Sitting of 12 December 2001

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Nuclear Installations
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the environmental and social impact of nuclear installations in the vicinity of the Severn estuary and the Bristol channel. [20037]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Don Touhig): I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that informative answer.
    The Bristol channel area probably contains the highest concentration of nuclear installations anywhere. Given that fact, given the strong feelings on both sides of the channel about expansion of the nuclear industry—last evidenced during the inquiry into Hinkley C more than a decade ago—and given the energy review that is now under way, does the Minister not think it important for the Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales to have an opportunity to put a case to those conducting the review regarding feelings in Wales and, incidentally, in the west country?
    Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is very important. I can tell him that I represent the Wales Office on the performance and innovation unit's review body. The energy review was announced by the Prime Minister in June 2001, and is examining strategic issues surrounding energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050. The Prime Minister will receive a copy of the report before the end of the year, and will then make a decision on its publication. Obviously I cannot say what its content
    820
    will be at this stage, but I am sure that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be debated vigorously as soon as it is published.
    Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend will know of the findings of Dr. Chris Busby on the incidence of cancers in populations living along the Severn estuary. He will also know that the Welsh cancer intelligence and surveillance unit is studying those findings. Does he agree that, where scientific findings on public health issues are concerned, we must insist on the fullest candour and exposure of the evidence on the part of all involved?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend following the publication of Dr. Busby's report in April. I am also aware of the report's contents. A report by the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment comparing the pattern of cancer cases around nuclear installations with the national pattern is nearing completion and, hopefully, will be published by the end of the year. I am also aware that the Assembly has asked the intelligence and surveillance unit to report on childhood cancer data relating to the Chepstow area, which will be published early in the new year. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should then engage in the fullest possible discussion of its contents.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister has an important role to play on the PIU working party. Given the discussions and concerns on both sides of the Severn about nuclear power stations, will he take this opportunity to rule out any expansion of nuclear energy in Wales or the west country? Will he also tell us what consideration the working party is giving to the huge potential for tidal energy generation on the Severn? Finally, does he agree that we in Wales need what Scotland was given this week—a report stating exactly where renewable energy will be produced in the country, in this case Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman asking me exactly the same question in the Welsh Grand Committee on 28 November. He will know that my response must be the same now—that it would not be proper for me to comment on the contents of the PIU report until it is published. I can tell him that there was no presumption either for or against nuclear power as a source of energy for our country, but he and other Members must now wait until the report is published. I have no doubt that the matters he has raised will be discussed fully then.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Dr. Hywel Francis: How many households in Wales have benefited from the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [20038]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Don Touhig): The Inland Revenue estimates that 76,000 families were receiving working families tax credit on 31 May 2001.
    Dr. Francis: In my constituency, 1,300 families benefit from the tax credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a

    821
    vital part of the Government's anti-child-poverty agenda? Does he also agree that the work of the Children's Society in Wales is also part of that agenda?
    Mr. Touhig: Indeed I do. The Government are committed to making work pay by improving incentives to help people move from benefit into work. I know that there was a debate in Westminster Hall about the Children's Society this morning, and I share some of the worries expressed by many Members about its decision to pull out of Wales.
    It is important to recognise the value of schemes such as the working families tax credit in moving people from benefit into work. According to the labour force survey results published today, Wales has accounted for well over half the job growth in the United Kingdom in the last quarter, and 14,000 more people are in work now than in the last quarter. Working families tax credit and similar measures are turning out to be a very good story for the people of Wales.
    Hywel Williams: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious lack of appropriate child care, particularly in very rural areas such as Caernarfon, despite the generous provision in the working families tax credit for child care? When he next meets his colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales, will he press for development of child care in very rural areas by means of the national child care strategy?
    Mr. Touhig: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. A total of 2,200 families benefit from the working families tax credit in his constituency. Throughout Wales, 38,000 lone parents have been helped into work. There is an element of the child care strategy attached to the working families tax credit, but I am aware from my constituency surgeries of the problems that he outlines. I shall raise that with colleagues in the Assembly when I next meet them.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Seventeen hundred hard-working families in my constituency have also benefited from the working families tax credit. Does my hon. Friend agree that working tax credits will build on the enormous success of the working families tax credit and get more people into work?
    Mr. Touhig: I do. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, when knocking on doors during the recent general election, I found lots of people who did not have children and could not benefit from the working families tax credit but who felt that they needed some help and support, too. The Government are committed to that. That is why we will have the working tax credit and child tax credit in place from 2003.
    Mr. Greg Knight: On behalf of Conservative Members, may I offer our condolences to Labour Members on the sad loss of Ray Powell? I knew him better than most in my party, in that we worked together for many years through the usual channels. We disagreed often but he was usually fun to work with and always kept his word. He will be sorely missed in all parts of the House.
    822
    Is not the most alarming thing about the working families tax credit the fact that it is costing employers approximately £100 million a year to pay it through the wage packet? How much of that burden is falling on employers based in Wales? Does the Minister accept that the scheme ignores the needs of those in training? How does he intend to deal with that?
    Mr. Touhig: I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about Ray Powell. I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have many stories to tell of their associations and work with Ray. He will be sadly missed, and is a great loss to the House and to his constituents.
    The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that his party was totally opposed to the working families tax credit, just as it was opposed to the introduction of the national minimum wage, the working tax credit and the child tax credit. We are putting those measures in place in order to make work pay. It is no good moving people from poverty in benefit to poverty in work. The working families tax credit and the other tax credits, coupled with the national minimum wage, mean that today a person working 35 hours a week in Wales will have a minimum income of £225. That is a good news story.

    Innovation and Enterprise
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with other ministers and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about steps to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales. [20039]
    The Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues in government and with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues, including innovation and enterprise.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent pre-Budget report announced a number of measures that build on existing programmes to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Those include the extension of research and development tax credits to all UK companies and support for small businesses, which will benefit many small and medium enterprises in Wales.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that there are many highly innovative medium businesses in the Rhondda, such as MFC Survival and Harwin's, but they are still based in outdated buildings, and they have terrible difficulties attracting finance for expansion. What further aid can the Government give to small businesses such as those, so that our small industries become medium industries and our medium industries become large industries that can beat the world?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because it is important for the House to understand that small and medium-sized businesses in Wales now form the backbone of the Welsh economy. Some 600,000 people work in Wales in 140,000 companies, some of which are based in my hon. Friend's constituency. The Assembly, together with the Welsh executive responsible for European matters, has instigated the joining together of Finance Wales and Barclays to

    823
    provide £40 million to develop Welsh firms. It is a partnership between the Government and the Assembly to help small and medium-sized firms in his constituency and in the rest of Wales. That partnership is working and that is why we have had news today that 14,000 more people are in work in Wales than in the early summer.
    Lembit Öpik: May I first add the Liberal Democrats' condolences to the friends and family of Ray Powell, whose memory will live on in our hearts?
    Did the Secretary of State note, in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, that the regional analysis showed that the gap between rich and poor is twice as bad in the UK as it is in the US and worse than in any other EU country? In order to stimulate the kind of growth that he described, would he lend his support to calls for a regional enhancement to the research and development tax credit, which could significantly help businesses to develop so as to close that gap in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Ray Powell, with which we all agree. The most important decision that the Government took on regional aid, which the National Assembly has implemented, was to obtain and fund objective 1 funding for two thirds of Wales. That is the means by which we can ensure that the gap between the wealthier and poorer areas of Wales shrinks. In addition, the Government indicated in the pre-Budget report that they would provide stamp duty relief for some 363 wards in Wales. We are also introducing a community investment tax credit that will deliver capital to disadvantaged communities. The aids that the Chancellor has introduced, together with objective 1 funding, are the answer to the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Dai Havard: My right hon. Friend will share my concern that Impress Metal Packaging in Rhymney is set to close, despite the efforts of the workers to keep it open. That will be a desperate blow to an area of high unemployment, but it is an illustration of a company in an oversubscribed market that could have done with some new product development. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that his efforts will continue, to ensure that all elements of the Government will co-operate with the National Assembly and its agencies to find new employment skills and opportunities for those affected by the closure?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on behalf of those people who work at Impress in his constituency. He will be aware that the National Assembly and the Government are introducing measures that should help those who will be made redundant—a decision that all of us regret—and that new jobs are coming to that part of Wales: to Tredegar with Desklink, and Ebbw Vale with Continental Teaves. He rightly makes the point that we must emphasise training, through ELWa—Education and Learning Wales—and other agencies in Wales, and I am grateful to him for introducing the subject in the House.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I wish to be associated with the remarks about Ray Powell. He represented
    824
    Ogmore and Wales over many years and he will be sadly missed, especially at Welsh questions. Our thoughts are with Marion and his family at this time.
    In the past three months, more than 2,000 manufacturing job losses have been announced in Wales, with Sony, Alcan, Corning and Alcoa among the well known names that have announced job cuts or closures. Why do not the Government care about manufacturing?
    Mr. Murphy: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Ray Powell; it is kind of him to make them on the Opposition's behalf. On the issue of manufacturing, the hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what I told the House some moments ago. Unemployment in Wales has fallen again, and we have 14,000 more jobs in Wales than we did back in the early summer. That is testimony to a Government who have produced a stable and strong economy, with inflation and interest rates at record low levels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that compares with the nearly 3 million jobs in manufacturing that disappeared over the 18 years the previous Conservative Government were in office.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the statistics regarding the different firms coming to Wales. He will know that many jobs are being created in the manufacturing sector. I mentioned Ebbw Vale, but the same is true of Tredegar, Pontardawe, Abertillery, Deeside, Llanelli and Swansea. Many jobs are being created in Wales as a direct consequence of the strong and stable economy in the United Kingdom, and in Wales itself.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State is clearly not listening either. He knows that there has been an increase in unemployment in the manufacturing sector, which is vital to Wales. The Confederation of British Industry regional trends survey reveals that investment intentions for buildings, plant and machinery for the next 12 months are extremely weak. Will the Secretary of State look again at the climate change levy, which loads extra costs on manufacturers? Will he also give an assurance today that Welsh businesses will not face a supplementary business tax?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will know that business rates are a matter for the National Assembly, which is discussing that and other issues with business in Wales.
    On the climate change levy, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales recently met representatives of the CBI and the Trades Union Congress to discuss the matter. However, despite what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has said, thousands and thousands of jobs are coming into Wales, and many are in the manufacturing sector or high-tech industries. That is news to be welcomed. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could the House come to order? It is far too noisy.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the universities form one of the engines

    825
    of enterprise and innovation in Wales? Will he therefore support the bid of the North East Wales Institute for university status?
    Mr. Murphy: I welcome the work that the North East Wales Institute has done to encourage enterprise and improve the economic life of north-east Wales and of north Wales as a whole. I am especially glad to have met recently the college's new principal, Professor Scott, and we await the institute's application for university status.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: When he plans to discuss the economy of the Dee estuary with the First Secretary. [20040]
    The Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Paul Murphy): I have discussed economic issues surrounding the Dee estuary strategy with the First Minister during our regular bilateral meetings.
    I have also contacted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on these issues. In addition, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Wales has discussed several areas of concern with Welsh Environment and Rural Affairs Ministers.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Deeside economy is, in effect, unitary? The gain or loss of jobs one side of the river affects the other side equally, as people cross the river in both directions to find work. Given that jobs have been lost at Corus but gained at Toyota, does my right hon. Friend consider that the post-devolution relationship between the Welsh Development Agency and the North West development agency is as close and integrated as it needs to be to tackle these problems?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend has raised this issue in the House on many occasions. He and I met recently to discuss the common purpose for industry and the environment on both sides of the Wales/England border. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I hope to visit the Dee estuary fairly soon in the new year, and I hope that he will join me. I agree that, economically, there is much to be gained through co-operation between the National Assembly and the Government.

    Foot and Mouth
    Mr. David Cameron: What discussions he has had with secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales about the impact of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [20042]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including the impact of foot and mouth disease. I also have regular discussions with the Welsh Agriculture Minister.
    826
    I welcome the recent news that Wales has now been classified as disease free. Farmers, Government and other stakeholders must now work together towards creating a viable long-term future for farming in Wales.
    Mr. Cameron: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Will he explain which of the many inquiries into foot and mouth—none of which are public—will look at how the devolved authorities in Wales handled the issue? In particular, which inquiry will consider whether devolution was a help or a hindrance?
    Mr. Touhig: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, three independent inquiries are considering the lessons to be learned from the problems caused by foot and mouth. Two of the three will apply to Wales and I have no doubt that his point will be covered in the reports.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that Wales is now free of foot and mouth. Does he agree that it is important to resume the exporting of meat, which is very important to farmers in Monmouthshire? Will he also speak to the Minister for Rural Affairs in the National Assembly to ensure that we have more abattoir facilities, especially in south-east Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I welcome the re-establishment of Welsh lamb and beef in the domestic and export markets. That is important, and the recent announcement means that we can start to export our produce again. Discussions are currently taking place between those with a wide range of interests in the matter, and I believe that we shall make progress before too long.
    I am aware of my hon. Friend's point about abattoirs. When I was recently in mid-Wales, I discussed with a number of producers the problems caused by not having enough abattoirs. I have also discussed the matter with my colleague, the Assembly Secretary responsible for agriculture. I have another bilateral set up with him in a week or so, and I will take up the issue further. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chamber is still far too noisy.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I associate myself and Plaid Cymru with the condolences expressed to the family of the late Sir Ray Powell.
    On the impact of foot and mouth on small and medium-sized businesses in tourism, will the Minister reconsider the amount of compensation directly available to those businesses? Will he also contact the Wales tourist board to hear whether it is satisfied with its current budget for advertising, which is important at this time of year to obtain next season's bookings?
    Mr. Touhig: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about our colleague, Ray Powell.
    I am aware of the problems faced by tourism in rural areas. I have travelled across north and mid-Wales several times in the past few months to meet people who run small hotels and other facilities. I understand the difficulties that they face. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Assembly announced a £65 million rural recovery package, which included £4.2 million for marketing and

    827
    the development of the tourism business. I have recently had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and he has advised me of a number of initiatives that the British tourist authority and the Wales tourist board will take to ensure that we recapture markets and get people to return to Wales for their holidays.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Graham Brady: What assessment he has made of the impact of levels of education and skills on the level of manufacturing employment in Wales. [20043]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Increasing skills is vital to raising productivity in all parts of Britain. The National Assembly has launched for consultation an action plan to increase the demand for skilled employment in Wales. This contains 50 positive proposals to improve skills and employment levels in Wales.
    Mr. Brady: Given the policies that have been set out to improve skills and education, why is the net rate of manufacturing job losses in Wales the highest it has been since 1983?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the point I made to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I referred to the 14,000 jobs that have come to Wales in the past few months. In addition to that, unemployment in Wales has dropped and there are many more jobs as a result of the partnership between the Government and the National Assembly. In the past 12 months, 7,500 manufacturing jobs have come to Wales—to Ebbw Vale, Abertillery, Llanelli. Deeside and Swansea.
    Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that Blaenau Gwent council has financially supported the conversion of a Victorian theatre into a high-tech training and skills centre for the arts and culture generally. He will also be aware that it has failed to receive supporting funding through objective 1. Is he aware that the cost of the conversion is equivalent to only half the yearly subsidy to the proposed new millennium arts centre in Cardiff bay?
    Mr. Murphy: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the theatre at Abertillery. He and I will be meeting later today to discuss those matters. In the first instance, I encourage his local authority to re-submit its application.

    Hill Farming
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the problems facing hill farming in Wales. [20044]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease has exacerbated an already difficult situation for Welsh hill farmers.
    828
    I therefore welcome the Assembly's strategy "Farming for the Future", which sets out a vision for the industry to achieve sustainability. I encourage farmers to work closely with the Assembly and other partners to ensure that the necessary changes are made to secure a good agricultural future for Wales.
    Miss McIntosh: The House will be aware of my general interest in hill farming in the whole of Great Britain. What possible future does the Minister see for hill farming in Wales against a background of reform in the European Union and the next round of negotiations in the World Trade Organisation?
    Mr. Touhig: There are a number of hill farmers in my constituency and I was talking to one of them this morning. He outlined some of the serious problems that he has faced and continues to face. He told me that what we must do above all else is to reinvigorate farmers and give them a new enthusiasm—young farmers in particular—so that they believe that they have a future. The Government, working in partnership with the National Assembly, will seek to achieve that. "Farming for the Future", the strategy to which I referred, will make a major contribution to that success.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before listing my engagements, may I say—I hope on behalf of all Members of the House—how sad we were to learn of the death of Sir Ray Powell? He was a great servant of the people of Ogmore, a champion of the valleys, a long-standing and loyal member of the Labour party, and an excellent Member of Parliament. I believe that he will be deeply missed on both sides of the House.
    In relation to my engagements, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Brooke: Is the Prime Minister aware of the financial difficulties experienced by the councils in my constituency when providing essential social services for the vulnerable—the young and the elderly? Does he agree that it is essential to provide adequate, good social care, along with better funding for the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I do agree with the hon. Lady. It is important that, in addition to the national health service being properly funded, social services are funded too. I know that the hon. Lady will agree that the settlement of—I think—6.7 per cent. for Dorset for the

    829
    next year is excellent, and it should allow that council to make greater provision for people in respect of social services.
    Linda Gilroy: Three months on from 11 September, will the Prime Minister share with the House his view on the outlook for fighting terrorism? In that regard, will he say what importance he attaches to the emergency legislation before the House this week?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of not letting the time that has elapsed since 11 September dim either our outrage at the events of 11 September or, indeed, the absolute certainty—shared on both sides of the House at the time—that it was right that we strengthen the law in order to make sure that we could deal with the dangers of terrorism in our country and elsewhere in the world. We have put forward those measures, on advice, because we genuinely believe them essential in order to fight terrorism properly. They are, in my view, necessary in order to diminish the risk of terrorist attack in this country and elsewhere, and I hope that—even at this stage—both sides of the House will support the measures and allow us to put them in place as soon as possible so that we can prosecute the war against terrorism successfully in this country as well as abroad.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in paying our respects to Sir Ray who was, as he said, a much-respected Member of the House? He was not always an easy Member—a tough Member and a tough opponent—but none the less a much-respected Member. Our condolences go from this side of the House to all his family.
    Last week, the Prime Minister said that he was committed to increasing spending on the health service to 8 per cent. of national income. Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was not a commitment but a policy. So, what is it? Is it a commitment? Will the Prime Minister confirm that?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, the Chancellor said exactly what I said. The fact is that it is, indeed, the policy of this Government to increase our spending on the national health service, and the figures will, of course, be set out in the comprehensive spending review. That is a manifesto commitment that we have made as well. Now, we are committed to increase public spending in the NHS—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would now tell us whether he is?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I think that the Prime Minister ought to talk more to his best friend, because his best friend does not think that that is a commitment, but if it is a commitment, perhaps he would now like to comment on this: the Chancellor said that the NHS was the most efficient form of health care available to this country—and he is nodding. If that is indeed the case and the Prime Minister achieves his 8 per cent., does he expect that the health service in this country will be at an equivalent standard to health services in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly. The very reason why we wish to increase health spending is to bring our health care system up to the best in Europe. That is precisely what we want to do, and that is the purpose of the money
    830
    that we are spending at the moment on more doctors and more nurses, on the new hospital programme, on cancer treatment and on cardiac treatment, and elsewhere. Of course, there are still big problems to overcome, but we believe that the combination of investment, plus reform, will work. Now, I repeat that we are in favour of spending that additional money in the national health service—is the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister therefore believes that he will achieve those standards. So perhaps he would like to comment on the fact that, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, more than 8 per cent. is already being spent, yet Scotland has the lowest survival rate of breast cancer and lung cancer of any major European country. In Wales, the number of people waiting for out-patient treatment has doubled and those waiting more than three months for treatment has quadrupled. In Northern Ireland, the Labour party's sister party, the SDLP said yesterday:
    "We spend a higher amount than the Irish Republic or anywhere in England. However, our waiting lists are far the worst of any UK region and are worsening all the time."
    Does that not show that his and his Chancellor's figure of 8 per cent. is vacuous and that he made it up as he went along, and does it not show that, because they have abandoned health service reform, it is not just about money? The reality is that he does not have a clue and he does not have a cure for the health service.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, it is true that the health service needs reform as well, which is precisely why we are reforming it by making sure, for example, that 75 per cent. of the budget will be devolved to the local primary care trusts. We are reforming it in the new contracts for doctors, nurses and consultants. We are reforming it in the new system of inspection and accountability, and in the national service frameworks, but, of course, it also needs money. That is absolutely true, and we know from the right hon. Gentleman's article in The Daily Telegraph that putting money into the
    "NHS is like pouring water into a colander."
    Let me come to the right hon. Gentleman's own health authority for a moment, and say what that money has done there. If he says that it is all wasted, let me tell the House what has happened in his own health authority: a 25 per cent. reduction in in-patient waiting lists; £1.8 million to modernise the accident and emergency wards at Whipps Cross and King George; £1.8 million to expand critical care services; £205,000 so that local hospitals can introduce booked-admissions systems; and £149,000 earmarked funding for heart disease services. Now, all that money has improved health care services in his own health authority. What part of that money does he think is like pouring water into a colander? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in condemning the recent escalation of violence on both sides in the middle east. What diplomatic pressure is the United Kingdom Government putting on the Israeli Government to return to the peace process, to de-escalate the cycle of terror in the region?
    The Prime Minister: What is important is that pressure is put on both sides to return to the peace process. There is

    831
    a very dangerous situation in the middle east in which Israel is faced with suicide bomb attacks against its citizens, which is an outrage and must cease, and the Palestinian Authority and people within its area are obviously living in very difficult conditions.
    My view remains that the initial security steps have to be taken as soon as possible, and then the peace process has to be relaunched, based on two points of principle: the first is Israel's existence, secure and confident in its own borders, and accepted by the whole of the Arab world, and the second is the need for a viable Palestinian state. If people accepted those two fixed points of principle, we would have a chance of getting a peace process that worked. That is not only in the interests of the outside world; it is most profoundly in the interests of the citizens of Israel and the people living within the Palestinian Authority area.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I fully associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the appropriate expressions of condolence which have been extended, by all parties now, to the family of the late Sir Ray Powell? I reassure the House that if ever there was a case of cash for questions, I should be sending an invoice to the leader of the Conservative party.
    In view of the shocking news this morning about 30,000 proposed job losses for postal workers over the next 18 months, and the revelation that the unions say they were not consulted and had no advance warning, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government were consulted, and if so, what view did they take?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the company and the unions. We gave the commercial freedom to the Post Office that people wished for. The Post Office faces an extremely challenging and difficult time, and of course I would regret any job losses in the postal sector. However, it is important that the matter is dealt with by the company and the unions, taking account of the fact that there will need to be big changes in postal services over the next few years.
    Mr. Kennedy: There will be rightful dismay in the country that 30,000 job losses are not considered a matter even for consultation with the Government. That is unbelievable. What assurances can the Prime Minister give in light of those tens of thousands of job losses that postal services will be maintained, in rural as well as urban Britain, on an equitable and equal basis into the future?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is our responsibility to make sure that postal services are maintained in the rural parts of the country, and that is precisely what we will do. I did not say that the Government did not regret any job losses in the industry; I said specifically that we do. However, I also said that the Post Office faces very challenging times, and these are matters to be worked out between the company and the unions.
    If the position of the Liberal Democrats is that they would intervene, say that there should be no job losses and give an undertaking that they would give whatever amounts of public money were necessary to achieve that,
    832
    I would be interested to hear that from them, but I doubt it very much. If I may say so, it is a classic example of what someone once said about the Liberal Democrats:
    "It is easy for the third party in British politics to make promises which they know they will never be in Government to implement and be responsible for."
    That was one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden).
    Ms Claire Ward: I welcome the Government's decision to extend the pub and club licensing hours over the new year, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in those very pubs and clubs many women will become victims of the date-rape drug, GHB? May I encourage support for the police campaign to make sure that people are aware of the potential for drinks to be spiked? Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Home Secretary the need to ban the drug at the earliest opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right—she makes a very good point. The Government have accepted a recommendation made by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that GHB be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and we strongly support the police campaign. She is right to draw attention to the dangers: we are working in conjunction with the police to draw public attention to those dangers and to protect the public from them.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Following today's further extraordinary and damning suggestions, does the Prime Minister retain full confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths)?
    The Prime Minister: I do, yes. Any allegations made should be investigated by the appropriate authorities; they are being investigated and I believe that those authorities will make their decisions shortly.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: I warmly welcome the additional extended cost of living allowances awarded last week to nurses in Harlow and throughout Essex; they will make a real difference to recruitment and retention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to continue to get such improvements, we need extra public investment? In that respect, will he reject out of hand the views of those who advocate private health insurance? Is that not the system used in America, where 40 million people are denied access to the hospitals they need? Does not the Conservatives' support for such a system demonstrate more clearly than anything else that they have learned nothing from two crushing general election defeats?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Although problems persist in the recruitment of nurses, consultants and doctors, over the past few years more than 20,000 extra nurses have been recruited to the national health service, as well as almost 7,000 doctors and consultants. It is important that we keep the programme going. The reason that we are able to attract more nurses

    833
    is the financial help we are giving. The scheme to which he refers has been extended to north and south Essex, and it is extremely important that we take such measures.
    The problem with the Conservatives' proposals is that simply putting money into private medical insurance is not an answer—people are already entitled to take out private medical insurance. What the Conservatives really want is to force people to take out such insurance, which will result in many people not getting the treatment they need.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether train delays due to track and signals failures have gone up or down since he pushed Railtrack into administration?
    The Prime Minister: My understanding is that figures will be published within the next few days, but those figures are for April to October and so cover only a small part of the period since the company went into administration. The figures for October onwards will be published early next year. However, as I understand it the problems with train delays began in September, before the company went into administration.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The reality is that all the figures from the companies and Railtrack show that train delays have jumped by 45 per cent. since the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions put the company into administration. The Prime Minister mentions one set of figures, but is it not a fact that the Government have decided not to publish any figures during the winter months but to wait until spring next year? Is his Transport Secretary looking for another good place to bury bad news?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not the case. The reason the company had to go into administration is that it simply could not carry on as it had been, asking for billions of pounds in public subsidy and not providing a decent service to rail users. It is right that the company goes into administration, that it is sorted out and put on a new basis for the future that will allow it, in time, to deliver a better service to rail users. The idea that the problem of the railways started with administration is false: the problem started with probably the most botched privatisation in the history of privatisations.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: There he goes again—more blame for everyone else—the same old story. The Prime Minister spent six months with his Transport Secretary finding ways to take over the railways and he has done it. Only a few weeks ago, he was blaming Railtrack's management, saying that the process would cut the expenditure that they were wasting, yet he is now to spend £1 million on a chief executive for Railtrack, having only just got rid of the last one for a third of a million pounds. It is absolutely ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman will get no more investment because none of the private companies will invest any money in his railways, which his Deputy Prime Minister botched up along with his Transport Secretary.
    834
    Is it not the truth that the Prime Minister and his Deputy Prime Minister clearly wanted a train set for Christmas? Now they have one they cannot run it. The reality for the public is that there will be delays, cancellations and a winter of discontent.
    The Prime Minister: Again, I have gently to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the problems—I think that most people accept this—with the railways were twofold. First, there was under-investment over a long period. Secondly, rail privatisation ended up with a fragmented system that was unsustainable.
    When we put Railtrack into administration, it was literally asking us—with great respect, this is the point that the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with—for billions of pounds of extra public money. We believe that that system could not continue. We must ensure that public money that is put into the railways goes to improve the railways. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the salary of the new chief executive. The biggest difference between us on the funding of the railways is that the right hon. Gentleman has given a commitment that if he were in office he would be bailing out all the Railtrack shareholders. That would mean £1 billion paid out to them, but not to improve the railways.
    With the greatest respect, the right hon. Gentleman and his party were the people who started the problems in the railways as a result of privatisation. It will need time and investment to sort them out. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that no one believes that the Conservative party would do it.

    Falkirk Wheel
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Whether he intends to visit the Falkirk wheel.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so—my apologies. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear about the Falkirk wheel.
    The Prime Minister: I have now found the right place, Mr. Speaker.
    I understand that this innovative project in Falkirk will be officially opened next year by Her Majesty the Queen. However, at present I have no immediate plans to visit it.
    Mr. Joyce: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the project? Does he recognise that the full economic benefit of it will be felt in central Scotland only if the related agencies that are helping British Waterways identify ways of generating real jobs along the canal and at the wheel site over the coming years?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the partnership between the public and private sectors, the millennium link will improve enormously the quality of services in the local area. More than that—my hon. Friend is right—it will bring jobs into the area as well. That is yet another example of how, with some help with money from the public sector or the lottery, plus the involvement of the private sector, we can provide jobs and decent investment for the future.

    Engagements
    Mr. Colin Breed: Does the Prime Minister consider it fairer to raise national insurance contributions or to increase income tax properly to fund the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: Decisions on how to fund the NHS will be made in the Budget, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have commitments not to raise the basic or higher rates of income tax. I know that that is not the view of the Liberal Democrats, who want a top rate of tax of, I think, 50 per cent. I believe that the money that we have put into the NHS over the past few years exceeds enormously any sum that was ever asked for by the Liberal Democrats. We can always be sure that no matter how much money we put in, no matter how generous my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is and no matter what the comprehensive spending review delivers for the health service, one group of people—the Liberal Democrats—will tell us that it is not enough.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend will have seen the chief medical officer's report on the dangers of alcohol misuse and the increased incidence of death from cirrhosis. While, of course, substantial sums have been invested in practical measures on preventive health care, does that not highlight the need for a widespread public awareness campaign on the dangers of alcohol misuse, especially in relation to binge drinking and young people?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the dangers of substance abuse are not limited to drugs. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem and it is for that reason that the Government are increasing substantially the amount of money going into education and awareness, particularly among young people, of the dangers, not merely of drug abuse but alcohol abuse as well. I therefore entirely support what he said.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This weekend, the Prime Minister will sign up to the European arrest warrant at the European summit. Is he aware that the final proposals have not been debated by the House because the English text was not available to the Select Committee on European Scrutiny this week? Is he aware that under the text as reported, a British citizen can be deported to another EU state for an offence that is not a crime in this country; that the normal protections against wrongful arrest will be denied him or her; and that, once deported, they can face charges in the receiving state of any other nature whatsoever?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that it is being debated. Of course, there will be many opportunities to debate it. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] There will be many opportunities, not least in the Extradition Bill. So there will be many opportunities to debate that. On the substance of the issue, however, I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is manifestly in this country's interest to have a fast-track procedure for extraditing people to this country from other European countries. Of course, we already have a European convention on extradition, but this will simplify the
    836
    procedure enormously and it is in our interests. At the moment, some extradition cases allow organised criminals in particular to get away with stringing out proceedings for long periods. I may be wrong, but I regret to say that there is one problem with the proposal for a large part of the Conservative party; it has got the word "Europe" in it.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British Harry Potter movie has now broken all box office records in the United Kingdom and the United States? Does he agree that the renaissance of the British film industry is a great compliment, both to those who work in it and to his cultural and fiscal policy since coming to office?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell my right hon. Friend that no one has done more to promote the interests of the British film industry than he has, over a long period. Partly as a result of his work, the Chancellor introduced fiscal measures that have released about £100 million for the British film industry. One reason for it being a success story today is the policies that we have pursued, which he did so much to promote.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Prime Minister, your Government's local government White Paper announces the intention to remove the municipal trading ban on local authorities. Can the right hon. Gentleman justify that to the many small businesses of this country that pay taxes, business rates and VAT and will find themselves competing against local authority units that do not pay taxes—in fact, they are assisted by taxes paid—and will not pay business rates, will not have to make a profit and will have their overheads covered by local authorities?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If better value for money is given by public authorities, it should be open to local authorities to contract with them. Just as I disagree with the idea of private—bad; public—good, I disagree with the position that I think the hon. Gentleman takes: public—bad; private—good. It is sensible to make sure that local authorities have the power to get the best deal for the people in their area.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the NHS in Hendon, where unfortunately waiting lists for hospital treatment still remain too long, in part because of the under- performance of Barnet general hospital. I welcome the increase of more than 10 per cent. in health spending for our health authority, which has just been announced for next year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the necessary resources will be directed towards addressing the shortcomings at Barnet hospital and continuing the build-up of services at Edgware community hospital, which was closed by the Tories and re-opened under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that waiting lists still remain too high. Although waiting lists are down in his area, there are still people waiting too long. As a result of the extra money, we are able to reduce waiting lists. We can do more as that extra investment goes in, matched by reform. It is now true that about 70 per cent. of those who get their operation on the NHS get it within three months. There are still far too many

    837
    people waiting longer than that, but over time, we will get that investment in, matched by reform. My hon. Friend is right that the central difficulty for the Conservative party, and the difference between us, is that we believe in that money going in, and they would take it out.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The Prime Minister's reforms to the ministerial code are very welcome. Important policy issues should be announced and debated in the House. Does he accept that that reform, and those proposed by the Leader of the House, would do little to tackle the deeply held cynicism of many voters about politics and politicians? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the root of the problem lies with us all in the House, including the Prime Minister, and that, instead of for ever changing the structure of Parliament, what we need is more forensic questioning and fuller answers, less point scoring—[Interruption.] and fewer bogus statistics and ritual rants against the last Conservative Government? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are over-running now.
    The Prime Minister: I agree that we need more forensic questioning. To deal with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, it is important to recognise that cynicism about politics does not help any party in the House. Even though there are huge disagreements over, for example, the future of the national health service, if the public were able to see the genuine debate going on between those with different views about the NHS, or between those with different views on, for example, the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, or on tax and spending, and if there were greater concentration on those debates and people were able to see them happening, they would realise that despite much of what passes for news about what happens in politics, in fact political debate is alive and thriving, and long may it continue to do so. Yes, it is the responsibility of Government and Government Back Benchers to promote that; it is also the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and his side.

Points of Order
3.33 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: Reference has already been made this afternoon to the fact that during a Select Committee hearing yesterday, the chief executive of Consignia announced that the Post Office intends to make up to 30,000 redundancies—twice the number that was being reported just a few weeks ago, news that comes at the worst conceivable time of year. Given that the Post Office remains wholly owned in the public sector and that Ministers have overall responsibility, have you received any indication that a Minister intends to come to the Chamber to make a statement about this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication, but I consider the matter extremely important. I hope that a Minister will come at some stage to make a statement.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification about today's business. I refer you to the Order Paper, where it is clear that there is an Adjournment debate on international terrorism. The front page of the Order Paper correctly points out that that debate can proceed until 10 pm. I now refer you to the programme motion that has been tabled by the Government in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. You will see that the knives for that motion fall first at 8.15 pm, in respect of amendments to parts 3, 10, 11 and 13 of the Bill, and that there is a further knife at 9.30 pm concerning amendments to part 4.
Clearly, that is a huge abuse of the House by the Government. It is very probable that the Adjournment debate will continue until 10 pm and that there will be absolutely no debate and possibly no vote on important amendments to an important Bill that is in dispute in the House. I believe that the House has been very shabbily treated. It looks to you for advice and guidance.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that we drew to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that that problem could easily result from taking business on which there would be no vote—the Adjournment motion—before matters that should be put to a vote in the House? May I also remind you that, if we had been successful in those representations, the votes would have occurred in prime time and in the full glare of publicity? Instead, the debate has been tucked away in the middle of the night. Will you use your good offices to ensure that the House is given a proper opportunity to debate what are extremely important issues?
Mr. Speaker: Responsibility for the Order Paper and its shape lies with the Government and not with me. It is within the rules of the House to lay out the Order Paper in that way. What I am obliged to do as a servant of the House is to make my way through the Order Paper. That is the only advice that I can give to hon. Members at this stage.

Food Poverty (Eradication)
3.36 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes.
The origins of the Bill are to be found in the Rowntree report of 1999, which drew the attention of the House and the country to the stark reality that there are 4 million people in Britain at the moment who do not have access to a healthy diet. The reasons for that are complex. They include a combination of inadequate income, insufficient access to safe and fresh food and misinformation about nutritional standards. However, the outcomes of that misunderstanding and lethal cocktail are equally stark. In each of our constituencies, up to 5,000 people are malnourished. Those people account for four in 10 hospital admissions. One in 10 of those who are admitted are caught in what is referred to as a malnutrition carousel, in which they make their way back and forth between the national health service and home, unable to sustain themselves on a healthy diet in order to get well and stay well.
The question is what we should do. It is clearly unacceptable for the House or the country to have a strategy that does nothing, and it is not the position of the Government to tolerate that view either. We already have a commitment as a Government to a strategy that will eliminate child poverty. As a Parliament, we have committed ourselves to a 15-year strategy that will eradicate fuel poverty. I believe that the Bill will complete the anti-poverty strategy, so that we have a coherent and comprehensive picture to address.
The Bill is simple and comprises two basic elements. First, it places a duty on the Secretary of State to present to the House a strategy for the elimination of food poverty. Secondly, its implementation mechanism would require local government to set up its own local food authorities, which would be expected, first, to conduct an audit of food poverty as it emerges in their area; secondly, to develop a strategy for eliminating food poverty; and, thirdly, to construct local partnerships to provide the mechanisms for the strategy and for eliminating a national scandal.
Clearly, Parliament and the Government have a duty to set out the framework for such a strategy, but the delivery mechanism must be local. It will draw on the diverse, dynamic and locality-based ideas in local communities and local government. It will go down several different paths, which I do not wish to prescribe. We may choose to try to follow the lead of the Women's Institute, which, in its sweet way, is almost the Khmer Rouge of the safe food campaign. It establishes local food markets around the country, and sets standards for food freshness and food accountability that the rest of us would do well to follow.
We may choose to support and extend the burgeoning growth of farmers' markets, which involve local food production and accountability. We may choose to fund food co-operatives that are currently supported by several health authorities around the country. Whatever collection of ideas we pursue, we will have to consider incentives for dealing with places in almost all our cities and communities that have become food deserts where one cannot find fresh food outlets that are accessible to the food poor.

841
I am tempted to suggest that, rather than offering discounts to supermarkets for zero ratings on their car parks, we should explore the possibility of allowing local authorities to offer 50 per cent. business rate reductions to food outlets where the food has been produced within 50 miles of the urban locality.
There are a myriad possibilities for tackling the scandal of food poverty that continues to blight the social landscape of this country. We may invite the local food authorities that local authorities establish to negotiate safe food contracts between the hinterland of food producers in the agricultural communities that surround urban outlets and the urban concentrations of food consumers.
More than a century ago, local government greatly transformed the quality of life of working people by setting standards for sanitation and food hygiene. They genuinely improved the life and health of working people throughout the land. We now need a different vision that revisits the issue and applies to the challenges of the 21st century.
Throughout the country, swathes of the public are establishing their agendas for food safety, food accountability, food security and food sustainability. The challenge to Parliament is whether we can catch up with the public. One of the exciting aspects of the food justice campaign that the Bill launches is that it crosses party boundaries. In many respects, the formal party political agenda has failed to grasp a political challenge that the public have set for Parliament and every party that is represented in it.
I doubt whether the Bill will make its way into law in this Parliament, but I am certain that, as with the warm homes campaign to end fuel poverty, in five years' time, the House will pass primary legislation to eliminate food poverty from Britain. I am therefore proud to present the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Drew, Tom Brake, Dr. Howard Stoate, Peter Bottomley, Ms Diane Abbott, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. David Chaytor.

FOOD POVERTY (ERADICATION)
Mr. Alan Simpson accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy for abolishing food poverty; to require the setting of targets for the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 69].

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (Programme No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 19th November:

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill (Programme No. 3)

  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at midnight.
  (2) Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

  Lords amendments

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Amendments to Parts 3, 10, 11 and 13

  8.15 p.m.

  Amendments to Part 4

  9.30 p.m.

  Amendments to Part 5

  10.45 p.m.

  Amendments to Part 14

  11.30 p.m.

  Remaining amendments

  midnight

  Subsequent stages
  2.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement—[Mr. Ainger.]
  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 195.

  Division No. 106]

  [3.46 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cawsey, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Challen, Colin

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Baird, Vera

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cox, Tom

  Blackman, Liz

  Cranston, Ross

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  (Copeland)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Daisley, Paul

  (Dunfermline E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  David, Wayne

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burnham, Andy

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Cairns, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Casale, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim

  843

  Drew, David

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Luke, Iain

  Foulkes, George

  Lyons, John

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McKechin, Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mole, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Moran, Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Julie

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Organ, Diana

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Owen, Albert

  Jamieson, David

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Pond, Chris

  Joyce, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Purnell, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rammell, Bill

  844

  Rapson, Syd

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, John

  Tami, Mark

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Todd, Mark

  Ryan, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Truswell, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Tynan, Bill

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Simon, Siôn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  (Swansea W)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Phil Willis.

