggested? Travelling for any distance in a rail freight wagon is a highly undesirable means of transport. Every time the Government clamp down on one form of transport, they force desperate people on to yet more undesirable forms of transport. Efforts were made to prevent people coming to this country on the ferries or in aircraft, which are reasonably civilised means of transport, although I am not sure about aircraft. Many people came across on Eurostar. They bought tickets and presented themselves at Waterloo saying, "I should not be here really but I wish to claim asylum please". That has been clamped down on substantially, so people have turned to lorries.
I do not refer to people who have been moved across Europe and who arrive here in the lorry that they boarded in Sarajevo, Budapest or wherever. I refer to those who get into the lorries on the other side of the Channel. When that became more difficult because of the sophisticated devices that are used to find people in lorries, they started getting into and hanging underneath rail freight wagons. They put their lives in great danger. Some have walked through the tunnel, which caused the Daily Express to run a story on its front page for about 14 days in succession until it was interrupted by the general election.
People are being forced into more and more dangerous and difficult means of trying to get across the Channel. In a previous debate in your Lordships' House I forecast that there would be an increase in people coming across the Channel in small boats. There is much anecdotal evidence that that is happening. We know of people trying to get across in rubber dinghies. Will any of these measures stop that practice? I believe that the answer is no. The greater the security that is imposed, the more difficult and dangerous are the means of crossing. The problem is simply being moved around from one set of people to another and they are being fined because asylum seekers are found on their vehicles.
It has been suggested that perhaps a joint military force, between the British Army and the French Army, should stop people boarding vehicles. What will such a military force do when they find people taking that kind of action? They will threaten to shoot them. When people run away to avoid them, the military will shoot them because that is what soldiers do. That is the way in which soldiers maintain control. The whole situation is getting out of hand.

927
These people are desperate. Although there is no doubt that people are being trafficked across the Channel for economic reasons, particularly those from eastern Europe and from China, those causing the problem at Calais, those living in the Red Cross "factory"—that is what it is—at Sangatte are mainly people who want to come here to claim political asylum. Whether they are justified in doing that is a different matter, but that is their aim and purpose.
The Chinese gangs who run people into this country to work illegally in the catering industry, the sex industry and so on have far more sophisticated means and they do not put people in Sangatte. Those referred to as illegal immigrants are essentially people who want to come to this country to claim asylum.
There are anomalies. Recent statistics that I have seen suggest that about a third of the people at Sangatte who are trying to cross the Channel are from Afghanistan—yet in the past year, according to an Answer in another place, 80 per cent of the people from Afghanistan whose asylum claims were dealt with in the past year were given either political asylum or exceptional leave to remain in this country. When they are in Sangatte we do everything we possibly can to keep them out. They are undesirable, illegal immigrants. But once they come here, 80 per cent of those from Afghanistan are told, "Yes, you have a good case; you can stay". There is no logic or sense to this. Until we have a system that is sensible and logical we shall not solve the basic problem.
I quote the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, speaking in reply to a question from my honourable friend Norman Baker. He said:
"Refugees often suffer from trauma, and they have often been tortured, and they have often fled from the most desperate circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/01; col. 639.]
On many occasions, both he and his predecessor, Jack Straw, have said that the duty of this country is to do the right thing by people who are in those circumstances. Yet we go to extraordinary lengths to keep them out of this country in the first place to avoid having to carry out that duty. Not only do those trying to claim political asylum here suffer but the railway companies and the transport network also suffer. There is no logic to the situation.
We are told that people come here because they think Britain is a soft touch. They may think that, but the more asylum seekers and refugees I meet, the more I am appalled by how badly they are treated in this country. Yesterday I visited an excellent place in Dagenham called Harmony House which provides services for many asylum seekers and refugees. Many of them told me their stories, and if anyone believes that this country is a soft touch, they do not understand the meaning of the phrase.
So what should we do? It has been suggested that we should remove the Red Cross building at Sangatte. But will that solve the problem? That building was erected as a humanitarian measure, although it is not a pleasant place, because previously people were sleeping on the streets and in the parks. The problem is not the building at Sangatte; the problem is that the
928
port and the railway line are there. People will not stop going to that part of France if Sangatte is closed. I do not believe closing it is a sensible idea.
Over the years Ministers have spoken of the need for a European strategy, but there is always an assumption that in this country we must prevent our judges being too soft and undermining our nice, hard-line Government who want to keep people out. If we want a European strategy we have to persuade other European countries to be more liberal on this issue rather than this country adopting more draconian measures. The train operators may be able to carry out technical measures that noble Lords have mentioned. But if they succeed in reducing the numbers coming into the country in rail freight wagons, people will simply go elsewhere.
Clearly, for the benefit of the railway industry and the freight industry the fines have to stop. Today the Government should stand up and say that they will withdraw the orders that impose the fines. Fundamentally, the underlying asylum problem has to be tackled. Sooner or later they have to come up with a system under which asylum applications for residence in this country can be dealt with before people arrive here.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a Written Question on 23rd October 2001. He asked the Minister what consideration the Government were giving to suggestions that there should be a joint Franco-British assessment of applications for asylum at Sangatte. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied that they cannot consider the merits of an asylum claim until the application has been made and that the Government have no obligation to do anything until the asylum seekers are here.
It is time that we stopped thinking about what we must do about the matter. We should start applying some common sense. If there are 2,000 people at Sangatte who are desperate to get to this country and who are damn well going to get to this country by hook or crook, why not deal with their claims while they are at Sangatte? Therefore, they will know the answer. The motivation for them to come will be a great deal less if the answer is no.
9 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing this important topic to the attention of the House today. Before I reply from these Benches, I declare an interest as a newly appointed member of the Commission for Integrated Transport.
We have already heard that the current problems have their origins in the Government's decision back in March to impose fines of £2,000 per clandestine. Ort an average night with some 50 illegal immigrants trying to come through the tunnel that policy nets the Government something like £100,000. From these Benches, we do not argue that operators and Eurotunnel do not have some responsibility, hut we are very clear that there has to be a limit to the extent to which they can act as unpaid border guards. In

929
addition, since on our side of the tunnel they do not have a remit until Dollands Moor near Folkestone, they appear to have responsibility without having any power.
The situation, as we have heard, has now worsened considerably with the virtual suspension of rail freight services through the tunnel except for a few trains five nights a week between the hours of 9 pm and 3 am. The planning for the tunnel is based on some 15 intermodal trains per night.
Looking around the House, it is interesting that this debate has clearly been seen as relating to transport. With all due respect to noble Lords present and to the right reverend Prelate, we are rather the usual suspects in debates on transport, and rail in particular. But this is a very much wider issue. As well as transport, there are some clear business and investment dimensions to it. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Bradshaw of some £500 million worth of investment which potentially can be jeopardised by what is happening now. Above everything else, there are aspects of asylum and immigration policy which once again must be brought into question by what we are seeing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for focusing on that aspect.
It is fascinating that at a time when our attention, in particular with regard to Afghanistan, is turned towards reconstruction and humanitarian issues that we often hear anti-humanitarian sentiments expressed about people trying to get into our country. These people are now so desperate that they will endanger themselves in order to get here and they, we must be honest, exercise considerable ingenuity in trying. Perhaps the tales of the enormous risks that they take are not so surprising when one hears the stories of what they have left behind.
The argument about whether or not Britain is a soft touch is not one that I intend to go into today. However, what matters in this context is perception as much as the reality. I wish that some politicians and the more populist parts of the press would consider that when they use this type of rhetoric, they are creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Greaves that whatever we do in the way of fences or CO2 detectors and guards is only really a short-term solution. What we really need to be looking for are much more effective asylum and immigration procedures. They should be implemented on a European basis. I can certainly commend to your Lordships the work done by our own sub-committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Harris.