  Stringer, Graham

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Amess, David

  (NE Fife)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chidgey, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Collins, Tim

  Baron, John

  Conway, Derek

  Barrett, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beggs, Roy

  Cotter, Brian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Doughty, Sue

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnett, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Burstow, Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Burt, Alistair

  Flook, Adrian

  Butterfill, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Francois, Mark

  Cameron, David

  Gale, Roger

  845

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gibb, Nick

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Page, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Paice, James

  Gray, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Grayling, Chris

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Price, Adam

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Prisk, Mark

  Greenway, John

  Pugh, Dr John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Rendel, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hancock, Mike

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hayes, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Salmond, Alex

  Hendry, Charles

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hermon, Lady

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hoban, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spink, Bob

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Keetch, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Stunell, Andrew

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Key, Robert

  Swire, Hugo

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lamb, Norman

  Thurso, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tredinnick, David

  Laws, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh Edward

  Tyler, Paul

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Viggers, Peter

  Lidington, David

  Walter, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Webb, Steve

  Luff, Peter

  Weir, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Whittingdale, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willetts, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Mates, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Wishart, Pete

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oaten, Mark

  Tom Brake and Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  International Terrorism
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  3.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(Mr. Jack Straw): First, let me apologise for not being able to be present for the winding-up speeches. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I shall be attending and reading a lesson at the parliamentary carol service in St Margaret's Westminster at that time.
  Yesterday United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I led a simple ceremony in Downing street in memory of those who lost their lives on 11 September. At 1.46 pm Greenwich mean time, 8.46 am eastern standard time, we stood in silence to mark the moment three months earlier when the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Centre in New York. Then a brass band from the American school in London played both our national anthems.
  Immediately afterwards I remarked to William Farish, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, that the ceremony had been a striking combination of sorrow and hope—sad, yet uplifting at the same time. There were sadness and grief at the terrible loss of life on 11 September, and hope because of what has been achieved since then and what can now realistically be achieved in the future—hope that springs from recognition that the military action has worked and, above all, recognition that in turn it has liberated the spirit and the future of the Afghan people, oppressed for so long by the totalitarian intolerance of the Taliban regime.
  The loss of nearly 4,000 lives on 11 September resulted from the decision of the al-Qaeda networks to launch those attacks. The loss of life in Afghanistan in the weeks that followed resulted from decisions of the Taliban regime to go on protecting the terrorists in defiance of the will of the international community. At each stage, faced with real choices, the al-Qaeda networks and the Taliban protecting them chose the path of evil and destruction.
  The United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the international coalition have faced their own choices. Following 11 September we could have chosen to do nothing and by our inaction invited further attacks. Instead we took the tough decision to embark on a military campaign. I respect the view of those who disagreed with that choice but I hope that they may in turn respect the fact that the choice of military action as part of an overall diplomatic and humanitarian strategy was right, and that the campaign on all its fronts—military, diplomatic and humanitarian—has been vindicated by events.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will in a second.
  The military coalition is well on the way to achieving the objectives of the campaign. The Taliban protectors of the terrorist networks have been driven out of Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat and now even Kandahar. The al-Qaeda training camps have been destroyed. The Taliban regime became a major obstacle to getting humanitarian

  847
  relief through. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Foreign Secretary able to give an estimate of the number of casualties in the military campaign in Afghanistan? What measures does he propose be undertaken to investigate the many human rights abuses on all sides in Afghanistan, in particular the execution of a large number of prisoners when the Northern Alliance took one of the Taliban divisions hostage?
  Mr. Straw: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to say, in the spirit of mutual respect, that he recognised that some of his predictions, which he made with such certainty in the autumn, had not turned out to be correct. I look forward to that. We all have to learn lessons from what has happened.
  I am happy to put this on the record. I believe that the military action was right but I did not believe that it would be over as quickly as it has been and with such relatively small loss of life. In time, casualty figures will emerge and we will put them on the record, but my hon. Friend has to face the fact that, had the military action not taken place, the Taliban would have maintained their stranglehold on Afghanistan, with the most outrageous and appalling abuse of civil and human rights we have ever seen.
  So far we have seen no evidence—again, my hon. Friend speaks with a certainty that I do not find is possible in these circumstances—of executions of the type that he has described. When I was asked about that on the radio on 30 November, I said that if different evidence emerged we would consider it. We always abide by our obligations in international law.
  David Winnick: Of course human rights should always be respected and one hopes that they will be, but does my right hon. Friend recall one or two people here and elsewhere saying that if military action were taken, the whole Islamic world would rise against us? That does not seem to have happened. Have we not seen evidence with our own eyes on television that a large majority of people in Afghanistan welcome the liberation from clerical fascism and totalitarianism? This has been one of the most justified military actions since 1945.
  Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view entirely. The record speaks for itself. I am not going to be disobliging. As I say, I respect those who took a different view, but I hope that out of respect for the House they will look at the record of what they said and think about whether the certainty that they showed—for example, they said that the whole of the Islamic world would be up in arms—was correct.
  Sir Michael Spicer: In view of what the Foreign Secretary is saying, does he support the American policy of fighting terrorism around the world wherever it exists?
  Mr. Straw: That is a simplification of the American policy. I certainly support the policy of the United Nations of pursuing terrorism by all appropriate means, wherever it is, and I shall come to that matter in due course.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: This is a short debate and I apologise if I do not take all the interventions that I normally would.
  848
  People also raised the issue of whether people would starve in Afghanistan if the military action went ahead. Well, since 11 September, the World Food Programme has brought 70,000 tonnes of food into the country. Never at any point did the humanitarian effort falter. At present, the aid agencies and the international community are getting four times as much food into Afghanistan each day as they were at the beginning of October.
  On the diplomatic front, we saw last week perhaps the most astonishing success of all. Exceeding all expectations, the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, some of whom have fought each other at different times in the last 20 years, sat down together in Bonn and thrashed out an agreement which puts Afghanistan back on the path to peace. In recording that, I wish to express my gratitude to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and to his Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi's patience, insight and skill were a critical factor in bringing the negotiations to that remarkable conclusion. I also pay tribute to the Afghan participants. I am also glad that we in the UK were able to play an active part in the process, through diplomats Robert Cooper, Paul Bergne, Stephen Evans, Andrew Tesoriere and many others, and through the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself.
  Many of us expected that the next step after Bonn would be for the talks to reconvene in Kabul. Instead, it is an interim Afghan authority that will convene in Kabul on 22 December. The new Administration will include three women: a clear sign that the new Afghanistan is different from life under the Taliban. Like everything else in the agreement, that is the beginning of a process of returning Afghanistan to normality. Those who take the view that we should not have embarked on the military strategy, in the context of the overall strategy, need to reflect on the fact that had it not taken place women, in particular, would have continued to be oppressed in what was a benighted country.
  Mr. George Galloway: Is not my right hon. Friend's triumphalism a little premature, if not provocative? After all, the vindication he speaks of will be seen only if we are less likely in the future to be attacked by violent terrorists than before the action began. At the very least, it is too soon to say that that is true, given that—according to General Powell—al—Qaeda are in 50 countries around the world, not all in Tora Bora being bombed. On the subject of the Muslim world, will my right hon. Friend accept that more people hate us more intensely today than they did before we embarked on that military action?
  Mr. Straw: On the second point, I emphatically disagree with my hon. Friend. That is not the message that I receive from my Muslim friends, of whom I have many in this country and abroad. On his first point, I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would not be a bad idea if he examined the beam in his own eye before he started trying to pick out the mote in mine. If he wants an example of a speech that was not correct, he should perhaps examine what he told the House a few weeks ago. He said:
  "Why do I say that the war is going so badly?"

  849
  He explained why and then continued:
  "the course of action on which we are embarked and in which I predict we will still be involved—perhaps next year at this time—with casualties beyond imagination risks becoming the very third world war that the bin Laden fanatics set out to achieve with their attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September."—[Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1113–4.]
  Mr. Galloway rose—
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend can make his own speech in his own time, but I wish to make progress. His earlier speech is on the record.
  The House can be proud of this country's role in the liberation of the Afghan people, and we can be especially proud of the courage of our troops at Bagram airfield in securing the air base and making it safe for the United Nations and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. Not least, our deployment at Bagram has made it possible for delegates to fly to the talks in Bonn, and we were the first country to establish a diplomatic presence in Kabul.
  Alongside that, however, there has always been the imperative on the international community to deliver a second liberation to free the Afghan people from the other scourges that have beset them for decades—fear, hunger, poverty and war.
  There are several immediate and urgent tasks. First, there is the need to ensure that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are completely eliminated. Secondly, there is the immediate humanitarian emergency. Thirdly, there is the issue of the multinational force requested by the parties at Bonn to provide security in Kabul and the surrounding areas for the nascent political community, and for the institutions of that fledgling state.
  We have always said that we stand ready to provide troops. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we have indicated, in principle, a willingness to play a leading role in any UN mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan. No formal decisions have yet been taken.
  These are merely the most pressing needs of the new Afghan state, but there are many other problems that cannot be resolved quickly. The country has known little but war, bloodshed and chaos for a generation. A quarter of all children do not make it to their fifth birthday, a third are orphans, and half are malnourished. The international community has let Afghanistan down in the past. We are not going to turn our backs on the Afghan people again.
  The Bonn agreement set out a route map to a better future. We have to ensure that all the parties involved stay on the route and follow the map. There will be an emergency Loya Jirgah within six months, from which a broad-based traditional administration will emerge. Eighteen months after that, there will be a full Loya Jirgah to agree a new constitution, under which free and fair elections will be held for a fully representative government.
  We must also ensure that donor countries provide good measures of support, and that the tangible support that is provided is conditional on progress being made in Afghanistan.
  The Afghan Support Group, which brings together all the major donors, has met in Berlin to discuss practical ways of assisting the interim administration. Meetings of
  850
  donors and other interested parties in Brussels later this month, and next month in Tokyo, will lead to firm pledges of funds. We have to get reconstruction work under way quickly to produce an early peace dividend.
  I want to pay particular tribute to the central role that the United Nations has played since the beginning of this crisis. I spoke of the ceremony yesterday to mark the fact that three months had passed since the atrocities of 11 September. Today, it is exactly three months since the UN moved so rapidly into action by passing Security Council resolution 1368. Two weeks later, it passed resolution 1373, and further resolutions were passed when I attended the Security Council and the General Assembly between 10 and 14 November.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I want to make progress.
  Important as the military, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are to the fight against international terrorism, their successful completion alone will not remove the scourge of terrorism as a force in international affairs. We therefore have to do all that we can to promote peace. That includes fostering the middle east peace process, which represents the only way in which Palestinian grievances can be addressed, and Israel's security guaranteed.
  Forlorn though the hopes may be, we have to encourage both parties in that terrible conflict to go back, in appropriate circumstances, to the negotiating table.
  We also have to step up international measures to combat terrorism. We have to work for universal acceptance of the principle that violence directed against civilians for political ends is never justified. We do not condone acts of terrorism carried out under the guise of fighting for freedom. Although we are prepared to talk to states that do not endorse this principle, our scope for active co-operation with them is severely limited.
  We have to go on providing development and humanitarian assistance, and making the case for effective action to combat poverty, oppression, conflict, criminality and every malign force that excludes our fellow human beings from the benefits of a globalised world.
  We should not delude ourselves that the defeat of al-Qaeda and its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan spells the end of the international terrorist threat, or of the fight against it. We, the United States Administration and the international community have made it clear from the beginning that it will take a long time to remove the threat. However, we should take heart from the successes of the last few weeks.
  We have shown that the determined will of the international community can defeat the evil that seeks to destroy us and that destroyed the lives of so many people on 11 September. We have shown that action to enforce universal values is a powerful force for good. Alongside the physical rebuilding of Afghanistan, we have to encourage and, above all, work for, the spiritual regeneration of that country. We have shown that we have not forgotten 11 September, and we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Since the House last met to discuss the war on terrorism, much progress has been made and Conservative Members welcome the success that has been achieved in recent weeks. It is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition, with the United States at its head. It is only the beginning, however, and we must never lose sight of the fact that the fight to eradicate terrorism wherever it is to be found will be a long, hard and unrelenting one. That fight did not start in Afghanistan and it will not end there. We must never allow ourselves to be tempted into believing that once the Afghan phase is over, our job is done.
  In the House on 16 October, I outlined what I believed that our objectives should be. The first was to bring Osama bin Laden to book and to destroy his al-Qaeda organisation. The second was to enable the people of Afghanistan to regain their rights and to live in peace, not least by a determined effort to free them from the threat of famine that confronts so many of them. The third was the longer-term but equally essential aim of the eradication of international terrorism and the very real threats implicit in it. I believe that those objectives remain valid.
  Achieving those objectives was central to justifying the international involvement of the unique and remarkable international coalition that has been so successfully sustained. These "agile partnerships", as President Bush has described them, have proved very effective, as, indeed, has the flexible approach that the European Union has adopted to the crisis—a flexibility that Conservative Members warmly welcome and endorse.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman's third objective was the eradiation of international terrorism. Will he clarify whether that, in his view, means bombing countries other than Afghanistan? If it does not mean that, what does the eradication of international terrorism mean?
  Mr. Ancram: There would be many different ways in which we would seek to eradicate international terrorism, depending on the circumstances. It would be wrong to rule anything in or to rule anything out.
  I hope that the conversion to a flexible Europe that I mentioned will be sustained by the Foreign Secretary in the weeks ahead. It has also been a salutary experience to work with a coalition in which Russia has co-operated so effectively with the United States and Europe. I hope that we will be able to build on that growing understanding.
  Intrinsic to our prime objective was the early removal of the Taliban, which has almost been done now. Over the past few days, in their remaining erstwhile stronghold of Kandahar, the prospective surrender of the Taliban forces has been brokered by the man who is to be Afghanistan's interim Prime Minister, Hamid Karzai. Now the net is inexorably closing in on bin Laden and his al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. The latest reports suggest that the battle among the caves at Tora Bora is reaching a conclusion.
  The professionalism of our armed forces, American and British, working with and alongside the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, will help to ensure either that bin Laden is brought to justice or that justice is brought to
  852
  bin Laden. I salute the courage and skill of our service personnel who have been in one way or another involved in ensuring the effectiveness of this campaign.
  The Afghan phase of the battle against terrorism is not yet complete and there must be no let-up, no premature satisfaction and certainly no complacency until it is done. Nevertheless, the work of helping to establish a representative Government in Kabul must now be pursued with vigour. That second objective of which I spoke is urgent if the vacuum left by the collapse of the Taliban regime is not to be filled with further dissension and unrest.
  In Bonn last week, a major piece in the jigsaw of our second objective fell into place when the major Afghan factions agreed on a transitional Government to run the country. On 22 December, when the interim Government come in, Afghanistan will start on a new path. It is important that the agreement was made by the people of Afghanistan, for the people of Afghanistan. The Opposition welcome that progress and I, too, pay special tribute to Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations. We wish him success in his continuing diplomatic efforts.
  Understandably, there is now a tremendous sense of hope for the future, but Afghanistan has only just begun on the path towards exorcising the demons of its recent past. The next stage in that process is for the transitional Government to prove themselves genuinely representative of the whole of Afghanistan and resolute in ensuring that Afghanistan will never again be used as a haven for international terrorism.
  There has been some surprise and concern at the way that announcements have been made over the past few days about the further deployment of British troops in Afghanistan—I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give me his full attention at this point—through leaks in newspapers—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Defence suggests that there has been no announcement, but that is what I am complaining about.
  There have been leaks in newspapers, hints have been given—not least by the right hon. Gentleman—in television interviews, and announcements have been made in other countries. As Mr. Speaker made clear yesterday, the House should be told first, and should be told fully, what is intended. The result is that we have grave misgivings about what is being mooted. We need answers to many questions.
  Mr. Straw: I accept—as I have always done—the importance of making announcements to the House. However, in defence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself, the only occasions on which we have dealt with that matter have been when we explained to people that no decisions have been made, and so no announcement has been made. We have made a statement of the obvious, which I repeated in my speech: we stand ready in appropriate circumstances to take a leading role in that force, but no decisions have been made. That remains the case. Once the decisions have been taken, they will be made known to the House.
  Mr. Ancram: I hear what the Foreign Secretary says, but I read the front pages of all the national newspapers on Sunday and Monday. I also heard what the US Secretary of State said in Paris yesterday before he arrived in this country. I find it hard to accept that there has merely been a declaration in principle and that there is no intention behind it.

  853
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister was reported speaking, outside the House—again—of British troops being involved in, as the Foreign Secretary correctly quoted,
  "a UN mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan".
  We need to know precisely what that means. What would be the limits to the time and extent of any involvement? What would be the remit of any such engagement? In the past, we have expressed reservations about being involved in what has been described as "nation building", especially as we have been protagonists in the campaign so far. Do the Government still share our reservations about that?
  Patrick Mercer: Can some light be shed on the warning orders that are currently thrashing around in the joint rapid reaction force and the headquarters of 1 Armoured Division? Is that merely contingency planning?
  Mr. Ancram: As the Secretary of State for Defence has heard my hon. Friend's very valid question, I hope that he will be able to answer it at the end of the debate.
  I have further questions to which I hope to receive an answer. What would be the involvement of the United States in the United Nations mandated force? Who is envisaged as commanding the force? UN officials recently expressed the need to leave "a light footprint", but how would the Government define that? Can they assure the House that any involvement would be time-limited, would not lead to mission creep and would not suck our armed forces into a long-term policing role from which it would be difficult to extricate ourselves?
  I should also like the Government to enlarge on the speech made on Monday by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, in which he referred to the choices facing the country and the coalition in relation to the next phase. What were the national interests to which he alluded in contrast to altruism? What are the differences of emphasis between the United Kingdom and the United States at which he hinted? Do the Government think that the next phase involves a straight choice between continued involvement in Afghanistan or supporting the United States in the wider fight against terrorism? Or can we do both? What warning was he seeking to give when he talked about trapping
  "our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan in order to facilitate the political process"?
  Those crucial matters are clouded at the moment, and the House should be told.
  Mike Gapes: Am I right to conclude from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Conservative party is prepared to support only a very short, time-limited involvement of British forces and that if the situation in Afghanistan requires international involvement that includes our forces, which play a crucial role, and our country, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Conservative Members will not support such a commitment?
  Mr. Ancram: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's question that he is prepared to support an unlimited, untimed involvement. On behalf of the Opposition, I am
  854
  seeking to get some clarity into the suggestions, hints and inferences that have been made during the past few days, because the House deserves clarity on those issues.
  Hand in hand with the diplomatic and military efforts there has been a humanitarian aid effort of unrivalled scope and dedication. That has further justified our actions. Sir Michael was certainly right about the need to address the hearts and minds of the population, and there is more to be done in that regard.
  The World Food Programme has exceeded its target of 52,000 tonnes of food entering Afghanistan every month, but concern persists about reports by certain charities that food is not reaching the most vulnerable people. There are continued reports of aid convoys being looted, although security is said to be improving. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who would normally be in her place, is in Pakistan, visiting a land mine charity in Peshawar and attempting to discover whether food in Afghanistan is reaching those who need it, and we all look forward to hearing her report. On a positive note, Afghan refugees are slowly returning home. More than 120,000 refugees have returned to Afghanistan since November, and that is to be welcomed.
  The events of 11 September have shown that there is no weapon terrorists will not use and no life they are not prepared to take. If we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. President Bush understands that. He is right to say that this is a moment to "rise up and fight terror". His Administration—many of whose members I met in Washington last week—also understand that that is vital if we are to have security in future. Furthermore, they appreciate that they must act, and be seen to act, in an appropriate, calculated and responsible manner, and they have done that with great skill and determination. That is why they took such swift action to freeze the assets of groups supporting the Hamas terrorists who only recently took the lives of so many Israeli citizens.
  Indeed, the events of the past two weeks in Israel remind us that we still have a long way to go before the scourge of terrorism is eradicated. Fifteen people were killed in Israel by terrorism a week ago last Saturday. Twenty-five died because of terrorism the day after. What we were forced to accept from 11 September is that we cannot appease terror. The recent murders took place just as the American envoy, Anthony Zinni, was trying to negotiate a ceasefire. They have threatened stability in the region and in doing so played into bin Laden's hands.
  Of course, we look to Israel to exercise restraint and to return to the peace process and the talks table, but after recent events the pressure is especially on the Palestinians. On Monday, the European Union called on Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to close down the terrorist networks of Islamic Jihad and Hamas. EU Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels this week said that Mr. Arafat should also publicly call for an end to the Palestinian intifada against Israel, which has continued for more than a year. We on the Conservative Benches support that, and I believe that the Palestinian Authority cannot and should not renege on its obligations.
  David Winnick rose
  Mr. Ancram: I shall give way for the last time, because I want to make progress.
  David Winnick: I and many others deplored the terrible atrocities that occurred in Israel last week.

  855
  However, is it not the case that the terror organisations that the right hon. Gentleman named are not in favour of any negotiations, hence the tenor during the Israeli prime ministerial elections? Is it not vital that, at long last, Palestinians get the justice that has been denied them? Does he therefore accept the need for a viable Palestinian state to end the Israeli occupation that has been taking place since 1967? Israelis deserve justice certainly, but why not Palestinians as well?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is always a balance to be struck in the middle east between the need for a just settlement for the Palestinians and the security of the state of Israel, and that, in the end, that can only be negotiated. We know that George Mitchell made proposals for the resumption of talks, and I look to the implementation of their requirements so that talks can resume. That is urgently needed.
  The international campaign against terrorism must go far wider. We should no longer be prepared to tolerate Governments who themselves tolerate or sponsor terrorist activities. That goes for Afghanistan, but it must go too for other countries that we know, and can show, are involved in international terrorism. President Bush was right yesterday to set down a very clear and stark warning to such countries. When those states are unwilling to take effective action against terrorism, they must be prepared to face a determined response from the wider international community, and I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be at the forefront of that response.
  There are further clear phases of the campaign against international terrorism to be pursued once the immediate fight in Afghanistan is over. The next immediate phase must be the continued pursuit and eradication of al-Qaeda wherever it still flourishes. First, the terrorists must be pursued to wherever they have fled. They cannot be allowed to establish new bases and boltholes. Secondly, wherever there is the potential for them to establish a new command and control structure, under a new leadership, that must be nipped in the bud.
  Thirdly, where there are al-Qaeda cells independently capable of carrying out international terrorist acts, they must be ruthlessly hunted down and eradicated, as must any other terrorist organisations that can and might act as their surrogates. It would be a travesty to draw a line at Afghanistan, only to see the monster that is al-Qaeda regroup and re-establish itself. Let me make it clear that where there is evidence of such continuing terrorism, or the threat of it, Conservative Members will support whatever action is necessary to deal with it. But the fight against terrorism cannot end there either.
  We must look at those countries who themselves pose a terrorist threat—rogue states who not only sponsor and encourage terrorism but carry the threat themselves. The further phase must be to bring appropriate pressure to bear on them to end their terrorist threat. When President Bush says that there can be no further justification for the continuing Iraqi failure to abide by the Gulf war ceasefire obligations to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country to monitor its weapons of mass destruction, we support him. The evidence suggests that Iraq has used the three years since UNSCOM was banished to build up its arsenal.
  As President Bush again made clear yesterday, the threat that Iraq poses is not one to which a blind eye can be turned. To do so would be to entrench the threat and
  856
  merely to postpone the need to deal with it. Iraq, by whatever appropriate means, must be brought to mend its ways. It is to be hoped that the example of Afghanistan will bring helpful pressure to bear on Iraq, if only as an indication that the international community will no longer tolerate rogue Governments who cultivate international terrorism. There are many means by which pressure could be brought to bear. It is not necessary for the moment to speculate on what action would be appropriate or where, but it is necessary to demonstrate the resolve of the coalition to deal with terrorism or the threat of it, wherever it occurs. Again, where the evidence justifies it, we on these Benches will support whatever action is appropriate and necessary to close down that element of international terrorism. I hope and believe that the Government will do the same.
  I hope that today the Government will take the opportunity to restate their determination, in the words of the Prime Minister,
  "to take…what action we can against…terrorism in all its forms."—(Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 966.]
  I hope too that the Foreign Secretary will reiterate the remarks that he is reported to have made to the Select Committee on 5 December, when he confirmed that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a considerable threat to international security. He is reported as saying:
  "we are very concerned about Iraq's development of these weapons and believe action must be taken."
  To him I say that we support that view.
  Mr. Galloway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way again because I want to finish.
  This is a campaign that must be won. We must never forget that it is a campaign about peace and the threat that international terrorism poses to peace. The fight for peace and for freedom from terror can never be qualified or restrained. It cannot be pursued half-heartedly. That is why we Conservatives wholeheartedly support the fight and support the Government and the United States in their pursuit of it.
  As we in Britain know only too well, terrorism threatens us all. We have to pursue it relentlessly and without compromise wherever it occurs. We must not let up until the battle against it is won. The House should know that there is a long way to go, but we Conservatives are ready and prepared to see it through.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: First, I pay my respects to our colleague Sir Ray Powell, who died this weekend, and send my sympathies to his family. As one who knew Ray throughout my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, I have many happy memories and many stories to tell in after-dinner speeches for the rest of my life. I send my best wishes to his family.
  We all know where we were on 11 September. I was 30,000 ft up in the air flying into London Gatwick when the terrible atrocity occurred. As I walked off the flight, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who was returning with me from Gibraltar, tapped me on the shoulder and told me that he had just received a teletext

  857
  message that an aircraft had flown into the World Trade Centre. It was horrific news, but we thought that a terrible accident had occurred. However, as I walked into the airport lounge on my way to catch my connecting flight to Scotland, I saw the full horror of the events.
  That is something that lives with us all, and none of us can adequately describe it. I hear pundits, commentators and colleagues saying that we should never forget 11 September, but it is impossible for us to forget it. In my local constituency newsletter, I commented that life would never be the same after 11 September. I am sure that everyone agrees.
  Are we for war, or are we against war? Surely we are all against war. To every inch of my being, I am against war. I think that it was James Connolly who said that the working man is at both ends of the bayonet. That is the view of a pacifist and a great socialist, but he was speaking at a time when wars were fought on the battlefield; the war against international terrorism is one that no one could ever have contemplated. It will be difficult for us to come to terms with the horror of it.
  I have to say to many of my dear and good Friends who are opposed to the action that has been taken that, although I have regard for their genuine views, while disagreeing with them, only one thing would have been worse than taking action, and that is not taking action. We should reflect. We were worried that there would be a knee-jerk reaction from America, with military action being conducted unilaterally. We were all pleased—some of us were surprised—when the involvement and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister led to the forming of a coalition and an understanding of what we were facing. None of us understood the seriousness of the threat. The consequences of not defeating those who perpetrated such a terrible act are too horrific to contemplate.
  My constituency is in the west of Scotland. It is a rural area. There is not a large Muslim community—the Asian and Muslim community is about 5 per cent. or less of the entire community. Much has been said about Muslim communities. My experience in meeting, living with and representing Muslim families has been wonderful.
  I hear that there is a debate that stems from something that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is alleged to have said about teaching immigrant families English. There is nothing more wonderful than to be in the west of Scotland and to hear a Pakistani child speaking in broad Scots. Please believe me. That is perfect English in a broad Scots accent.
  We should not lecture Muslim families on how they should bring up their children. I have never met a more respectful, polite and conscientious group of people. That is my experience of Muslim communities, wherever I have met them. We should talk more about that. We have taken it for granted too often, and I should put that on record.
  There are issues with which I am not comfortable. None of us can say that we support 100 per cent. everything that has been happening. I have great concern about what is happening in the middle east. Israel has many friends in the House. They are on both sides of the Chamber, and they are vocal and supportive. I support the Palestinian cause for an independent state. Given our experience of
  858
  the past three months, we must not ignore the middle east and say that it has nothing to do with what happened on 11 September. The evil people who perpetrated that evil terrorism were using, are using and will continue to use the lack of a settlement in the middle east.
  David Winnick: That is an excuse.
  Mr. Hood: Of course it is an excuse, but it is not an excuse from our point of view. My hon. Friend and I and many other Members have argued for a peace settlement in the middle east, and it was once within our grasp.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his view that there will never be lasting peace in the middle east until both Israelis and Palestinians have their own separate states. However, is he not being unrealistic? Is not the objective of those who are carrying out the suicide bombings in Israel nothing less than the destruction of Israel?
  Mr. Hood: I concede that people are perpetrating evil acts of terrorism by becoming suicide bombers and, more importantly, encouraging others to become suicide bombers. However, they are extremists who feed off the sort of response that the Israelis have made. There is no way that I could even try to justify the Israeli Government's response. I can understand their anger and the need to protect themselves against terrorism, but one cannot defeat the evil of international terrorism with state terrorism. I tell Israel and the friends of Israel who want a middle east peace settlement that we should address that issue. We should tell Prime Minister Sharon that behaving like a state terrorist is not the answer to the problem; I say that as a supporter of the present international action.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the balance to the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is that Sharon is increasingly giving the impression that his intention is the destruction of the potential state of Palestine?
  Mr. Hood: That will never happen without war in the middle east. If we cannot get our minds round what happened on 11 September, believe me, a middle east war will be a lot worse. It is in everybody's interest, as well as in the interests of morality and social justice, to give the Palestinians their own state within their own lands and, along with that, to give the Israelis peace. We cannot criticise the evil of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to supposedly friendly countries that embrace state terrorism. It gives me no pleasure to tell the House that, sadly, what the Israelis are doing is wrong. How Mr. Peres can remain in that Cabinet is, frankly, beyond me.
  I was delighted to hear from the Home Secretary the statistic that four times as much humanitarian aid is now going in.
  Mr. Straw: I am the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Hood: I must apologise to my right hon. Friend; he has a new job.

  859
  I saw a television report today about young boys playing football in Kabul. Before the downfall of the Taliban. they could have been put in prison for wearing football shorts, let alone playing football. That says a lot about what is happening. We are seeing changes; we welcome the new interim Government that will be set up in Kabul, and we welcome the liberation of women, and their inclusion in the new Government. We should take the opportunity to get more humanitarian aid in to save the many millions of Afghans who need it.
  In conclusion, I hope that in our next debate on this subject we will have many more joys to discuss. Perhaps in two or three months' time the Government will be up and running, military action will have ended in Afghanistan, and there will be an end to the terror. I see that the Secretary of State for Defence, whose position I shall not get wrong, is on the Front Bench. It is my honest view—and history will tell—that the Prime Minister performed as great a service as anyone could have done in giving support to the American Government. I commend him for doing what he did when he did, and the way in which he did it. Hawks in the State Department now want to expand military action into parts of the Sudan and Iraq, but I caution against such an extension. We should argue that what we are doing to defeat international terrorism is moral and right, but we should not allow the hawks in the State Department to take us that step further, which would undermine our moral case.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I propose, so far as I can, to strain neither my voice nor the patience of the House in this short debate. I hope that those two objectives are mutually consistent.
  In the light of recent domestic political events, it would be right for me to restate once again Liberal Democrat support for Government policy since 11 September. Our support has never been slavish, as the Foreign Secretary knows, but I am satisfied now, as I was after 11 September, that action in Afghanistan is justified in law and is necessary for our protection. Like the Foreign Secretary, I could not have predicted that the action would be so successful so swiftly, or that a political framework would so quickly be put in place.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does that support extend to the Liberal Democrat's newest recruit, the hon. former Labour Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden)? If not, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the Liberal Democrat Whips succeeded, where the Labour Whips so signally failed, in keeping the hon. Gentleman quiet on the subject, as I do not see him in his place today?
  Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman has any pretensions to fly-fishing, he will have to learn to cast a rather more gentle line than that. Such decisions are far above my pay grade—I am a humble foot-soldier in the Liberal Democrat army. All I can say is that in my father's house there are many mansions.
  More seriously, may I sound a note of caution? As our American friends say, it's not over till it's over. There may yet be substantial loss of life in Afghanistan before victory has been achieved. I know that to some extent it has been dismissed by those on the Treasury Bench, but I remain anxious about events at Mazar-e-Sharif and so, too, do many people.
  860
  It is true that terrible things happen in conflict, but prisoners of war are entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention. I do not shrink from asserting without qualification that those who fight wars in the name of civilisation have a duty to observe civilised standards. There are as yet too many unanswered questions about what happened in the fort at Mazar-e-Sharif. Who, for example, took the decision to bomb the prisoners? How many of the dead, in truth, had their hands tied behind their back? What was the role of British forces?
  In another context, to which we shall no doubt move later today in the business of the House, the Home Secretary—the present Home Secretary—is fond of saying that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from scrutiny of their actions or even of their e-mails. We can apply that principle to the present issue. The House is entitled to know in due course, after proper investigation, precisely what happened at Mazar-e-Sharif and what role, if any, British forces played in those events.
  Questions still remain about the humanitarian effort but, like others, I welcome the information provided by the Foreign Secretary about the extent to which aid is now being admitted. As I have said before in the House, the political legitimacy of military action would be undermined, albeit retrospectively, if the humanitarian effort were to falter.
  The opening of the rail bridge in the north allows the mass transit of supplies, but they still have to be distributed throughout the country to all those who are in need. They will have to be distributed in a way that deals with the emergence of local warlords and, in some cases, bandits whose interest will be to try to acquire that aid for themselves, and to use it as a means of enforcing their own influence.
  As I think the Foreign Secretary expressly said, the achievements of the United Nations in Bonn and the formation of an interim Government should not be underestimated, although we are yet to be satisfied about how effectively their writ will run on the ground in Afghanistan. We may have managed to export some of the features of Cabinet democracy, as it appears that there is already some competition for the jobs that have been allocated and suggestions that others should have been preferred. Like others here, I think that the United Nations deserves enormous credit for its achievement at Bonn, as does Mr. Brahimi in particular.
  That achievement at Bonn underlines the need for a force on the ground. I would prefer it to be described as a stabilisation force. The shadow Foreign Secretary was right to ask a number of questions about that force. To some extent, they are allowed to lie on the table, because, as the Foreign Secretary said, no firm decisions have been taken. I should like to add that it is essential that the force should have a clearly defined mission and an express mandate from the United Nations. It must be mandated to intervene if that is necessary to prevent gross breaches of human rights. Srebrenica is a harsh lesson that should never be forgotten by those who seek on behalf of the international community to deploy military assets for the purpose of protection. Such a force will require robust rules of engagement, but, most important, it will require to know precisely why it is there in the first place.
  Estimates of the reconstruction bill in Afghanistan run as high as $25 billion for the next decade—a substantial financial commitment. If we are to undercut the warlords

  861
  and free people from the grip of the extremists who ran Afghanistan in the past, we must ensure that the funds for reconstruction do not end up in the pockets of the warlords. Furthermore—this point was hinted at in the early days after 11 September—we will need a regional approach that deals not only with Afghanistan, but with the region in which it lies. It must try to deal with reconstruction, development, debt, the drug trade and security issues in central Asia and Pakistan, as well as Iran, to which I shall return in the context of what the shadow Foreign Secretary was pleased to describe as rogue states.
  The principal political issue that concerns most of us today is the question of a wider campaign. Military force has a place in the campaign against terrorism, but we should always remember that it is a tool or mechanism and not a policy in itself. It is most effective when it is used discriminately and in proportion to the achievement of precisely defined aims. It may be appropriate in some circumstances, but it may, equally, be inappropriate in others. Indeed, one can envisage some circumstances in which the use of force might be counter-productive in achieving the original objective.
  I have never thought that operations in Afghanistan would be sufficient to nullify the threat from al-Qaeda. As we know, evidence suggests that the network operates in other failed states such as Somalia and in the lawless regions of more established states such as the Philippines and Indonesia. If there is to be military action in relation to cells in any of those countries or in other parts of the world, surely we should seek as far as we can to conduct it with the co-operation of the Governments of the nations where it occurs. Where there are no effective Governments, it may be necessary to proceed without such support, but in every case there must be clear and credible evidence to justify action. Each case must turn on its own merits and be based on the most clear and analytical threat assessment.
  No substantial evidence has been produced so far to link the events of 11 September with Iraq. If military action were launched against Iraq without incontrovertible evidence of Iraqi complicity, the consequences would be disastrous for stability in the region, the future of the global coalition and the whole effort against international terrorism. No Arab Government, with the possible exception of Kuwait's, could support such a course of action. Moderate Arab Governments, such as Egypt or Jordan, would be bound for domestic political reasons to condemn any such extension of military action. The coalition that has been painstakingly put together would quickly unravel and the international consensus would evaporate.
  Most dangerously, especially in the light of current circumstances in the middle east, Saddam Hussein could perceive military action against Iraq as yet another opportunity to widen the conflict by targeting Israel, as he did in the Gulf war. We cannot assume the same restraint from an Israeli Government as was demonstrated in 1991 because the domestic circumstances in Israel today are so different from those that prevailed 10 years ago.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman rule out military action against a country that is probably developing weapons of mass destruction?
  Mr. Campbell: I was coming to that express point.
  Mr. Jenkin: It should certainly be addressed.
  Mr. Campbell: I was about to deal with the matter.
  Iraq has posed a serious problem for the international community for more than a decade. Saddam Hussein is a brutal ruler who subjects his people to ignominy and hardship, and we have drawn attention to that insufficiently often in the House. He manipulates the sanctions regime so that it bites where he wants it to bite, and so that the elite—his praetorian guard—are immune and the ordinary people of Iraq suffer grievously. Plenty of statistical evidence from objective sources supports that view.
  The Iraqi regime's failure to comply with its obligations under successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, especially on the destruction of chemical and biological weapons capability, is not only a continuing source of anxiety but a mark of Saddam Hussein's determination not to bow to the will of the international community. In 1998, Richard Butler, a most robust and aggressive diplomat, was compelled to withdraw the inspection teams from Iraq because their work was being deliberately inhibited and thwarted.
  The Government and the United States Government decided that there should be military action, and that installations that were believed to harbour the means to manufacture weapons of mass destruction should be bombed. We supported that. It was the right thing to do because the action taken in 1998 was a deliberate and flagrant violation of the responsibilities that the United Nations Security Council resolutions imposed on Iraq.
  What has happened since? The strategy has been one of containment and deterrence, and it has been effective. There has been no threat to Riyadh or Kuwait City. There has been no threat to use weapons of mass destruction. When we consider the political consequences of embarking on a programme of military action against Iraq, we must ask ourselves: what compelling reasons suggest that an effective strategy of containment and deterrence should be abandoned? If possession of weapons of mass destruction is a casus belli, against how many other countries might military action be taken on that basis?
  The shadow Foreign Secretary talked about rogue states; his definition must surely apply to Syria and Iran. The Prime Minister is hardly back from Syria, and the Foreign Secretary has been back from Iran for only a little longer. For what purpose? It was to draw those countries into the international coalition. As both found, the middle east can be a bruising experience. I certainly supported the fact that they went there, and I support the conclusions that they were able to derive from so doing. If we now say that, by definition, these are rogue states, and that they may expect the threat of military action, the maintenance of the coalition will become extremely difficult—although the Foreign Secretary might not think that his journey had been wasted. Are Libya and North Korea to be targeted? Have we thought what the consequences would be if we were to target those "rogue states"? First they were "rogue

  863
  states", then they were "states of concern"; since the Republican Administration took over they have again become "rogue states".
  We tread a dangerous line in subscribing to the notion that we can identify a rogue state and then take military action against it. If we took every case on its merits, based on clear, unequivocal evidence, there might be some justification, but the idea that we should open up a broad front against any state that falls within the definition of "rogue state", and that we could conduct military action against that state without incurring enormous political and perhaps even military consequences is one that carries a great deal of danger.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the large degree of support in the British military for the views that he is expressing? Such views were clearly stated by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute on Monday evening. He said:
  "The desire to use greater force with less constraint, less distinction, and less proportionality…exposes our strategic centre of gravity"—
  that is, the coalition's —
  " by radicalising the opinion of the Islamic world in favour of"
  al-Qaeda.
  Mr. Campbell: I have read that speech, which has already been referred to in the debate. It is the measured judgment of someone who would have the legal, moral and physical responsibility for deploying British forces in support of some of the action that is being contemplated. In such circumstances, his views must surely carry weight in our considerations.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fully concur with the caution that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Chief of the Defence Staff have expressed. It runs parallel with the comment that the Secretary of State for Defence made last week—that it is often best
  "to engage the enemy at longer range before the enemy gets the opportunity to attack."
  What evidence can the right hon. and learned Gentleman present to the American Administration to show that the policy of deterrence and containment has worked so effectively that Iraq is no threat, in order to comfort the Americans and create a situation in which his fear that they might act in an intemperate way does not arise? I do not share that fear; indeed, I believe that their response has been very considered.
  Mr. Campbell: To paraphrase Shakespeare, the answer lies in ourselves and not in our stars. The answer lies in the exchange between James Baker and Tariq Aziz on the eve of the Gulf war, when James Baker told Tariq Aziz across the table that if he used weapons of mass destruction the response would be disproportionate. We know now that the response would have been a conventional response, but Tariq Aziz and Saddam Hussein did not know that.
  We must bear it in mind that totalitarian regimes make a great effort to preserve themselves. They are hardly likely to create circumstances in which their own destruction would be assured, were they to embark on a
  864
  particular course of action. We have plenty of evidence from 10 years ago that deterrence works. Indeed, I often cite that in the House in support of the argument for the continuance of an independent nuclear deterrent for the United Kingdom, which I believe is fundamental to our defence policy. That illustrates the fact that in Baghdad, at least, they understand that the theory of deterrence could well result in the visiting on the regime of the most terrible destruction, if they were to consider the use of weapons of mass destruction. They need look no further than Mr. James Baker if they want the evidence to support the theory of deterrence.
  The campaign against terrorism may almost certainly be moving to a different phase in which the United States, emboldened by its justified success, wishes to proceed much less collectively. We in the House and our Government will have to decide how we should respond, so let me set out a principle or two by which I believe those matters should be judged.
  The first duty of our Government is to serve the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom. I have always thought that the principle, "My country, right or wrong" left a great deal to be desired. The supposed principle, "my ally, right or wrong" is hardly less objectionable to me. Members of Congress are never slow to recognise their paramount obligation to serve the interests of those whom they represent. Here in the House, in any extension of the campaign against terrorism, we should surely do likewise.
  5.10 pm
  Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) speaks his usual good sense, not least in respect of Afghanistan and opening the second front. I hear his views on the independent nuclear deterrent and revolting Back Benchers, and perhaps some revolting Back Benchers might reconsider their position if they too hear what he says.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the shadow Foreign Secretary raised important questions about deploying British forces in Afghanistan. Clearly, we need to know about their remit and force protection, and clearly there are concerns about overstretch of our forces and the effect on morale. We need to know whether any deployment is for a transitional period and whether those men and women are simply to play a headquarters role. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, those questions have not yet been finally decided and, however important they are, raising them at this point is a little premature.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary began his speech with 11 September and the fact that yesterday was the three-month anniversary of that atrocity, which must surely be the starting point for any terrorism debate. It would perhaps be instructive for the House to consider, as my right hon. Friend did, the way in which certain elements of the press and public opinion responded to the continuing campaign. First, there was the build up to prepare for the military element. Perhaps three weeks into the bombing, we heard, as we heard three weeks after the start of the Kosovo campaign, that bombing never leads to a successful conclusion and that ground forces must be deployed. We heard about the effect on aid supplies, that lorry drivers and others were