Businesses are also suffering. The private sector has invested in facilities and equipment for cross-Channel rail freight in terms of rolling stock, terminals, locomotives and cranes. Certain sectors of British industry have been very badly affected by this development. These are primarily producers of cars, car parts, steel and whisky. It is yet another blow for our hard-pressed manufacturing industry. Perhaps the Minister in his reply can tell the House how he expects
930
the private sector to have any confidence in a future for rail freight when it can all apparently be put at risk so easily and with so little evident response from national governments and from the European Commission.
According to The Times of 23rd November, Loyala de Palacio, the EU Transport Commissioner, said that France could be ordered to compensate the British rail freight industry as this was a clear breach of free market legislation. Can he tell us what has happened on that front? Also what has happened about the report of a meeting on 3rd December referred to in Questions in your Lordships' House the other day?
Given the importance of the private sector in all aspects of the Government's future plans for transport, does the Minister not agree that that must raise real issues of confidence in the way that people invest in transport in the future?
To return to transport, the Government's 10-year plan proposes an increase of 80 per cent in the amount carried by rail freight by the year 2010. It exhorts the industry to do its bit. Actually the industry has done its bit and now it is time for the Government to do theirs.
The European Commission's recently published transport White Paper adds another impetus to the development of rail freight. It seeks to ensure an EU-wide methodology for equalising charges between rail and road and it seeks interoperability of rail systems across Europe. All that is costly, particularly to the UK. What guarantees do companies have that when they make that kind of investment that it will not be jeopardised?
As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has outlined, the Channel Tunnel is currently under capacity. For the period June to September, before the current crisis really began to bite, Eurotunnel figures show a 6 per cent reduction in cars and coaches, a 3 per cent reduction in the number of passengers using Eurostar and a fall of 11 per cent in the tonnage carried by SNCF and EWS. That new development will add yet more misery to all those involved in operations and will call into question most of the assumptions made in the 10-year plan and in the SRA rail freight strategy.
As the right reverent Prelate said, the growth of rail freight has been a success story. It is such a pity to see all that cast into the wind because of lack of action on the part of the Government. The perception of a lack of robust action and commitment on the part of Government to rail freight will cause a huge lack of confidence in the industry generally. I hope that the Minister can understand from the sentiments expressed tonight just how serious this problem is.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, while this is a rail debate, the causes of this particular problem are nothing to do with either the success or failure of the industry, but with immigration and asylum policies and the fact that there is a large number of economic migrants who wish to come to this country. Some are genuine refugees, but to be in that category one is allowed to stay when one has reached a safe country. One of the difficulties is that a number of such people have passed through

931
four, five or six safe countries before reaching the other side of the Channel. They perceive something which makes this country more attractive. Who knows whether they regard it as more attractive on an economic basis or whether they believe that they are less likely to be returned if they are found to be bogus asylum seekers? There are many reasons.
We return to the problem. If the Government followed the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to deal with asylum applications in Europe, we would become the focus of every economic migrant in the whole of Europe because we know that they would be pushed in our direction. I do not believe that the Government would welcome that.
It takes me back, as I sure it does the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the time when he and I debated the Bill which he introduced to fine lorry drivers and rail operators £2,000. Today has not been a very good day for the Government because the High Court has ruled that that is incompatible with the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are appealing against that decision.
It is somewhat unfair because lorry drivers have been fined many times and it is not their fault. Someone has climbed into their lorry and they have had no idea of their presence. But in some cases the rail operators have been excused such fines. It appears to me that there is a dual policy which is unfair. It is an issue which the Government will have to look at carefully and make sure that the rules are the same for everybody.
As I have said, there are many reasons why asylum seekers, including economic migrants, want to come to this country. As we have seen, up to 50 migrants can board one train. It is a huge problem for our Immigration and Customs services. Customs and Excise has an even bigger problem because of the difference in the excise duties here and on the Continent. They spend a great deal of their time searching cars and vans for excess beer, wines and cigarettes. Many complaints have been made to Brussels that Customs and Excise seem to be excessive. One of the difficulties is that we do not have enough Immigration and Customs officers working in connection with the Channel Tunnel to deal with the problem.
The Government largely blame the French in a polite way for not policing the Calais terminal properly. The French Government say that we have created a society which is too attractive to would-be immigrants and the problem is largely of our own making.