  865
  unprepared to take supplies in and that people would starve. We heard about the effects of the Afghan winter and that there should be a pause in the bombing for Ramadan.
  All those questions were raised—indeed, fed—by the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, and perhaps we should have been more alert about getting our counter-information out earlier. Those criticisms were made in that period by our press and public opinion, but, as my right hon. Friend said, it is clear that almost every one has been totally confounded by the facts that have appeared, so it might be instructive for those who raised the concerns to show a little humility and to be prepared to eat their words, although I do not know whether that will happen in the debate.
  Of course the military campaign was more successful than expected. Indeed, part of the problem is that it has been so successful that its political counterpart has taken longer to reach a conclusion. That political counterpart, however, has indeed been successful, so far at least. A remarkable conference has taken place in Königsburg—[HON. MEMBERS: "Königswinter."] Königswinter. Let us get it right. Königsburg is on the other side of the Rhine. Anyway, despite all the tensions of the past, the warrior factions on the coalition side met.
  Perhaps most heartening is the fact that a new generation was involved in Petersberg—mostly in their 40s and, perhaps, more internationally minded than the older generation. It looks as though they are now ready to deliver, as far as they can, an Afghanistan that will move into the 21st century and will be a force for stability in that important region, geostrategically.
  What lessons can we learn from our position and that of our allies? There is, of course, a long way to go, and Sir Michael Boyce's speech on Monday at the Royal United Services Institute identified some of the problems that remain with the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It cannot be left as a failed state. Anyone with a sense of history knows of those remaining problems and knows that they did not start with the Taliban, but at least—given enough international commitment—there is the prospect of a more settled future for the sad people of that country. Refugees are beginning to return, and I hope that eventually many of the professional people who have fled the country and who are so needed there will have the confidence to return with their families.
  A massive and sustained aid effort and a long-term commitment are clearly necessary for stability. The cost may indeed be vast: the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife spoke of $25 billion over 10 years. We should, however, compare that figure with the cost of the US attacks, and put it in the context of the mayhem that may be caused in the region by an unstable, fragmented, broken state of Afghanistan. That perspective will teach us certain lessons.
  There is currently no strong central administration in Afghanistan. It is vital that donors not only give food aid, but help to improve the country's governance. Countries that have assisted the US and its allies will expect a reward, but many may have a very doubtful democratic background. A mixture of sticks and carrots will be needed.
  866
  The UN's role is vital. The two immediate Security Council resolutions, 1368 and 1373, have been mentioned. As with Voltaire's God, if the UN were not there it would have to be created: only the UN could have provided the necessary cover and endorsement for the welcome moves that have been made.
  There have been so many welcome changes that the economic effects of 11 September may well not be as long lasting as some had feared, partly because of the resilience of the US economy. The political effects may be far more profound and far more long lasting. A boulder has been thrown into the pond, and the waves may not settle. Let us consider some of the remarkable changes that have come about.
  In our own country, we might not have seen the progress that has been made on decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland had it not been for the effects of 11 September. There is also the new relationship broached by our Prime Minister, followed by the NATO Secretary General, in relation to Russia. Russia, having joined the coalition, is now seen as a real partner for NATO, going beyond "19 plus one". It has assisted in so many ways.
  Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between the United States and Russia is central to the future of global security? Does he agree that it is extremely important that the summit scheduled for Moscow next year comes up with a strategic agreement whereby international security will be enhanced, and that no steps are taken that can undermine that relationship over the next few months? It is essential that those two countries work out a new strategic relationship.
  Donald Anderson: It is vital to build on the Crawford summit and on the personal relationship between President Putin and President Bush. Russia is not a superpower in the way that it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It can, however, play a positive role. Although there are unilateralist adventures, as there were in respect of Kabul and Pristina, Russia is very much on side. That should be encouraged; it is in all our interests.
  Previously, China's views on national sovereignty led it fundamentally to oppose intervention within states, yet it has been ready to assist the coalition, partly because of the overflow of Uighur terrorism from China into Afghanistan. Central Asia has gained a new salience with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. I was delighted to learn that the Foreign Office is reappraising the role of the British Government and, indeed, of our European allies within central Asia, so the world is changing as a result of 11 September. In my judgment, it is changing positively.
  President Bush's hesitation about engaging in the middle east, following the failed but magnificent efforts of his predecessor, has been overcome. The United States Administration have recognised that they must be committed to peace in the middle east because it affects their interests.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is not my right hon. Friend a tad optimistic? The Israeli Government seem to be set on assassination squads against certain Palestinian groups, bombing the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority and launching rocket attacks on all sorts of Palestinian places. Does he not think that we must

  867
  stop that and be much stronger with Israel so that there can be a genuine peace process, and that since 11 September the plight of the Palestinian people has got worse rather than better?
  Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend has his own view. I agree in respect of the assassination policy, but his comments are totally one-sided; he has looked at one side of the balance sheet. Is he confident, for example, that Chairman Arafat has the will or the commitment to stop the suicide bombers, who are destined to destroy any fragile peace? The question must surely be asked. If Chairman Arafat were to exert himself more, could he not lock up and keep locked up those who are determined to undermine the peace process in the middle east? Let us have a broader approach, not a one-eyed approach, in respect of the middle east. Clearly, there is now more prospect of positive movement because the US is committed; only the US has the necessary clout in the area.
  I shall seek to move on, as it is a short debate. I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said in respect of the second phase. I am concerned that some in the US Administration do not take either a multilateral or unilateral approach, but support the concept of the posse: from time to time, rather like in the wild west, the sheriff, the United States, will gather a group of people to ride into the desert, catch the baddies, return and not have a continuing commitment. That is, if I may vastly oversimplify, the theme of Richard Haass, who is now a senior official in the State Department. There is a fear that the US may be ready, with selected allies, to go galloping off into certain areas, in which context Iraq has been mentioned most. I wholly endorse the wise comments of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we must be very cautious about Iraq. The Taliban were never a real state: Saddam' s Iraq is. The Taliban and al-Qaeda hardly had any air force or any modern surface-to-air missiles: Iraq does. Iraq also has residual weapons of mass destruction and considerable military potential. It is also questionable whether the Iraqi opposition would provide a successful replacement, quite apart from the major political implications for the region that the right hon. and learned Gentleman set out so eloquently.
  Failed states cause major problems, and we all know which ones we mean. We understand that US special forces are already operating in Somalia. However, it is the role of our Government to urge caution. If further campaigns are to take place, military action should be low down on the list of options. We should, so far as we are able, seek to say to our US allies, "Yes, we are with you in Afghanistan and in rooting out the al-Qaeda networks, wherever they are, but beware of blundering into parts of the middle east where the ramifications would be serious." I suspect that debate is being held between each side of the Potomac—between the State Department and the Pentagon.
  Major changes have occurred since 11 September. I hope that those who severely criticised the campaign and who were always ready to see the negative side will be ready to revisit their views. Anyone who looks at the situation objectively will now see a far more positive picture than before.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) always has the ear of the House and we listen to his comments with great
  868
  interest. Over the past dozen years, we have passed through three distinct phases of defence threat. The first was the cold war, when the Soviet Union built a wall to keep its people in. We faced the massive military threat of Russia, which had both conventional and nuclear weapons.
  At that time, it was difficult to explain our defence strategy. I was the chairman of an organisation called Campaign for Defence and Multilateral Disarmament. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was also heavily involved in that campaign and we visited schools and colleges to try to persuade students that it was necessary to have nuclear weapons and that mutual assured destruction was the way ahead. However, that was not an easy argument to win. In Liverpool, for example, we went down by 370 votes to 15, with the undergraduates almost universally rejecting the concept of mutual assured destruction. Indeed, it is not an attractive proposition.
  I remember Mrs. Thatcher being asked whether she would press the nuclear button and she said with enthusiasm, "Of course." That was not an easy argument to put across, but it was the right approach. We faced down the evil empire and the Soviet Union was weighed down by its excessive military expenditure. Eventually, truth and right prevailed and Russia retrenched. We actually won that campaign. It was not easy, but a consistent thread running through the three phases that we have faced is that careful analysis, the proper motivation of well trained personnel in the Army, Navy and Air Force, and determination will win through to the right answer. That worked in the cold war, which ended at the end of the 1980s.
  The second phase was a time of uncertainty, especially from Russia's point of view. Russia was like the Vatican without the Pope after the fall of communism. The Russians were bemused and lost. Their military-industrial combines, which were such an important part of their overall economy, were no longer required in the same way. Russia also lost the satellite countries that purchased its military equipment, and it had to watch the advance of NATO, which took its markets as well as its allies.
  Russia had to regroup, which led to uncertainty there, and there was uncertainty too in the United States as it watched Europe taking the peace dividend with enthusiasm. American defence expenditure remains at about 3.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, but European defence expenditure has fallen from 3 per cent. to about 2 per cent. of GDP. In Germany, it is 1.5 per cent. of GDP, and in Luxembourg it is 1.1 per cent.
  Last week, I visited the American national defence university, where I picked up some vibrant phrases. I was told, for instance, that Europe was behaving like a "big, fat, lazy Switzerland" with regard to defence.
  The Americans are conscious that, in financial terms, the European defence effort is only 60 per cent. of the effort made by the US, but that it is only about 15 per cent. as effective. The Americans have between six and seven times the military power of the whole of Europe. That gap is too large for complacency. It is not acceptable that the Americans should spend 26 per cent. of their defence effort on research and technology, whereas none of the European countries spend anything like as much. The United Kingdom and Turkey come closest to the American proportion. The technology gap is deeply worrying, and it was worrying before 11 September.

  869
  As for the European perspective, Europe was groping for a role in defence, and produced the concept of the European security and defence identity. After the agreement reached by the UK and France at St. Malo in December 1998, the concept was that Europe would develop its own command structure within NATO. However, it is not good enough to develop command structures without increasing capability. A Texan told me that people in his state had another vibrant phrase for those who acted in that way. He said that they called them "ranchers with big hats but no cattle".
  The third phase of the defence threat arose after 11 September, when the situation changed. A new type of threat exists, and it is no longer sufficient to plan in terms of deterrence. We must work to prevent the terrorist threat from being taken further.
  That requires decisive military action. I am surprised that the House so far has let off hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), the international development spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party. She is in the Chamber at present, and her policy was clearly contrary to that of her party, in that she urged that we should stop the bombing during Ramadan. Those who agreed with the hon. Lady stand in a direct and consistent line with those many Labour Members who belonged to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament during the cold war.
  There will always be people—well meaning enough though they may be—who lack the ability to recognise military need. They will shrink from military measures, and fail to carry through the measures that are needed.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Viggers: Yes. I look forward with great enthusiasm to discovering whether the hon. Lady has recanted from her previous position on urging a delay in bombing during Ramadan.
  Dr. Tonge: I do not think that "recant" is the appropriate word. It is rather depressing that so many hon. Members should take that attitude, when other hon. Members were desperately worried about the humanitarian problem in Afghanistan. Millions of people there faced starvation even before the military action began.
  We questioned the nature of the military action that had been undertaken, and whether it would make the humanitarian situation worse. In the event, the hon. Gentleman should be honest and decent enough to admit that the bombing came to a conclusion very much more quickly than he thought. [HoN. MEMBERS: "And you thought."] Indeed, quicker than I thought—I am perfectly prepared to admit that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a speech on an intervention.
  Mr. Viggers: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that we all care about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We were all concerned about the horrors that were imposed on the population by the leadership of the
  870
  Taliban. They include the way in which women were treated and the way in which the then Government prevented food aid from reaching its destination.
  The Liberal Democrats are famous for saying one thing in one part of the country and another thing in another. It is unacceptable for the hon. Lady, who is the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on international development, to say one thing when their spokesman on foreign affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), said something clean to the contrary. We have had enough of the Liberal Democrats behaving in that manner. She was wrong, and she should have the decency to admit that not only has she been proved to be wrong but that she was wrong at the time as well. It is also wrong of the Liberal Democrats to seek to give two versions of the same story.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman pause for a moment in his triumphalism and consider the consequences of the bombing of Afghanistan? Depleted uranium bombs, cluster bombs and daisy-cutters have been used and there have been civilian and military casualties. In addition, atrocities have been committed by all sides during the taking of prisoners and particular towns. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that Afghanistan is now in that much a better position than it was a couple of months ago?
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has an honourable and consistent record in taking the line that he has just expressed so articulately. Yes, I believe that Afghanistan now has a better future than it would have had if we had not taken military action. I believe that it is in a better position than it was before military action was taken. That is exactly the point that I sought to make earlier. Occasionally it is necessary not only to analyse a situation and to have trained and motivated troops, but to have the courage of one's convictions and to carry them through to a military conclusion. That is difficult, but it was necessary and right in this case.
  Although military action was necessary, we should also do much more. The phrase "winning hearts and minds" is often used, but winning them in the present situation is not enough. That gives the impression that we know all the answers and that the other side does not. We must think much more in terms of building bridges.
  I recently read the well known book "The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order" and I was struck by the fact that, in 1900, about 40 per cent. of the world's population was governed by western civilisations. That figure is now down to 11 per cent. The proportion of the world's population governed by Islamic countries was about 6 per cent. but it has gone up to 18 per cent.
  Many people who were previously governed by western nations now look to Islamic Governments and to a different kind of government that is, in its own way, very devout and eschews some of the things, such as alcohol and gambling, that we do not. They believe that we allow our women to wander around semi-naked and they have strong convictions. They do not like the blue jeans and Disney culture of the United States and its allies, including ourselves. We must recognise that there are many genuine people with whom we must build bridges and reach a better understanding. There is a great deal to be done.

  871
  There is also a great deal to be done in restructuring the architecture of our military and diplomatic effort. We must look to the United Nations and work out whether NATO should extend its area of operations and be prepared to act out of area. We should examine the G7 and the G8 and attempt to reach a consensus among the Governments there. We must use a range of international structures to try to build bridges to those countries who harbour many people who might be tempted to oppose us. I congratulate all those involved in the military effort, but a great diplomatic effort is necessary too.
  Previous generations bequeathed to us the nuclear weapon. So far we have survived without its use except on the two occasions when it was used to end the second world war. Let us hope that we are wise enough to counter the dangers of terrorism and are able to allow future generations to survive in the way that we have.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: This is the sixth time that we have debated this matter in the House. I have sat through all those debates, or through the majority of them—it has been Operation Infinite Concentration. They have been fine debates, characterised for the most part by reason, tolerance and an acceptance of each others' views and differences. There has been an almost complete absence of bragging when people are right and a reasonable amount of recantation when people believe that they are wrong. I very much believe that, and in so far as I have been wrong in the views that I have expressed about this war, I shall say so—indeed, I shall do that in a moment. In doing so, I want to make it clear to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that no one has had me behind the bike shed—[Interruption.]—or anywhere else for that matter.
  At the beginning of the campaign, many of us believed that it would be a much longer and bloodier affair than it has been. We were wrong. I was one of those who believed that—I was wrong. Not only do I acknowledge the fact that I was wrong, but I am overjoyed to have been wrong in that particular respect. I gain some comfort in my recantation from the knowledge that the Foreign Secretary shared my view and my concern as, indeed, did many Members—including Opposition Members. We were wrong—thank God.
  The present position in Afghanistan is as set out by the Foreign Secretary. The Taliban, inasmuch as they were a fighting force, have been defeated and destroyed. The Arabs of al-Qaeda are reduced to holding a tiny proportion of the land and are under attack of such sustained ferocity that it is—as we all know—unlikely that they will remain as a military force for much of the foreseeable future.
  It must be acknowledged that at least two of the ancillary aims of the operation have been achieved—or will be in the immediate future. The main aim—the apprehension and trial of Osama bin Laden—has not been achieved. It is to be hoped that it will be—as I have always said.
  However, there remain a significant and growing number of people, inside and outside this place, who still provide the voices of opposition—I am one. I shall attempt to articulate that. I hope—and think—that I speak for many outside the House, perhaps far more relative to the number inside it. There are those—I was certainly one
  872
  of them—who have always accepted the need for appropriate military action in order to obtain Osama bin Laden and his fellow conspirators and to bring them before international justice. I have always urged that such international justice should be undertaken by an international court.
  The Foreign Secretary is fond of reading debates and quoting them back at those hon. Members who have been involved in them—as he did to some effect earlier. I dare say that if he was still in the Chamber, he might have a copy of my speech of 16 October. If so, he would have found that what I said represents an honourable and straightforward account of my views then. I still hold those views.
  However, approval of the principle of military intervention is not to be taken as approval of the methods of military intervention.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. and learned Friend continues his speech, will he confirm that if an international criminal court came into existence, it would not apply in this case because it could not act retrospectively? Does he agree, however, that one legal way forward would be through a special international judicial process, which could be established through the United Nations, to deal with the perpetrators of 11 September?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is absolutely right, and it is, of course, the purport of an early-day motion that has been signed by very nearly 100 Members of all persuasions and all the varying views, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  It is the method of military intervention to which the objection relates. The methods of warfare that have been employed in Afghanistan have, most importantly and in its most sinister context, come to represent a pattern of foreign policy that involves the enlistment of any satrap and any agent, whatever the reputation, the form, the background or the antecedents of those satraps for violence, slaughter or brutality during the time of their own reign in their own country.
  The Northern Alliance, which wrought havoc throughout Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996, is suddenly elevated to the position of being our friend. Those satraps are enlisted, armed and set to do our own business, supported by high-level bombing from 30,000 ft, using a range of ordnance terrible in its implementation and consequences—much of it covered with the graffiti of American bomb loaders, carrying messages to those who will ultimately be killed. In this case a not insignificant number of those killed were innocent, collateral civilians.
  Those who believe that that is a legitimate method of warfare must ask themselves some questions about our own experience in these islands. We are old hands at dealing with terrorism—we know about it; we have sustained the fact and the fear of it for many years and many have died during that time. Many have died in Guildford, Birmingham, London and the Old Bailey—dare I say?—and No. 10 Downing street was subjected to mortar attack. Many British soldiers, policemen and other service and security personnel died in their efforts to apprehend those who were responsible for that and to track down their terrorist groups.
  There was an alternative, unthinkable though it was, because all those atrocities were committed by one or other of the branches of the IRA. The alternative would

  873
  have been to arm, encourage and set on the Protestant paramilitaries. They could have been encouraged to do the work of British soldiers to ensure that there were no British casualties. It is absolutely unthinkable that we should do such a thing, that we should enlist the mad dogs of the Shankill road and that we should enlist to our cause precisely the people who commit atrocities similar to those committed by those whom we are trying to apprehend.
  What is the difference in truth between doing that and enlisting as satraps those who, in success. have done nothing but wreak havoc, who have killed hundreds of their prisoners and who have publicly castrated and executed the prisoners who have been taken—a fact that has been not only recorded and repeated, but photographed in sickening detail. In truth, what is the difference between what we are doing now and what we could have done in Northern Ireland?
  Patrick Mercer: Not for a moment would I compare the security forces in Northern Ireland with the execrable behaviour of the Protestant paramilitaries. None the less, we the English establishment—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): British.
  Patrick Mercer: Yes, the English establishment used the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment—in other words, indigenous forces—to prosecute the war over there. The majority of the casualties, of course, came from Irish sources, rather than—I use the term advisedly—English sources.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but in making it he must understand the clear distinction between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, for instance, General Dostum, who is pressed to our service. Not even in the wildest accusations against the RUC, of which I am a considerable supporter, has anyone suggested that it uses methods such as tying people to tank traps and driving them round the yard until they are reduced to mincemeat, which is the chosen method of punishment of one of our finest friends in the Northern Alliance.
  We would never have contemplated the course that I have described because, first, we know full well that it has no sounding in morality and, secondly, if one sows that wind, one reaps a whirlwind more terrible than one can possibly say. We are far away from Afghanistan, and we will not reap the immediate whirlwind, but whirlwind there will undoubtedly be, and at its vortex are the tens of warlords who now reign supreme in Afghanistan.
  I can see a certain amount of shifting on the Front Bench, so I shall deal with the point that is implicit. The diplomatic effort has been worth it, and there has been a limited amount of perceived success. Before we count those chitties, however, let us reflect on the fact that one reason why agreement has been reached in those talks may well be that £4 billion of foreign aid is contingent on a form of agreement. That may well be a motivating factor at least as powerful among the warlords of Afghanistan as the concept of international peace.
  874
  I turn now to one another matter, which would lead me, if there were a vote, to continue in my opposition. It concerns not Afghanistan, but America. On 13 November, the President of the United States, by unilateral edict and decree, without consulting Congress or the Supreme Court, passed into law a system of American military tribunals. It is the single greatest abnegation of civil liberty since the signing of the American constitution. Military tribunals have been set up which will try people in secret, with no rules of evidence, right to representation or burden of proof, and with two thirds of the court able to pass verdict and to pass a sentence of death. Those tribunals are the ultimate irony in America herself as she fights the war for freedom in which many of us support her.
  The one point about the tribunals that is more important than anything else is that they are for foreign nationals only. American civilians, no matter how bestial the acts of terrorism in which they are implicated, retain all the rights of the constitution, to jury trial, representation, the burden of proof and, ultimately, the verdict of their peers. Within America, two laws have been set up: one for Americans and one for everybody else, which, incidentally, includes British citizens. In doing that, America unhappily has now contained within her own jurisprudence the double standards that make her, as she well knows or ought to know, vilified throughout the world, to the despair of her friends, among whom I would name myself without question.
  Until America gives up this lamentable legacy of operating by satraps and agents of this kind of reputation, from the Kosovo Liberation Army to the Contras, and from the dictators of Latin America to the dictators of south-east Asia, and until she learns the lessons of this form of foreign policy, all the work we do in Afghanistan and all the success of our policies and our speed in achieving them will be rendered absolutely negligible in the annals of international terrorism.
  5.54 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I would be inclined to agree with some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) were it not for the fact that the result of using indigenous peoples and forces, in some of the recent campaigns that he opposed, has been not only the success of the campaign but the introduction of a system of democracy where none existed before. All the signs are that, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, we will see a relatively democratic regime emerge in Afghanistan. All the signs are that, despite what he said about the KLA, we will see a relatively democratic regime in Kosovo. And all the signs are that, despite what he has just said, we are seeing a relatively democratic regime in Serbia.
  The lesson was also learned right back in 1982 when, in spite of the same sort of objections expressed with the same sort of motives by the same sort of people on the same part of the political spectrum, we saw not only military success in the Falkland Islands but the emergence of democracy in Argentina itself. The only area in which our policy has so far failed was in the Gulf in 1990–91, when half-measures were employed in the case of Iraq, and we did not go to the assistance of those people locally

  875
  who might have overthrown Saddam Hussein, which might have led to the emergence of a relatively democratic system there as well.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that many of us supported the war in the Falklands and the war in Kuwait as being necessary. Will he accept, however, that the KLA did not win the war in Kosovo? The end of that war was brokered by the Russians after 78 days of bombing. Will he also accept that as a result of what happened in Kosovo, although there are the stems of democracy, the KLA is now the most widely feared drug-running terrorist organisation within the Kosovan and Albanian borders?
  Dr. Lewis: I will not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis. I believe that it was important that the Russians did not actively support the Serbs, and that was one of several factors in the successful outcome. What really mattered, however, was not the bombing campaign alone, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) seemed to imply, if I heard him correctly, but the fact that it was allied to the threat that ground forces would indeed be used.
  Mr. Bradshaw indicated assent.
  Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to see some support from the Government in that analysis. It follows that one of three options will be taken: the first is to take no military action at all against such countries; the second is to take indiscriminate military action involving bombing alone, which will not work; the third is to do the one thing that has a chance of working, which is a combination of bombing and the use of ground forces—either one's own, in a threat or in actual invasion, or indigenous ground forces. Without ground forces of one sort or another, a military campaign will not be successful.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Lewis: I give way first to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the North Atlantic Assembly, to which I am a delegate, was told by Interpol that in 1998 the KLA had very strong links with Osama bin Laden and, indeed, that he visited Albania to meet other terrorists? Does the hon. Gentleman not think it ironic that as the allies were acting as the air force for the KLA, those very same terrorists may have been plotting the twin towers tragedy?
  Dr. Lewis: If that is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, my answer is that one can only deal with one problem at a time. If, when one has dealt with the proximate problem—which at that time was Serbian aggression—subordinate problems emerge, one can deal with those as well. I have every confidence that the Americans, under President Bush, and—I am proud to say this as a member of the loyal Opposition—the Government, if they continue on the path that they have consistently followed since 11 September, will prove equal to the occasion. I pay that compliment to the Government and hope that they will acknowledge that they have had unflinching support from the Conservatives, if not from other Opposition parties and
  876
  some Labour Members. Our support has been given generously and wholeheartedly. We are happy to endorse the Government's actions so far and the success that they have met so far.
  Mr. Dalyell: It so happened that last night I was at the annual dinner of my national service regiment, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, who have returned for the second time from Kosovo. I stayed with them during their first tour of duty there. I asked them what the difference is now, and every one of those people who have just come back from Kosovo said that there is a terrible problem, not with the Serbs, as there was during their first tour of duty, but with KLA extremists. They are the problem facing British troops.
  Dr. Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I greatly respect his views although I sometimes disagree with them, that I entirely endorse what he has just said. I visited Kosovo as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. My point is that we are now in a far better position to deal with the problems in Kosovo—even if the boot is now on the other foot, as unjustifiably as it was when on the Serbian foot—than we would have been had we not dealt firmly with Milosevic's aggression.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I will now give way for the last time.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: For the sake of the completeness of his list of examples of support for indigenous people in conflicts and the success rate thereof—I agree that there have been successes—why does the hon. Gentleman not use the example of Afghanistan itself? There, support—mainly from the Americans and Saudi Arabia—given to people such as the mujaheddin fomented the problems that face us now. Why not use that example as well?
  Dr. Lewis: I am happy to refer to that example. As I have had occasion to point out previously, one must be less selective about where one stops the clock when looking back on history. The cause of the problems is not the support that the Americans and the British special services gave to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan; it is the fact that in 1979 the then Soviet Union invaded the country and triggered the cycle of events with which we are still dealing today.
  Having given genuine and well-deserved plaudits to the Government, I want to raise one small issue that has caused me some sadness. It relates to what might be an academic question: what would happen if Osama bin Laden—or, perhaps more realistically, one or another of his chief lieutenants—fell into the hands of the British forces rather than those of America or any other country? During our debate on the coalition against international terrorism on 1 November, I intervened on the Secretary of State for Defence to ask
  "how he would resolve the following dilemma. If Osama bin Laden were to come into United Kingdom jurisdiction, would we be able to surrender him to America, given the restrictions that we have adopted on not surrendering anyone to a country which has the death penalty?"

  877
  To shows of approval on both sides of the House, the Secretary of State robustly replied:
  "1 would have no hesitation or difficulty about achieving that"— [Official Report, 1 November 2001; Vol. 373, c. 1022–23.]
  I was therefore sorry to see a Press Association release dated 9 December and headed "Britain against bin Laden death penalty, says Hoon." It reports the Secretary of State as saying:
  "We do extradite people to countries with the death penalty, obviously subject to certain undertakings."
  The release continues:
  "Asked whether this meant that the US authorities would have to offer assurances that bin Laden would not face execution, Mr. Hoon said: 'That is the position.
  Whoever has got at the Secretary of State, that is a sad reversal of a welcome and robust answer he had previously given in the House.
  Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Lewis: No, because others want to speak and time is limited.
  I was fortunate enough to participate in the first of these debates, during the emergency sitting that took place when Parliament was recalled on 14 September, so soon after the events in New York and elsewhere in the United States. I said then that it was pointless and probably self-defeating to speculate publicly about specific measures of retaliation; that remains my view. However, it is permissible to examine the extent to which the abstract theory of terrorism has or has not been borne out by the events of the past three months.
  All terrorism has a specific central feature, which is the ability to cause maximum mayhem with minimum effort. However, the brand of terrorism with which we are dealing appeared at the outset to combine three other deadly features: high-tech terrorism, stateless terrorism and suicide terrorism. I shall briefly consider each of those three.
  High-tech terrorism is that which uses the assets of developed states as weapons against those states. That, together with the weapons of mass destruction that the terrorists would like to acquire, could constitute a form of military jujitsu, whereby the opponent's greater weight is turned into a weapon against him. However, it is interesting to note that although the attacks on New York's twin towers seemed to subscribe strongly to that principle—what else but something on the scale of airliners packed with fuel could have achieved such devastation—there seems to have been a failure on the part of that terrorist organisation to stay its hand long enough, until it had the more deadly weapons which, we understand from the Government's understandably limited comments, the bin Laden organisation has sought and continues to seek. We must be thankful that, in a sense, the attacks in America were premature—or so it can be argued.
  What of stateless terrorism? That appears to be a possibility when one first examines the bin Laden organisation and the way in which its tentacles extend to so many countries. In fact, that has not been achieved either. Al-Qaeda is cross-border, but is dependent on what
  878
  have been described as "failed states". The very fact that it has had to operate in states such as Afghanistan has turned out to be a weakness in its armour. It is significant that when things began to go wrong in Afghanistan, the indigenous people who had supported the Taliban turned against al-Qaeda and bin Laden to a considerable extent, continually referring to them as "foreigners" and surrendering themselves while leaving al-Qaeda fighters to try to save their own necks.
  The third feature is the most worrying: suicide terrorism. At the outset, parallels were rightly drawn between the events in America and the attack on Pearl Harbour. The reason why that parallel is especially strong can be seen in discoveries made after the second world war about Japanese thinking at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Any rational calculation would have shown that, however successful that attack might be, the Japanese were bound to lose in the end. Documents uncovered after the war revealed their attitude to have been along these lines—I quote from memory: "Sometimes a situation arises when all you can do is kick up your heels and leap into the gorge." Such was the degree of fanaticism consistently shown throughout the far east war by the Japanese, who often sacrificed themselves in the face of impossible odds and in impossible situations.
  We have had to ask ourselves, would the same sort of remorseless self-sacrifice be shown on a large scale by the bin Laden organisation and the Taliban? The answer is, again, that that has not yet been proved to be the case—indeed, there are indications that it was not the case.
  I was intrigued by the confirmation by the Secretary of State for Defence, in testimony to the Select Committee as recently as 28 November, that it appears that a significant number of the 19 hijackers on the four planes did not know that they were on a suicide mission. I see that the Minister is nodding. Therefore bin Laden had felt it was reliable to inform only a minority of those whom he was sending to their death that that would occur.
  I noted in yesterday's Evening Standard the report by Jeremy Campbell about the video that has been discovered in Afghanistan. It shows bin Laden
  "'gloating and chuckling' on the tape".
  It is said that he
  "seems amused by the fact that more than half the 19 hijackers did not know they would die, but thought they were on a routine hijacking."
  It seems that the organisation is not exactly overwhelmed with people who are anxious to go to paradise with all the many benefits—the 72 virgins and all the rest of it—that their leaders tell them to expect.
  I wish to give others a chance to contribute to the debate, so I shall curtail my remarks. Given uncertainty about the severity and the persistence of the threat, the correct approach to our undertaking necessary and, I hope, temporary infringements of some of our traditional liberties should be sunset legislation—legislation that will lapse automatically, unless specifically renewed, after an agreed period.
  Democracy has always faced these problems in wartime. Churchill's chief of staff on the COS Committee during the war was Lord Ismay, who later became the first Secretary General of NATO. I shall conclude by referring to something that he observed in his memoirs,

  879
  which is as true in relation to terrorism today as it was in relation to the more conventional threat that nearly destroyed the democratic systems of the west in the past. He said:
  "It is easy to criticise peaceful democracies for their habitual lack of preparedness when a war breaks out, but it is only fair to recognise that the dice are loaded against them. Dictators, bent on aggression …are masters of their own timetable. They are free to decide when to strike, where to strike and how to strike, and to arrange their armament programmes accordingly. Their potential victims, the democracies … with their inherent hatred of war, do not know when or where the blow will fall, or what manner of blow it will be."
  We must bear in mind that if we are to win this war, as has been the case with previous wars, there must be no half-measures. We must use indigenous opposition and build coalitions. However, we must not be ruled by the fact that we build coalitions. We must do what is right, what is necessary and what is efficacious in eradicating the terrorist threat to modern civilisation.
  6.13 pm
  Hugh Bayley: Two weeks ago, the House bought me an aeroplane ticket as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, enabling me to visit the Afghan refugee camps on the Pakistan-Afghan border. One of the impressions that I came back with was of the huge burden that has been borne by Pakistan, which since 1979 has been providing refuge to refugees from Afghanistan. At the peak of the problem in 1990, there were 3.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Prior to 11 September, there were about 3 million. It is estimated that about 150,000 more refugees have entered the country since then.
  The world community took a close interest in what was happening in Afghanistan in the 1980s when the mujaheddin were fighting the Soviets. However, in the 1990s, when that conflict ended, we lost interest. We left Pakistan holding the baby. Literally, it was holding hundreds of thousands of Afghan babies. The strain on Pakistan's infrastructure—it is a poor country—is considerable. We, the members of the Select Committee, were told that in Pakistan's North West Frontier province, half of all hospital beds are used by Afghan refugees.
  Pakistan needs—and I am pleased to say that it is receiving it from the United Kingdom—considerable aid. We have increased our aid spend for Pakistan this year threefold, to approximately –52 million. It will not be enough to increase that spend for only this year. We must—I know that the Department for International Development plans this—maintain this level of support for Pakistan in future years.
  We have also provided substantial aid for Afghanistan. The Department for International Development is extremely well respected in the region for the way that we use our aid money effectively. One example is the World Food Programme, which has done a magnificent job in maintaining the channels through which food has been brought into Afghanistan during the conflict. The WFP has told me that the UK's contribution, unlike that of most countries, came in the form of cash. That had two advantages. First, the WFP could use it quickly to buy food when it was needed. Secondly, the local region's economy was supported, the food being bought within the region. United Kingdom aid money has been buying wheat at $130 a tonne, an extremely good price.
  880
  We should congratulate the United States on its contribution to food relief. It is by far the largest contributor. It has contributed about 80 per cent. of all food aid taken in by the World Food Programme. It is giving its aid in kind. Representatives of the WFP told me that if the US is shipping this aid on US-flagged ships, the shipping costs are about $110 a tonne. That is hardly less than what we are paying for the wheat.
  The United States has struck a good deal with the Government of Pakistan, in which Pakistan is surrendering its stocks of wheat, which are going into Afghanistan now. Those stocks will be replenished when the American food ships arrive in the new year.
  I pay tribute to the truckers. That applies to both the WFP's employees and the Afghan private truckers, who have kept the aid moving during the conflict. I also pay tribute to the Afghan non-governmental organisation workers who have distributed the aid within the country. I met a man called Aziz Hakimi—an Afghan who works for Oxfam in Herat. He was there throughout the bombing until two days before it fell. He had to leave because of the opposition from the Taliban and people funded by outside organisations.
  Aziz Hakimi said that most of the people of Herat welcomed the military intervention of the west. They saw that it would change the intolerable regime under which they were living. He described the Taliban to me as a foreign Government. I said, "What do you mean? Do you mean the Pashtun from a different part of the country, people from a different ethnic group, are foreign?" He replied, "No, I don't mean that at all. The Pashtun are Afghans and there is a place for the Pashtun in the Afghan Government. Indeed, there must be a place for the Pashtun in the Afghan Government. The Taliban is a foreign regime because it is one of Arabs, Chechens and Pakistanis. It is not an Afghan regime."
  I pay tribute to the aid workers, who are real heroes. They have been able to ensure that the humanitarian aid that is provided by the west is delivered to the people who need it.
  One of the refugee camps that we visited was called Kachagarhi. It has existed for about 20 years and is home to 78,000 refugees. We visited some of the schools, where there are more than 11,000 children in school. I suspect that that is about a third or a quarter of all the children. There are far more boys than girls in school. There are 15 boys' schools and three girls' schools.
  One of the girls in class 7 asked rather pointedly, "Why is there no secondary class for girls? There are secondary classes for boys." The policy of UNHCR is to provide primary education to help us meet the development target of ensuring that by 2015 all girls and all boys throughout the world receive primary education. However, we must not ignore the need to provide secondary education to Afghan girls, both in Afghanistan itself and in the refugee camps in Pakistan, because women will play a key role in the reconstruction of the country, not least because they were not combatants. They should play an extremely important role, not just in national Government, although it is good that there are three women in the Cabinet of the interim Administration, but in villages and the regions.
  Overall, conditions in the Kachagarhi refugee camp were poor. If one was trying to create a seed bed to nurture extremism and anger towards the west, one would create the conditions that we created by withdrawing

  881
  support from Afghan refugees in the 1990s. We must not make that mistake again. We have got to stick with Pakistan until the refugees can and do return to Afghanistan. The key to their return is providing secure conditions so that people feel that they will be safe if they return home.
  I do not want to detain the House so I shall conclude with a few words about the military campaign and whether the coalition should take it beyond the borders of Afghanistan. Our armed forces and intelligence services have been very effective indeed, but there are limits to what we can ask them to do. If they are stretched too far, they will be unable to deliver what we ask of them. We therefore need to address an essential question posed in a speech on Monday by Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that
  "we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan."
  If we have to make that choice and select one or other option, let us not make the same mistake that the west made in the 1990s by walking away from Afghanistan. If we do so, we will breed more poverty, despair, and anger; we will breed more extremists and create conditions in which terrorists can operate, leading to a risk of further terrorist attacks against this country or our allies.
  6.22 pm
  Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). I regret some of the language used by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and, in a curiously political speech for a serving officer, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Both used the pejorative terms of the wild west to describe American actions or aspirations in Afghanistan. That is not helpful; in many ways it denigrates the efforts of the United States and ourselves.
  I recently spoke to an English Muslim who was heavily involved in the Chechen affair. He was a man of enormously moderate views and left me with one or two interesting thoughts. He echoed the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, who said:
  "enemies that are half defeated can be very dangerous".
  My Muslim friend pointed out, in common with much of the evidence that we heard in the Select Committee on Defence, that much of al-Qaeda is still operating across the world, not least in many European countries, and that we still have enemies operating untouched in failed states such as Somalia and Yemen.
  I echo Admiral Boyce, who said that our response cannot simply be military and must be proportionate, otherwise we will endanger the coalition, which is proving successful, and are likely to radicalise Arab opinion. My Muslim friend made two points. First, he said that he was glad that so far bin Laden appeared to have escaped because that would show him up for what he was—a man who was not prepared to stick with his troops or defend his ground to the last man and the last round, which may well undermine the fighting qualities of the remaining troops. Secondly, my friend said that actions such as the one carried out at Mazar-e-Sharif, regardless of their rights and wrongs, their morality or immorality, can be
  882
  successfully spun by our enemies into something that looks similar, from their point of view, to the way that 11 September looks to us.
  My Muslim friend made the trenchant point that the area in which our troops will serve, if they serve at all, is much more dangerous than places such as Kosovo or the Balkans because of the huge stores of available drugs, making for high tension and aggression, which we are unlikely to have experienced before. He was extremely reluctant for British troops to be dispatched until their mission, tasks and time limit were properly defined. Are we deploying or are we not? A small group of specialist Royal Marines have gone to Bagram airport. We thought that that was the start of the British deployment but, in fact, it was not. It seems that the Northern Alliance was less than keen to have our troops in the area.
  Is it premature to talk about deploying troops in the area while fighting is still going on? We are a leading nation in the campaign and while we may have made friends across the world, there is no doubt that we have also made enemies. Perhaps ours are not the troops to use while the situation remains volatile. Other European nations may be in a position to form a stabilisation force. Both the Germans and the French were extremely keen to prove themselves in Kosovo, once the fighting had stopped. The Germans have been reluctant to deploy their excellent special forces, the Kommando Spezialkräfte or KSK, in the present theatre; interestingly, when it comes to other styles of operation, they are rather less keen.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones rose—
  Patrick Mercer: Forgive me, I shall not give way because of the time limit.
  We should remember that whatever happens to forces in that area, the benign atmosphere of Kosovo and Bosnia will not be duplicated. The Secretary of State for Defence recently told us about a new chapter in the strategic defence review. Interestingly, the Americans, having won a war in the Gulf in a non-traditional way, started to talk about manoeuvre warfare. The Americans, in their military doctrine, are now talking about more fire and less manoeuvre. An American diplomat, we are told, said, "We don't do peace" and the Americans have told us that they do not do mountains. What else do they not do? I choose to interpret their remark as, "We don't do low-intensity conflict" The British, however, do; we learned all about it in Palestine, Malaya, Oman, Northern Ireland and, indeed, on the north-west frontier, where we fought a low-intensity conflict from 1870 to 1940.
  Britain understands such problems and has very experienced troops who are good at dealing with them. However, I urge the Defence Secretary to make sure that the apparent gap dividing our special and specialist forces from our less special forces—our line regiments of cavalry and infantry—does not grow. There is certainly a morale problem because soldiers are constantly deployed on tedious, undemanding and uninteresting operations, such as those in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia. Of course, they have their moments, but resentment is building towards the forces that constantly get the good jobs; that is their phrase, not mine. There is no reason why those forces should not be trained to serve alongside the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment, as long as they can recruit and are kept properly manned.

  883
  I shall conclude by talking about the wider war. If we are serious about pursuing terrorism and taking the chances offered, we will pursue terrorism to the end: and we must pursue domestic terrorism in Northern Ireland as rigorously as we pursue terrorism abroad. The Foreign Secretary said:
  "we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again."
  We see American armed forces already forward: elements of the US third army in Kuwait and American special forces in Somalia, while the US State Department has a party in northern Iraq. We have a unique opportunity to root out terrorism. America needs our friendship, our experience, our excellent armed forces, and our balance and judgment, and we need to repay the debt to America that we incurred at least twice in the 20th century.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We are growing used to the salient points delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in our debates. Once again, he distinguished himself today in a short speech. I ask the Secretary of State to take on board the issue of the morale of non-spearhead regiments. If the spearhead role is to be expanded, as he suggested in his speech last week, perhaps it might be rotated among a large number of regiments to maintain the morale of the entire British Army.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I have little time and do not want to engage on that point.
  It would be wrong to debate defence and international terrorism without paying tribute to Field Marshal Lord Carver, who died recently. He was one of the most controversial chiefs of defence staff and made many enemies as well as friends during his distinguished career. Nevertheless, he was one of the greatest military figures of the post-war period. Even after the strategic defence review, we see his imprint on the shape of our armed forces and on British military doctrine. The nation owes him a debt.
  During this interesting debate, we heard a wide variety of contributions. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) made it clear that every inch of his being was against war, and in his case, that is a considerable number of inches. We enjoyed the guarded welcome that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) gave his new colleague, who will add more to the variety and colour in his party than to its unity. I shall return to the substance of the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson).
  I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who underlined the need for Europe to do more to support the campaign against terrorism, lest we become what Americans would see as ranchers with big hats and no cattle.
  However valid some of the comments from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—the House would be wrong to dismiss the need for a comprehensive approach to terrorism—he spoiled his case by some of the ludicrous over-statements that he made.
  884
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made clear his grasp of military doctrine by referring to the successes of recent campaigns and how they were achieved. We should take seriously his thoughts about future doctrine against terrorism.
  The Foreign Secretary opened the debate by underlining the military, diplomatic and humanitarian breadth of the campaign and how that has been vindicated by events—a point re-iterated by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East. That is why the Opposition have unequivocally supported the Government's conduct of the war against terrorism. In the words of the Prime Minister, addressed to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, yesterday, the progress of the war in Afghanistan is a
  "tribute to America's leadership over the past few months and …also to their outstanding courage and wisdom."
  Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for there to be a cross-party consensus on how to prosecute the war against terrorism, it is important that those on the Opposition Front Bench come to a settled view among themselves? As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has said,
  "Loose talk will undermine the coalition against terrorism."
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the leader of his party, who wants to side with the US hawks, has said that "countries like Iraq" should not be "let off the hook", and who wishes to take a stronger stance and commit himself to action against Iraq? Or does he agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said today that it is not helpful to speculate about what action may be taken in the future in relation to Iraq?
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber throughout the debate, he would have heard the exchanges that took place earlier. I shall deal with those matters later, but it is wrong for him to look for divisions when they do not necessarily exist.
  We acknowledge the role played by the United Kingdom Government, which has been vital in ensuring that the campaign led by the Americans has been a genuinely international campaign. There are some in the House and many elsewhere, including many of our allies, who were faint-hearted or even opposed to the Afghan campaign. Like the Foreign Secretary, I hope that they will reflect on the jubilant scenes of liberation in Kabul last month, as well as on the successful destruction of the terrorists and their bases in Afghanistan.
  We must also pay tribute to the role played by American and British armed forces. Our thoughts are particularly with those who have been injured or killed and their families, those who may still be involved in operations, and those who have been kept waiting on stand-by.
  We continue to support the Government's wider campaign objectives for defeating international terrorism. Britain must continue its vital strategic role, binding American policy into a wider international framework and leading other nations in support of internationally agreed objectives. We applaud the Prime Minister, who assured Colin Powell yesterday that
  "the battle against international terrorism does not end"
  in Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) reiterated that point. The Foreign Secretary was a little shy of the point, but we know that he has given reassurances to the Americans.

  885
  I share the caution of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but deterrence works only if one continues to show one's resolve to act and advertises it vigorously. Neither he nor the right hon. Member for Swansea, East ruled out the possible need for military action against Iraq or any other regime. That is the position of the Government and, in answer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), of the Opposition. It ill serves the debate to present the US as some kind of Rambo itching to go on the rampage. We had all that blank-cheque talk at the beginning of the Afghan campaign and it was shown to be totally irrelevant.
  The question facing the Government is how best to pursue their objectives. After much confused reporting and the inevitable diplomatic to and fro, I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify exactly how the Government intend to conduct British policy in the weeks ahead. On Afghanistan, the Prime Minister announced yesterday—not to the House of Commons, as Mr. Speaker indicated that he might have done—that the Government have
  "indicated in principle a willingness to play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan".
  We recognise that the Government may feel the need to back that statement with the deployment of a British peacekeeping force, but I am bound to reiterate that we have grave misgivings about a major deployment. After all, on Monday the Chief of the Defence Staff questioned
  "if we were required to trap our hands in the mangle of Afghanistan in order to facilitate the political process".
  Underlined in his text are the words,
  "My aim, incidentally, is not to get fixed in Afghanistan."
  There is a host of questions about a possible British troop deployment that I doubt whether the Government will be able to answer today. They include the role that the US will play in that deployment; whether the US will guarantee unlimited air cover, even if it has none of its troops on the ground; who will provide the strategic heavy lift for initial deployment and extraction in an emergency, if necessary; and how it will be possible to deploy armoured vehicles or helicopters to provide mobility, or artillery to provide necessary protection.
  With such vast distances involved, only one airhead run by the US at Bagram and poor land communications, how could such a deployment be sustained and supplied, particularly if it becomes engaged in fighting? I do not invite the Secretary of State to respond to those points now, but merely raise them as questions. Some of them are very difficult, but they need to be addressed before he can make a decision.
  I urge the Secretary of State to answer now the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. In substance, they are as follows: what are the conditions that must be met before we can agree to deploy a peacekeeping force; what is the end state we expect we can achieve that will enable us to withdraw; and how long will it take to achieve that end state? The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife asked further questions that need to be addressed about the UN mandate, the role of the force in enforcing human rights and the rules of engagement.
  886
  I urge the Secretary of State to clarify three further substantive points, all of which were raised by the Chief of the Defence Staff in his speech on Monday. I am bound to say that it was a very substantial, if delphic, speech. Indeed, when I compare it with the Secretary of State's recent speech, I wonder which of them might be the real Secretary of State. First, the Chief of the Defence Staff warned of "loss of consent" during a peacekeeping deployment. How can we presume anything but the most fragile consent for the presence of British forces? We should certainly congratulate all the parties that contributed to the success of the Bonn conference, which has resulted in an agreement on the establishment of a provisional Government in Afghanistan. If the task of the force is to stabilise that Government, how difficult will that task prove to be? Has not General Mohammed Fahim, the Defence Minister, already made it clear that he will welcome only a force of fewer than 1,000 personnel whose purpose is to guard Government buildings? He said:
  "We do not need any international forces to establish our security. Our own soldiers can maintain security here."
  We have already seen the flurry created by the initial deployment of the Royal Marines at Bagram. We could so easily become the intruder instead of the invited guest. Will the Secretary of State address the question of consent for a British deployment?
  Secondly, why does the Secretary of State believe that UK forces are best suited to this role, given our long and unhappy history in Afghanistan and our current involvement in the war? I have no doubt of our forces' abilities and their keenness to get on with the job, but as other British forces continue to clear the caves of Taliban and al-Qaeda personnel, we are making enemies as well as friends in Afghanistan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out.
  Thirdly, the Chief of the Defence Staff spoke about choices on Monday. He said:
  "We may have to decide whether to play to the strengths of our armed forces (and our corresponding value to the United States) in our ability and readiness to deploy highly capable forces quickly for offensive operations; or to commit to longer term nation building tasks that might reasonably be taken on by other, less capable, nations".
  That is the point that I would make to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). It seems strange that the Chief of the Defence Staff should ask such fundamental questions the day before the Prime Minister announced his intention in principle to deploy a peacekeeping operation. He was emphatic that
  "we cannot dodge the UK's strategic choices".
  Will the Secretary of State explain what the Chief of the Defence Staff meant when he said:
  "broader operations into regions that threaten UK policy goals will force us to choose, between unconditional support to the coalition, conditional support and 'red lines' or selective support—or indeed lack of support."?
  Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not giving way.
  What did the Chief of the Defence staff mean when he said:
  "there will be some slight difference in emphasis in the approach between the United States and the UK"?

  887
  [Interruption.] Labour Members should stop muttering. It suggests that they are sensitive about some of the questions asked by the Chief of the Defence Staff.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will clear up the confusion and make it clear that the Government have a clear strategy, and that he will be able to show that he can make the strategic choices to which the Chief of the Defence Staff referred. I hope also that he will make it clear that the United States and the United Kingdom continue to share the unity of purpose in the campaign against international terrorism that has served the whole world so effectively since 11 September.
  6.44 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his comments about the life of Field Marshal Lord Carver. I endorse them on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, which he served with such great distinction throughout his career.
  It is now three months almost to the day since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon and since we were forced to recognise what has become perhaps the greatest single challenge that we face: the threat posed by international terrorism. The House has rightly devoted much of its attention to how the Government and the international coalition have responded to that challenge. I especially welcome the expressions of support for the work of our armed forces. I shall return to their outstanding contribution to the continuing operations in Afghanistan in due course.
  I should like in particular to thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for their comments. I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for his recognition that he is capable of error. [Interruption.] Indeed, he is capable of errors, which is still more significant.
  There have been some real achievements since the coalition began military action in Afghanistan on 7 October. We have seen the collapse of the sinister, barbarous and fanatical Taliban regime, which provided shelter and support to Osama bin Laden and developed a mutual dependence on his al-Qaeda terrorist network—an organisation that provides one of the most destructive threats to the world's stability, peace and prosperity.
  The Taliban regime that for so long kept Afghanistan in its oppressive grip has fallen and the Taliban have even been driven from their historical base in Kandahar. Only isolated pockets of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces now remain around the country, which is a vindication of the coalition's broad strategy of action in the diplomatic, economic, legal, humanitarian and military spheres to ensure that Afghanistan no longer harbours and sustains international terrorism.
  The fall of the Taliban is also a tribute to the United States leadership of the coalition. While the attacks on 11 September were an attack on the whole world, it was the United States that suffered most. It is right that it should take the lead in an act of self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter. It has led wisely and well.
  888
  Although the United States has military capabilities that are unmatched by those of any other country, it also recognised that it could not act alone.
  Other countries also suffered on 11 September—not least our own; 78 British citizens died in New York. We, too, had to respond for our own safety and security, as well as to support our closest ally—and support her we have. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have played vital parts in building and maintaining the global coalition against international terrorism, and our armed forces have operated alongside those of the United States from the start of military operations on 7 October.
  Few can doubt that the coalition's military campaign was essential in bringing about the downfall of the Taliban. Military action enabled the Northern Alliance, which was initially shocked by the assassination of its leader only two days before the attacks on 11 September, to go on to the offensive. With coalition help, the Northern Alliance drove back the Taliban on the ground.
  The military campaign helped to make the Bonn agreement and all that it promises possible. The agreement represents the foundation stone for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the basis on which that country, which has been almost destroyed by 22 years of war and the isolation that came with the Taliban regime, can be rebuilt and redeveloped. Our long-term aim was always to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community. We promised that we would not walk away from it and we are keeping that promise.
  At the start of the coalition action in Afghanistan, we set out what we were trying to achieve. Our specific short-term campaign aims were to bring Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders to justice; to prevent Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network from posing a continuing terrorist threat; to ensure that Afghanistan ceased to harbour and sustain international terrorism and that it allowed us to verify that the camps where terrorists trained were destroyed; and, given that Mullah Omar would not comply with the American ultimatum, we required a sufficient change in the leadership to ensure that Afghanistan's links to international terrorism were broken.
  Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for taking an intervention from someone who has not been called to speak in the debate. On 31 October, he wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond):
  "Our military action is focused on Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and their Taliban allies. No further action is in contemplation by the UK Government at present and it would not be productive to speculate on hypothetical situations."
  Bearing in mind the current situation off the Somali coast, will he explain whether the objective of the UK Government in their campaign against terrorism is being widened?
  Mr. Hoon: I stand by what I said. That remains the focus of military action and the campaign's aims are the same as those set out in the letter. Matters have not moved on significantly since then.
  Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend says that things have not moved on, yet the Prime Minister and the

  889
  President of the United States have clearly stated that other countries are being considered for military action. Will the Secretary of State help us? Is the Ministry of Defence planning military action in Somalia, Sudan or any other country?
  Mr. Hoon: Even before 31 October I said that a range of options and actions were being considered to deal with international terrorism. They are not only military. Obviously, military actions are my primary responsibility but, from 11 September, several actions have been taken against terrorist organisations. They include restricting their finance, ensuring that they cannot travel freely from one country to another and all sorts of pre-emptive steps in several different countries. They may well have frustrated terrorist activities; we may never know how many. However, significant action has been taken, and I emphasise to my hon. Friend the need to concentrate not only on military actions, important though they are in the context of my responsibilities.
  Mr. Jenkin: I assure the Secretary of State of our continued support for his policy of not ruling out military action against any country that may harbour terrorists. That is consistent with the objectives that the Government set out earlier in the campaign.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for that observation.
  As I have made clear, we have taken action on several fronts. I have already mentioned diplomatic action to build international support for our task. We have also taken economic action to freeze the financial resources on which terrorists rely, legal action, which hon. Members have the opportunity to debate later, and humanitarian action. We never allowed ourselves to forget the need to help the ordinary people of Afghanistan, millions of whom have been forced to leave their homes and were facing famine. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) expressed that well.
  My specific responsibility is for the United Kingdom's contribution to the coalition's military action in Afghanistan. The fanatical intransigence of the Taliban regime left us with no option other than to use force. Our use of military force had specific objectives: to destroy the terrorist camps; to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden; to enable us to mount future operations in Afghanistan; and to maintain that pressure.
  The United Kingdom's armed forces have played a significant and essential part in the coalition's military action. They have done far more than many perhaps realise, taking part in direct strikes on terrorist targets and providing support for coalition partners. In the early days of the military action, the Royal Navy twice fired salvoes of Tomahawk missiles at terrorist training camps.
  Today, we have a large naval force in the Indian ocean; it is second in size only to the element from the United States navy. Led by HMS Illustrious, the United Kingdom's contribution includes the assault ship HMS Fearless, the destroyer HMS Southampton, the frigate HMS Cornwall, and seven ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Those ships form a base for operations by the 200 men of 40 Commando Royal Marines who have
  890
  remained in theatre. We have also maintained a submarine presence in the region, which, with Tomahawk missiles, offers us another means, if needed, of striking at distant targets inside Afghanistan.
  We have also deployed UK ground forces deep into the country. The House will understand that I cannot give details of those operations, but I can say that our troops are there, actively participating in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda terrorists.
  The presence of Royal Marines and, more recently, members of the Army and the Royal Air Force at Bagram airstrip has been vital. They helped to secure the airstrip for humanitarian aid and diplomatic flights. They also helped to secure our embassy buildings in Kabul. Royal Engineers, including explosive ordnance disposal experts, have been deployed to repair parts of the airstrip's infrastructure in readiness for the winter. I regret to say that it was one of those soldiers who was injured by a land mine last week.
  The presence of those troops at Bagram was essential to the success of the Bonn negotiations; indeed, they could not otherwise have taken place. Securing the airstrip and confirming that it could be used by military transport aircraft made it possible for the Royal Air Force to fly the Northern Alliance's delegation to Bonn to participate in the conference.
  The Royal Air Force has also played a major role. We have a number of fixed-wing aircraft in theatre. They include Tristar and VC10 air-to-air refuelling aircraft, Hercules transport aircraft, E3D Sentry airborne warning and control system aircraft, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft, and Canberra PR9 photographic reconnaissance aircraft.
  Patrick Mercer: I wonder whether the Secretary of State would answer some of the questions that were posed about timings, missions, mission creep and all the other problems that are giving us such a headache?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with those matters in due course if the hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience.
  Mr. Jenkin: You have five minutes left.
  Mr. Hoon: I have not got five minutes left. I want to set out in detail for the benefit of Conservative Members the extent of the contribution of Her Majesty's armed forces in the campaign—not all of it has been properly recognised, especially in the media. It is therefore important that Opposition Members listen with the patience for which they are renowned.
  I want to stress the importance of our air-to-air refuelling tankers and their role in coalition operations. They are essential to the operations of the United States navy's strike aircraft, on which so much of the coalition's air campaign has relied. Operating from its aircraft carriers, the US navy cannot fly tanker aircraft as large as ours. The US air force has many tanker aircraft but it uses a different technique, developed originally to refuel its strategic bombers. The RAF has therefore stepped in to fill that capability gap. The United States has welcomed its support, which it values enormously.
  A few statistics illustrate the importance of the RAF's tankers. They have flown more than 280 sorties, each lasting up to eight hours. They have provided coalition aircraft with nearly 10 million litres of fuel, which is no small task.

  891
  The United Kingdom has also made a major contribution to the coalition's command and reconnaissance capabilities. Nearly 160 such sorties have been flown, some of very long duration. The E3D Sentry aircraft have flown missions of up to 14 hours controlling and co-ordinating coalition air strikes. The Nimrods have ranged far over the Indian ocean in support of the coalition's maritime operations. The Canberras, though long in service, offer an intelligence gathering and reconnaissance capability unmatched by almost any other aircraft in the world.
  We should not forget the work of our Hercules transport aircraft. I have already referred to their role in making the Bonn negotiations possible. Together with helicopters deployed aboard the Royal Navy fleet, they have flown sorties that provided essential support to our other operations, often in dangerous and demanding circumstances. Their success is a tribute to the skill and bravery of their crews.
  When we send our forces to Afghanistan, we ask them to take significant risks. The campaign has not been without cost. A small number of the United Kingdom's armed forces have been wounded or injured in Afghanistan, including the member of the Royal Engineers who was injured by a land mine at Bagram last week. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing them all a swift recovery. Of course, in thinking of our casualties, we should not forget that the United States, the Northern Alliance and the Afghan people have suffered many more.
  It is inevitable that the continuing deployment of British armed forces, especially when they are engaged in offensive action, should give rise to questions and anxieties. They have not diverted us from our course. We remain focused on achieving the aims that we set ourselves when we began military action on 7 October.
  We continue to work towards achieving our first and second campaign aims. Osama bin Laden and elements of al-Qaeda are still, as far as we know, at large and fighting. We have inflicted significant damage on al-Qaeda, but while it remains at large, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it is a threat. We shall therefore continue our operations until that threat has been eliminated. I will not speculate about what that might mean, where future operations might take place or what form they might take. It would serve no useful purpose to advertise our intentions in advance. The focus of our activities remains Afghanistan, but no terrorists should assume that they can find safety anywhere around the world.
  We have achieved the fourth objective—a change in the leadership of Afghanistan. The third—to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism—is certainly now within our grasp. The Bonn agreement paves the way for cementing both those objectives.
  I have spoken about what the United Kingdom and her coalition partners have achieved so far. We must now consider how best to support the Bonn agreement. Twenty-two years of war have left their mark on Afghanistan. The destruction of much of its most basic infrastructure and the huge number of land mines laid during the war against the Soviet Union and in the civil wars that followed are obvious examples; less tangible, perhaps, are the effects on the Afghan people. A great deal of mistrust remains between the different peoples and political groups.
  892
  The Afghans who negotiated the Bonn agreement knew all that far better than anyone else. They recognised that the new interim authority would need to establish itself as independent and not be seen as a creature of one faction or another. That is why they have agreed to and welcomed the proposal to deploy an international security force to Kabul.
  As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the United Kingdom has indicated, in principle, a willingness to play a leading role in any United Nations mandated security force in Afghanistan. No decisions have yet been taken. Before decisions are taken, we need to address a range of complex and detailed issues. We will be engaged in close consultations with the Afghans, the United Nations, the United States, and other countries that have expressed an interest in contributing troops to a security force. The detailed consultations and information gathering that we have in hand will provide the basis for decisions. That process will address the questions that the shadow Foreign Secretary very properly raised in his speech.
  The new interim authority formally takes office on 22 December. We must help to convince every Afghan to have confidence in that authority and in the Bonn agreement. We must convince them that this is the beginning of the rebuilding process, because the interim authority is just that—an interim authority. In six months' time, Loya Jirgah will appoint a transitional Government. We must convince all parties that their future lies in joining the political process and not in seeking a solution through the use of force.
  All this argues in favour of the eventual deployment of a UN-mandated force to provide the stability that is required for Afghanistan's future. We know that that will not be easy, and that many hurdles must be overcome. Not least of these is defining and agreeing with the Afghans what tasks would fall to a security assistance mission and, just as important, what tasks they would perform themselves. They clearly have responsibilities in all of this, too. In deciding to deploy an international security assistance force, the international community is offering a helping hand to a country and a people that have suffered too much for far too long.
  The events of 11 September required action in the short term to remove the threat posed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban and to help to secure the new Afghan Government, but those events also represented a challenge to our approach to defence and security. The strategic defence review laid a solid basis for the future evolution of our armed forces and how we might use them. The action we are taking in Afghanistan is largely possible as a result of the work done during the SDR.
  The United Kingdom now has significantly improved capabilities and is well placed to take on asymmetric threats, such as those posed by international terrorism, but it is only right that we should look further at the conclusions of the strategic defence review, in the light of the threat that is posed today by international terrorists. The House will be aware that we are doing just that.
  We are engaging not in a new strategic defence review, but in a new chapter of the review, building on the earlier conclusions. We want to ensure that the United Kingdom has the defence concepts, capabilities and forces that we need if we are to deal with threats of this kind and this scale. We are therefore looking closely at our plans and programmes, to be able to add capability where it

  893
  counts—where it makes a difference—because we must look beyond what is happening today and examine the possible longer-term implications.
  The success that we have enjoyed in the campaign to date and the fact that we can look forward to achieving our remaining aims with confidence ultimately depend on one thing: the excellence of the men and women of our armed forces. I cannot overstate what they have achieved and the spirit in which they have achieved it. I said at the start of my speech that they deserved every word of the praise offered by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We owe a great deal to the men and women of our armed forces, as well as to their families. It is our responsibility and privilege to make sure that they are properly equipped and properly organised to do the excellent job that they do. We are determined to make sure that that continues.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States, the Ayes were 333, the Noes were 146, so the Question was agreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]>

Orders of the Day

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  7.5 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 43, which is to be considered today. If the House agrees to this Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. For the convenience of the House, it would be helpful, given that we have groups of Government motions and amendments from the other place, if you could tell us what will happen when we reach each of the cut-off deadlines, in terms of what could be voted on, what must be voted on, what will be taken separately and what will be taken together. That would spare us the confusion that we, not surprisingly, got into last week, when we got into slightly difficult procedural areas.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that there could be quite an involved answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. May I suggest that he confers with the Clerk at the Table, so that we can proceed with the business of the day?
  Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise your advice to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) to go and talk to the Clerk, but may their conversation be broadcast to the rest of us, so that we can have some understanding of exactly what voting there is to be and when, and what we are voting on?
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I might be able to help here. I hope that there is consensus on being able to vote on each collective part of the Bill as returned to us from the House of Lords, so that, on the cut-off points, we are able to vote on the substantive main amendment with those taken with it—so that there is an understanding of the terms in which we are doing that—rather than spend all the time having to vote on individual items. We would be very happy to accommodate that with all Members of the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: All motions to disagree and Lords amendments will be voted on separately
  Mr. Mark Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that you might just have answered my point of order. However, although I am sure that the Home Secretary was trying to be helpful to the House, it is perhaps a failing on my part that I did not understand exactly what he was saying.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Could I perhaps clarify my response? All motions to agree will be taken together,

  895
  and amendments to Lords amendments will be taken separately. Motions to disagree will be taken separately as well.
  Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the advice that you have just given to the House. Are those votes going to be taken at the conclusion of each section, or are we going to have a mammoth voting session at midnight?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Under the programme motion that was agreed, you will see that there are set times for those votes to be taken.
  Mr. Fisher: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So far as I can see, that means that there are potentially at least seven votes in the first section, which could take at least an hour and a half. We have only an hour and a quarter to debate the whole of the next section.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is a consequence of the programme motion that was agreed to?
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is my last point of order. I am trying to be helpful to the House in responding to the Home Secretary's helpful intervention. Certainly, those on our Benches—and I think that I am right in saying the Conservatives, too—would seek to test the opinion of the House on an issue at the beginning of a group, rather than detain the House by voting on all the subsequent matters. We will choose—I hope with the compliance, as it were, of the Government—the substantive main point, and seek to divide on it, and then move on to the next section.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise just to confirm that that is also our intention.
  Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had better confirm that that is my understanding as well.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that we are now all in agreement.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
    Clause 17

      EXTENSION OF EXISTING DISCLOSURE POWERS
      Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 7, after "authority" insert
      "to a relevant public authority".
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 6 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 38 and the Government motion to
      896
      disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 43, Lords amendment No. 44 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 47, Lords amendment No. 48 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 49 to 64.
      Mr. Blunkett: First, and in the interests of brevity, I shall describe the way in which we want to proceed this evening and subsequently in the House of Lords. Many things have been said outside the House, but the tone of debate on Second Reading and in Committee was one of constructive dialogue among people rightly querying, scrutinising and, where appropriate, opposing. Tonight and tomorrow, I want to proceed in the same spirit from the Government Front Bench to seek to allay fears and to find common ground where it exists, disagreeing only where we genuinely do so.
      There have been misunderstandings from time to time, but the Human Rights Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, individual Members and parties have made suggestions here and in the House of Lords that we have taken on board, whether on sunset clauses or reviews or on reasonableness or links with terrorism. We have adjusted the justice and home affairs provisions. We have included consultation and, where appropriate, affirmative resolution. We have sought to accommodate where we can the genuine concerns of Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords. I intend to try to do so as we proceed tonight.
      I must make it clear, however, that no one would understand a position whereby we failed to take the necessary action and, having so failed, were later proved to have failed to provide the necessary protections. That is the spirit in which I intend to proceed.
      At the end of September, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out why, on part 3 and parts 10 and 11, we need to be clear about the interrelationship of one set of actions with another:
      "Global terrorism and organised crime are now inextricably linked. The boundary between terrorist activity and criminal activity has become increasingly blurred. The fingerprints of terrorism lie on the drugs dealt to our children on street corners as surely as they lie on the plans to destroy the World Trade Centre …We need to combat the link between international crime and terrorism."
      I agree, which is why we ask that parts 3, 10, 11 and 13, with the provisos that we shall deal with tonight, be returned to the House of Lords in a form that restores the previous intentions.
      I ask the House to reject Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8, because they would confine what is possible to what
      "directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security or to a terrorist."
      We do not believe that it will be possible for people to do their jobs appropriately if those confining mechanisms are put in place. Our law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job. On part 10, the Lords amendments as framed would set the situation back rather than help people to do a better job. I give an example on part 3 in relation to the interchange of information, the knowledge that exists and the way in which people react.

      897
      7.15 pm
      Take an employment agency that is being inspected. The inspectors come across information relating to an individual seeking to take up a particular, sensitive job. It is discovered that that person has claimed large amounts of benefit. Let us call him Mr. AQ, just as an example of someone who might seek to do that. According to the framing of the House of Lords proposal, it would not be possible for that information to be shared. No one outside the House would thank us if we so restrained information giving and the sharing of concerns that Mr. AQ continued to draw benefits. It would be illegal to pass on the information required.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I fail to understand the Secretary of State's reasoning. If it were suspected that Mr. AQ is involved in terrorism and a threat to national security, under the terms of the Lords amendment the information could be shared. On the other hand, if we wanted to investigate Mr. AQ for benefit fraud, surely the correct way to deal with that would be through benefit fraud legislation, not anti-terrorism legislation.
      Mr. Blunkett: But we would not know; that is the point. A Mr. AQ is investigated for a range of activities, including massive benefit fraud, and discovered—he may be discovered, let us put it no more strongly than that—to be involved in or even wanted by security and intelligence services elsewhere. That is just a possibility, which even those on the Liberal Democrat Benches might concede to be fairly close to reality.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary not realise that a wide gate is opening, through which comes this proposition? Anyone suspected of any crime, or indeed anyone against whom there is evidence of any crime, may have applied to them the full rigour of measures that we could not justify for inclusion in normal criminal legislation. There is just a possibility, unsupported by evidence, that he might have a terrorist intention, but surely that is not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable the authorities, if they have such a suspicion of a terrorist involvement, to bring into play powers not normally thought proportionate to the crimes involved.
      Mr. Blunkett: I would not dream of doing to the right hon. Gentleman what Lord Ackner did to me on radio on Sunday—patronise him. Let me put it this way: the interchange described by the Leader of the Opposition on 26 September is the one that I am referring to, and I want to send it back to the House of Lords for reconsideration. I have described a tightening of the noose.
      Take Customs and Excise rightly intervening on those who seek to smuggle, be it drugs, people or tobacco. It suspects that someone is undertaking a crime, but it needs to be able to share information, even if it has no proof. Remember that, in those particular circumstances, judicial review and the normal protections of the legal fraternity fall into play. There may be no suspicion of terrorist activity, but Customs and Excise needs to be able to share information with law enforcement agencies, knowing that a great deal of drug smuggling and other activity leads to the funding of terrorism, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out.
      Mr. Fisher: Can the Home Secretary explain how a suspicion may be arrived at if there is no proof of any sort against such a person?
      Mr. Blunkett: Obviously, it must be late in the day and late in the week, because I am struggling to understand why my hon. Friend feels that a body involved in such dealings—as Customs and Excise is day in, day out—that had a reason to pass material to the police would do so other than because it suspected that something was amiss. [Interruption.] No, no. The restriction being imposed, if my hon. Friend would kindly read what the Lords have done, restricts to the point where a body has to suspect that a terrorist act is in the offing.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: In a second.
      I know that my hon. Friend is trying to help me and to ensure that the position is clarified so that the law enforcement agencies can do their job effectively, irrespective of whether he feels that there should have been a separate Bill. I refer him to schedule 4, which contains a list of disclosure powers that would allow investigation, all involving a different time scale and a different premise. Before the Lords amended it, the clause sought to harmonise arrangements for the sharing of information in a way that would assist the apprehending of terrorists. That is where we started on Second Reading, and it is where we are today.
      I think that we have made some progress, in that many who were worried are now less worried. In the Lords great confusion arose, rather than clarity, but we have sought to deal with that by discussing the data protection provisions that can be brought into play. It may help my hon. Friend and Opposition Members, however, if I say what I think we should also do.
      As well as referring to the Data Protection Act 1998, we have indicated that the Human Rights Act 1998 would protect people from unjustifiable intrusion. Because—as has just been illustrated—there has been so much worry and suspicion, my colleagues and I feel that we should ask our colleagues in the Lords, when they consider these measures tomorrow afternoon and evening, to clarify what we believed, and still believe, to be automatically the position under the Human Rights Act: that proportionality should apply in relation to the use of the powers we are discussing, so that a judgment can be made on whether those using them have taken into account the proportionality of their suspicions.
      7.15 pm
      Norman Baker: Does the Home Secretary accept that there may be disclosures, or sharing, of information of which an individual has and can have no knowledge, and that that individual will therefore be unable to invoke the Human Rights Act?
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes. That is why my amendment helps: rather than having to apply the Human Rights Act retrospectively, or rely on agencies' familiarity with the terms of the Act, people would be able to understand the meaning of "proportionality" if it were built into the legislation and the guidance issued to such agencies.
      We want to ensure that the Bill stands the test of time, and later we will discuss how Members might be accommodated in that regard. Given that we are trying to

      899
      be helpful, it would assist us if others were helpful to us. I understand the suspicion that is felt; I understand why it is right for every Member, whatever side he or she is on, to ensure that the Executive are challenged and scrutinised. Given that I am trying to be helpful, however, I hope that my efforts will be reciprocated, because tomorrow night we must make decisions that will indeed stand the test of time.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary knows that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve in this regard, but I want to ask him a question that has, in part, already been asked from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
      Lords amendment No. 6 concerns national security and terrorist activity, which, as the Home Secretary says, are frequently linked. However, it uses the word "suspects", rather than referring merely to evidence. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is not going too far in opening the gate wider, and whether his lawyers may not have lead him to believe that the word "suspects" is wide enough to encompass what he is trying to achieve.
      Mr. Blunkett: As I have said, we are building the concept of proportionality into the Bill. There are many "suspicions"; the action taken on the basis of those suspicions is the crucial issue, given that we are authorising action through the law. I think that if we can coalesce in ensuring that the suspicion leading to such action is proportionate, we can allay some fears.
      We are resisting amendment No. 38, which relates to part 10, and Nos. 40 and 44, which relate to part 11. Our reasons concern the interface between what is needed to tackle terrorism directly and the picking up, as it were, of lines that lead to an understanding of how to pursue terrorists through a knowledge of organised crime and the actions of our services.
      Some Members have expressed concern about the extension of powers. As I said in Committee, we have reflected and have sought to allay their fears—for instance, in regard to the use of Ministry of Defence and British Transport police in areas outside their immediate jurisdiction. We have provided for the involvement of the Police Complaints Authority—in future, the independent Police Complaints Commission—in the event of problems, and the Bill already provides for considerable restraints.
      The House of Lords—inadvertently, of course; no one would have done this intentionally—has made the use of the MOD and British Transport police even more difficult than it is now. This week a British Transport police officer went beyond his jurisdiction at Finsbury Park station to help a serving Metropolitan police officer who was being attacked by a man with a knife. Both were quite seriously injured. British Transport police helped to restrain the man, who is now in custody.
      No one, whatever their feelings or suspicions, would want us to constrain the ability of British Transport police to take such action; nor would they want the MOD police to be constrained if an aircraft crashed outside their jurisdiction, and they were called upon to help. Those are the terms in which we describe what we seek to do in regard to the extension of powers. There will clearly be some restraint, and some reference to the jurisdiction of either the emergency or the local police force.
      900
      I feel that, in trying to ensure that people did not go too far, the House of Lords has gone much too far itself. Let me give another example relating to parts 10 and 11. Those who have investigated these issues have no doubt that credit fraud, for instance, is a favoured method of fundraising among the terrorists groups with which we are dealing: that is a simple, known fact. Under our proposals, someone who believed that fraud had been committed at a restaurant but had no reason to connect it with terrorism would be able to share information. The enforcement agencies and security services are familiar with such activities, and with the networks involved in them, and can immediately pick up what traditional forces cannot do without the passing on of such information.
      Mr. John Burnett: I have the impression that the Home Secretary is digging a bigger hole for himself. The security services must liaise with the police. They must be able, in camera and in confidence, to give the police information. The police will then have a suspicion—a legitimate suspicion.
      Mr. Blunkett: If the amendments were passed, that would be the case if they believed there was a terrorist threat, but not if they had suspicions that led to an understanding of a terrorist threat. [Interruption.] It is no use the Liberal Democrats giggling—[Interruption.] Laughing, then. I mistook a gurgle for something else. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Fisher: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: Not for the moment.
      It appears that the Liberal Democrats were not laughing, giggling or gurgling—in which case they were expressing amazement that it might actually be desirable to link one set of information with another in order to apprehend those whom we are discussing.
      Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that we are trying to agree on the terms of reference. We understand that credit fraud, for example, may be linked with terrorism. Our proposition is that the suspicion has to be that there is a direct or indirect link and that, provided it comes within that ambit, the amendment passed in the Lords would be sufficient. Will he consider that? We would reasonably consider the point that he has made that the Bill should not further restrict organisations such as the MOD or the transport police, although that has never been the intention. If he thought about the one, we would certainly think about the other.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I am continuing to think. I have already indicated to both the shadow Home Secretary and to the hon. Gentleman that I will continue listening and thinking for the next 24 hours until we can secure agreement on the Bill between the two Houses, but it is not possible for someone dealing with the apprehension of and therefore the passage of information on drugs to know that there is an indirect or a direct link until that is investigated by the enforcement agencies. That is the nub. How can they have a suspicion that that particular activity leads back to the al-Qaeda, to the GIA or to one of the other major international terrorist outfits? They cannot

      901
      Amendment No. 48 relates to part 13. We seek to include paragraphs (d) and (e). The convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters would be a third pillar measure under subsection (1). It is a simple facilitation of the sharing of video information, making that easier and increasing the speed with which it can be done, paragraph (e); relates to the Schengen acquis, which includes Norway and Iceland as well as the European Union. I hope that over the next 24 hours we will be able to persuade both colleagues in this House and those in the House of Lords that those two additions, together with the sunset clause at the end of June, all the provisos that we have built in and the ability to test that we are not sneaking something through, get the matter right.
      Let no one misunderstand what we are doing. I have read articles and heard speeches that have linked issues that are not in the Bill with what we are debating tonight and have debated over recent weeks. I have heard people link the Bill with the European arrest warrant time and again. Even the shadow Home Secretary, for whom I have much time and who has been honest on these matters, did that in his article in The Guardian on Friday. The Daily Telegraph—God bless it; it does not normally pick things up from The Guardian—seemed to repeat the calumny, although not in his name, on Saturday. An enormous amount of suspicion has been generated about what the Government may or may not be seeking to do. What we are certainly not trying to do is delude anyone tonight.
      Mr. Letwin: I unreservedly welcome the tone in which the Home Secretary has addressed the House. We started these debates with six big issues, shared between the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. On at least two and a half, arguably three, the Government have made sensible movement and we have arrived, I think, at an acceptable solution.
      We have three to go. Those relate to seven of the 126 clauses of the Bill. It is important to remind ourselves that we are arguing only about seven of 126 clauses. If we continue the argument in the spirit that the Home Secretary exhibited this evening, we are likely to arrive at a resolution.
      I want to dwell on the logic that the Home Secretary was exposing and to try to demonstrate why Conservative Members are still unconvinced, but before I do so I should say that his offer to move towards the application of a proportionality test is taken in the spirit in which it was clearly intended: as a serious and constructive move. We will need to study whatever amendment is tabled to that effect in the Lords. There are present in the Lords people of great legal learning who will no doubt be able to advise that House and us about whether it will indeed have sufficient protective effects to make it an acceptable variant. If it is, we will accept it. We do not wish to press the Government to the point of breaking if we can avoid doing so.
      It will help materially in advancing that debate if I expose as clearly as I can—many speaking in interventions have already begun to do so—exactly why we are unconvinced by the Home Secretary's logic. We absolutely accept that there are links between terrorism and other forms of crime. The Home Secretary has rightly quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the
      902
      Opposition's remarks about that. We also accept that when the security services, the police or both have a suspicion that someone is involved in terrorism. it may be extremely important to them to be able to trace through a daisy chain of minor circumstances patterns that will enable them to apprehend terrorist groups or particular individuals linked to terrorism.
      Moreover, we accept—although this is not a point that the Home Secretary has made, it would be a legitimate one—that from time to time, the Al Capone strategy may be sensible. It may be sensible to apprehend a terrorist, a suspected terrorist or someone suspected of links to terrorism on the basis of some minor charge discovered by ferreting out some other aspect of that person's activities, even where it is not possible to prove that they are linked to terrorism. It may be possible to prove that they have engaged in some other minor felony. We accept a chain of logic that runs from the suspicion by the authorities that someone is in some way linked to terrorism to the disclosure of a wide range of information from 81 different agencies and quangos to the authorities about that person. Exceptional strains and risks demand exceptional measures.
      The Lords amendments work on exactly that logic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out, the Lords amendments—I take the example of amendment No. 6 but many others are to the same purpose—say specifically that if the authorities believe or suspect that the disclosure may be of information that directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security, the floodgates are open. They do not need to believe it. They need only to suspect it. They do not require the suspicion to be reasonable. They merely have to suspect it. They do not need to suspect that the person is a terrorist. They do not even need to suspect that the person is directly linked to terrorism. They merely need to suspect that the person is indirectly linked to terrorism. That is about as wide as their lordships could have cast the net.
      I still fail to understand what must be genuine logic on the part of the Home Secretary's advisers, otherwise I cannot imagine why he would be going to an awful lot of fuss and bother to defend the proposition. I genuinely cannot understand how, if the trigger for opening the doors to such massive disclosure is merely the necessity that the authorities suspect an indirect link to terrorism, there can be any real restriction on their activities.
      Denzil Davies: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, but in all fairness the Home Secretary asked a question towards the end of his speech, I think in relation to amendment No. 6 and the word "suspect". It may be difficult, or so the argument goes, for a public authority that is not involved in the murky world of pursuing terrorists and suspected terrorists. That public authority may not have any information at all on the basis of which to suspect anything. Is that not the problem that the Home Secretary was trying to point out?
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had many arguments about constitutional points; we have mainly been on the same side. He needs to look at the next passage of amendment No. 6. It does not require the authority that holds the

      903
      information to engage in the disclosure voluntarily. It rightly permits relevant authorities—the security services and the police—if they have such a suspicion, to request the information; indeed, it gives them the right to demand that information in circumstances in which they have that suspicion. Whereas the Home Secretary would be right if only the first part of Lords amendment No. 6 existed, the argument does not run in the light of the second part.
      I do not make that argument in an attempt to create a confrontation where one may no longer exist. If the Home Secretary, regardless of the validity or otherwise of his logic, can produce a proportionality test that fully convinces their lordships and ourselves that no individual will suffer a trawling exercise by the authorities when he or she is being pursued for a minor offence, possibly committed in another country, we may be willing to accept the clause—despite not understanding the logic. However, it would be helpful if between now and tomorrow the Government could for the first time explain why the logic that I have just exposed is not fallacious.
      The Home Secretary made the argument that the amendments made by the Lords to part 10 would have the effect of restricting the powers of the Ministry of Defence and British Transport police more than was the case before the Bill was introduced. If that is so, it is unintentional and I accept that it is not something that we wish to legislate to do at present. I hope that over the next 24 or 36 hours we will find a solution to that problem.
      The Home Secretary did not rehearse the history, which is well known to him, of how we came to this set of amendments on part 13. I shall briefly rehearse it, in order to explain our current position. We began with a proposition that any decision reached at intergovernmental level on criminal justice under the framework of the third pillar of the EU could be enacted in British law through an order subject to a 90-minute debate in Committee. The Home Secretary is right to say that I have argued in public that that could have meant that the European arrest warrant was adopted by those means. I have always tried to acknowledge that the Home Secretary gave us an assurance that the European arrest warrant would not suffer that fate, because it would be introduced in the extradition Bill. What concerned my colleagues and me was that the Home Secretary would have taken a reserve power under this Bill and, if we were to seek—as we will—to amend the extradition Bill to restrict greatly the scope of the European arrest warrant, he could have told us that we were being naive because he had that reserve power to enact it in a 90-minute debate and that, if necessary, he would use it. That position would have been intolerable. Luckily, the Attorney-General has now given an assurance from the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords—which is as binding and solemn an assurance as one can get from the Government—that that will not happen. As the Home Secretary said, clauses 110 and 111—as they appeared in the Lords—have been limited to June 2002 and our fears about the future are removed. That is a major step forward.
      Since that time, the Government have introduced amendments to Lords amendment No. 48 that would have the odd effect of reintroducing, in paragraphs (d) and (e), the convention on mutual assistance and certain of the Schengen acquis provisions. I was not sure that I fully grasped the full implications of the Home Secretary's
      904
      statement, although on the basis of intimations in the other place I hope that I have rightly discerned that when the Bill returns to the Lords we may see paragraph (e) removed and/or some firm assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Schengen acquis will also be brought in through the extradition Bill instead of by order and a 90-minute debate. If that assurance is given, we would not seek to overturn the amendment in the other place. If that assurance is given tonight, we would not seek to overturn it tonight—not that I suffer from any illusion that we could overturn any amendment in this House—so we would not seek to vote against it.
      7.45 pm
      It is critical that we should have an equal assurance on the question of the Schengen acquis to the one we have had on the European arrest warrant and on all decisions that may be made under the third pillar beyond June 2002. If we can rest easy on that point, we will have achieved a major improvement in British law from the position we faced on Second Reading. I hope that we will also be able to achieve such improvement in relation to the disclosure provisions. I do not want to have been part of a Parliament that brought about a situation in which a British policeman had the capacity to obtain every record on an individual because of a traffic offence that could have been committed in Baltimore, Ohio. That would not be tolerable and we need to change it. If the Home Secretary finds a way to change that, we will accept it.
      Norman Baker: I, too, welcome the Home Secretary's constructive comments and the approach that the Government have taken to the Bill in the past 48 hours. It is welcome that he wishes to find common ground and we and, I believe, the Conservatives share that aspiration. The Home Secretary said that he has tried to be helpful and I hope that he will feel that we are also trying.
      The Government are entitled to respond to the international situation and to introduce legislation to deal with unexpected and emergency threats from terrorism. That is common ground. If the Home Secretary can achieve a Bill that will do that, he will have the support of the House and the country. The dispute, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out, is on a relatively small area of the Bill. The question is whether in the legitimate and correct pursuit of legislation to deal with terrorism it is appropriate to include provisions that would effectively give a green light to excessive state interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. Seeking to suspend some of them is an odd way in which to seek to protect our civil liberties. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on that paradox. The drugs taken to cure an illness sometimes cause complications worse than the original illness. Reactions must be proportionate—and the Home Secretary used that word himself tonight.
      I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Member for West Dorset a failure to understand why the Home Secretary is determined to introduce measures that do not deal with terrorism or the threat to national security directly or indirectly—which is a wide target—but would address any criminal activity. For example, clause 102 states that the code of practice could contain provision
      "for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime".