But the fact is that this muddle between two governments is causing a serious problem to the rail freight industry. It is likely to lose up to £8 million per week. We have heard that possibly a large number of jobs will be at risk, perhaps up to 8,000. It is causing freight to he put onto the roads from the railways. We heard from the right reverend Prelate how successful the rail freight industry has been and how much it carries. We now run the risk of losing that trade
932
because it is a problem about which both governments appear to blame each other, but neither is prepared to do something about it.
One must understand that the French railways operators are under pressure. Their staff are attacked by stowaways. It is a serious problem. The effect has been that instead of 20 freight trains travelling through the tunnel each night, the figure has been cut to between three and five. What are we going to do about it? It is noticeable that the number of freight trains leaving this country for the Continent has not been cut. It is not a freight problem, but a problem of policing Calais and how to deal with the situation.
I do not totally blame the Government for the problem. It is long standing. I believe that their asylum and immigration policies have not helped. I was disappointed when I saw the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to M Jospin in which he said,
"I just wanted to drop you a quick line about illegal immigrants".
That is not taking a very serious view of the problem. It could almost have been written on a postcard while on holiday. That was its tone. It is a serious issue. We know that the businesses of the freight operators who operate the state of the art interchange at Daventry are under pressure. They might have to consider closing unless something happens.
What can the Government do? They can perhaps do two things. First, they should press the European Union on why it failed to investigate the action taken by SNCF when it clearly appears to be the hindrance on the free movement of goods by a Community member. The EU has almost refused to become involved. Secondly, the Government should talk to the French because, as has been said, we cannot ask every train operator or its staff to be unpaid frontier control guards. That is what we are doing, in effect. We must make the French responsible, as the more people who manage to climb on a train or get through the Tunnel, the less the problem becomes on the other side.
The way in which to press those matters would be for the Government to ask the French Government whether they would be willing to compensate those UK operators who have lost revenue. I dare say that the French would give a rather Gallic response to that, but it would focus their minds on the serious problems in the industry.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting and important debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing it with his characteristically powerful arguments, together with fairness in presentation. I assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who stressed the issue, that the Government are actively seeking the restoration of normal levels of rail freight service through the tunnel as soon as possible, free of the disruption caused by illegal immigrants.

933
It is an area in which we see the crucial importance of close co-operation with our colleagues in France. The construction of the Channel Tunnel was a landmark in developing closer ties with France and Europe as a whole. It is important to remember that we have a good working relationship with the French. One or two aspersions have been cast this evening about the good faith of the French in dealing with this problem, but I rather preferred those contributions that recognised the complexity of the problem and the fact that we need a joint approach in tackling it. I do not accept that the response of Her Majesty's Government has been feeble, as the right reverend Prelate suggested. The Government have been active, but it is not an issue that can be resolved by the British Government alone, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate recognises. We have to bring pressures to bear on the key actors in the matter and I hope to show that we have been doing so.
One of the main problems on which we have to work closely with the French has been recognised in all parts of the House. It is illegal immigration and the need to prevent clandestines from gaining access to cross-Channel transport. The UK and French Governments have introduced measures to that end. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we should recognise the desperate state and circumstances of some refugees and the need to protect our long and proud history of proper regard for refugees. But he, too, must surely recognise that there are people queuing close to our shores and gaining entry to this country who are not justified in seeking asylum. Their applications are subsequently rejected and we have the right to take measures so that we minimise the incidence of illegal immigration to this country.
Within that framework the issue of the civil penalty has played its part. It has certainly reduced significantly the previously alarming rate of persons travelling to the UK hidden in lorries—often the victims of traffickers, who should receive no quarter from anyone for the way in which they perpetrate their evil trade. The civil penalty has had an effect.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested gently that this has not been a particularly good day for the Government. Governments are never comfortable in the High Court. The noble Viscount will know that the Home Secretary in the not too distant past successfully appealed against another judgment that went against the Government. We shall pursue our appeal against this latest judgment vigorously.