      905
      It does not refer to terrorism or threats to national security, or even to serious crime, which might deal with people who smuggle cigarettes.
      Mr. Blunkett: I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. Have we not now agreed to the code being made on an affirmative order so that it can be examined automatically by both Houses? Secondly, have we not tried to show that data cannot be held—held, rather than just exposed—on the presumption of the holders that they can distinguish whether it will be required for terrorism or for crime? The provision is as broad as it is because the data have to be accessed when there is a suspicion of terrorism. If the data were not held, access would not be possible.
      Norman Baker: We welcome the Home Secretary's approach with regard to the affirmative order, as I hope I made clear earlier. However, in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the Bill states that part of its purpose is the detection of crime. The use of the word "purpose" has wide connotations.
      I thought that the Bill's purpose was to deal with the terrorist threat, not the threat of crime. That is the difference that divides Government and Opposition Members. The Government want to reverse amendments made in the Lords, but there are serious worries that the Bill would place us in contravention of article 8 of the European convention because of the range of offences covered and the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions. Another problem is the lack of procedural safeguards.
      The Home Secretary mentioned the proportionality test. It was a helpful suggestion, and shows that he recognises that proportionality has to apply in these matters. However, the human rights legislation already contains the necessary proportionality, so with the best will in the world, I cannot believe that the Home Secretary is adding much to the existing arrangements. At best, he is spelling them out.
      It has already been said that the Lords amendments are quite wide ranging. Amendment No. 6 states that the information
      "may relate directly or indirectly to any risk of national security or to a terrorist."
      In an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked what reason there might be for taking advantage of the measures that the Home Secretary wants in the Bill if there is no suspicion.
      Mr. Michael Weir: I am confused by the argument about disclosure. If there is no question of suspicion of terrorism, what is the trigger for disclosure of information? If organisations and people properly investigating terrorism act on the precautionary principle, might not they be unnecessarily swamped by disclosures if the trigger is not inserted in the Bill?
      Norman Baker: I absolutely agree. The Home Secretary should be seeking a rapier, but he appears to want a blunderbuss. That may lead to the intelligence services being swamped, and require them to undertake
      906
      inquiries with police forces that will detract from their proper work of dealing with terrorism. The proposal may therefore be counterproductive and ineffective.
      Last week, the Home Secretary challenged the police service to improve its performance and raise detection rates. The worry is that the police, in looking for every means to do that and ensure that criminals are brought to justice, will be tempted to fish for information from various authorities if they do not have enough evidence otherwise. No hon. Member would support such fishing expeditions. Moreover, there is a possibility that other authorities, including the security services, will be asked for data without much justification.
      Simon Hughes: Last year, when we debated the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, we agreed to give the authorities much wider powers than normal to deal with serious activity. Many people outside the House are worried that it would be unhelpful and invasive of citizens' liberty to equate serious crime that is terrorism-linked with the motoring offences referred to by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), or with sex offences or public drunkenness. All such matters are subsumed under one head, but does my hon. Friend not agree that they should be distinguished one from another and placed into categories such as "serious", "terrorist-related", and so on?
      Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is right. Everyone wants to deal with the threat of terrorism. People are prepared to accept that that may require measures whose impact on civil liberties is in excess of what we would normally condone, but they are not prepared to accept measures which go far further and which might impact on people with no connection with terrorism whatever.
      The Home Secretary must find a way to ensure that people who need to be apprehended and prevented from carrying out acts of terrorism or from posing a threat to national security are dealt with effectively. However, he must do so without infringing those civil liberties that the House is seeking to defend by introducing the Bill in the first place. I do not think that the Home Secretary has got that balance right yet.
      Mr. Allan: I am very interested in my hon. Friend's argument, but the question of workability was raised earlier and it is important. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns about clause 102 that have been raised by communication service providers? They fear that the Government will end up with legislation that will be unworkable for the security forces, as it would require very close co-operation between technicians and Government in dealing with large amounts of data. Under the present proposals, that co-operative spirit does not exist.
      Norman Baker: The Government have proposed a code of practice and changed the terminology used in the Bill. It is sensible to produce a draft code of practice in advance, and I give the Home Secretary credit for that. However, it is worth noting the many objections expressed by the communications industry, and the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI is normally the Government's best friend, but it objects to some parts of the Bill. It is unusual to receive representations from the CBI in connection with a Home Office Bill, so it is

      907
      clear that the matter is one for business as well as for the civil liberties groups that have contacted us at great length.
      The worry is that, without any suggestion that national security or terrorism is involved, almost anyone suspected of any activity can trigger the type of investigations involving data sharing that more properly relate to national security and terrorism.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully, but will he confirm that he realises that we are talking not about the power to access information, but about clarifying the legal position of the communication service providers in retaining data? As for workability from the point of view of the communication service providers, will the hon. Gentleman explain how the link with national security will work to help those providers decide to retain certain data? How will they distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to a national security inquiry, and other data that might be shown not to be so linked?
      Norman Baker: Opposition Members do not draft legislation. We draft amendments and point out faults in the Government's proposals. It is for the Government to produce measures that are proportionate and meet the objectives that they have set out. Opposition Members' duty is to point out disproportionate measures that could have a huge impact on civil liberties. It is up to the Government to respond to the concerns expressed in this debate, among Labour Back-Benchers, in the other place and elsewhere that the Bill is disproportionate and could have deleterious effects.
      Beverley Hughes: I should like to press the hon. Gentleman a little further on the second question that I put to him. Representations received by the Home Office from communication service providers deal with the question of how they could make work measures that are limited only to national security. The Bill gives service providers a legal power to retain data, but their problem is how to distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to national security from data that are not. The providers say the amendment is not workable.
      Norman Baker: The Minister advances an odd proposition. The Government must produce a code, and they must consult to ensure that it meets the objections that the Minister has expressed. She proposes that, because one person may be caught in a particular net, we should catch all information relating to any person who happens to be near that net because that person may fall into the category that the she has set out. That is an odd suggestion. It confirms the unease felt by many hon. Members that the Government are less than focused when it comes to the question of who should be caught by the Bill.
      Simon Hughes: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am a lay person on this issue. However, if I were a user and transferrer of data, I might one day send entirely innocent communications that were totally unrelated to crime and the next day send information that might be related to crime. How would the providers be able to distinguish
      908
      between what I do today and what I do tomorrow? It is not a practical proposition to expect them to be able to do that. The burden on the Government is to show that their proposal is practical, but we have not been persuaded that it is.
      8 pm
      Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and the Government have to respond to it over the next 24 hours or so if they are to convince us and others that theirs is the right way forward.
      I do not wish to take much more of the House's time, because I know that other Members wish to speak. However, the House of Lords has done us a favour by considering the Bill in rather more detail than we have had the time for. If the House authorities had provided more time for Second Reading and the Committee stage in this House, we would not have had to consider the range of amendments that the Lords have made to the Bill. I hope that the Government will learn the lesson that they should give the Commons more time for Second Readings and Committee stages and should not rely on the House of Lords to do the work that should be done initially in this place.
      I hope that the Government will also reflect on the fact that the new and modified House of Lords, which is the Prime Minister's own creation, has inflicted a huge number of defeats on the Government in relation to this Bill. Even though there was agreement on the principle as to where we want to get to, it inflicted those defeats by very large majorities. I hope that the Government are listening to that—I think they are—and will reflect on the specific, focused points that the House of Lords has made. We are not convinced that it is appropriate to have such a wide-ranging definition in the Bill. We therefore support the Lords amendments and we hope that the Government see their merit.
      We welcome the movement that the Government made in the House of Lords on third-pillar matters and particularly on sunset provisions and on the improved and more specific wording. We, too, are at loss as to why the Government have tabled amendments to the Lords amendments and, in particular, want to insert paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48. Such provisions are too far reaching and are not merited under the emergency provisions in the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, I hope that the Government will consider withdrawing that provision.
      We support the Lords amendments. We hope that the Government will take a few more steps towards making the Bill the one that we all want it to be—one that deals effectively with terrorism, but without taking away our civil liberties.
      Mr. Fisher: I join others in thanking the Home Secretary for his constructive and courteous attitude. It set a helpful tone for the debate and recognises that both sides of the House agree with his objective, which is to get at terrorists and ensure that they do not go undetected. That aim unites us all.
      When the Minister responds to the debate, will she say something more about the relationship between suspicion and disclosure? Surely, for a variety of reasons, if suspicion is to be targeted on the objective that we all share, it has to be based on evidence. If it is not, it will

      909
      be a loose and free-ranging suspicion that will lead to many of the unfortunate and ineffective consequences that other hon. Members have described.
      Such an approach involves not only a good principle of legal practice but, as Opposition Members have said, makes good practical sense. Of course, the Home Secretary made the perfectly fair point that the relationship between crime—and sometimes even misdemeanour—and terrorism is complicated and that the one may lead to the other. We all agree that there is a link that may be helpful in detecting terrorism and in bringing terrorists to justice.
      When the Home Secretary gave the example of credit card fraud, he appeared to encourage the idea that anyone who identified such fraud should bring it to the attention of the security forces. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, that would lead to the most absurd situation in which the police and the security forces would be deluged with unhelpful and unfocused information that would all have to be sifted just in case those committing fraud were involved in terrorism.
      Surely, to provide practical help to the security forces and to the police, there must be a more evidential base to suspicion than simply the existence of a misdemeanour or crime. Unless we support the Lords amendment and focus more on the problem than the Bill's wording does, we will not assist the security forces and the police to focus their concerns on the things that matter and not on generalised suspicions.
      I may have misunderstood the position. As the Home Secretary knows, I am not a lawyer. However, because of that real danger, I intend to support the Lords amendment unless he can reassure the House and those of us who still have reservations about, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, relatively few aspects of the Bill. We need to be reassured that the provisions for suspicion focus on the main objectives and will not lead to a trawl through many types of crime in a way that will not help the security forces to achieve the aim that we all share of identifying terrorists and bringing them to justice.
      Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot live in a Stalinist world in which every Tom, Dick and Harry reports this, that or the other? Something must precipitate the inquiries. There must be suspicion and that suspicion will almost always be related by the security forces to the police, who will then be able to act according to the terms of the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Fisher: I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, as I have nothing more to add, I shall draw my remarks to a close.
      Beverley Hughes: I wish to reply to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. Clearly the common thread in these Lords amendments is the extent to which there is a link between terrorism and non-terrorist crime. However, the fettering of the proposed powers in the Bill to deal with only those crimes that relate to national security or terrorism would be a serious impediment to the police and the other law enforcement agencies getting at terrorists.
      Simon Hughes: We just do not accept that the current terms of the Bill, with the width of the door through which
      910
      people can go, can be fettered in the way that the Minister suggests. When we considered the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government never made the case that any crime could be linked to terrorism. It is a totally new argument that does not appear to be supported by the facts.
      Beverley Hughes: The Government disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. The key issue is the point at which public authorities, communication service providers or the police have to make the decision about using the powers in the Bill. They will or will not be able to foresee a link between terrorism and crime. The point that the law enforcement agencies strongly stress is that, at that stage, faced with information or a body of evidence, an assessment is often extremely difficult, until pieces of information from different sources start to be put together and the picture of the jigsaw that might point to terrorism can emerge.
      Simon Hughes indicated dissent.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the amendments would prevent the pieces of that jigsaw from being put together. They would prevent the accumulation of data that would allow the authorities to begin to see a link with terrorism.
      Mr. Fisher: Surely the Minister is simply describing good police detective practice—something that already happens in criminal law and in the detection of other terrorist acts. It happened throughout our attempts to prevent terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is good detective practice to bring together disparate pieces of information. From what the Government have said, they have not demonstrated that new powers are necessary.
      Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is correct: that is the premise of good detective work. However, without access to the information—or if the information is not volunteered, as many of these provisions would allow—the piecing together of that information and the execution of that detective work cannot take place, or cannot do so within a time scale that would be beneficial in the investigation of terrorism.
      In relation to the disclosure powers in part 3, I remind Members that the provision merely harmonises existing provisions in the Acts listed in schedule 4. Some of the provisions relating to three particular Acts already allow for disclosure for criminal investigations: the Utilities Act 2000, and two measures passed under Conservative Governments—the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Those measures already allow for disclosure at the investigative stage for criminal investigations.
      The provision is not new; it merely provides that the measure will pertain throughout those gateways. Instead of having to wait for the start of proceedings—as is the case with some of the other provisions in the schedule—it will be possible for information to be passed throughout all the gateways. The matter will already have been debated by the House and agreed procedures will already have been laid down in statute for the passage of that information. There will be a process of harmonisation,

      911
      enabling those Acts to be used to share information—not necessarily at the proceedings stage, but at the investigation stage.
      Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister tell us whether the Government's proposed paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48 on the Schengen acquis will be removed to the extradition Bill?
      Beverley Hughes: We have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are considering it carefully, and we may be able to make some progress on that point that we can announce tomorrow.
      In relation to parts 10 and 11, I refer again to some of the points I made to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and remind Members that we are not talking about access to communications data but the power of the providers to retain that data and—
      Mr. Allan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I am sorry I cannot; I have only one minute to conclude my remarks.
      Providers need the assurance that if they decide to retain data, the data will be legally retained, so the Lords amendment is not workable because it will create confusion, and communication service providers will not have the legal assurance that they need and that the clause is designed to give them.
      In relation to part 10, we want the police to have the judgment of hindsight. It is not possible for them always to know where something will lead, so it is important that they have powers to investigate and identify criminals even when they cannot be absolutely certain that there is a terrorist link.
      It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day].
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment No. 48 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 6:—
      The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 213.

      Division No. 107]

      [8.16 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barron, Kevin

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Alexander, Douglas

      Beggs, Roy

      Allen, Graham

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Berry, Roger

      (Swansea E)

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      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

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Baird, Vera

      Borrow, David

      912

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foulkes, George

      Brennan, Kevin

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Gapes, Mike

      (Dunfermline E)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      (Newcastle ES Wallsend)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Gilroy, Linda

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Burnside, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Grogan, John

      Cairns, David

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Cawsey, Ian

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Challen, Colin

      Havard, Dai

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Healey, John

      Chaytor, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hendrick, Mark

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Hermon, Lady

      (Norwich S)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hill, Keith

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hope, Phil

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Colman, Tony

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Corston, Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cox, Tom

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cruddas, Jon

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Joyce, Eric

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kelly, Ruth

      Dismore, Andrew

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Donohoe, Brian H

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Doran, Frank

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dowd, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Drew, David

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Laxton, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Linton, Martin

      913

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lucas, Ian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Luke, Iain

      Rooney, Terry

      Lyons, John

      Ross, Ernie

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ryan, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Salter, Martin

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDougall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McKechin, Ann

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Simon Siôn,

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mann, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Merron, Gillian

      Squire, Rachel

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Starkey Dr Phyllis

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Steinberg,Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mole, Chris

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moran, Margaret

      Straw Rt Hon Jack

      Morgan, Julie

      Stringer, Graham

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mountford, Kali

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tami, Mark

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Edward

      Todd, MarK

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      O'Neill, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Organ, Diana

      Truswell, Paul

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Perham, Linda

      Tynan, Bill

      Picking, Anne

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pike, Peter

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Pope, Greg

      (Swansea W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Winnick, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wood, Mike

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Woolas, Phil

      Purchase, Ken

      Worthington, Tony

      Purnell, James

      Wray, James

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Rammell, Bill

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rapson, Syd

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, John

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      914

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Allan, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Amess, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Bacon, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Baker, Norman

      Greenway, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Barnes, Harry

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Baron, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Barrett, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hayes, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Heald, Oliver

      Bercow, John

      Heath, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hoban, Mark

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Holmes, Paul

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Horam, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Breed, Colin

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burnett, John

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Burns, Simon

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Keetch, Paul

      Burt, Alistair

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Butterfill, John

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Key, Robert

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Cameron, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      (NE Fife)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Cash, William

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Laws, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Leigh, Edward

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Letwin, Oliver

      (Rushcliffe)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Conway, Derek

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cotter, Brian

      Loughton, Tim

      Cran, James

      Luff, Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McDonnell, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dodds, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Doughty, Sue

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fallon, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fisher, Mark

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      Oaten, Mark

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Francois, Mark

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gale, Roger

      Ottaway, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gibb, Nick

      Paterson, Owen

      915

      Pickles, Eric

      Swire, Hugo

      Price, Adam

      Syms, Robert

      Prisk, Mark

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Pugh, Dr John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rendel, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thurso, John

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyler, Paul

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Viggers, Peter

      Ruffley, David

      Walter, Robert

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Salmond, Alex

      Webb, Steve

      Sanders, Adrian

      Weir, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Selous, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Willis, Phil

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wilshire, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

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

      Wishart, Pete

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Spink, Bob

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spring, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Charles Hendry.

      Swayne, Desmond

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 8, 38, 40 and 44 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 47 and 49 to 64 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

    Clause 21

      SUSPECTED INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST: CERTIFICATION
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 10, line 38, leave out "an international" and insert "a".
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 20, Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto.
      Mr. Blunkett: Part 4 rightly received a great deal of attention in Committee in this House and in the House of Lords. It has also been debated publicly at considerable length, and understandable concerns have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the Bill's passage.
      Considerable progress has already been made in clarifying the role of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and its relationship with other aspects of the judicial process and with the Home Secretary's role in certification. We seek tonight to find a way forward to
      916
      complete the unification of the two sides of the House and secure the good will of those of all parties about the way in which the procedures should operate.
      All parties have expressed the wish to see the threat of terrorism and those who pose a threat internationally and whom this country currently hosts dealt with decisively. We have disagreed about how far we should go in deratifying the European convention and on the removal of people to countries where their lives and well-being might be at risk. Concerns have been expressed that any kind of detention, as an alternative to removal, is a threat to human rights. We have sought together to try to find a process that gives sufficient guarantee of due process to enable people to feel that, in the difficult circumstances that we face, we have found a suitable avenue for achieving the proportionate balance that we have talked about over weeks and months.
      Mr. George Osborne: Part 4 rests on the derogation from article 5 of the European convention. Has the Home Secretary read the comments of David Pannick QC, one of the country's leading barristers, that the derogation from article 5 is unlawful because, first, the European Court of Human Rights is unlikely to accept that we face a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and, secondly, even if it did accept that, the Government will not be able to establish to the Court's satisfaction that detention without trial is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation? Can the Home Secretary assure us that David Pannick is wrong in his interpretation of the law, because if he is correct part 4 is at serious risk of collapsing?
      Mr. Blunkett: I have seen David Pannick's comments. I have a great deal of respect for his judgment and the Home Office has made use of it on several occasions, but we do not believe that he is correct, nor do any of the lawyers we have consulted. Subject to the passage of the Bill in the next 48 hours, we shall, as we said we would, deposit the derogation at Strasbourg. We believe that that step will complete the necessary process.
      In two sets of discussions with United States Attorney-General John Ashcroft today, it was made wholly clear that the international threat remains. Although we have made enormous progress on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, we have not undermined that network, the tentacles of which stretch across the world. John Ashcroft described the process as stretching from those who have a conception of an idea, through those who plan based on the idea, to those to execute it. All three steps can involve different groups, in different parts of the world, operating in different spheres and at different times. That is why we believe that the threat that became apparent immediately after 11 September has not diminished.
      Jeremy Corbyn: No one in the House is in favour of terrorism or terrorist attacks, but many of us believe that the criminal law should be used to apprehend people who commit or who are planning to commit criminal acts. Will the Home Secretary explain why this country, almost alone in Europe, is proposing such draconian measures and derogation from human rights conventions when other countries believe that their criminal law is sufficient to deal with the threat?
      Mr. Blunkett: As I said on Second Reading and in Committee—I regret the need to repeat myself, but doing

      917
      so is necessary because we must take a measured approach this evening—not only do we accept that there is an international threat and that we are in danger of hosting, as many have accused us of doing, those who engage in organising, funding or perpetrating international terrorism, but we believe that we are at greater risk than many other countries because of our declared and clear alliance with the United States, for which that country's people are deeply grateful, and because in the minds of those who have engaged in terror we are associated with the international action taken against the terrorists.
      We need to update our preparedness, our legislation and our actions against terrorism—even in a way that has been denounced by other countries, including those to which my hon. Friend refers—and to reflect the nature and the response to the threat to the United States and elsewhere, albeit not to the extent that the United States has found necessary. On Second Reading, in Committee and on several other occasions the House has reflected on the fact that we have not suggested the sort of measures that the United States has felt it necessary to take in terms of detention or military tribunals in order to deal with the perceived threat.
      Mr. Fisher: Members on both sides of the House agree that we are under threat from terrorism—the whole world is under threat from terrorism, this country perhaps more than most others apart from the United States. We were under threat from terrorism before 11 September, and that threat may have increased since, but that is not the test for derogation. Mr. Pannick and others who support him say that the test is not whether we are under threat from terrorism, but whether the threat is so severe that it threatens the life of the nation. Nothing the Home Secretary has said on Second Reading, in Committee or tonight takes that necessary step to extend the threat of terrorism, which obviously exists, to a threat that threatens the life of this nation. That is a far more severe test, and not one that the Home Secretary will find it easy to demonstrate.
      Mr. Blunkett: I say with great sadness that I fear that I shall not be able to convince my hon. Friend. We know what happened on 11 September, and I think that most people are aware of the time that it takes to organise acts of terror, some of which have been detected. I have mentioned previously those in Jordan and the proposed attack on the American embassy in Paris. There are also the well-known Tanzanian and Kenyan US embassy attacks in 1998. Such attacks take a long time to prepare. They are organised and funded on the basis that they will disrupt, as we saw at the World Trade Centre, both the economic life and activity of a nation. There is not simply the act; there is also the knock-on or spin-on effect on the life of the nation.
      If people do not believe that what happened on 11 September has not had a dramatic effect on the life of the United States, on its economy and on the economy of the world, they have been living in a different world from the one that the rest of us inhabit. It has had that effect, and everyone knows that. It has changed the perspective.
      I cannot guarantee that there will not be an attack on the United Kingdom—nor can I say that there will be such an attack. We started the debate on the basis of whether
      918
      we take decisive action of the sort that is proposed. It behoves us to consider whether we believe that we would find what we are proposing acceptable if a major attack took place.
      Norman Baker: The test that has to be satisfied to allow derogation to be justified is a high one, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has said: the essence of the life of the country must be under threat. The right hon. Gentleman said on 15 October, more than a month after the terrorist attack on New York, that there was no immediate threat to the United Kingdom. Of course terrorism exists, but there is not an immediate threat to the essence of the country.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am in a cleft stick. In seeking to ensure reassurance, which I have done to the best of my ability over the weeks after 11 September, and to ensure that the life of the nation was not immediately disrupted by a change in people's behaviour, it should not be assumed that people did not believe that there is and remains a threat to the life of the nation.
      I am posing the question whether people believed on the 12th, or believe it now, that there was or is a threat. I believe that the threat has not diminished. I take the same view now as I took the day after 11 September. The question that must be answered is whether people think that what we are seeking to do under part 4 is justified if a substantial attack took place now. I suggest that they would. Taking action to preclude that threat to the life of the nation has to be the right thing to do, rather than taking the action after the life of the nation has demonstrably been threatened.
      David Winnick: The only issue on which I voted against the Government in this context is judicial review. I shall listen with great interest to what my right hon. Friend has to say about that. Is he aware that in the previous Parliament I asked his predecessor a number of questions at meetings of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about those who are alleged to have been much involved in terrorism abroad, who were using Britain as a safe haven, but who for various reasons could not be tried? It would be naive of us not to accept—there is one such case in the United States—that there remain a number of people who, in my view, are certainly a danger to communities abroad and to Britain itself.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely; that is why we must take the action that we are proposing. In two seconds, I shall deal with the issue of judicial review, which has strongly exercised my hon. Friend and many others, including Members of the House of Lords.
      First, however, we are endeavouring to answer the question of how to deal with the situation, either by withdrawing—temporarily or otherwise—from the European convention on human rights and taking action to remove people elsewhere in the world, or by removing the power to detain or remove people in circumstances in which the usual court proceedings, because of the risk posed to the security and intelligence services and those working for them, do not allow us to present that evidence. We are dealing with that tonight.
      We have chosen the road of proportionality and the middle ground. People have accepted that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, unanimously set up by

      919
      both Houses, was an appropriate avenue for presenting such evidence in the circumstances that I have just described—it would not be appropriate to present such evidence in open court—on the certification of the Home Secretary, to remove someone, either on security grounds or because their presence was not conducive to the public good. Now we are having to decide whether, when we cannot remove someone without putting their life at risk, that mechanism is appropriate to detain them, albeit with constant reviews of the position and given the fact that that the individual can leave the country, should they find a safe place to go.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I wish to raise two matters with the Home Secretary. First, Government amendment (a) states that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission will be deemed
      "a superior court of record".
      What does that mean, other than that some proceedings will be subject to recording? Secondly and more substantially, the Home Secretary will know that, under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, there are special procedures that, for example, enable the tribunal to hold that some parts of the evidence should be withheld from the detained person and, indeed, that he or she may not necessarily be present during the proceedings. Is there anything in the Government amendments that changes the position under the 1997 Act? I am not aware of any such provision.
      Mr. Blunkett: I was about to deal with the issue of making SIAC an administrative court and superior court of record.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman described the situation correctly. Elements of presented evidence are withheld, but not from the advocate appointed on behalf of the individual.
      Mr. Hogg: He is appointed, not chosen.
      Mr. Blunkett: He is appointed for that purpose, although the individual can choose legal representation. As I have said in previous debates, the individual can, if they wish, retain that advocate in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords
      I have it on good authority that those who have expressed the gravest concern about judicial Review—Law Lords and ex-Law Lords in the House of Lords—believe that the designation of SIAC as a superior court of record and administrative court will meet their concerns because its procedures will provide the equivalent of judicial review.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I assist? A court of record simply means that the proceedings are recorded with a view to them subsequently being subject to scrutiny on appeal or by way of precedent. As there is no appeal from SIAC except by way of law, and as it is not a court of precedent, what is the point of making it a court of record?
      Mr. Blunkett: It establishes—beyond peradventure, as Lord Heseltine would have said—the position, the status and the record, which can be carried forward. My hon.
      920
      and learned Friend is always helpful to me. I know that he comes into the Chamber for that purpose alone. I look forward to his being helpful to me again and again, for many years to come.
      The right of appeal on those aspects that would be appropriate to the Appeal Court of the House of Lords will be granted. I take the word of those who, over many generations, have been engaged in the law that that overcomes their concerns in respect of the issues that we have debated at length—for example, how we deal with a review of a review, where the evidence that must be adduced and presented must be in the same form, with the same complete security, as in the previous review.
      That is why we argued the case in terms of whether the Special Immigration Appeals Commission needed a new SIAC to review it. If that means designating a superior court of record and confirming the level of the judiciary involved, as in a Crown court, so be it. In other words—just to show my hon. and learned Friend that I have some grasp of the law—the Crown court cannot be judicially reviewed as a Crown court.
      Mr. Weir: In Scotland any decision by a Government Department can be subject to judicial review by the Court of Session. Under the new legislation, will the matter be decided only by SIAC, and will the Scottish court no longer be able to carry out a judicial review?
      Mr. Blunkett: On that very issue, I was pleased to help one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, who participated in the debate in Committee, having missed Second Reading because she was in her constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not otherwise engaged at the time, as it would be a shame to go over the explanation again. I explained at enormous length the operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and its jurisdiction. I do not want to be unhelpful, but as any hon. Member who was present on Second Reading and in Committee will recall, we took every intervention. Whatever else hon. Members disagree about, they cannot deny that we have spelled out in words of one syllable how SIAC works.
      In the present context, we are seeking to deal with the situation of people who would otherwise have been removed on the certification of the Home Secretary, who appeal through SIAC, and who are to be detained if they cannot be removed. We are trying to ensure that the process works.
      Mr. Letwin: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept my question as genuinely helpful. Does he agree that when the noble Lord Donaldson accepted the amendment, the view that he took—he holds a special position in our judiciary—was that the effect of denominating SIAC as a superior court of record would be to turn it into a clear part of the High Court and give it all the powers of judicial review that would otherwise pertain to the High Court, but with the special procedures of SIAC in place, so that the information made available by the security services would not be compromised when it was given to the court?
      Mr. Blunkett: That is entirely correct. I am grateful for the succinct presentation, as ever, of the way in which Lord Donaldson and others who have examined the

      921
      provision understand it to work. It is on that basis that we are resisting amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and seeking to gain agreement on the way forward on this specific issue. I know that some hon. Members on both sides of the House will remain convinced of the position that they held from the beginning, which is that this part of the Bill should not be proceeded with. We must continue to have a genuine disagreement on that point. However, we have done our utmost to secure the agreement of those who understood the reasons for the provisions, but were concerned about the nature of the process.
      Simon Hughes: With regard to court procedures, first, does the Home Secretary accept that it is possible at any level for courts to sit in secret and that the Government can at any stage issue a public interest immunity certificate, which means that some evidence or information may not be revealed? Secondly, one of his concerns may be that judicial review will often be used or often be successful, or that it will be abused and cause delay. The evidence is that it succeeds about one in 100 times, and it has never succeeded in relation to SIAC so far. If he has that concern, does he accept that one could time limit a period by which a judicial review could be made, in order to deal with any possibility that it might be used as a delaying tactic?
      Mr. Blunkett: Of course, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question relates directly to the second part, as one would agree to the second only if one accepted the first, which involves the holding of proceedings in camera in a normal court and the evocation of public interest immunity to the point where not only the evidence that is presented would be protected, but those presenting it and those working on behalf of the security services. The security services made it absolutely clear to me—I do not think that I am breaching any confidence in saying this—that they would bring no cases forward if we used the normal court system and attempted to use public interest immunity.
      Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Blackmail.
      Mr. Blunkett: It is not blackmail. If I am asked about why we are not using public interest immunity and the potential for part of the evidence to be considered in camera, there is no point in shouting from the Back Benches when I give the answer. The security services do not believe that it is possible to hold in camera a case in which those who have not been designated under security legislation to be able to hear and take evidence would inevitably have to do so. In the past, evidence on public interest immunity has led judges to rule that those who were prepared to give evidence—such people will often have been working on behalf of the security services at tremendous risk to their lives in circumstances that none of us would ever want to experience—had to present themselves and be exposed to the accused person. In such circumstances, those people can be committed to almost certain death.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall do so, because I hear total disbelief from behind me. I do not hear that in front of me.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I have provoked that question, but let me be provoked by my own side for a moment.
      Jeremy Corbyn: There is some disbelief on the Benches behind the Home Secretary. I find it astonishing that he should tell the House that the security services are not prepared to bring forward evidence if there is any danger of it being heard in a court, even if it is in camera. It is extraordinary that the security services, which are largely unaccountable to anybody, should decide what the policies of this country should be. Apparently, they are now even deciding what its law should be.
      Mr. Blunkett: First, the security services did not determine the law. They indicated to me the circumstances in which they would be able to present particular types of evidence, which is precisely why we have been debating this whole issue. We have almost gone full circle. If somebody does not accept that there are circumstances in which evidence that has been adduced cannot be presented in a court, even if it is under a public interest immunity, and if they do not accept that view in respect of the level or threshold of evidence and the way in which it is presented, in relation to what was adduced in the Rehman case that we debated previously and affirmed by the House of Lords in the middle of October, they will not believe me. They will not be committed to following that process. Some hon. Members would like to undo the result of the vote on establishing SIAC. It was established on the basis that it could take evidence in the way in which I am describing—on appeal against certification by the Home Secretary, whoever he or she may be, in relation to removal on ground of security or because a person's presence is not conducive to the public good. The evidence, to be adduced and presented in precisely the way in which I am outlining, was acceptable for those purposes. That was demonstrated by the Mullah Rehman appeal and affirmed in the House of Lords. Those who believe that all that is wrong will believe that I am wrong.
      9 pm
      Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall, but I want to finish the point. Let us consider the difference between what has already been agreed and carried through and my proposals. We will use the same process but the outcome is not removal in cases where the person's life would be at risk, but detention with review. The process, with the sort of evidence and advocacy that has already been established, has only one different feature. We cannot remove people because, rightly, we will not breach article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and we must therefore detain them.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, but I must revert to a point that genuinely troubles me. The amendment designates SIAC as a court of record. In answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary said that that effectively gives SIAC the powers of judicial review. Clause 26 properly and fully sets out the commission's powers. They are not the same as the power of judicial review. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the statement

      923
      that SIAC will have the powers of judicial review with the statutory powers for which the Bill explicitly provides. How does the Home Secretary reconcile those positions?
      Mr. Blunkett: The process is to review the certification signed by the Home Secretary. Those who seek judicial review of SIAC are trying to review the decision of a court. The decision to designate SIAC as a superior court of record affirms that. I shall rest my case so that other hon. Members can speak because we have only one fundamental disagreement. The process is already laid down, albeit that the outcome—detention rather than removal—is different from the original intention. Our disagreement is about the process. I understand why people do not believe that it is acceptable, but I disagree with them, because it is the only way in which to deal with the current circumstances.
      Mr. Burnett: Is the Home Secretary minded to extend the rights of appeal from SIAC to the Court of Appeal so that matters of fact and law can be appealed against? In such circumstances can the Court of Appeal sit in camera and use the special advocate procedure?
      Mr. Blunkett: I am confining the amendment to the designation of SIAC. The right of appeal on a point of law remains, as described earlier.
      Ultimately, we are debating whether hon. Members believe, in the circumstances, that it is appropriate to detain people using the evidence, the threshold and the process of SIAC in the way that was intended for removal and will now be used for detention when we cannot remove.
      Simon Hughes: One of the terrible consequences of this procedure is that we have an hour in total for this debate. It is no criticism of the Home Secretary to say that 35 minutes of that hour has been taken up by his explaining the Government's view and answering questions. However, with the best will in the world, it is impossible in an hour for the House to do justice to the arguments about the fundamental issue of keeping judicial review, or to consider the alternative before us in the form of a Government amendment whose genesis lies in a proposal by a former Lord of Appeal and Master of the Rolls. One of our complaints is that, because of the speed of the process, this legislation has needed to come back so that this issue can be revisited—as the Government now accept—and many other interrelated issues as well.
      This group of amendments covers three issues, the last of which is judicial review. Government amendments (a) to (f) offer an alternative to the Lords' removal of the original provisions stating that one could not go to judicial review in relation to detention without trial. In relation to amendments Nos. 9 and 13, we are grateful that the Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberal Democrats and of Irish Members of Parliament, which defines terrorism in the same way, whether it is national or international. That concession is gratefully received. It would have been nonsense to define separately whether someone's motive was connected to activity within or outside the UK or part of it. We also welcome the improvements in the procedure relating to the timetable for review and other matters contained in amendments Nos. 14 to 20.
      924
      The nub of this issue, however, is judicial review. I want to tell the House why we should agree to accept the Lords' decision to remove the provisions that suggest that one cannot go to judicial review, and not to accept the alternative. I do so respectfully and carefully, conscious that the amendments come from Lord Donaldson, whom I respect. This is his attempt, supported by others, to find a way through the middle, but I do not accept—I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House share my view—that it meets the test, or that the amendments satisfy the concerns that have been voiced abroad in the House and beyond.
      We would be wrong to derogate from the European convention on human rights and from the Human Rights Act 1998. Nothing that the Home Secretary has said about the issues on which we agree—for example, that there remains an international threat, which I accept without qualification—persuades me that that takes us into the criteria for qualifying for derogation.
      The two tests have been set out: there has to be a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and the resultant action has to be action strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. Like David Pannick, whom we all respect as an authority, the Liberal Democrats' view is that those tests are not met. I honestly believe that, if the Government proceed, they would be at risk of being found to have breached their qualifications for derogation, if it were tested either in a domestic court or in the European Court of Human Rights.
      The Home Secretary has been both courteous and conciliatory today, as he has on almost every other occasion that I can remember. I hope that he will accept that, just because my colleagues and I have a different view, it does not mean that we are not of good will on these issues. We shall, I anticipate, reach a different conclusion, but I hope that he accepts that we do so for the same reasons that the Labour party in opposition, on many occasions, perfectly honourably reached a different conclusion on emergency legislation from the Tory Government.
      So that there is no doubt, I repeat that we do not accept that detention without trial for people who are not British is a necessary step when others have not been attempted. We should first try to charge and prosecute. Secondly, if the security services cannot proceed because of the rules of evidence, we could amend those rules. Thirdly, we might consider the procedures of the court. Only when we have tried and failed with those, and they have not been considered in the context of the Bill, should we contemplate the further step. We are not persuaded.
      We do not go along with the Conservative view that it would be right to have a reservation in relation to the European convention on human rights—that is one of our few disagreements on the substance of the Bill—so we offer a different solution, which we think could be achieved by procedures in the domestic courts.
      One reason for believing that our case is justified is that no signatory country to the ECHR, which goes wider than the EU, has yet seen fit to say that it must go down that road. I am not privy to whether those countries might do so, but it is significant that, three months after 11 September, not one other ECHR signatory—that includes all Council of Europe member countries—has changed its position on detention without trial. For me, that is not the persuasive argument, but it is additional strong evidence that we should take into account.

      925
      As I want to allow other colleagues to speak, I shall list my reasons for hoping that the House accepts that SIAC, even as amended by the alternative suggested in the Government amendment, will not work. If hon. Members have any doubts, I refer them to the first day of debate on Report in the House of Lords and the speeches of Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble Friend Lord Goodhart and Lord Donaldson. I quote Lord Mayhew, but each speech includes such phrases:
      "My submission is that in the Bill we should not be driven to surrender a precious safeguard against the abuse of power, especially when there is no need for it. If one did so, one could be sure that such a precedent would soon be followed because, in my experience, all departmental Ministers resent judicial review. That in itself is a good reason why it should be cherished."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 997.]
      That may apply in only one case in a hundred, which is Lord Donaldson's view, and Lord Mayhew may accept that the SIAC amendment route is the right way forward, but that does not pass the test of principle. We must not remove judicial review not only because that in itself is wrong, but because it would make for a better argument for removal in lots of other cases, at home and abroad.
      Mr. Letwin: We agree on so much, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that Lords Donaldson and Mayhew are minded to accept the Government amendment because it does not preclude judicial review? Indeed, amendment (a)(4) specifically provides for a superior court to question the legal proceedings and makes it possible by denominating SIAC part of the High Court. That is precisely why, in the opinion of Lords Donaldson and Mayhew and of my party, the amendment no longer constitutes a devastating precedent of the kind that so many noble Lords rightly referred to in that debate.
      Simon Hughes: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has approached the Bill and I understand the argument, but we have not reached the same conclusion for the following three reasons, which I shall describe.
      First, it strikes us as illogical to try to exclude judicial review in this case, outside the new process that is being suggested, when it was not excluded in the earlier "concept in use" context of SIAC. Secondly, as was said by many speakers on the Cross Benches and on both sides of the House of Lords, one can never tell what procedural or other irregularity one might wish to question. It might be an executive decision by the Home Secretary to issue a certificate to detain someone, or—although I accept that this would be much less likely if the proposal were accepted—a procedure further up the chain. Certainly, however—my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about this—it cannot be the case that a process that might preclude an appeal on the basis of fact and allow it only on the basis of law would not allow an adequate remedy.
      9.15 pm
      Finally, we think that, for reasons of precedent and principle, if the measure adds nothing it will either never be used, or be used so rarely that it will exist merely as a
      926
      reserve power to be employed in exceptional circumstances. It cannot be necessary to preclude an eventuality that we may or may not be able to anticipate.
      Mr. Letwin: That is the nub of the issue. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in that same debate in the Lords, which I attended myself, Lord Donaldson agreed that a judicial review by the High Court—not SIAC—would necessitate the adoption of SIAC rules, because it would otherwise be impossible for the security forces to reveal to, for example, a barrister appointed by al-Qaeda, who might be an al-Qaeda adherent, information on which the reasonableness of the Home Secretary's decision could alone be judged? Did it not become clear at that point that the distinction between the High Court's adoption of SIAC rules and the redenomination of SIAC as the High Court was, in fact, no distinction?
      Simon Hughes: If the amendment would make SIAC a court rather than an administrative tribunal—it appears that it might do so, but I put this neutrally—that is certainly an improvement. It is interesting that we are creating what is effectively a new administrative court, or at least a new administrative division of the High Court, at this stage rather than next year, when we shall look at the review of the court system—although the process is not entirely satisfactory.
      Colleagues in the other place who are more eminent than me in terms of practice in these matters—including Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Lester of Herne Hill—have suggested to me that there may be circumstances that are not covered by the new, enhanced power of SIAC to review cases. It is also felt that the onus must be on the Government to show that there is a public interest against an ability to opt for the conventional occasional judicial review.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman help me to understand what Lord Donaldson proposes? Is he saying that, having been designated a court of record, SIAC will be able to constitute the location for judicial review of decisions that it has already reached? Is that not legally tautologous?
      Simon Hughes: Courts can do that. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, reads the speech made by Lord Donaldson on Report, he will see that the Court of Appeal has sometimes been called on in the middle of its hearings to perform a sub-exercise involving judicial review of an issue raised in another court. Bizarrely, that can happen.
      There is a wider point, however—the point on which our analysis differs with that of Lord Donaldson. For reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), merely conferring a power to record proceedings, and conferring greater status, will not necessarily deal with every eventuality. Furthermore, it will not confer all the powers that may be needed to check the decisions of the Secretary of State in regard to detention, and the processes thereafter. It will not cover all the safeguards connected with human rights that a citizen might need—safeguards relating to time, language translation, legal aid and advice and, most important, the certainty of knowing the case against him or her at every stage. We believe that that can be dealt with adequately either by the court going into secret

      927
      session—my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about that too—or by the issue of a public interest immunity certificate or the like.
      Mr. Hogg: As the hon. Gentleman would accept, one of the problems is that SIAC has a power to withhold from the detained person pieces of evidence. As I understand the procedure contained in the Bill, no one will be in a position to review whether SIAC's decision to exclude bits of evidence from the detained person was good or bad. That seems to be fundamentally unjust.
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is strong. As the Home Secretary said, one court will not judicially review another court, so it cannot do that. An important evidential point about the defendant meeting the case against them may never be able to be looked at again. Those seem to be among the reasons why the procedure does not give assurance.
      I am conscious of the fact that normally the reviewing court, whether it has examined local council decisions or other decisions, has accepted the view of the initial court, but just occasionally it intervenes and says that that court got it wrong: procedurally and evidentially, there was an unfairness. It is that overriding final judgment that is being limited, which seems unjustified, even in exceptional circumstances.
      Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at least the proposition of Lord Donaldson, who I repeat is in a privileged position in talking about this matter, that under subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) to Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22, the court of appeal could question the proceedings of the commission in respect of the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? That is critical.
      Simon Hughes: Again, we are showing the weakness of the timetable. There is a limitation in subsection (4) of the amendment to the original Act setting up SIAC, which I shall read into the record:
      "A decision of the Commission shall be questioned in legal proceedings only in accordance with"
      the appeal provisions set out in the original Act, or as to whether derogation was acceptable or not. Those are the two cases.
      The fact that we are arguing about whether the alternative gives the guarantees is in itself a final argument for asking the House to reject it. Is it worth risking being found in breach of European law, being out of step with all our other European colleagues and someone being treated unjustly to devise a new procedure? Existing procedure perfectly adequately answers the question. As I hinted earlier, we are willing to accept that judicial review could have a time limit, and that evidence can be protected so that secrecy can be maintained, but the Liberal Democrats are not persuaded that, for this occasion and in this way, either for precedent or principle, judicial review should be written out of this part of British legislation. In the most extreme cases, we need the greatest protection most.
      Denzil Davies: I shall be brief. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be surprised to hear that someone
      928
      who is sitting behind him and who is a lawyer supports him in the belief that he has gone as far as he possibly can in a very difficult situation. I promise him, and my hon. Friends around me, that I will never do it again.
      Jeremy Corbyn: It is the last time.
      Denzil Davies: It is indeed.
      I find myself in some difficulty in that I appear to be at least indirectly endorsing the views of Lord Donaldson. I was in the House a long time ago when he existed in a different incarnation. Perhaps he was not quite the civil libertarian in those days that he has become since, especially when he was made Master of the Rolls.
      I shall not follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) down the by-ways of the European convention. If the matter goes to court and if Mr. Pannick represents those who take it to court, the matter will have to be considered. In any case, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone as far as he can. Judicial review is a splendid procedure and nobody can be against it, especially lawyers, but it is not perfect. It cannot consider the merits of a case, merely whether a decision is lawful or unlawful. It can also consider whether a decision is reasonable, in the sense of whether a reasonable person would have come to that decision.
      The difficult immigration case of Chahal went eventually to the European Court of Human Rights, which trenchantly criticised the UK system of judicial review. However, I do not suggest that that case is on all fours with the present situation. Nobody likes special tribunals but SIAC was set up to try to deal with the real problems of the Chahal case. On balance, I am not sure about the court of record and from my law exams, I seem to remember a concept that lawyers called an error on the face of a record. If SIAC had experienced a procedural problem—for example, evidence had not been properly considered—but not a problem of substantive law, that would be an error on the face of the record and could be considered by the Court of Appeal, which may only consider appeals on points of law. That applies also to errors on the face of the record, which could mean a procedural or evidential error on the part of SIAC. I do not like that approach, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary probably does not like it either.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman conceding, broadly speaking, that even if there is a process of judicial review, that would not address the question that I raised with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) of whether the decision of SIAC to exclude evidence from the detained person was a reasonable or unreasonable decision? That decision, which goes to the root of justice, could not be the subject of any justiciable appeal.
      Denzil Davies: One would have to consider each particular circumstance, but the exclusion of evidence could well be seen to be a considerable procedural defect and would constitute an error on the record.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cited Lord Donaldson's speech in the other place. One of the most interesting speeches in the other place was made by Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has

      929
      considerable experience in these matters. I read his speech carefully and he concluded that judicial review would "do no harm" and was of "symbolic value". Symbolism is important, as is doing no harm, but we are legislating in a difficult area and we should not put into legislation, even with the best will in the world, something of which the best that can be said of it is that it would do no harm. I apologise for saying so, especially as a lawyer, but on this occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just about got it right.
      Mr. Letwin: It is absurd that we are left with a minute to discuss this point further, but we are. I shall ask my hon. Friends to abstain in the Division on this matter. We shall see what the other place makes of the proposal. The debate there will be longer, and there are people in the Lords who know more about this subject than any others in the kingdom.
      I hope that it will turn out to be true that this is an adequate form of judicial review. On that basis, we shall abstain.
      It being half-past Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day.]
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22 agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put, That Government amendments (a) to (f) thereto be made—[Mr. Heppell.]
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 85.

      Division No. 108]

      [9.31 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Ainger, Nick

      (Dunfermline E)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Alexander, Douglas

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Bryant, Chris

      (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Burnham, Andy

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burnside, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cairns, David

      Baird, Vera

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Casale, Roger

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caton, Martin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beggs, Roy

      Challen, Colin

      Benn, Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benton, Joe

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Blackman, Liz

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Blizzard, Bob

      (Norwich S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Borrow, David

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brennan, Kevin

      Coleman, Iain

      930

      Colman, Tony

      Illsley, Eric

      Connarty, Michael

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cox, Tom

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Joyce, Eric

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Doran, Frank

      Lepper, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Drew, David

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Linton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Love, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lucas, Ian

      Ennis, Jeff

      Luke, Iain

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lyons, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McCabe, Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foulkes, George

      MacDougall, John

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McKechin, Ann

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      McNulty, Tony

      Goggins, Paul

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Grogan, John

      Mann, John

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Marris, Rob

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Meale, Alan

      Hanson, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Havard, Dai

      Miliband, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mole, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heppell, John

      Moran, Margaret

      Hermon, Lady

      Morgan, Julie

      Heyes, David

      Mountford, Kali

      Hill, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hope, Phil

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Olner, Bill

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Organ, Diana

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      931

      Owen, Albert

      Soley, Clive

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Squire, Rachel

      Pearson, Ian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Perham, Linda

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Picking, Anne

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pike, Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Plaskitt, James

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pond, Chris

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pope, Greg

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Todd, Mark

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Touhig, Don

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Trickett, Jon

      Rammell, Bill

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Robertson, John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Twigg Derek (Halton)

      Twigg Stephen (Enfield)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rooney, Terry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ross, Ernie

      Watts David

      Roy, Frank

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      (Swansea W)

      Ryan, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Salter, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wood, Mike

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wray, James

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Simon, Siôn

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. Graham Stringer.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Galloway, George

      Allan, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baker, Norman

      Gerrard, Neil

      Barnes, Harry

      Gidley, Sandra

      Barrett, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Heath, David

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Holmes, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Burstow, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Keetch, Paul

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      (NE Fife)

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Chidgey, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lamb, Norman

      Cotter, Brian

      Laws, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McWalter, Tony

      Dodds, Nigel

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Doughty, Sue

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Fisher, Mark

      Moore, Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Oaten, Mark

      932

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stunell, Andrew

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Price, Adam

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Thurso, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rendel, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Webb, Steve

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Weir, Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Salmond, Alex

      William Roger (Brecon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Willis, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wishart, Pete

      Shepherd, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tom Brake and

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

      Bob Russell.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 39

      RELIGIOUS HATRED OFFENCES
      Lords amendment No. 23: Leave out Clause 39.
      Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment (a).
      Beverley Hughes: The provisions in part 5 of the original Bill would create an offence of incitement to religious hatred. I shall rehearse some of the arguments in favour of such a provision and consider some of the reasons advanced in both Houses against it.
      In relation to the original reasoning behind part 5, I remind hon. Members that, contrary to some contentions, the clauses were included because they had a clear connection to the events of 11 September. Many hon. Members are now aware—perhaps more so, since they have read the appendix to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—of some of the reactions that many Muslim people in this country and other parts of the world have had to endure since 11 September. There have been incidents of harassment, threats and incitement. Leaflets claiming that Islam is responsible for things such as intolerance, looting and molestation of women have been published. Websites that make similar claims are proliferating.
      Those Members who have argued that the clause has no place in the Bill need to think about the behaviour that has been precipitated against Muslim people. It includes not only individual acts against Muslim people—there have certainly been crimes such as assault—but the growing emergence of propaganda inciting hatred against a religious group.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. John Gummer: All hon. Members are interested in what the Minister is saying, but can she help the House by explaining how she would draw the line between proper discussion of the influence of Islam on the treatment of women in many countries and what she feels would be an offence under such a law? I understand where the extreme lies, but many of us ask where the line will be drawn. Given that religion cannot

      933
      even be defined in the Bill, what hope is there of drawing that line in a way that will not lead to very considerable restrictions on perfectly proper discussion?
      Beverley Hughes: I shall certainly come to that more general point later, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman now that one of the things that we have been trying to remind Members of during these debates is that the provision arises from the Public Order Act 1986. It will not inhibit rational discussion of any kind, including discussion of the premise or tenets of a religion but deals with the kind of threatening, insulting or abusive words and behaviour that will, or are likely to, incite public disorder. It deals with public order, not the limit of reasonable expression and discourse.
      Mr. Hogg: Building on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and bringing the Minister directly to Government amendment (a), as I understand it, the Attorney-General will issue guidance on the circumstances in which he will bring proceedings. In reality, does not Government amendment (a) constitute a definition of the law? That guidance, which is not subject to debate or amendment in the House, will be issued by an Attorney-General—I make no personal criticism of him—who is not even a Member of this House. Is that a democratic way to proceed?
      Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong in his interpretation of what the Attorney-General is proposing. Neither we nor the Attorney-General propose that he take the power to decide the law. With this offence, as with offences involving incitement to racial hatred, the Attorney-General is required to give his consent before a prosecution can proceed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know. The Attorney-General does not determine the ingredients of an offence and he cannot make something criminal that is not a crime under statute. There is a requirement for consent to filter out cases, and I shall expand on that point when I explain Government amendment (a) and the provision on the guidance that the Attorney-General will define.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I be forgiven for being very puzzled as a non-lawyer? Why is it necessary to include this measure—virtuous, or not—in this emergency Bill? I really do not understand.
      Beverley Hughes: I started to set out what I thought were the reasons why the provision has been included. One of the reasons is that, as I have just elaborated, it has a direct link with the events of 11 September in terms of not only the features of those events, but some of their consequences for people from some religious groups, particularly Muslims.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Minister not aware that other religious groups feel equally under attack? People from the Hindu community have told me how they feel that they have been threatened by the Muslim community. She suggests that the Government
      934
      are simply reacting to one form of outrageous activity, but they do not accept that that activity takes other forms as well.
      Beverley Hughes: That is not what I am saying. I am explaining why there is an opportunity, precipitated by the events of 11 September, for including the provision in this Bill.
      Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend has been challenged about what the clause is doing in a Bill on terrorism, and up to now she has not given us a satisfactory response. May I suggest the motivation? The clause has been tacked on as a sop to certain sections of Muslim opinion that have long wanted such protection. It is an anomaly and it should not be in this Bill—wrong clause, wrong Bill. The Lords were right to strike it down.
      Beverley Hughes: Once again my hon. Friend is entirely wrong, and I shall come to the reasons why she is wrong in a moment.
      The second reason for including the provision in this Bill is the current anomaly in the law, of which hon. Members will be aware. Legislation on incitement to racial hatred protects two religious groups: Jews and Sikhs. Taking the opportunity to expand the provisions on incitement to racial hatred to include religious hatred will extend that protection not only to Muslims but to other religious groups, including Christians. The clause therefore both corrects an anomaly and extends protection.
      Mr. David Cameron: Government amendment (a) says:
      "The Attorney-General may issue guidance".
      Will we see the guidance before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?
      Beverley Hughes: I understand that point entirely, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will answer his question.
      Tony Baldry: Unlike the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I am four-square with the Minister in wanting to give protection to the Muslim community because I understand that this has been a great source of hurt to them for many years. However, like the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I cannot see why it is necessary to include the provision in this Bill.
      Having studied all the case law, in which High Court judges have described race relations legislation as being, among other things, rubbery, I do not understand why the Government do not amend that legislation to make incitement to religious hatred an offence. Why are they introducing a wholly new offence in this Bill? The public mischief that Ministers and others want to deal with is a race relations issue, and the only reason why Sikhs and Jews are protected, and Muslims are not, is that judges have ruled in case law that the legislation does not protect Muslims. May I suggest to the Minister that the Home Office—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.
      Beverley Hughes: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during the Committee

      935
      proceedings when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a powerful speech that addressed the nub of the argument, but he set out the opposing point of view, which the Government and I share, that the route suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not deal with the fact that people are attacked and discriminated against on the basis of religion. There was considerable debate about whether the cause of discrimination is ethnicity, culture or religion, and we came to the view that it is religion. I agree with my right hon. Friend in that regard, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman missed that speech.
      Mr. Gummer: The scientologists dignify a pyramid selling ramp with the word "religion", but when I say that, many scientologists will feel that I am stirring up hatred against them. Frankly. I am not trying to stir up hatred; I just do not want people to be led astray by that invention by Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who, as I understand it, made a lot of money out of it. If the Bill is passed in its present form, a lot of other people will call a lot of other ramps religion and protect themselves accordingly. I do not think that the Government know what they are doing. They are restricting people's right to point to sheer, outrageous, unbelievably wicked dishonesty.
      Beverley Hughes: I do not accept that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision contains operational safeguards, as do the provisions on incitement to racial hatred. The clause establishes a public order offence; it will require the Attorney-General's consent. I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's fears that cults such as scientology will be the subject of offences under the provision.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I shall further explain why the clause should be in this Bill before giving way again.
      First, there is a connection between the events of 11 September and the consequences that have flowed from that. Secondly, there is an anomaly in law whereby two groups are protected and other religious groups are not. Thirdly, despite the dissent voiced here and in the other place, there is widespread support for the provision. The view of the Church of England was expressed by the Bishop of Southwark in the other place. The Muslim Council of Britain, the Law Society and the Joint Committee on Human Rights acknowledge the "pressing social need". The United Nations Human Rights Committee noted the increase in harassment after 11 September and pressed the need for reaction.
      Since 11 September and subsequent events, we have seen the need to protect vulnerable religious communities. We can—
      Ms Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I am going to complete—
      Mr. Hogg: Your hon. Friend wants to intervene.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving the Minister a hard time. I will not allow that.
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not trying to give the Minister a hard time. I was merely
      936
      trying to bring to her attention the fact that her hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) wanted to intervene.
      Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me chair the proceedings while he sits quietly.
      Beverley Hughes: In the operation of the law on incitement to racial hatred offences, we saw a small but important deterrent effect on some of the worst excesses of extreme racist groups. I have no doubt that the provision on incitement to religious hatred would have a similarly significant deterrent effect on the groups that seek to extend their violent and distressing propaganda to Muslims and other religious groups. That is another important reason why it should be included in the Bill.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend not concede that she is confusing ethnicity, which we cannot change, and belief, which we choose? I cannot escape from being a middle-aged white English person, but I choose my socialist beliefs and I want them to be challenged and open to discussion.
      Beverley Hughes: I acknowledge that view. It is not one that we share.
      I refer again to the powerful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton who used his own experience to illustrate the fact that people respond to him in terms of his religion, not his ethnicity. That is the view that we have taken.
      Ms Abbott: For the avoidance of doubt, I, too, stand four-square against discrimination against Muslims. One of the problems with the clause is that it does not provide protection against discrimination; it is about incitement to religious hatred. Furthermore, I believe that 99 per cent. of what it is now fashionable to describe as Islamophobia is either an offence under racial hatred legislation, or a straightforward public order offence.
      10 pm
      Beverley Hughes: There are gaps in the legislation. If Members think about why we need the incitement to racial hatred offence in addition to the other provisions in the Public Order Act 1986 and in addition to the racially aggravated offences provisions, perhaps they will apply that thinking to why we need the incitement to religious hatred offence. Current provisions do not cover every eventuality. They do not cover incitement as it is defined in the Bill: the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to result in public disorder. That is the difference. It is not covered in other parts of the Public Order Act, nor is it covered in the other legislation to which my hon. Friend referred.
      Dr. Evan Harris: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are extremely sympathetic to those in vulnerable communities who may be victims of incitement, which extends beyond Muslims and race to, for example, homophobic attacks. We support legislation covering a much wider range of people. Why did the Minister and her colleagues vote against an

      937
      amendment in 1998 that would have included a much wider range? Why does she not introduce such a provision in a wider Bill that covers all vulnerable communities?
      Beverley Hughes rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing the amendment that is before us and nothing else.
      Beverley Hughes: As I have said. the Bill follows the events of 11 September. The issue of homophobia does not readily sring to mind as something that follows on from that.
      A number of arguments have been advanced to demonstrate why the provision should not be in the Bill. I understand that there are concerns about limits to freedom of expression that might result from having an offence of incitement to religious hatred. The Government do not underestimate the concerns that have been expressed by many Members of this place and of the other place that a person should not be prosecuted for expressing their legitimate religious beliefs and for having legitimate debate on and scrutiny of those beliefs.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook to consider the amendment that was tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who is in his place, to determine how best to ensure that that limitation on expression did not occur. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation. We have closely examined the amendments tabled in Committee that sought to provide that protection. We have also closely examined the amendments that were moved in another place. After careful consideration and the involvement of the right hon. Gentleman, we have concluded that the amendments would not be effective in addressing the concerns that have been expressed—legitimate as those concerns are.
      The difficulty is that creating an exclusion from prosecution, or creating a specific defence where, for example, a person cited a religious text, would create a loophole that could and would be exploited by those who deliberately seek to incite hatred. Those are the very people whom we need to catch by this legislation.
      Groups have lifted quotes from the Bible out of context and used them as headlines on their literature in order to incite religious hatred. We therefore propose to reinstate an amended clause on incitement to religious hatred—a guidance provision that will provide reassurance on this specific point.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I will finish my point.
      The amended clause will provide guidance from the Attorney-General on the legitimate expression of religious belief that is not likely to amount to an offence of inciting religious hatred.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, I shall make some comments in response to what she has said.
      938
      The amendment says that the Attorney-General "may" produce guidance. I would like to see that guidance before any commitment is made, but why does the amendment state that he "may" produce guidance, and not that he will produce guidance? Alternatively, when the Bill goes to another place, will the Minister change the wording so that the Attorney-General will produce guidance?
      Beverley Hughes: For reasons to do with legal advice that we received, the word "may" was included in the amendment, but we have made it clear, and the Attorney-General has made it clear on the record, that that guidance will be produced, so there is no difficulty in changing the word "may" to "will". I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do that when the Bill goes to another place.
      Mr. Hogg: That brings us to the nub of the matter, which I have already put to the hon. Lady. The amendment requires the Attorney-General to
      "issue guidance as to conduct in respect of which he will not institute proceedings".
      In other words, his guidance will define conduct that may result in proceedings, as well as conduct that will not result in proceedings. That is a form of legislation, to be introduced by guidance from the Attorney-General—I am not criticising him—who is not a Member of Parliament. The guidance is not subject to amendment or even debate; that is not a proper way to operate in criminal law.
      Beverley Hughes: In tabling the amendment, the Attorney-General and the Government were responding to the legitimate concerns of Members that the provision should not limit legitimate expression or discussion of religious beliefs. We agree with that. I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of the guidance. As he has outlined, the guidance will exclude legitimate expression and make it clear that such behaviour will not be regarded as criminal; it will not be regarded as inciting hatred or public order.
      Mr. Cameron: Is that not the point? Here we are, almost at the 11th hour of the 11th day, discussing the Bill. The Attorney-General may issue guidance; we do not have that guidance and do not know what it will include. This is a complicated area, as the Home Affairs Committee said in its report. Why is it being included in an emergency Bill and why is it being legislated for in this way?
      Beverley Hughes: I have gone through the reasons why we think that it is right to include it in the Bill; I am now trying to deal with Members' arguments against that.
      Denzil Davies: The amendment refers to conduct consisting of
      "the legitimate expression of religious belief".
      What is meant by a legitimate expression, and will that be defined when the guidance comes along?
      Beverley Hughes: To answer that question and that of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the Attorney-General is trying his best to make sure that the guidance will be available tomorrow. I cannot commit

      939
      him to that, but that is his intention. I am fairly confident that Members will be able to see a copy of the guidance tomorrow.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I must respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) asked about the word "legitimate". We all know what we mean by that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No we do not."] Members will have to wait and see the Attorney-General's guidance. However, the intention, as I have made clear in response to Members' concerns, is that debate and statements about beliefs that are scrutinising, discursive and do not incite hatred—
      Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you advise us whether such guidance is debatable or amendable?
      Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for debate, and the Speaker cannot get involved in debate.
      Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) knows that the guidance is a matter for the Attorney-General, if the provision to enable him to issue guidance is enacted.
      Mr. Fisher: Does not the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham have a good point? The guidance will create offences. Should that not be written into the Bill? If the Attorney-General is producing guidance, why cannot it be included in the Bill? That is where offences ought to be created, not in guidance.
      Beverley Hughes: The intention is not to create offences, but to clarify the kind of behaviour in relation to freedom of expression that the Attorney-General, in consenting to prosecutions going ahead, will not regard as criminal and will regard as a legitimate expression of—
      Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help us? The Minister has just referred to the nature of the guidance to be given by the Attorney-General, which clearly has serious implications for the interpretation of the Bill. Is it in order to proceed with the debate about a part of the Bill, when we know that it will be interpreted by the Attorney-General in a way that we are not allowed to see?
      Mr. Speaker:Of course it is in order. The hon. Lady is in order. If she was out of order, I would have made that known to her.
      Beverley Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
      Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that we are in a nonsensical position? I do not attribute blame to her personally. The House has decided, at the Government's behest, that we must complete the legislation tomorrow. That is the effect of the order that we were made to pass. We are a little more than 24 hours from that. We are discussing the definition of an offence that we have never had. Guidance may be issued, but it can never be debated subsequently and it may be seen by only one House,a
      940
      couple of hours before the end of proceedings. Would it not be better for the Minister to take the measure away, consult widely and come back, as many of us suggested, when we will try to do what the hon. Lady wants—pass a law that works and in which people have confidence?
      Beverley Hughes: No, it would not be better. The guidance is a matter for the Attorney-General. If he is given the power in the Bill to produce the guidance, he will produce it. I cannot give a commitment on when it will be produced, as I am not writing the guidance—the Attorney-General is. I know that it is his intention to produce it as early as possible tomorrow.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) made a good point. What constitutes a legitimate expression of religious belief is highly subjective—it is capable of innumerable definitions. The hon. Lady is presenting us with a huge power to be conferred on the Attorney-General to define a legitimate expression of religious belief. That will make his life intolerable and give him unwarranted powers. The Bill is not the place for such a measure.
      Beverley Hughes: That is nonsense. The Attorney-General has the power. He must give his consent for any offence of incitement to racial hatred. That power of consent will be applied to the offence of incitement to religious hatred, if approved by both Houses. The Attorney-General will be applying the power that he already has. In response to hon. Members' concerns about any limitation on freedom of expression, the Government have offered in the amendment that the Attorney-General will clarify the circumstances that he will not regard as incitement—as public order offences. That is certainly within his power. The provision in the amendment goes a long way to answering the legitimate concern of hon. Members to ensure that we do not limit discussion or scrutiny.
      10.15 pm
      Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend has spoken about the power of the Attorney-General. As she knows, other measures provide for a discretion that he exercises in the public interest. I suggest to her, however, that the Government are fettering that discretion in respect of the guidelines. If that is the case, should not those guidelines come before the House so that we can debate them?
      Beverley Hughes: The provisions do not fetter the responsibility of the Attorney-General to take into account the public interest, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. In addition to that responsibility, the Government amendment clarifies the fact that the guidance will simply say what sort of words and behaviour the Attorney-General will regard as being outside the offence of incitement. That will include legitimate expression of opinion and scrutiny and discussion. In conjunction with existing safeguards, the amendment will reassure people who feared that those expressing their truly held beliefs could inadvertently find themselves being prosecuted for an offence.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The problem of the Attorney-General and his role in giving guidance is wider than has been suggested. The Bill states that religious hatred is
      "defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

      941
      What will be required, therefore, is guidance on what can be said in expressing religious or anti-religious views. The definition of what is legitimate in religious debate will be determined by the Attorney-General and not by us in this House.
      Beverley Hughes: In so far as the Attorney-General already has the power to consent to a prosecution, and to the extent that he uses that power, he is required to give his consent. The Government amendment adds nothing new in that respect. This is a matter for the Attorney-General. He is not defining offences, but setting out by way of clarification the behaviour that he will regard as outside the remit of an offence of incitement to religious hatred.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: Is not it fair to say that the specific reason why the amendment was tabled is the problem that was presented to us in Committee by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B Mawhinney)? It related specifically to the question of how he might accidentally, in stating his own Christian faith as a Catholic—[Interruption.] I should point out to hon. Members that there is no discourtesy in confusing one denomination of the Christian faith with another; none the less, I apologise to him. Would it not be fair to say that the amendment has been tabled precisely to meet a very specific objection and not to turn the provisions into some sort of pseudo-blasphemy law, as others seem to be suggesting?
      Beverley Hughes: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has taken the argument back to the point at which I started. I reminded hon. Members why the Government amendment was tabled and of the process that had occurred since the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire and others expressed their concerns about the limit on freedom of expression. The amendment is a response to those concerns.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is certainly right to say that it was my intervention that caused the Government to think again. I am grateful to them for having done so, although the House must understand that I am not responsible for the answer that they have provided. Given the disquiet on both sides of the House, does not the hon. Lady understand that, as it was peers from all parts of the other place who threw out clause 39, all that is happening now is that we are reinforcing their determination to throw out the clause again tomorrow? Perhaps she might provide them with some encouragement by giving an indication of the view the Government might take if they were to throw out the clause a second time.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Hilary Armstrong): She is not that naive.
      Hon. Members:Oh!
      Beverley Hughes: We believe, for the reasons that I have tried to outline, that the Bill should include the offence. We believe that it is important to protect vulnerable religious communities. The Bill affords an
      942
      opportunity to put such a provision on the statute book, and we want it to be enacted so that those religious communities can be protected. We are committed to that.
      Mr. Bryant rose—
      Lynne Jones rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I want to make some progress because time is passing.
      Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. More than half the debate has been spent on the Minister having to answer questions. As the Chief Whip is in her place, may I make an appeal through you for Government Front Benchers to consider introducing a proposal to extend the time for this debate and the remaining debates? The current position is nonsensical.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the House has already decided on the matter.
      Simon Hughes: Ask her to reconsider.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can ask the right hon. Lady, but I am not going to do that.
      Beverley Hughes: Other hon. Members want to speak and, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, time is moving on and I wish to conclude.
      Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Beverley Hughes:I must make some progress.I have generous and I hope that hon. Members will understand if I draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
      The limit on freedom of expression is an important argument, to which we have tried to respond. It was also argued that the power should be debated for longer to get it right. I remind hon. Members that the provision is an extension of existing law, not new law. Hon. Members are familiar with the operation of the current law on race hatred. It has worked for years, despite similar arguments against it when it was introduced. We have debated the subject for some weeks. If the mythical better version of the provision genuinely exists, where is it? The Attorney-General recently asked that question. I do not believe that it exists.
      Mr. Cameron: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I must conclude.
      The third argument is that the provision is inappropriate to an anti-terrorism measure. I began my remarks by pointing out the link with 11 September, especially the consequences for some Muslim people. It is therefore appropriate to include it in the Bill.
      Sometimes politicians must be prepared to seize the moment and the opportunity. The events of 11 September offer us the opportunity to put the provision on the statute book. Hon. Members here and in the other place must decide whether they are prepared to seize the moment, to correct an anomaly, and to protect vulnerable religious

      943
      groups from pernicious and vile abuse that fractures communities. We have that opportunity now, not tomorrow or at some vague future date. No one should be under the illusion that another Bill will be presented in a reasonable time to include the provision. It is now or possibly never.
      It is evident that almost everyone who has spoken on the matter, whether for or against, in either House, has been united in their condemnation of the words and behaviour that would constitute incitement to religious hatred. Now is the time to ensure that the provision is on the statute book, given the opportunity that the Bill affords.
      Mr. Letwin: Let me begin where the Minister left off. She is absolutely right to say that there is consensus in the House that there are grotesque abuses of our social freedoms involved in the victimisation of members of particular religions. We are united in this House—and, I suspect, in the other House, too—in wishing to prevent those abuses. There are also grave problems of religious discrimination. As I understand it, it is lawful in this country at present to put up a sign outside a pub, stating: "No Muslims here" or "No Hindus here". That is a grotesque lacuna in our law, and changes are needed. We are at one in wishing to see those changes made. That is not, however, the issue that we are debating now. The Minister has not introduced a serious and considered Bill on religious discrimination. Indeed, she has not addressed that issue. The Bill addresses a different question.
      In the last 43 or 44 minutes, the Minister has illustrated better than we could ever have hoped to do the reasons why this clause does not belong in the Bill, and why the amendment is not a sufficient answer to the problems raised. In her description of the clause, she mis-stated its intent not once, not twice, not thrice but four times—except that, on the fourth occasion, she mis-stated her mis-statement. She described the incitement as an incitement to "disorder". It is not so. Were it so, the matter would be easier to address. It is an incitement to hatred. The record will show that she used the word"disorder" three times. On the fourth occasion, she used the term "order". [Interruption.] This is not a matter of being too clever by half. It is a matter of attending to the issue that we are meant to be attending to: the words of the statute. Labour Members appear to believe that we can legislate without attending to the words that we use. We cannot do so. Our tradition of law insists on the ability of a judge to observe what is written. The duty of this House and of the other place is to write the right words. The duty of Ministers is to represent correctly what is intended to be written.
      The problem with the clause is that it seeks to prevent an incitement which may occur through the statement of all sorts of propositions that are matters of legitimate belief, and that it seeks to make unlawful a hatred which may be engendered by the expression of those legitimate forms of belief. It does not provide us with an adequate means of distinguishing between those circumstances and the circumstances in which loathsome individuals engage in loathsome acts intended to create public disorder. That is the nub of the issue, and the Minister systematically obscured it.
      Mr. Hogg: Is not another very offensive part of this procedure the fact that we are giving to the
      944
      Attorney-General powers of legislation, yet the House has the opportunity to hear only four or five speeches on the proposition, at the very most? That is not a proper way for us to discharge our responsibilities.
      Mr. Letwin: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the next problem that the Minister's speech so admirably, if unintentionally, illuminated. The Government have made a genuine attempt, for which we give them credit, to address the problems raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), Protestant as he is. In so doing, however, the Government have merely illustrated the underlying problem of the clause.
      It is true, as the Minister repeatedly said, that under the clause as it stood, the Attorney-General would have had the power to adjudicate on which matters he would prosecute. It is, in principle, an advance that, before exercising that power, he should state on what principles he would exercise it. But my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is right to say that if that is the method chosen for acting in such cases, it is one that will allow of arbitrary and uncertain action.
      The Minister illustrated that so pellucidly that she cannot possibly have understood what she was doing when she told the House that the Attorney-General intended to produce the guidance tomorrow. The clause and its amendment were first conceived approximately 48 hours ago. So, in some 72 hours, the Attorney-General will have produced law for this country. What is to guarantee that, 72 hours later, he will not produce some other law?[Interruption.] If the Home Secretary is saying that the Attorney-General contemplated producing the guidance much earlier, that information is helpful.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall be brief, as I merely want to say that the Attorney-General put down on paper the illustration of his guidance in response to requests to do so, including some from Conservative Members, who wanted to see the nature of the beast before voting on it. Far from being awkward, he tried to help, to illustrate what it would be and to respond to suggestions regarding inadequacy.
      Mr. Letwin: I accept entirely that the Attorney-General tried to be helpful, but he has produced guidance in a very short time. What is to guarantee that, a short time thereafter, he will not see fit to alter the guidance? What parliamentary check will there be on continuous alteration of the guidance? To what extent can we possibly hope that religious relationships in this country will be given a firm and certain basis in law if he can repeatedly change, without parliamentary check, the basis on which the law is to be enforced? This cannot be the right way to proceed in a matter so subtle, so delicate and so dangerous.
      Mr. Bryant: In which case, what parliamentary check is there on the Attorney-General when he or she makes a series of decisions, which amount to case law, about when to proceed or not to proceed in respect of incitement to racial hatred?
      Mr. Letwin: As a matter of fact, that is not case law, but let us leave that aside. The point is well taken

      945
      On incitement to racial hatred, the Attorney-General makes decisions about whether to prosecute. However, the burden of the argument made not just from those on these Conservative Benches, but from those on the Labour Benches; not just in this House, but in the other place; and not just in Parliament, but outside, is precisely that there is a great distinction between incitement to racial hatred and incitement to religious hatred, as the quality of decision that it falls to the administrator to make in the one is far simpler than in the other. That is precisely the problem that has repeatedly been drawn to the Government's attention, and it will not do to argue as if that difference does not exist.
      It is not the duty of the House this evening to rehearse the arguments for or against Government amendment (a), which I believe are strong among Conservative Members and weak on the Government side, although we have inevitably been forced to do so. We are considering purely whether the decision of the Lords, who not just by a majority, but by an overwhelming majority consisting of Labour peers, Cross-Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, voted to throw the proposal out, should be reversed in an attempt to reinsert in emergency legislation a provision that is, at very least, highly controversial. Surely anyone who listened to the Minister cannot conclude that the case is made for taking that extreme action.
      Lynne Jones: May I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point? The Minister said that Members will make up their own minds, but the fact is that the majority of Members on both sides of the House who are in the Chamber are concerned about the legislation. Those who will vote with the Government are not here to listen; those who are concerned are present, and Members on both sides share his anxieties.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that remark, which illustrates the point.
      Close to the conclusion of the Minister's remarks—I think I quote her reasonably accurately—she said that it is sometimes right for politicians to seize an opportunity. That is true: it is sometimes right for politicians to do that. This is the moment for the Government to seize an opportunity, or rather two.
      First, the Government have the opportunity to establish an unremitting cross-party consensus for the fostering of a proper Bill dealing with religious discrimination and religious tolerance that will set the country on the right track for many years—an opportunity that should not be wasted. Secondly, they have the opportunity to enable the two Houses to reach the consensus that we all seek on this necessary Bill by removing from it a wholly unnecessary, ill-considered and damaging clause.
      Mr. Fisher: The Minister was right to say that Members in all parts of the House find religious hatred repugnant, and the shadow Home Secretary was right to say that this was about words rather than actions.
      The Minister was very complimentary about my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but his speech on Second Reading was misconceived, because it was entirely about actions and
      946
      not about words. Here we are dealing with hatred, not the consequences of hatred. The Minister is, however, entirely right to suggest that this is a serious matter. The words of hate can be as vicious and damaging as actions to individuals and communities.
      We need only consider the debate about "hate speech" in the United States, which has considered the issue in far more detail over the past 20 years than we have even begun to. We need only recall what happened in Germany between 1927 and the beginning of the second world war, when words galvanised by the Nazis set up all the appalling events of the 1940s. Words are of course damaging, and they need much more consideration than we are giving them here.
      These are complicated issues. We talk of joined-up government, but the Government's own position on faith schools in the context of legislation of this kind shows that these are confusing, contradictory areas in which a great deal of nuance and paradox must be dealt with. We cannot legislate at such speed, and in such an ill-considered way. As the Home Secretary and the Minister have said, these matters are vitally important, but they require calm, reflection and time. The measures should not be rushed through like this; they will stand for a long time.
      This is not, in itself, an emergency, in that religious hatred, regrettably, has been with us for a long time. We must get the provision right. We can easily return to it later in the current Parliament, or at some other time, but we should return to it in a much subtler, calmer and more considered fashion. This is not the right time, and I cannot support this part of the Bill.
      Simon Hughes: I shall be extremely brief, as only a couple of minutes remain.
      There are huge issues on the national agenda. There is the issue of how to ensure that people do not suffer discrimination on the basis of their faith. The Bill does not deal with that; nor should it. There is the issue of how to bring people together to respect and value each other, and the issue of faith schools—a linked issue, but one that, properly, is not dealt with here.
      We are dealing with one item on a wide agenda—an item that has always been recognised as being hugely controversial. How do we achieve the right balance between free speech and the ability to criticise, whether the criticism is of scientologists, Protestants, Roman Catholics or any world or local faith? How do we ensure that people are respected?
      As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, we are trying to achieve that within the narrow confines of concepts such as public order and incitement to hatred by words or actions. Whole issues are left undebated, such as how it can be established that someone has such action in mind—whether it is part of his or her intention. There is a bizarre tautology in the Attorney-General's suggested guidelines, which deem such conduct acceptable if it consists of a legitimate expression of religious belief. By definition, we are trying to establish what is such a legitimate expression.
      For a long time, we have argued that it is proper for that issue to be on the national agenda. Long before 11 September, it was an issue. All the people who might have been persuaded that it is now or never have said that they would rather it were debated, if possible, in the

      947
      context of wider legislation about the blasphemy law, religious discrimination and incitement to religious hatred. The Minister said that it is now or never. That is absolutely the wrong approach. The Scottish Executive have said, "Let us take it out, come back to it next year, talk to people about it, get views around the country and then legislate carefully with maximum consensus."
      We are offered guidelines as the concession, as it were. To change from law that is difficult, even if it is in the Bill, to law that will be defined by something not in the Bill and that could change, is to substitute uncertain law at best for less certain and even more difficult to define law at worst.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Gentleman at least recognise that it was the Government's willingness to address some of the legitimate concerns that were raised on Second Reading that has produced the amendment, which is causing so much difficulty? In that sense, there was a response. Will he press the Government to pursue that response further, rather than this evening?
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman and colleagues throughout the House and in the other place are right. The Government need time to respond. Issues have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and colleagues. The other place has only just begun to grasp and grapple with those issues.
      The Liberal Democrats are unanimous. Whatever our different faiths or lack of them, whatever our different nationalities, we ask the Government to join with the consensus among Conservative Front Benchers, their colleagues and people around the country and say that this is not the time, this is not the place, and this is not the way. We can protect people in the meantime but we must legislate properly. We must not do it with our faces against the wall and the clock ticking away, resulting in law that no one will be satisfied has adequately met the task. These are huge issues and they cannot be resolved properly in the next 24 hours.
      Ms Abbott: The Lords struck out the clause. I rise to urge the House not to reinstate it. The House needs to reflect on the genesis of the demand from the Muslim community for protection against incitement to religious hatred. I know what the genesis was because I was in the House at the time. The genesis of that powerful demand was the debate around Salman Rushdie. It is all about the issue of freedom of speech. If Members had been in the House at that time and had had the debate with the Muslim community that I had, they would know why the clause must be phrased much more carefully.
      Furthermore, the powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was wholly misconceived because he dealt largely with racial discrimination rather than incitement to religious hatred as such. Of course, every hon. Member is against discrimination against Muslims and believes that all religions should be given a measure of protection, but it should be in a properly thought out Bill introduced at the right time. It is the wrong clause. It is the wrong Bill. It represents a serious threat to freedom of speech. I urge the House to support the Lords in striking it down.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I appreciate the fact that the Home Secretary took seriously the concerns that I
      948
      expressed in Committee. He was as good as his word. He made arrangements for me to see his officials and we had a constructive discussion. It would be fair to say, without revealing the content of those private discussions, that I alerted officials to the dangers of going down this route, and tried to persuade them of the merits of the way that I thought was best.
      The Government have now introduced this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government would table an amendment to substitute the word "will" for "may" in the amendment, but I have also let it be known that without having sight of the guidance—never mind the issue of guidance itself—there is no way that any responsible House of Parliament could endorse—
      It being fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day.]
      The House divided: Ayes 307,Noes 236.