We anticipated that tightening up in one area could displace persons intent on travelling here to look for other routes by which to come. Consequently, we extended the provisions to rail freight in March this year, and more recently to Eurotunnel freight shuttle services through the Channel Tunnel.
In response to the extension of the penalty to rail freight, SNCF took measures to secure its trains properly and to check them before allowing them to enter the Channel Tunnel. In the first instance, those
934
measures were effective. They have significantly reduced the number of persons arriving here in rail freight wagons. They additionally provided the company with a defence against the imposition of such civil penalties.
In September, the Home Office advised SNCF that further penalties would not be imposed if the security system that it had implemented continued to work effectively. We also advised that if the situation changed we would expect the company to take urgent action to address any shortcomings.
Of course, the situation has changed. Following Eurotunnel's measures to increase security at its terminal in Coquelles, pressure is now being put back on the rail freight operation. SNCF's security measures have not been adequate for handling those increased pressures. In one incident, 57 people managed to breach security at the Calais yard and travel here.
The civil penalty legislation requires only that reasonable measures against unauthorised entry should be taken. We are currently satisfied that, for those trains that are running, reasonable measures are being taken. Of course I deplore the fact that only one-third of the trains are running now compared with when the situation was more normal. We are disappointed that, despite pressure, SNCF has not yet put in place fences, detection systems and improved lighting—all measures that it undertook last April to install by the end of this year. The situation is being kept under regular review. In response to the strong point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, we emphasised at the meeting a couple of days ago the expectation that SNCF would address those security issues at the marshalling yard.
I accept the desirability of improving rail systems so that we can have throughput of the trains, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, and they do not have to stop at Calais. I also accept the undercurrent of the debate, expressed most graphically by the right reverend Prelate and by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, stressing the virtues of rail travel over lorry travel for long-distance freight across Europe on environmental grounds and as a more efficient form of transport.
The development of rail freight is an important part of the Government's strategy. There are still some technical difficulties over ensuring that wagons that are loaded in Britain can go straight through, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that, as with all technical difficulties, they are there to be overcome. They are a limitation at the moment, but we shall continue to put pressure on our French colleagues, who are responsible for the rail system in France, to improve the technical qualities and get over those difficulties.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, a lorry going to the continent has no problems. It can be sealed inland and go through the Channel Tunnel. What are the technical problems?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Earl would not address technical problems about transport to me, because I am probably the least qualified person in the Chamber to respond to them. Suffice it to say that if there were no difficulties with the throughput of trains, the present problem of trains being stopped at Calais would have been overcome. We are in favour of trains with destinations in France and further afield in Europe being able to go straight through when that becomes practicable.
Clearly, however, it is essential for both our and the French rail freight industry, and for firms that use the services, that security problems should be rapidly addressed, as noble Lords have emphasised in the debate. The Government, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, have made that point clear to the French.
I heard the passing allusion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that perhaps the matter had not received the emphasis that he would like. Important as the issue is, given our relationship with France and the issues that the Prime Minister has to discuss with the French Prime Minister when we have troops committed overseas and the French are joined with us in a coalition, we must keep a sense of proportion, even about an issue important as that under discussion. The Prime Minister's expression of his clear and keen interest in the matter is symptomatic of all Ministers, when they can present such issues to the French. We want early action on the matter.
Physical measures to prevent access to the services are necessarily and rightly the responsibility of the operator. I am always grateful for interesting suggestions on how we could tackle such problems. My noble friend Lord Berkeley thought that a free Christmas present of barbed wire might solve the problem. I understand that the fencing in place is a good deal more sophisticated than barbed wire. Eurotunnel's existing defence systems are of considerable sophistication; that is what needs to be in place. It is not a question of shipping a load of barbed wire to the French, always supposing that they would regard that as in any way constructive.
At the UK-French Summit last February, we set up a commission to resolve cross-Channel issues of joint concern, including illegal immigration. We have set up a hotline to deal with those issues, which reflects the fact that we need the most direct access to the French. That is why, on 12th September, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with the French Interior Minister, Daniel Vaillant, and agreed a range of practical measures designed further to tighten controls at Channel ports and to reduce the flow of would-he illegal immigrants into the surrounding area.