      Division No.109]

      [10.45 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Allen, Graham

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      (Swansea E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      (Norwich S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clelland, David

      Austin, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baird, Vera

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Battle, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Corston, Jean

      Benn, Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cox, Tom

      Berry, Roger

      Cranston, Ross

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Cruddas, Jon

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cummings, John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      (Copeland)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      David, Wayne

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Dawson, Hilton

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bryant, Chris

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Burden, Richard

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bumham, Andy

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Cairns, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Caton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Challen, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Chapman, Ben (Witral S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      949

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Linton, Martin

      Flint, Caroline

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lucas, Ian

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Luke, Iain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lyons, John

      Foulkes, George

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Linda

      MacDonald, Calum

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacDougall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Grogan, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWilliam, John

      Hanson, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Havard, Dai

      Mann, John

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heppell, John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

      Heyes, David

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mole, Chris

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hope, Phil

      Moran, Margaret

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Illsley, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Joyce, Eric

      Perham, Linda

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pike, Peter

      Kelly, Ruth

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pollard, Kerry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Lammy, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Robertson, John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      950

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Ross, Ernie

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Roy, Frank

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Todd, Mark

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Touhig, Don

      Ryan, Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tynan, Bill

      Simon, Siôn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Soley, Clive

      (Swansea W)

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Winnick, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Wood, Mike

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Woolas, Phil

      Stevenson, George

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wray, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tami, Mark

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and Mr. Graham Stringer.

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Noes

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      (NE Fife)

      Allan, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cash, William

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Bacon, Richard

      (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Norman

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Collins, Tim

      Barker, Gregory

      Conway, Derek

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Baron, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Barrett, John

      Cran, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bercow, John

      Davey,Edward (Kingston)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Doughty, Sue

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Breed, Colin

      Evans, Nigel

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Burnett, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Burns, Simon

      Flight, Howard

      Burstow, Paul

      Flook, Adrian

      Burt, Alistair

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Butterfill, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Francois, Mark

      Cameron, David

      Gale, Roger

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Galloway, George

      951

      Garnier, Edward

      Moss, Malcolm

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Norman, Archie

      Gibb, Nick

      Oaten, Mark

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Osbome, George (Tatton)

      Goodman, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gray, James

      Page, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Paice, James

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Greenway, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pickles, Eric

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hammond, Philip

      Price, Adam

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Prisk, Mark

      Harvey, Nick

      Pugh, Dr John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Heald, Oliver

      Rendel, David

      Heath, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Hendry, Charles

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hermon, Lady

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hoban, Mark

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hoey, Kate

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Ruffley, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Sawford, Phil

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Richard

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Keetch, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

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

      Key, Robert

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spink, Bob

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamb, Norman

      Steen, Anthony

      Lansley, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Laws, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Letwin, Oliver

      Swire, Hugo

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Syms, Robert

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Loughton, Tim

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Luff, Peter

      Thurso, John

      McDonnell, John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tredinnick, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trickett, Jon

      McWalter, Tony

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Tyler, Paul

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Viggers, Peter

      Mates, Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Watkinson, Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Webb, Steve

      Mercer, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Moore, Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      952

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mr. David Wilshire and Tom Brake.

      Yeo, Tim

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Government amendment (a) agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 65 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 66: After clause 124, insert a new clause—"Expiry"
      11 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendment (a) in lieu.
      Mr. Blunkett: The cries of astonishment when the last vote was announced reminded me of "phone a friend" in the television programme. I hope that there will be a few friends around tonight—[I-10N. MEMBERS: "Not a chance!"] I think there will be—there may even be one or two on the Opposition Benches as well as one or two on the Benches behind me.
      The amendments relate to the moonlight clauses, or rather the sunset—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations going on in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
      Mr. Blunkett: I promise that I shall not try to crack another joke, Mr. Speaker.
      On sunset clauses, the Government have taken several measures in response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to the wishes of individual Members and to debates held earlier on part 4. Those measures include a sunset clause after five years, review after a year and other provisions that reflect the will of the House.
      I want to make it clear—so that there is no doubt in the other place—that we strongly resist any further move on sunset clauses. We shall not allow the Bill to be dismembered by the indiscriminate application of sunset clauses to different parts of it. Having voted on those matters when the Bill was before the Commons for the first time, and after having those provisions overturned by the House of Lords, it is clear that we have listened and responded to concerns on the main clauses of the Bill. It is not possible for the Government to decide that a Bill should be completely taken apart—nor has that been true for any other measure—with different timings for individual provisions; and that proceedings should be repeated and the measure brought back to the House.
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, speak to Government amendment (a), which proposes that the review should be undertaken by
      "not fewer than seven members of the"
      Privy Council. Would he be so good as to tell us by what criteria he will select those members of the Privy Council?

      953
      Why should we assume that they will not be carefully picked nominees? Would he further give an undertaking that the report will not merely be laid before the House
      "as soon as is reasonably practicable",
      but be debated by the House, preferably on a free vote?
      Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman manages to ask a perfectly reasonable question in the most aggressive manner possible, but I have to say that he can rest easy—the one thing that we will not be selecting on is past Cabinet Ministers' competence in doing their jobs. If we want a little bit of a roust at this time of night, we can have one.
      Of course, we shall consult the Opposition parties on the committee of review's make up, so the House should agree to the Government amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment to provide a review committee, which would report within two years. That report would be laid before the House of Commons, and both Houses would hold a full debate on it. I am prepared tomorrow to consider the suggestions that the Opposition parties are putting to me to strengthen that proposal. Clearly, the review committee's recommendations on individual parts of the Bill would be taken forward by the Government. We will propose further refinements tomorrow that might—[Interruption.] I hope that right hon. and learned Gentleman had a very good dinner.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not give way; I have given way several times to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a number of issues this evening.
      The review committee will be made up of Privy Councillors precisely to allow it to take evidence from the security services and then to compile a report that will, therefore, carry weight because it can cover everything in the Bill.
      Simon Hughes: First, will the Home Secretary accept that we have no intention of wishing to dismember the Bill, as he suggests our proposals would do? Secondly, does he object to the sunset provision accepted by the House of Lords because there would be different time limits for different parts of the Bill; or does he object to the fact that an emergency Bill contains a sunset clause at all? If he objects to the latter, I hope that he will accept that that is unusual, if not unprecedented, in the case of such emergency legislation.
      Mr. Blunkett: I accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the sunset clauses that relate to the updating of the Terrorism Act 2000, precisely to meet the requirements that hon. Members requested. We have sunset clauses on the justice and home affairs provisions for the end of next June. We have the equivalent of a sunset clause on data holding in the form of the two-year provision relating to the code of practice.
      We have done our utmost to ensure that, because of speed and complexity, the review body, whose report will be debated by the House, can reflect on those aspects that it thinks require further consideration after the operation of the measure. That goes further than Governments have
      954
      gone in the past in attempting to accommodate the genuine concern that exists because of the way in which we, by necessity, have introduced the Bill just over three months after the events of 11 September.
      Mr. George Osborne: So that the House can be well informed on the need for a sunset clause, will the Home Secretary explain what further refinements he will propose tomorrow and, indeed, whether they will include a response to the widespread opposition on both sides of the House to the religious hatred clauses, which we have just debated?
      Mr. Blunkett: I was talking about the review of the whole Bill and about any identified aspects of the Bill that the review committee finds to be working inappropriately or not in accord with the wishes of both Houses. We could reach a reasonable measure of agreement on that—if not wholly tonight, then certainly in the next 24 hours. That is an attempt not to end up with a Bill that is fragmented, or with this House and the Lords constantly repeating proceedings on the Bill, which, I have to remind right hon. and hon. Members, has had eight days in the Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "But not here." No, not here. Let us be clear: we originally agreed a timetable, and I have always accepted that it is extremely tight. [Interruption.] There are a few grumbles. Some people accept the agreements that have been reached, and some do not.
      I hope that it does not finish his career altogether, but I have to praise the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who, despite considerable disagreement with me about parts of the Bill and fundamental ideological differences, has always kept his word. That has made it easier to do business with him. We shall continue to do business over the next 24 hours and, I hope, for a very long time to come.
      Mr. Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary for his remarks, and his hopes are reciprocated. Moreover, I hope that he will accept from us, and I think from the Liberal Democrats, that if he comes forward with proposals that will genuinely make that review bite, we will look at them constructively and discuss them with him, if he so wishes, and with our colleagues in the other place, in a genuine effort to come to a consensus on this vexed question.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply grateful, because the two Houses, the working of our Parliament and the response of people outside to the way in which democracy can operate will be enhanced if we can achieve that in the hours ahead. If we end up making a mess of this, I can see no value or gain for any of us or for our reputations or the reputation of Parliament. If we are able to act swiftly but carefully, people will be encouraged to view our democracy in the way that we would like.
      We have rightly had robust and difficult debate and scrutiny of the Executive. I believe that we have listened and responded, and I have certainly learned a great deal over the past few weeks. I hope that by dealing with the Bill as we have, we will be able to present the House of Lords with a programme to which they can now agree. I hope also that despite the harsh words that have sometimes been spoken in the other place, as they have here, they will respect the way in which the Commons has repnded, and we in turn will respect their rights to scrutinise and return to us certain measures, which we,

      955
      in turn, have deliberated on. It is in that spirit that I propose that we reject the Lords amendments and agree to the Government amendment in lieu.
      Norman Baker: I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the constructive way in which he has approached this matter and others. I welcome some of his positive responses—"concessions" sounds too dismissive—and the way in which he has changed the wording of the Bill accordingly. However, we are not convinced that enough progress has been made on sunset clauses, and I shall be asking my colleagues to agree with the Lords, not the Government, when we come to vote in 17 minutes or so.
      The Home Secretary mentioned a review, and it would be helpful if tomorrow some flesh were put on the bones of that. If the review would result in a sunset clause of a different nature, we would be willing to hear about it, as, no doubt, would the Conservatives. If, however, the intention is simply to tart about with the panel of Privy Councillors that he has suggested, that will not be enough.
      Sunset clauses are necessary in this Bill for three reasons. First, by common consent, this is emergency legislation, and it is far reaching. Secondly, most Members feel that it goes beyond what is necessary to deal with terrorism, and deals with subjects that are way beyond that, including ordinary criminal activities.
      11.15 pm
      Thirdly, the Bill has not been properly discussed. Insufficient time was given to Second Reading and the Bill's first consideration by the Commons, and tonight there is insufficient time to deal with a range of important issues raised by the Lords amendments. When this 125-clause Bill was first considered by the Commons, 86 clauses were not debated in Committee and only two of those were subsequently discussed on Report, leaving 84 clauses undiscussed. None of the schedules were debated in Committee save schedule 5, which had less than five minutes' discussion, and schedule 1 was briefly debated on Report. Of the clauses that were debated, 19 were debated for less than five minutes in Committee. No one could possibly claim that the Bill has been properly debated by the Commons.
      In those circumstances, and given the nature of the Bill, it is impossible to say that it should be passed without a proper review being established. With due respect to the Home Secretary's proposals, that body of Privy Councillors does not constitute a proper review. It is a body comprising the great and the good who will consider the legislation and may comment on it, but in no way is their judgment to be binding on the Government. When Lord Rooker was asked whether the recommendations of the review would be accepted, he replied:
      "That cannot be said at this point."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1204.]
      In other words, he gave no undertaking that the comments made by that body of Privy Councillors would be accepted by the Government.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman make the point that amendment (a) is not the amendment that will be enacted'? We now know that the Government are to table amendments to amendment (a), so we are not debating that which the Government expect to become the law.
      Norman Baker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point well.
      956
      I welcome the Home Secretary's willingness to consider what might be done, but the fact is—
      Mr. Blunkett: Let me make it clear that Lord Rooker could not give that assurance because we had not agreed it at that time. However, I have just given it, and if I say from the Dispatch Box that that is what we are going to do, that is what we are going to do.
      Norman Baker: I am not quite clear what the Home Secretary is saying, but if it is that whatever the recommendations made by the review body, the Government will automatically accept them, that is not what was said in the House of Lords. If that is what he is saying, it is welcome, but it is not a substitute for a proper sunset clause that limits emergency, far-reaching and draconian legislation. Previous legislation of this nature—prevention of terrorism Acts—have contained clauses whereby a statute is expected to "die" or to be subject to renewal orders. That is not the case with the Bill and we must know why not.
      We have not been given sufficient time and it is dangerous to enact such far-reaching legislation in such circumstances. Lord Rooker said:
      "the speed with which this legislation is being passed must be recognised by the Government."
      He seems to recognise it—do other Ministers? He also said:
      "We are rushing the legislation and there are no gaps between the stages allowing for mature consideration of the issues raised."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 1203–04.]
      In circumstances in which a Minister acknowledges that legislation is being rushed, the least the Government can do is ensure that there is a proper sunset clause covering the entire Bill—apart from part 12, on which there is common agreement. By so doing, if there are mistakes and if the Opposition points are well-founded, the Government can get themselves out of the hole and restore the civil liberties that I fear will be taken away under the Bill.
      A sunset clause is an essential defence. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on that.
      Mr. Hogg rose—
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I call Mr. Douglas Hogg.
      Mr. Hogg: I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) wants to speak, so I shall be brief.
      I object to the motion to disagree with the Lords amendment and to substitute amendment (a). To begin with, I am a strong supporter of the sunset clauses in the form that the Lords approved them, and I strongly oppose any attempt to derogate from them. Furthermore, I oppose in particular the proposal in amendment (a).
      We are told that there is to be a review. That is very nice of the Home Secretary, but a review by whom? The record of the current Government suggests that it will be a packed review body, comprising nicely and carefully chosen Privy Councillors who will do what they are told

      957
      to do by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no confidence in that sort of review. What will happen when we have the review, which is to be laid before the Houses of Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable? That is jolly nice of the Government. But what then? We are told that the Government will implement the proposals. Why is that not in the Bill? That is because the Home Secretary does not want it in the Bill. Why is that? It is because he wants to be in a position not to do that which he has just said. If not, it would be in the Bill.
      What procedure will there be for ensuring that the report is speedily debated? The answer is none. The truth is that weasel words have been brought forward by a Government who are in a fix, trying to find a mechanism to smooth over the effectual injustice of that which they are about. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is chuntering away. The truth is that we should not have a Bill. However, if we are to have a Bill, we should have a proper sunset clause, and the present proposal is no substitute for it.
      Worse, we are told that amendment (a) is not in its final form, because tomorrow, there will be further amendments. We are being asked to approve tonight a solution to a problem that is no solution. Further amendments will come back to the House and we shall have five, six or seven minutes to discuss them. They will then be put through the House on a Government vote. This is a profoundly undemocratic process and we should have no part of it.
      Mr. Letwin: I shall certainly not attempt to emulate the unbelievable eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I share many of the reservations that he so potently expressed. Moreover, I share also many of the reservations that were expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
      The Opposition seek, as does the Home Secretary, to achieve legislation that will protect the United Kingdom from terrorism. As we have always reminded ourselves and the House, that is a joint aim. We have adopted what we continue to believe to be a responsible and sensible approach to resolving the problems that the hon. Member for Lewes accurately described. There is the problem that is engendered by the Home Secretary's desire to see the Bill enacted so rapidly, which is that we have not had an opportunity sufficiently to scrutinise the uncontentious parts of the Bill to determine whether they will work in practice.
      If we had our way, and if there were not a problem of urgency, I would wish that we insist permanently on our sunset clause, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, with the gay abandon of the Back Benches, so splendidly calls for. However, we need a Bill, and as I understand it the Home Secretary has offered—I take seriously his point that when he says these things he means them, and he has shown that repeatedly—to consider how the decisions or views taken by the committee of Privy Councillors could be given real bite and made to bear on parliamentary debate and parliamentary revision.
      I am sure that the Government will bring forward such proposals. I do not guarantee that they will in their entirety meet immediately with our approval, but we shall
      958
      engage with them. We will work with the Government to ascertain whether we can crack this problem so that the clauses do not prove an obstacle to achieving the passage of the Bill. We need to see the removal of the clauses on incitement to religious hatred, and we have dealt with that. Many of the other items that were most objectionable have been removed or amended by the Government. The item before us should not be a sticking point. Let us hope that in the next 24 or 36 hours we can achieve the desired result. If we fail to do so, it will not be for want of trying on the Opposition Benches.
      Mr. Blunkett: I do not welcome the continuing opposition, but I welcome the measured and sensible approach that has been enunciated. Everyone in politics has to make decisions about what is possible as well as about what is desirable. In the past few weeks, each of us has endeavoured to do just that. If, in the next 24 hours, we can find a way forward, people will thank us.
      In response to those who are sceptical and believe that we are packing the measure or are being elusive, if we were prepared to take seriously what was said by a committee that undertook a review and could take security evidence but, after debate in both Houses, we were not prepared to respond to it, we would be making a rod for our own backs. Making sure that what we say and do is credible is a matter of both will and necessity; there should be trust that that will happen.
      The shadow Home Secretary illustrated the necessity even in opposition to recognise that the Government must govern; we have to lead and find a way forward. I urge Liberal Democrat Members, if they aspire to be a major Opposition party, to be prepared to do the same. I have heard the spirit of co-operation tonight, but I have not heard any words about being prepared to give as well as take. If I am prepared to give as well as take with a majority of 165, Liberal Democrat Members might do so as well.
      Simon Hughes: I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect that in all the conversations that I have had with him and his ministerial colleagues, and in debate on the Floor of the House, I have always said that there is scope to improve the Bill in both Houses by amendment. There are principles at stake, and there may be some that clash. I hope that the Home Secretary will not confuse a difference of view on the right outcome with willingness to see if we can reach an agreement. We are certainly willing to reach an agreement; if we can agree, we will, but I cannot promise that we can.
      Mr. Blunkett: I understand that no one in opposition can promise that. However, I simply make the point that, at the end of the process, people will judge what we do by watching how the Opposition and the Government conduct themselves. In my position, I have to be mindful of that. The shadow Home Secretary has indicated how he sees the way forward and I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesman will find it in his heart to be big enough to do so as well. If we can find a way forward together, there will be some credibility for all of us. If we cannot, people will make a judgment about those who are unwilling or unable to do so.
      Question put:— That this House disagrees Lords amendment No. 66:—
      The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 215.

      Division No. 110]

      [11.28 pm

      Ayes

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Corston, Jean

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'ty NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Cranston, Ross

      (Swansea E)

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cummings, John

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Bailey, Adrian

      (Copeland)

      Baird, Vera

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Barron, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bayley, Hugh

      David, Wayne

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benn, Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Best, Harold

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Doran, Frank

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dowd, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Ennis, Jeff

      (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caims, David

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gardiner, Barry

      Casale, Roger

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Challen, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Grogan, John

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Havard, Dai

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hill, Keith

      960

      Hodge, Margaret

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hoey, Kate

      Miliband, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hope, Phil

      Mole, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Moran, Margaret

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morgan, Julie

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Joyce, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham &Heston)

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford &Isleworth)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kelly, Ruth

      Pike, Peter

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pond, Chris

      King, Andy (Rugby &Kenilworth)

      Pope, Greg

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pound, Stephen

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lammy, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Laxton, Bob

      Purnell, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rammell, Bill

      Levitt, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robertson, John

      Linton, Martin

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Love, Andrew

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lucas, Ian

      Rooney, Terry

      Luke, Iain

      Ross, Ernie

      Lyons, John

      Roy, Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ryan, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDougall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McKechin, Ann

      Simon, Siôn

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mann, John

      Soley, Clive

      Marris, Rob

      Southworth, Helen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Squire, Rachel

      Meale, Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Merron, Gillian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Stevenson, George

      961

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Tynan, Bill

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stringer, Graham

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Watts, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tami, Mark

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wray, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Todd, Mark

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wyatt, Derek

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and Mr. John Heppell.

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Noes

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Allan, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Dodds, Nigel

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Doughty, Sue

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Bacon, Richard

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Baldry, Tony

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Barker, Gregory

      Evans, Nigel

      Baron, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Flight, Howard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Francois, Mark

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Galloway, George

      Brady, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Breed, Colin

      Gibb, Nick

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Gidley, Sandra

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Goodman, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Gray, James

      Burns, Simon

      Grayling, Chris

      Burstow, Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, John

      Butterfill, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Cameron, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Harvey, Nick

      (NE Fife)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hayes, John

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chidgey, David

      Heath, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Hoban, Mark

      (Rushcliffe)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Holmes, Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cran, James

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      962

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Keetch, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Rosindell, Andrew

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

      Ruffley, David

      Key, Robert

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Salmond, Alex

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Selous, Andrew

      Lamb, Norman

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Laws, David

      Simmonds, Mark

      Leigh, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Bob

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      McDonnell, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Swire, Hugo

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      McWalter, Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thurso, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tredinnick, David

      Moore, Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tyler, Paul

      Norman, Archie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Oaten, Mark

      Viggers, Peter

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Walter, Robert

      Öpik, Lembit

      Watkinson, Angela

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Webb, Steve

      Ottaway, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wiggin, Bill

      Paterson, Owen

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Price, Adam

      Wilshire, David

      Prisk, Mark

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wishart, Pete

      Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

      Yeo, Tim

      Rendel, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tom Brake and Mr. Charles Hendry.

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.

    Clause 11

      PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CERTAIN AMENDING ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, page 5, line 24, leave out "further order states that the Treasury"
      and insert "Treasury reasonably".
      Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 24 to 37 and 67 to 70.

      963
      I ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so as quickly as possible.
      Simon Hughes: We have reached the part of our debate that proves that some aspects of the Bill are non-controversial. I can help colleagues from all parties by saying that my hon. Friends and I do not intend to divide the House again tonight. I hope that that encourages those who do not feel obliged to stay for the remaining few minutes that have been allocated to our discussion.
      Mr. Letwin: In a spirit of cross-party amity, we do not intend to divide the House if that permits the Whips to let people go home.
      Simon Hughes: That leaves only two options: Labour or Conservative Back Benchers or our friends from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will press the button. However, I sense that we may be reserving the contest for tomorrow.
      I want to raise three points on the amendments. They have evidently been put through the Lords with agreement, and there is therefore no attempt to reject them in the Commons.
      Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 35 relate to the nuclear industry, and raise some important issues that we had barely a moment to discuss earlier. Lords amendment No. 33 covers the regulation of security of the civil nuclear industry.[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to hold conversations, perhaps they should leave the Chamber.
      Simon Hughes: The Government have not had the chance to explain, in the context of their justification of part 8 of the Bill, how they reconcile clause 78, which allows the Secretary of State to
      "make regulations for the purpose of ensuring the security of—
      (a) nuclear sites and other nuclear premises",
      which is unarguable, and clause 80—which is the subject of Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35—ith their freedom of information legislation intentions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) proposed, during our brief Report stage, that we ought to be able to know where nuclear waste and nuclear materials were travelling throughout the country. We would argue strongly that the reason for that is to reduce—and not increase—fear, suspicion and concern. Can we have some reassurance, either tonight or tomorrow, on those two clauses, by way of further amendments, that freedom of information will apply in relation to these matters in the Bill that we have not had the opportunity to raise before?
      Norman Baker: Is not the issue that the Government are reducing the amount of information being given on the transportation of nuclear material? I understand that specific movements must, of course, be kept secret, but the generality must be available for public discussion. Would it not be more sensible if the Government, for reasons of security and to deter terrorism, sought to reduce the number of nuclear movements? At the moment, they are increasing.
      Simon Hughes: That seems a logical addition to what I was seeking to persuade Ministers of. I hope that they
      964
      will offer an explanation that such measures are behind some of the amendments or, if not, that further amendments are possible.
      Of course it Is important that the nuclear industry is secure, and the Liberal Democrats have supported, in general terms, the sections of the Bill that deal with weapons of mass destruction, security of pathogens and toxins, and security of the nuclear industry. We believe that their inclusion is appropriate.
      Lords amendment No. 37 relates to clause 88, in part 9, which deals with aviation security. It would insert a new clause that would allow powers originally incorporated in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Aviation Security Act 1982 to apply outside the United Kingdom. Conservative Members have often raised the issue, perfectly properly, of when it is appropriate to enact extra-territorial legislation.
      We are clear that improving aviation security is a right and proper part of the Bill, but we are disturbed that we have barely been able to debate the matter. Colleagues with airports in their constituencies, and other hon. Members, would have liked such an opportunity. My hon. Friend's proposal for a sunset provision on the issue has strength, because it would give us the chance to do that. On Lords amendment No. 37, will the Minister tell us why our courts need extra-territorial jurisdiction only in relation to these matters, and not to others?
      The non-controversial matters in the Bill will be concluded tonight, because they have come from the Lords to us, and if we agree with them, that is the end of that business; they will not go back to the other place. There are, obviously, matters on which we have taken a different view from the Lords, and those matters will go back tomorrow.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I have said that we shall collaborate and participate in discussions to get maximum agreement. The House of Lords has no time limit on its debates tomorrow, so it can give those issues more consideration than we have been able to give. I hope that, as it does so, the Government respond to our concerns—we want this to be the last time that we have to raise them—and to concerns expressed at the other end of the building.
      Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Lords may make radical amendments that address concerns expressed in this Chamber and that we shall have only an hour in which to discuss them?
      Simon Hughes: That is certainly true. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware that the business motion passed just after 3.30 pm, although it was opposed by my colleagues, Conservative Members and others, gives us an hour to deal with everything that comes back. We object to that, as an hour is not enough and we have no idea how many amendments there will be.
      I tell the Minister that we are willing to be constructive, but we are absolutely clear about the fact that we will have the parliamentary opportunities at both ends of the building to require the Government to come back with alternatives that meet the principles involved. These matters are being debated at this stage in only 15 minutes, and they can be discussed in less time at earlier stages, so if ever there was an argument for being able to limit the Bill and for having it back for proper review, that is it.

      965
      We expect a proper review. We also hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the specific points raised tonight and that, tomorrow, the Government accept that such legislation should last for a limited time. That will enable us to do our job properly, however soon the Government want to give us the opportunity.
      Mr. Hogg: I must briefly comment on Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 4. The House will have noticed that they are detailed, but as we had no opportunity for proper debate in Committee, we could not consider their desirability. The fact that the other place introduced four important amendments on the reviewability of the statutory order procedure suggests how unwise the House is to enact this Bill rapidly.
      The truth is that if the other place had needed to, it could, with difficulty, have found more time. We could not, and there are many aspects that we would wish to have debated more fully. Had we done so, we would have been in the business of introducing detailed measures designed to reinforce civil liberties. We have been denied that opportunity and the other place has had insufficient time, but the fact that the four amendments were introduced and accepted demonstrates the lack of wisdom shown by the Government in this regard.
      Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not have added up the figures, but by my calculation the Government did not disagree on 40 uncontroversial amendments from the other place, although they disagreed on 10 substantive amendments. Many involve matters that were never debated here, which confirms his point and argues strongly that we must not go down this road again.
      Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. As you will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, scores of clauses passed through this House undiscussed. That is not a proper way in which to legislate. Even the non-controversial clauses demonstrate the force of what I am saying.
      Mr. Letwin: I do not want to say much about the amendments, which are uncontroversial, except to seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government know what they are doing in accepting the removal of white pox from the list of viruses. I do not mean to be impolite, but some of my hon. Friends asked me why it is being done. I must admit that I do not understand why, though there may be a perfectly good explanation.
      I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), with whom we have co-operated long and hard, as much has been achieved. I also thank the Government for their co-operation in removing much that was offensive. I echo his sentiment that, as tomorrow progresses—and it may become tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow—we must not merely briefly debate, if I may use that term without abusing it, and then vote on whatever comes to us from the Lords, but, much more importantly, continue a dialogue over what may be many hours to resolve issues that remain outstanding.
      The Home Secretary was right: if we fail, the country will look askance. If we succeed by giving too much, neither the Government nor the country will benefit.
      966
      It is a delicate balance. We must achieve resolutions that genuinely protect civil liberties; we must ensure that what passes into law is a Bill about terrorism rather than a Bill about other matters, and a Bill that is workable rather than a Bill that causes trouble for the Government as for others. If we can achieve those goals, our discussions today—and discussions that I suspect will take place at much later hours tomorrow—will have been worthwhile.
      Beverley Hughes: I shall have to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tomorrow. I commit myself to providing him with details then. I can tell him now, however, that Lords amendment No. 37 is technical. Its aim is to ensure that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man will be able to use the aviation security powers, and it was specifically requested by Jersey and Guernsey.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised another technical question. Lords amendment No. 70 removes white pox from the list of viruses because it is regarded as a form of smallpox and, like smallpox, is covered by the "Variola virus" entry in schedule 5.
      Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful answer about aviation powers, but is the provision limited to the three places that she mentioned? If so, that is perfectly acceptable. May I also ask whether it is the only provision in the Bill that extends to those places, and whether they had to legislate as well?
      Beverley Hughes: According to my recollection it is the only provision that extends to those places, but by tomorrow I shall have established whether the information that I have given off the top of my head is correct.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hour that we will be given tomorrow, in the first instance, to receive the Lords' response to our messages. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), the Whip who has been dealing with the Bill, tells me that that was discussed with him, and that it was not questioned by him or his colleagues during the discussions between the usual channels. I am surprised that he raised the matter, because we have tried to respond not just to the substance of many Members' concerns about various parts of the Bill but to Opposition requests about how the Bill should be managed, within the limitations imposed on us. I know that my hon. Friend has tried to do that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain now, I should be pleased to hear his explanation.
      Simon Hughes: I will happily do so, very briefly.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I were indeed consulted. We presented a counter-proposition relating to all the other matters, which the Government accepted; but we had to take into account the fact that we had already passed a business motion committing us to finishing on Thursday. It is because of that constraint, on which the House had already voted, that we tried to be practical and arrange for time to be provided. We do not like it, but we put our hands up because we were against the "end-stop".
      Beverley Hughes: I understand that the part of the motion relating to the intial hour was not challeged during the discussions.

      967
      Let me make a general point. The time scale applying to the Bill is by no means out of kilter with time scales applied by past Governments to similar emergency legislation. If anything, the time has been more generous than that provided for other emergency legislation.
      Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that on previous occasions emergency legislation has been far narrower and tightly defined, and has not included a lot of other stuff that is not much to do with terrorism?
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is not taking into account the point that—
      It being Twelve o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day].
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4, 24 to 37 and 67 to 70 agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Paul Goggins, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Beverley Hughes, Simon Hughes and Mrs. Anne McGuire; Beverley Hughes to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee—[Mrs. McGuire.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time.
      Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSOLIDATION, &C., BILLS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. David Cairns, Mr. Martin Caton, Mr. Colin Challen, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mr. Paul Farrelly, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. John MacDougall, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Anthony Steen be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. —[Mr. Stringer.]
      Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith

  PETITIONS

    Travellers
    12.3 am
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: It gives me great pleasure to present this petition, particularly as the travellers concerned have now moved to Withington, a village that is deeply distressed by that development.
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the concerned residents of Leominster sheweth
    That the travellers currently residing in Leominster and Withington should be removed to one of the sites in Herefordshire that is specifically dedicated to travellers where they will be welcome and safe, as Leominster residents have been caused considerable distress. Also that the Government considers releasing funds in order to increase police numbers in Herefordshire to protect citizens of that county from crime,
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Herefordshire council to relocate the travellers in Leominster to a dedicated travellers site and increase police funding.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Policing (Rugby)
    12.4 am
    Andy King: I wish to present a petition of some 3,000 signatures:
    The petition of residents of the villages in the south sector of the borough of Rugby
    Declares that police staffing levels in the area are numerically inadequate given rising crime levels
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take such action as lies within his power to increase the number of bobbies on the beat in the southern sector of the borough of Rugby.
    To lie upon the table.

    Foundation Stage
    12.5 am
    Bob Russell: The petition of Margaret Edgington of Colchester, schoolteachers and parents and others from many parts of the country deals with the introduction of the foundation stage of the national curriculum. The petitioners are concerned that some practitioners are being hindered in their attempts to implement the principles of the foundation stage. They feel that there is a lack of continuity of approach and of expectation from the new foundation stage to key stage 1; and that the expectation for children's achievements in years 1 and 2 are incompatible with the early learning goals set for children at the end of the foundation stage.
    The petition states:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to require all Primary Headteachers, Advisers and Consultants to receive specialist training

    969
    on the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage; to release the Foundation Stage from any requirement to implement the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies; to promote the extension into Key Stage 1 of the learning and teaching approach advocated for the Foundation Stage, and to remove pressure on schools to achieve limited academic targets at the end of Key Stage 1.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc
    To lie upon the Table.