936
The authorities at Calais have invested heavily to tighten security around the ferry port, and Eurotunnel has taken similar action at its site at Coquelles. We are expecting the site at Fréthun under SNCF's control to follow a similar pattern.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, has the commission met since the 7th November, when rail freight services stopped?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the commission is a continuing body. It has a hotline attached to its operations; it has a framework in which on-going discussions can take place. I assure my noble friend that a regular dialogue takes place under its auspices.
However, what has underpinned our debate is our great problem with the number of people seeking access to this country through unauthorised access to rail freight. On 29th October, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures as part of his long-term strategy to reform the asylum and immigration system. That is a radical new approach that is fair but tough. It is based on induction, accommodation, reporting and removal centres to control the system better and to improve contact with genuine asylum seekers. Those offered and refusing to take up a place in an accommodation centre will forfeit the right to support. The package also includes the introduction of an application registration card, which will contain a microchip with full details of the asylum seekers and their application. A more streamlined and integrated process with quicker decisions and appeals and fast-track removals, and the introduction of this card, should help in our efforts to reduce the attractiveness of the UK to illegal immigrants. There is no doubt that we need to reduce the pressure on entry into this country, of which utilisation of the transport system is one part.
In conclusion, the Government fully recognise the importance of the issue that we have debated this evening, and the forthright contributions from all sides of the Chamber have left us in no doubt of the strength of feeling on this matter. We are engaged with all the relevant French authorities to seek early resolution of the immediate problems of Fréthun. We are also taking steps nationally and in partnership with the French Government and other European partners to address the underlying immigration and asylum problems. We have impressed these matters on the European Commission, which has addressed formal letters to the French Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, observed.
Rail has an important part to play in long distance freight and the solution of our transport problems. The present problems that obtain at the Channel ports and the cross-Channel areas are a source of great concern to us all.
I recognise that many points have been made in the debate which I may not have answered as satisfactorily as some noble Lords would have wished. If there are points of detail I shall write further to noble Lords, particularly in relation to technical details where I recognise my limitations. I hope noble Lords recognise

937
that the Government take this issue seriously. I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this debate.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may make one point. The noble Lord said, quite rightly, that some of the people who tried to reach this country from the other side of the Channel had genuine claims to refugee status and others had no justifiable claims which fell within our international obligations. How do people with genuine claims arrive here legally in order to press them? If that is not possible, is there not a case for carrying out at least an initial sifting operation on the other side of the Channel?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord recognises that there are many ways in which genuine
938
refugees can present their case on arrival in this country, not simply by making hazardous journeys from distant places to the Channel ports. People can present themselves to the British authorities, embassies and the United Nations to put across their cases. The noble Lord will be aware that there are a number of genuine asylum seekers whose cases are subsequently substantiated by decisions of our authorities, but there is also a very large number who seek and obtain access to this country and have no right to be here. As a society we have the right to patrol our frontiers effectively and, because of the particular nature of the transport system, they also extend to facilities in France.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  Cuba
  Cuba
  Osama bin Laden
  Osama bin Laden
  Iran
  Iran
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Conspiracy Provisions: Criminal Justice Act
  Conspiracy Provisions: Criminal Justice Act
  Securities Prospectus
  Securities Prospectus
  Holy Cross Protest
  Holy Cross Protest
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Northern Ireland Police Service
  Cyprus: SBAs
  Cyprus: SBAs
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Public Attitudes
  European Union: Public Attitudes
  Fuel Poverty
  Fuel Poverty
  Sign Language Tutors
  Sign Language Tutors
  Reproductive Cloning
  Reproductive Cloning
  Autism
  Autism
  Social Services: Charging Policies
  Social Services: Charging Policies
  Infectious Diseases Strategy
  Infectious Diseases Strategy
  NHS Register Numbers
  NHS Register Numbers
  Football Grounds: Access for the Disabled
  Football Grounds: Access for the Disabled