    Social Services (Bedfordshire)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    12.6 am
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on what I believe to be the issue of greatest concern in local authority funding. So great is my concern that I count it small cost to have waited here until 1.50 am last Thursday and to be here at six minutes past 12 this morning for the debate. I wish to consider the problems and the consequences of, and the solutions to, the issue of social services. I am keen to draw attention to that issue in Bedfordshire, but it is a national issue and the problems are no worse in my area than in the rest of the UK, and are probably better because of the careful financial management of the council over the past few years.
    I am grateful to the Minister for attending to respond to the debate and I hope that she will respond to the points I make, given that I telephoned her office with an outline of my speech last week.
    Social services spending has not been the political priority that it should have been under both Labour and Conservative Governments. There has been a long history of local authorities spending over their standard spending assessments. This year, Bedfordshire will spend 15 per cent. more, or £7.8 million, than the sum that the Government say we should spend, according to our SSA. That is in line with the average overspend of all counties in the south-east of England. Nationally, the overspend above SSA is £916 million, or 10.2 per cent. In addition, local authorities spend a further £200 million over and above those budgets to meet the demands placed upon them.
    The publicity that the issue receives is usually in connection with the care of the elderly, but the greatest financial pressures relate to children's services. The Association of Directors of Social Services estimates that 64 per cent. of the total overspend will be a result of the increased demand for children's services. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of children in need nationally rose by 6.8 per cent. to 381,000. The number of children in care has increased from 49,300 in 1994 to 58,100 in 2000. The number of children looked after under court orders has doubled since 1993.
    In adult services, reduced infant mortality and enhanced survival rates for children with disabilities impact on parents and siblings and on carers' ability to provide care as the carers themselves get older. In elderly care, we know that by 2007 the number of pensioners will have overtaken the number of children under 16. In the 12 months to June 2001, Bedfordshire social services received 5,969 referrals of older people in need. Many of those related to patients who should be discharged from hospital, but cannot be. In some cases, clients have died in distressingly inappropriate care.
    It is time that the recruitment for the 2,000 vacancies in child protection units nationally had the same national prominence as recruiting teachers and nurses currently receives. The 50 per cent. reduction in students applying to join the social work profession is also deeply worrying.
    The Government are often too keen to legislate without supplying the necessary funds to local authorities to implement the new laws. The result is that less care is

    971
    provided on the front line. I shall give a recent example. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 came into force on 1 October, but the extra funding is insufficient to meet the additional responsibility placed on local authorities.
    Nationally, we know that we have lost 46,000 residential care beds over the past four years, and the Care Standards Act 2000 has hastened that decline, because it requires modifications to create larger room sizes and places new restrictions on room sharing. The quality of care and not the dimensions of the room should be what matters.
    There is also a lack of flexibility of funding between the NHS and social services. The close connection between the work of social services departments and the NHS means that there should be greater flexibility to spend the money between the two. The NHS has passed the lead responsibility for many services over to social services. For example, it has removed itself from the disability care field, leaving provision to be met through personal social services.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is not one of the real problems that the boundaries for social services and the NHS are different? Consequently, it is in the interests of hospital doctors to keep people in possibly inappropriate care under the social services. The obverse is also true. As a result, people do not get the best form of care appropriate to their need.
    Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The difficulty that he describes certainly compounds the problem in Bedfordshire.
    A genuinely joined-up approach is needed, rather than buck-passing between the various agencies over which picks up the bill. The consequence of the problem that I have described is that vulnerable children in Bedfordshire will be at risk unless a further £4 million can be found.
    That is not a statement that Bedfordshire county council makes lightly. Its social services require an extra £10 million overall to enable them to give the necessary support next year, principally to children but also to people with learning disabilities, and to older people.
    Over the past few years, the county council has propped up social services budgets from its own resources. As a result, it has no reserves left to augment social services spending. Already, people on low or fixed incomes are telling me of their alarm at the size of the council tax rises that they will face to enable the council to meet its statutory undertakings.
    What is the solution? There is an urgent need—in Bedfordshire and nationally—for the Treasury to make a realistic assessment of funding requirements, based on actual and projected expenditure and not on outdated standard spending assessment formulas. The extra £223,500 a year for the next two years that was given to Bedfordshire in October is welcome, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed to tackle the scale of the problem.
    Finance officers from Bedfordshire county council have told me that last week's provisional local government settlement for 2002–03 still leaves the council well short of the sums needed to protect the vulnerable next year. Services for children will receive only £0.5 million of the £4 million needed, and the overall shortfall on the projected social services budget for 2002–03 will be
    972
    around £7 million. That is a huge sum for England's second-smallest county, with a population of only 380,000, to find.
    Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has kindly given leave for this intervention. Does not he agree that the burden for Bedfordshire would be rather easier to bear if the health authority's budget was not so low? Doctors calculated that the budget was some £19 million short. There has been an injection of funds recently, but it goes nowhere near making up that shortfall. It would be much easier for social services and the NHS to combine if the budgets for Bedfordshire were more commensurate with need.
    Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend makes a further valuable point. I referred earlier to the NHS and social services working together, and his point is valid in that respect.
    Ring fencing must be allowed so that local authorities can direct money to areas of greatest need. Social services for children, for example, are excluded from benefiting from the £223,500 given to Bedfordshire last October. Greater partnership between the NHS and local social services is also needed. It is crazy, for example, that there is a difference between a "social services" bath and a "medical" bath and even crazier that the former is charged for and the latter is free.
    Governments of all persuasions must stop legislating without passporting the necessary funds for implementation. We must do all that we can to raise the status of social workers to encourage more people to enter the profession. We hear a lot about those who fall short, but little of the dedicated work of the vast majority of social workers who daily assist the needy and the vulnerable. I am sure that Bedfordshire colleagues would want to join me in paying tribute to the work of Lyn Burns, Bedfordshire's strategic director of social services, and her dedicated team for all the excellent work that they do.
    Bedfordshire social services has recognised the importance of working with user groups. It has agreed, for example, that the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Leighton Buzzard can help to train the department's social workers and other professionals, such as occupational therapists and care workers, in understanding the implications of that disease for clients and their families. That is an excellent and possibly unique initiative that will result in great benefit to multiple sclerosis sufferers and their families throughout Bedfordshire.
    We need to allow social workers to be included in the key worker accommodation that is currently concentrated on nurses and teachers in the high-cost south-east. We should also have a massive national campaign to promote fostering to attract more foster parents. Bedfordshire, like many counties, could do with more of these wonderful people. It is a scandal that only 2,200 children were adopted nationally last year compared with 20,000 in 1970. Let all children be considered for adoption and place a legal duty on social services to provide this. The stability and security given to our young people by an adopted family will often give them the best start to life.
    Given that the lion's share—some 64 per cent.—of the social services overspend is on children's services, we need to step back from the year-on-year budgetary

    973
    implications and ask what is happening in our society that means that so many more of our children are in the care of social services. National and local government, schools and the media and voluntary and faith groups all have a significant role to play in supporting and upholding family life and promoting loving, responsible parenting.
    Southern European nations, such as Italy, with their strong sense of family solidarity, which leads to much lower rates of homelessness than the UK experiences, have much to teach us. I also urge the Government to study the social policies of states in America, such as Oklahoma, where non-judgmental, practical guidance to promote marriage is beginning to turn the tide. The work of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in Washington DC has also had success in reinvolving absent fathers with their partners and children. Its work goes way beyond that of our Child Support Agency to address the emotional and relational poverty, as well as the material poverty, facing families.
    We must not think that there is a tide of family breakdown that we cannot turn. Family life can be strengthened with the necessary will.
    12.18 am
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on raising the important matter of social services in Bedfordshire and being willing, along with me, to stay up late on two separate occasions to discuss this issue.
    The hon. Gentleman is clearly keen to see high quality social care being provided for his constituents. That is what I want, too. I am pleased to have the opportunity to describe what the Government are doing to achieve that aim in Bedfordshire and throughout the country.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that Bedfordshire social services is facing difficulties this year as a result of financial pressures. I understand that the council's financial problems have been primarily related to children's services and services for adults with learning difficulties. In both these sectors, the council has had to fund external placements that have proved expensive.
    I am pleased to learn, however, that following staff changes and recruitment, the council is now developing a five-year children's strategy. This strategy, in which the voluntary sector—including NCH—is expected to play a key role, will aim to reduce the council's level of external spending and make a bigger shift to family support. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an important area of work.
    Bedfordshire has been trying to alleviate its financial problems in a number of ways. When the current director of social services took up her post about 12 months ago, she recognised that the council was heading for a significant overspend and took immediate action that has led to a clearer picture of the budget position. I understand that there has also been a review of financial systems to ensure clear accountability for budgets.
    I am also pleased that decisions about children's and adults' placements are now dealt with by a county panel, and that joint work has been undertaken with the health authority to make the best use of joint purchasing services for children. I shall return to the important issue of partnership work—with the health service in particular.
    974
    The hon. Gentleman has made much of the amount of additional funding that Bedfordshire county council estimates that it needs next year. The timing of this debate is such that we are able to make reference to the very latest information about the considerable investment that the Government are making in social services. That investment has been growing substantially in real terms under the Government.
    Bedfordshire has benefited from that investment. This year, the council received an increase of more than 9 per cent. in its total personal social services resources, and will receive substantial extra funds for personal social services next year.
    The resources that we are making available next year for social services were announced in the statement on the local government settlement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We announced that Bedfordshire's personal social services standard spending assessment will increase by a further 6 per cent. The carers' grant will increase by a further 22 per cent. and the children's grant by a further 14 per cent. Increases of that size demonstrate the Government's commitment to social care and to making up previous underspend.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the position for older people. His figures on care place losses are wrong—like those of his colleagues. However, the Government are concerned about maintaining sufficient capacity in our care homes sector for older people, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes—indeed, I think that he did so—the £447,000 made available in early October to assist Bedfordshire county council in providing capacity and in ensuring that older people in the county have care where and when they need it. Bedfordshire will, of course, receive its share of the £200 million being made available in the next financial year for that purpose.
    The hon. Gentleman made much of the need for further resources for personal social services. I agree with him: social services departments need more resources. That is why those resources have increased by 20.7 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03—an average real-terms increase of 3.2 per cent. per annum. Although there is still more work to be done, I am proud that the Labour Government have achieved that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to compare those figures with the average annual real-terms growth of 0.1 per cent. per annum between 1992–93 and 1996–97 under the previous Government.
    The hon. Gentleman may believe that the extra investment that the Government are making available for social services is a drop in the ocean, but it is nevertheless money that his party failed to pledge to match at the June general election.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does the Minister agree that since the Government came to power and changed the rules for SSAs county councils have lost £700 million due to those changes?
    Jacqui Smith: No, but I recognise the significant extra investment in some of the key local authority functions, such as education and personal social services, and those increases in investment did not occur under the previous Government. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the SSA regime introduced under the Government of whom,

    975
    I believe, he was a member is flawed and needs to be reformed, I agree with him. That is why this Labour Government are pledged to reform that system in time for the local government settlement next year.
    The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire also referred to the support given to families, which is an important factor. The Government recognise that early intervention and family support is key to tackling child poverty and social exclusion. We have therefore set out a wide-ranging programme to support parents and families, which concentrates on five main areas: better services and support to parents; better financial support to families; helping families balance work and home; strengthening marriage; and better support for serious family problems.
    Some 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, as a result of the Government's tax and benefit changes. Child benefit has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms, to £15.50 a week for the first child. Some 1.2 million families now benefit from the working families tax credit. We have established new rights to help people balance their work and their home lives, better maternity entitlement, the right to paid holidays, paternity leave and protection against working excessive hours.
    The new National Family and Parenting Institute has been set up to provide quality advice to the Government, the voluntary sector and parents themselves on the very difficult task on parenting. We have created the first ever national child care strategy, and 295,000 child care places have already been established, helping 540,000 children.
    The first Minister with responsibility for young people has been appointed, and a new children and young people's unit has been created to develop an overarching strategy for children and young people's services.
    A wide range of family support services is provided by local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that our children's services needed more investment. Those services include advice, guidance and counselling, day care, home help, family centres and so on. That is why the Government introduced the now five-year, £885 million quality protects programme in England, with the aim of improving the management and delivery of children's social services.
    Government objectives to improve outcomes for children and young people in need have been set and local authorities are expected to show, and have shown, steady improvement towards the achievement of those objectives in their annual quality protects management action plans.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issues of fostering and adoption. The Government have supported national fostering recruitment campaigns, and I agree with him that it is crucial to attract more people. The Adoption and Children Bill, which is being considered by the House, represents the first opportunity for 25 years to modernise the legislation on adoption. It will place a duty on local authorities to provide adoption support services, backed up by £66 million of extra investment. More children have already been adopted out of care under this Government, but, of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to meet the Government's target of 40 per cent—or even 50 per cent. —more children being adopted out of care by 2004.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of recruitment and retention in Bedfordshire. The Government are aware that there are problems in recruiting social workers throughout the country, and I
    976
    agree with him that we must all ensure that we praise the excellent work that many social workers do, day in day out, to protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. We take the issue of recruitment and retention very seriously, which is why on 10 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health launched a national recruitment campaign aimed at informing the public about social work and social care and at encouraging recruitment and retention. I am very pleased that there have so far been 13,198 responses to the campaign, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 123 of those are from the Bedfordshire area.
    We are also introducing a three-year degree-level qualification in social work to replace the current two-year diploma courses. That represents a unique opportunity to transform the status, image and position of social workers and to build on the best of social work education and training. The degree-level qualification will come into effect in England from September 2003. In addition, the Secretary of State last year announced extra investment in training for social workers and social workers currently in employment, because it is important that we not only recruit more social workers but retain those who are already in the service.
    The funding of social services is, of course, important, as is the way in which councils use the funding that they receive. We are determined that the money for social services should be used to improve and modernise them. Improvements are happening. We recently published the latest set of performance indicators for the 150 councils with social services responsibilities. There is overall improvement, and steady progress is being made towards the Government's priorities.
    To build on that progress, the Secretary of State recently announced that we would set about devising an overall assessment methodology that will allow us to analyse all the performance information available to us, and to generate an overall performance score. The aim is to introduce, by next spring, an overall assessment system similar to that announced in September for the NHS. Not only will that information be helpful for service users and their carers but it will be vital for the Government and local authorities, improving their ability to spot problem areas and to take appropriate measures to generate improvements where these are needed.
    Of course, those improvements cannot always be delivered by social services departments alone. It is important that the various responsibilities of councils, whether in education, leisure or other services, are co-ordinated with those of social services departments to ensure that we meet, in the round, the needs of the people served by those departments. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues pointed out, it is crucial for older people, those with learning disabilities, people with mental health problems and children that departments work properly with health authorities.
    This Government have, in the Health Act 1999, introduced the flexibility necessary to ensure that local authorities and health authorities can work together more effectively. That flexibility is currently being considered in Bedfordshire; for example, in the commissioning of joint equipment stores, which will utilise a pooled budget, and in the development of a joint commissioning agency for learning disabilities, for which a strategy is being developed throughout Luton and the rest of Bedfordshire

    977
    with the health authority. Organisations are moving towards primary care trust status. The ability to work more carefully together will ensure that the extra funding going into health and social services is used in the most effective way for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and everybody in the country who needs to benefit from those services.
    I have spent some minutes describing those major developments because they all contribute to the Government's vision of social services in the 21st century. Those initiatives, backed up by significant extra investment, provide a coherent framework for improvement. People who use social services, in Bedfordshire as elsewhere in the country, deserve and expect high quality services. We have set ourselves a challenging agenda, but we have shown ourselves willing to invest and reform to ensure that we deliver for all the people who need those services.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock

  Deferred Divisions

    EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13425/01, Draft Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between the Member States; and supports the Government's active participation in the debate on the draft Framework Decision and the Government's intention to ensure that extradition within the European Union takes place on the basis of the principles of mutual recognition.
    The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 146.

    Division No. 105]

    Ayes

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clelland, David

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clwyd, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Coleman, Iain

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Colman, Tony

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Connarty, Michael

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Austin, John

    Corston, Jean

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cousins, Jim

    Baird, Vera

    Cox, Tom

    Banks, Tony

    Cranston, Ross

    Barnes, Harry

    Crausby, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Cruddas, Jon

    Battle, John

    Cummings, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Begg, Miss Anne

    (Copeland)

    Beggs, Roy

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Berry, Roger

    Daisley, Paul

    Best, Harold

    Dalyell, Tam

    Betts, Clive

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    David, Wayne

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Borrow, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Brennan, Kevin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Doran, Frank

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Drew, David

    Bryant, Chris

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burnham, Andy

    Ennis, Jeff

    Burnside, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Flint, Caroline

    Cairns, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Casale, Roger

    Foulkes, George

    Caton, Martin

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    Challen, Colin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Chaytor, David

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Goggins, Paul

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    979

    Grogan, John

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    McDonnell, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    MacDougall, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McFall, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hancock, Mike

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hanson, David

    McKechin, Ann

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Healey, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McNulty, Tony

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hendrick, Mark

    McWalter, Tony

    Hepburn, Stephen

    McWilliam, John

    Heppell, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hermon, Lady

    Mann, John

    Heyes, David

    Marris, Rob

    Hill, Keith

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Meale, Alan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Miller, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moffatt, Laura

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Mole, Chris

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moran, Margaret

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Morgan, Julie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mountford, Kali

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mudie, George

    Hurst, Alan

    Mullin, Chris

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jamieson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Owen, Albert

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pearson, Ian

    Joyce, Eric

    Perham, Linda

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Picking, Anne

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pike, Peter

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Plaskitt, James

    Kelly, Ruth

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pond, Chris

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pope, Greg

    Kidney, David

    Pound, Stephen

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E,

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Price, Adam

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lammy, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Laxton, Bob

    Purnell, James

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lepper, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rammell, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    Rapson, Syd

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Linton, Martin

    Robertson, John

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Love, Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lucas, Ian

    Rooney, Terry

    Luke, Iain

    Ross, Ernie

    Lyons, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Ryan, Joan

    McCafferty, Chris

    Salmond, Alex

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Salter, Martin

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    980

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Timms, Stephen

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Todd, Mark

    Sheerman, Barry

    Touhig, Don

    Sheridan, Jim

    Trickett, Jon

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Truswell, Paul

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Tynan, Bill

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Soley, Clive

    Watts, David

    Southworth, Helen

    Weir, Michael

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    White, Brian

    Squire, Rachel

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    (Swansea W)

    Stevenson, George

    Williams, Mrs betty (Conwy)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wills, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Winnick, David

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wishart, Pete

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stringer, Graham

    Woolas, Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Worthington, Tony

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wray, James

    Tami, Mark

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Amess, David

    Evans, Nigel

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Bacon, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Barker, Gregory

    Flook, Adrian

    Baron, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Bellingham, Henry

    Francois, Mark

    Bennett, Andrew

    Gale, Roger

    Bercow, John

    Garnier, Edward

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gibb, Nick

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodman, Paul

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gray, James

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Grayling, Chris

    Brady, Graham

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Brazier, Julian

    Greenway, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Grieve, Dominic

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Burt, Alistair

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Butterfill, John

    Hammond, Philip

    Cameron, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Hayes, John

    Cash, William

    Heald, Oliver

    Chope, Christopher

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hoban, Mark

    Collins, Tim

    Horam, John

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dodds, Nigel

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Key, Robert

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    981

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Lansley, Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Letwin, Oliver

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lidington, David

    Page, Richard

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Paice, James

    Loughton, Tim

    Paterson, Owen

    Luff, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Prisk, Mark

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Robathan, Andrew

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Mates, Michael

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Mercer, Patrick

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Selous, Andrew

    982

    Shepherd, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Simmonds, Mark

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Soames, Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Spink, Bob

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spring, Richard

    Watkinson, Angela

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whittingdale, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Swayne, Desmond

    Wiggin, Bill

    Wilkinson, John

    Swire, Hugo

    Willetts, David

    Syms, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Yeo.Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tredinnick, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Regional Government (South-West)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am most grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. I want to expose the seemingly inexorable creep towards regional assemblies in general and for the south-west of England in particular, and the unwanted, unnecessary, unsustainable and illogical nonsense that they represent.
I do not subscribe to the argument that voters in the south-west are crying out for another tier of government. Indeed, I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to ask the Minister how many representations in favour of an elected regional assembly had been received from my constituents in East Devon. The answer, which will be of no surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends, was none. They may share my suspicion that a similar exercise undertaken in other constituencies in the south-west would produce the same result.
The real purpose for calling this debate is to ask the Minister to spell out the Government's plans and timetable for elected regional assemblies in general and for the south-west in particular. I confess that the detailed plans are not at all clear to me and to many others with whom I have discussed them.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend not suspect that the Government's obfuscation on that subject is rather like that on the single currency referendum? In order to fulfil an election pledge, from two elections ago, the Government have said that a referendum would be held on the subject, but they know only too well that, at this point in time, they will not get the answer that they want.
Mr. Swire: Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that in a moment. There seems to be some confusion over the referendums, and where and when they will take place.
In another written parliamentary question on 20 November, I asked what changes to local government structures were planned as part of the introduction of regional assemblies, to which the Minster replied:
"As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we intend to publish a Regional Governance White Paper, and this will set out how we plan to take forward our Manifesto commitment that:
`provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established'."—[Official Report, 20 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 211W.]
248WH
Notwithstanding that, there is considerable evidence that plans are well advanced—both in areas that have unitary authorities and those without—and that the Government have already prejudged the outcome of local referendums.
Dr. Caroline Jackson, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament for the south-west, highlighted that in a speech on the 17 November to the Cornwall constitutional convention at Bodmin, when she pointed out, among other things, that the main task of the assembly would be to call the South West of England Regional Development Agency to account and to act as the regional planning body.
That embryonic body now has a budget of £1 million and, earlier this year, it made a successful bid for a further £500,000 from the Government; money apparently intended to strengthen regional accountability, whatever that is supposed to mean. The body has already started to send out select committees to hold hearings around the region and is apparently focusing, with Government support, on two themes; engaging social and economic partners, and sustainable development. Dr. Jackson noted that this was clearly a growth industry and that the assembly's staff complement, which is currently 11, was growing and included a full-time chief executive. It is looking for new premises in Taunton, which must come as some comfort to the citizens of Penzance, 144 miles away.
To add to the confusion immediately before the general election, the media reported that the Labour party would publish a post-election Green Paper with proposals to establish eight elected regional assemblies with the same boundaries as the regional development agencies, provided that support could be gained in a referendum. In the interests of clarity, will the Minister confirm whether that remains Government policy? If so, when is action likely?
Let us assume for the purpose of this debate that the Government intend to proceed with an assembly for south-west England and that it will have the same boundaries as the RDA for the south-west.
Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a petition of 50,000 Cornish signatures will be handed in at Downing street today. It states that Cornwall wants to be a region in its own right in the event of any regional division. Have the Government not failed to take account of our natural regional differences? We in Devon accept that there is a clear difference between Cornwall and Devon, and the rights of the Cornish should surely be respected.
Mr. Swire: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend, who must have had sight of my speech. Her comments no doubt find favour with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Aspirations in Cornwall and in the rest of the west country are different, and I shall return to that in a minute.
A regional assembly with the same boundaries as the RDA for the south-west would cover Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, the old Avon county, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. Does the Minister understand—my hon. Friend said this more eloquently than I ever could—that the people of those counties will feel little or no sense of identity or common purpose with such an assembly?
Mr. James Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a good point. Does he

249WH
realise that if one stuck a pin in the most northerly part of the county of Gloucestershire and swivelled what he describes as the south-west region on that pivot, the Scilly Isles would end up over Glasgow?
Mr. Swire: I do, and I do not imagine that people in the Scilly Isles would want that to happen in terms of government, although they would be far better rewarded under the Scottish Parliament than they are under this Parliament. I understand also that if one drew a line from Bristol, one would find that Bristol was further from Penzance than Brighton. The geographical homogeny of the Government's aspiration is questionable, to say the least.
Most of our constituents identify with their town or village, are deeply proud of their county and feel a strong sense of patriotism towards their country. However, they feel that they have little in common with someone from Bristol, Swindon or Gloucester, and I dare say that the reverse is true. The boundaries of a regional assembly would be artificial and would be logical only in the eyes of a Whitehall planner. Is it not significant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, few Cornish people in the campaign for greater decentralisation are calling for an assembly for the south-west? A pressure group is, however, arguing for the creation of a Cornish senate with the same boundaries as the current county, but with greater powers.
Ms Candy Atherton: I am slightly confused. The gentleman who stood against me in the general election was firmly in favour of a Cornish assembly and was a member of the campaign committee.
Mr. Swire: If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me suggest that there was a clarion call in Cornwall for a Cornish senate but not for inclusion in any governmental organisation in the south-west. I cannot speak for the gentleman who stood against her, and I cannot say that I agree with him, but he is entitled to his views.
Many of the advocates of elected regional assemblies—including, no doubt, the gentleman who stood against the hon. Lady—argue that their creation would be an important measure to address the growing sense of disillusionment with the political process. The behaviour of some members of the present Government does little to help to restore confidence in the honesty and integrity of politicians generally.
There was a marked decrease in turnout in south-west counties in the recent general election, as there was in the country as a whole. However, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the lack of a regional assembly dissuaded any electors from casting their vote. How do the Government expect a regional assembly for the south-west—an artificial creation, devoid of historic or cultural ties—to foster any greater interest or enthusiasm in the electoral process? Is it not the case that the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—they at least have the advantage of being institutions with which people can identify—has not led
250WH
to any increase in voter participation? The Government and campaigners for regional assemblies will claim that their creation will constitute a decentralisation of power, bringing government closer to the people. In reality, it will achieve the opposite.
We are told by Mr. Chester Long, the former Exeter city council leader, and now regional assembly chairman, that
"People are already beginning to appreciate what the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have done. We need to have the same clout and one voice for the whole region. We already have arts bodies, development agencies and sports bodies run along regional lines so why not an assembly?"
A certain Mary Southcott, a development consultant and secretary of something called the south-west constitutional convention—a body that, despite the Bishop of Exeter's unfortunate claims to the contrary, most decidedly does not enjoy all-party support; Conservatives will have nothing to do with it—explained that:
"The idea of the assembly is to have a focus for the region involving the social and economic partners which included for example the trade unions, the CBI and the different faith groups."
Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that before the constitutional convention was set up and Ms Southcott appointed, the secretariat was provided by a trade union headquarters in the north-east of England? We owe the organisation in the south-west to the trade unions.
Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend is full of useful information this morning. The north-east of England, which is where the idea originated, feels ill-done-by after looking over the border at the Scottish Parliament. I shall be sorry if these ideas are exported from the northeast to the south-west, as that would not be appropriate.
Mr. David Drew: We do our own thing in the south-west and go at our own speed. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would want to stop the northeast assembly, or those in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside?
Mr. Swire: I am talking about the south-west this morning. No doubt others will speak about their own parts of the United Kingdom. Returning to that august body, the south-west constitutional convention, its secretary, Ms Southcott, continued:
"One of the arguments we make in favour of a regional elected assembly is that at least if it is elected people will know more about it and it will be accountable to them. It is a sort of regional government in waiting, but I believe it has not got to the point of people in the South West feeling it's their government. There is no sense of ownership out there that the assembly is working for us all. But the creation of the assembly itself is in advance of what many other regions in England have done so far, and those in it have found it a useful place to meet and are beginning to think in South West terms rather than Devon, Gloucestershire or Bristol terms. If we are all thinking that Whitehall does not know best and decisions are best taken at a local level then we need to think where they should be taken. And remember even if people in the South West do not want an elected assembly now, they will still have a Regional development Agency, a Government Office of the South West and a Regional Assembly none of which will be elected or democratically accountable to them. When people see that situation they might begin to think differently."

251WH
Or maybe not, because the truth is that either the regional assemblies will be a wholly new tier of government, sandwiched between the existing county councils and central Government—in which case the lines of democratic accountability are set to become even more blurred—or, as is more likely, county councils will be abolished and regional assemblies will become the middle tier of government between district councils and central Government.
Mr. Drew: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend may not have heard the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who apparently is strongly in favour of the abolition of Gloucestershire county council.
Mr. Swire: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. No doubt the local press will take an interest in what the hon. Gentleman says about the abolition of his shire county, and all shire counties.
The Government's latest contribution to the breaking up of the constitution of this country would be the abolition of the shire counties—for which the hon. Member for Stroud argues so vigorously—and centuries of our history. If the abolition of the county council system were the intention behind the new assemblies, it is surely the case that that will amount to a centralisation rather than a decentralisation of power. That is the opposite of what the Government claim to want.
Bureaucracy is growing at regional level through organisations such as the regional development agencies. With that comes a growing amount of funding. In reply to my written parliamentary question, the Minister for Employment and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), acknowledged that the South West regional development agency's grant had increased from £44.5 million in 1999–2000 to nearly £63 million in 2000–01. The agency has a grant in allocation of £84.5 million for 2001–02.
I have some sympathy with the Campaign for the English Regions, which argues that the elected regional assemblies are necessary to hold such bodies to democratic accountability and to address the democratic deficit. A far better idea would be to abolish the RDAs and give the money directly to the democratically elected county councils.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone has stopped to consider whether this regional bureaucracy is necessary or desirable. Voters in the United Kingdom are already well served by local elected representatives. There are, on average, 2,000 people to every council member, 67,000 people to every Member of Parliament and 510,000 electors to every Member of the European Parliament. In Scotland and Wales, people have Members of the Scottish Parliament and Assembly Members as well. The south-west regional assembly, which apparently already meets four times a year at county hall in Exeter, has 117 members, none of whom has been elected to anything by anyone—at least, not to any new legislative body.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I have been fortunate enough to attend one of the regional assemblies. Is my
252WH
hon. Friend aware that about 120 bureaucrats come from all over the area, read prepared statements and never relate to each other? The whole thing is a total waste of time and an awful waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Swire: I am covered in envy at the idea of my hon. Friend attending such a talking shop. I was pointing out that none of those people had been elected to anything, to my way of thinking. That body is a talking shop, and a not inexpensive one, which is my point. The next time my hon. Friend is invited, I ask that he takes me along as well, if I have a quiet morning.
How would people be elected to a regional assembly? According to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in a speech in June, such assemblies will have an appointed element, like the existing RDAs, from business and trade unions, as well as an elected element that uses proportional representation. He did not say what sort of proportional representation. At least some members will be elected, unlike on the RDAs, which seem to have been filled with more than their fair share of Labour cronies.
At the recent county council network conference in Scarborough, the Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), suggested that a south-west assembly was likely to have 15 members: 10 directly elected and five appointed by Government. He also conceded that the number could increase to 25. Each assembly would apparently nominate a regional executive and a "first minister". The mind boggles.
The assemblies would not only oversee RDAs and regional planning, but would administer housing corporations, the national health service regional executive, regional arts boards, learning and skills councils and local Environment Agency offices. They would also oversee police and emergency services. If they went ahead, county councillors would find themselves with a lot of time on their hands.
Ought we not to be debating whether those functions could be more effectively decided and implemented by existing county and district councils? If the Government were serious about achieving a genuine decentralisation of power, should there not be a wide debate on strengthening the power of existing local government institutions?
Perhaps we have stumbled on to something else altogether. Perhaps the assemblies have nothing to do with the Government wanting to strengthen our local democracy. Perhaps the agenda is tied up with the Government's European ambitions. Could the real agenda be to create a Europe of the regions in which the national level of government is all but abolished, following the ceding of some powers upwards to a centralised European Government and others to a regional tier of government? Is it a coincidence that the boundaries for the regional development agencies, and presumably those for the regional assemblies, are coterminous with the United Kingdom regions in the European Union regional model?
It may be argued by advocates of regional assemblies that the so-called regions require a voice in Europe when it comes to lobbying for EU regional money. However, the regions may be as artificial and diverse as that proposed for the south-west, with the needs of Cornwall

253WH
hardly the same as those of Wiltshire. Why will a regional tier of government be any more effective in the long run than individual counties lobbying independently, collectively or even through central Government?
Ms Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that our roads and railways go through Wiltshire to Cornwall and back out again? If we do not work together, both counties suffer.
Mr. Swire: Our roads go everywhere. We could go from Penzance to John O'Groats if we wanted. The homogeny is artificial. Roads in my part of the country, Devon, have nothing to do with roads in Wiltshire or anywhere else.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend was wondering whether the proposals were part of a wider European agenda. Is he aware that the M4 is shortly to be renamed the E27 and will run from Berlin to Cornwall?
Mr. Swire: I was aware that some roads were to be given fancy names, presumably to make up for the lack of road repairs, which would be more welcome.
There is one other possible reason for the agenda on regional assemblies. It could be a Government attempt to rebalance the United Kingdom's constitutional structure following the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, which left many constitutional issues; not least the over-representation of Scottish Members at Westminster and the unanswered West Lothian question. However, the only model based on regional assemblies that would adequately address the West Lothian question is a fully federal United Kingdom, with the regional assemblies having full primary legislative powers akin to those held by the Scottish Parliament. If they have less than legislative powers, the West Lothian question will not be answered.
Do the Government intend to give elected regional assemblies such powers? What fiscal powers, if any, will the assemblies have? What will be their other sources of funding? A row is already brewing about the operation of the Barnett formula in Scotland, and there is enormous scope for arguments to escalate over funding in these assemblies. Moreover, who will pick up the cost of funding the creation of the new assemblies? The total bill will be many millions of pounds. The cost of the Scottish Parliament, which the Government assured the people of Scotland before the 1997 election would be no more than £50 million, has escalated to nearly £250 million, and the final bill has yet to be seen.
Finally, what is the envisaged relationship between those elected to the assemblies and democratically elected Members of Parliament? Are our roles to be dumbed down further?
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend's erudite speech. However, does he not think that the Minister should tell us one more thing? Assuming that the Government deliver on their manifesto commitment to have a referendum in various parts of the country on regional
254WH
assemblies, what will happen if the north-east elects to have a regional assembly but the south-west does not? Would it represent a sustainable constitutional settlement for the country if one part had a new tier of government and other parts did not?
Mr. Swire: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I invite the Minister to address that point. What my hon. Friend describes would create enormous friction between the different regions. However, perhaps creating an assembly in the north-east is a way of softening up other regions to encourage them to get their noses in the trough.
The Government's drive for regional assemblies, and for the south-west regional assembly in particular, is illogical, unnecessary, unpopular and a distraction from the real needs affecting the counties of the south-west. Regional assemblies would be artificial creations, would foster no sense of common identity and would do nothing to re-engage voters with the political process. They would centralise rather than decentralise power, facilitate the creation of a Europe of the regions, would do little to address the constitutional imbalance of the United Kingdom and would be costly, diverting resources away from more important areas of spending.
In conclusion, if any Conservative Member believed that creating a south-west regional assembly would in any way benefit any of our constituents, we would support the idea as one. We do not believe that, because the south-west does not want or need a regional assembly.
9.58 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing an important debate, although I cannot support his arguments. Those of us who support devolution should remember that the only reason why we are having the debate is because of the Labour Government's policies for devolving power to the regions. I support those policies.
Cornwall has been debating a range of issues, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I want to focus on them. Today is an important day for the county on two counts. One hundred years ago today, Marconi for the first time transmitted radio waves from Cornwall to Newfoundland. That is being celebrated in Cornwall. Also, the Cornish assembly petition, with 50,000 signatures, is being delivered to No. 10 Downing street today. It is a great petition, but I think that many of those who signed it wanted to show support for devolving power, rather than a desire for a purely Cornish assembly. We need to be clear; we must devolve power. The man in Whitehall is seen as out of touch. Physically, he is closer to Germany than to Cornwall. For better or worse, we should make our own decisions. If someone is going to get things wrong, we should prefer it to be ourselves. On the other hand, we want to get things right.
In Cornwall, the saying "no one listens to us" is a mantra. That used to be true under Conservative Governments.
Mr. Streeter: When the hon. Lady spoke to people on doorsteps during the general election campaign, how many expressed support for a tier of regional government involving the counties of the south-west?
Ms Atherton: Far more than expressed support for a Cornish assembly.
Mr. Streeter: How many?
Ms Atherton: Seven or eight.[Laughter.] I am being honest. That was far more than talked about local authorities. They debated the issue and were genuinely engaged.
Mr. Gray: If, as the hon. Lady says, there is such overwhelming enthusiasm for regional devolution among her friends in the Labour party, where are her hon. Friends who represent Bristol constituencies, Exeter or the rest of the south-west; apart from her hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? They ain't here.
Ms Atherton: I am delighted to say that many of my hon. Friends are in government. To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the seven people to whom I referred were not Labour party people. They said independently that they wanted a regional assembly. I thought that that was quite a high number of people to be mentioning the subject; many issues are not raised in the way that they used to be.
The mantra about no one listening to Cornwall used to be true. We want to solve our own problems, and it is quite easy to blame Whitehall and Westminster for all of those. No doubt sometimes Westminster and Whitehall are the problem, but sometimes they have an answer. When we wanted objective 1 funding for our county, we got together and fought for it, but it was Westminster—notably the Prime Minister and civil servants—who did the work in Europe. When we needed matched funding for our university—some £19 million—we went, again, to Westminster and the Prime Minister, and got it. The first act of the regional chamber was to support Cornwall's application for objective 1 status. All seven counties, councils and chamber together, were working to support the objective 1 bid.
I am working with colleagues, as I am sure all hon. Members are, to exert pressure on our regional airlines and train companies to improve our rail and air links. However, those do not stop at the Tamar bridge. They go to and from Cornwall and through other areas.
Mrs. Browning: Roads and railways that pass out of the hon. Lady's constituency come through mid-Devon and east Devon and through my constituency. When the Government came to office in 1997, they halted road building in the south-west. Surely to goodness the hon. Lady can see that a strategic Government overview is needed of the core transport links in this country. Her party's Government stopped that and set back the west country by decades.
Ms Atherton: There is a £180 billion transport plan. I am delighted about the plans for Gossmoor and Dobwalls, two places that were never tackled when the hon. Lady's party was in government.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me and the CBI in the south-west that the whole
256WH
area needs more than just one major road route in and out of the region, namely the M5 corridor. When the Government came to office, the dualling of the relevant section of the A30 to link to the M3 and provide a second corridor was ready to go out to tender, following a public inquiry. The Government halted that and there has still been no progress. We do not want lectures from Labour about roads in the south-west. Labour has done more damage to the infrastructure there than any other body.
Ms Atherton: I do not agree on that last point. I will always work with any hon. Member from any party to improve road and transport networks in the south-west, and I will keep pushing for the dualling to which the hon. Lady referred. I was referring to the work on the A30 at Gossmoor—the critical bottleneck area in Cornwall—which the Government are to fund.
Mr. Steen: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in her place and looking so much better than she did last night.
I want to talk about the dualling of roads and railways. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that we need not just one but two railway lines into Cornwall. As things stand, the whole of Cornwall depends on the rail track between Exeter and Plymouth not being affected by the sea coming through the barriers and destroying the railway line. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that there is a second way of getting to Cornwall by rail?
Ms Atherton: I should point out that when I spoke to the hon. Gentleman last night, I referred to some tablets that I was taking, which might have caused me to be absent this morning.
I agree that serious work needs to be undertaken on the Exeter line. If trains cannot pass along that line, they do not get to Cornwall. We must work on that on a cross-party basis; the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has now been able to get his little bit in the local paper.
Businesses work and trade with one another in Cornwall. They also trade outside the county and within the seven counties. The regional supply chain is important. Boundaries are arbitrary, but opportunities in regional government are infinite. That is why I support the seven county option.
The Government have made it clear that they support regional government where there is clear local support for an assembly and where the predominant method of local government is unitary. In Cornwall today, there are three levels of local government: parish and town councils, district councils and county councils. In addition, there is the regional development agency, the Department for Education and Skills, the Government Office South West—which appears to be unaccountable—water companies and others. Further up the line, there is Westminster and, over the water, Brussels; quite a lot of government, some might say.
Some years ago, there was an opportunity for Cornwall to opt for unitary local government, but that opportunity was, sadly, not grasped. In recent weeks, the Labour party in Cornwall has widely consulted on how we want to devolve power. We held branch meetings, constituency meetings and a county

257WH
conference. Last month, we voted, by a huge margin—more than seven or eight; the figure was nearer to 100—to devolve power to the lowest possible relevant level.
We said that we want to devolve power to the parish pump level. Parish and town councils are well placed to deliver economic regeneration and lead the renaissance of Cornish towns and the economy. Why do we need a souped-up county assembly? Surely the best route is to devolve power to the most appropriate and lowest level. Let us take power from unelected mandarins, but let us not leave ourselves isolated in the new century. I am not sure that the rest of England will welcome increased support to Cornwall, for which myself and others are asking, while we opt out of the rest of the arrangements.
I have no doubt that most of those who support an assembly are genuine in their support, but some are seeking complete self-government and to opt out of Britain. I know that that is not the majority view in my constituency. People want relevant devolved power, but not an opt-out. If hon. Members are unsure about what I say, I suggest that they trawl the websites on the subject, as I have done.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I stood as a candidate in Torridge and West Devon in the 1997 election, and what the hon. Lady says is not the case. People in Cornwall were adamant that they wanted to break away. I remember all the flags flying on the Tamar and Launceston bridges. The hon. Lady is talking about the wish of people in Cornwall to go it alone. She should address that issue, rather than considering the matter as a regional one.
Ms Atherton: The Cornish Solidarity campaigns were powerful, but they were not representative of the majority in the county. People want devolved power, but they do not necessarily want to opt out of the rest of the country. Men and women in Cornwall are saying, "Yes, we want greater self-distinction. We celebrate our culture, but we do not necessarily want an assembly." We all want Cornwall to succeed. It is wrong for those who are campaigning for an assembly to imply that we are not for Cornwall. We are, but we see different ways in which to achieve our ambitions. I want to make it clear that we have ambitions for Cornwall.
The Labour party in Cornwall announced its view of the way forward. It welcomed the devolution of power, but not a nationalistic assembly. The story made the front page of our regional daily newspaper, the Western Morning News, since when I have received not one letter setting out views for or against the proposal. That is important. The majority of people in Cornwall, as in the wider south-west, want devolved power, as appropriate. I urge the Government to give us devolved power as soon as possible.
10.10 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall not detain hon. Members for long because many colleagues wish to speak. In presenting the debate so eruditely, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) covered much ground. He set out the worries of Conservative Members about the formation of regional government in the south-west. I wish to add to some of the matters to which he referred.
258WH
I was the only west country Member of Parliament who was present at County hall in Exeter, when the then regional development agency chairman, Sir Michael Lickiss, oversaw a debate on regional identity. Representatives attended the regional chamber to identify what each part of the region had in common, as a result of which the RDA produced a glossy brochure with a faulty CD attached to it. The purpose of the money used, and the time taken to set up such a debate, was to ask, "Who are we in the south-west? What does the development agency believe are the common denominators in respect of the old coalfields of Gloucester, the Isles of Scilly, Bournemouth and Poole?"
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said that few aspects of the different parts of the region have a common denominator. The representatives who attended the debate split up into workshops in the afternoon; some talked about tourism, some discussed transport and other talked about different components. When the report of the proceedings was published, it was interesting that people said, "Let us take out all those aspects that are particular to, say, Gloucester or Cornwall and look at what is left. We could be describing any region anywhere in the country." In other words, the area was so homogeneous and watered down that it did not have a regional identity.
Mr. Robert Key: Or a soul.
Mrs. Browning: How right my hon. Friend is. I shall come on to souls in a minute.[Interruption.] I shall also refer to the bishop.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is always fascinating to listen to; I am already in a trance. Is it not a curious phenomenon that new Labour talks the whole time about "different-sized units" and "getting closer to the people" but, in reality, the units are becoming bigger? The region is a bigger unit that is getting further away from the individual, not a smaller unit in which people are cared for and cherished.
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly right. My hon. Friend will know that that is why, when that august body identified a regional identity, it could find nothing that we would recognise as being south-west specific. The region had things in common with other regions, such as tourism and agriculture, but nothing that was distinct to the south-west. The whole exercise was bogus and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said so clearly, the area is an artificial chunk of England, in terms of the other regions of England and the way in which the map has been drawn.
Putting aside Scotland, the Greater London area and Wales—they already have regional identities—the Government have carved up what is left of England into bite-sized chunks for their own purpose, not for the purposes of the people who live in those areas. It would be easier for a Government to see off one small region of England rather than to have to deal with the voices of England assembled in our national Parliament when we need to put the case in terms of our towns, our counties and our regions.
I will be generous to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I am not a Devonian; I have lived there for only 33 years, so I cannot yet claim

259WH
to be local. I am getting there, but I am not there quite yet. However, when people ask me where I live, I reply that I live in the south-west of England. By that, I mean the area on the map that is Devon and Cornwall. That is the area that, psychologically, I regard as the southwest of England. I realise that Devon and Cornwall have had their differences over many years; I have been there long enough to know that. None the less, we all have a perception of the area with which we identify. The Government are tearing that apart with the structure that they have put in place.
Mr. Drew: The hon. Lady is saying that, under the Conservative Government, it was a mistake to create Government offices for the regions. Will she explain the logic of maintaining them?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was the Minister who introduced them, will no doubt add to my comments. There is a need for Government offices for the regions. Strategic issues concerning wider areas interlock into the national picture of, for example, rail and road infrastructures. That is leading to regional government. The Government have set up regional development agencies that are totally unaccountable to the electorate and whose finances are obscure. When the regional development agency threw £1 million at Plymouth airport, it did so without any consultation on the impact that that would have on other airports in the region. It did so without having evaluated local air transport. The agency was unaccountable. It showed largesse to one airport without taking any accountability of the impact on other airports. That is not democracy.
When we flag up our concern about the agency's lack of accountability for its decisions and spending, the answer is, "Ah, well, we can now turn the RDAs into something that is democratically accountable". The Government have deliberately created a structure that is so objectionable in democratic terms that the only solution is to take it one step further and turn it into an arm of regional government. The Government have created a problem and their solution suits their own agenda. A cynical person—I am not cynical—would say that the Government have deliberately forced the hand of the public to make them think that the only way to resolve the problem of RDA accountability is to turn it into a form of elected government to solve the problem that the Government have created.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I understand what my hon. Friend says. I have read the south-west RDA report, which suggests that the organisation is a shambles. Does she agree that, until Sir Michael Lickiss resigns and is replaced by someone who can run it properly, the RDA will continue to sail from disaster to disaster? It will fail and that will affect us all.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that, like many colleagues, I receive weekly complaints about the actions and decision-making of the RDA. Much needs to be done to sort it out.
Mr. Drew: I am delighted to know that the RDA is making such an impact, as it must be if it is receiving so many complaints. Can the hon. Lady tell me of any
260WH
organisation in the south-west, business or otherwise—besides the Conservative party—that wants to abolish the RDA?
Mrs. Browning: I can give the hon. Gentleman such examples.
Mr. Drew: Business organisations?
Mrs. Browning: I do not know whether business organisations do. However, the party of big business, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, does not represent the people. The big Government are dealing with big business organisations. They are not interested in the little person in the cottage down the Devon lane. The people no longer matter. It is all about big organisations, corporate opinion and all those big cronies who troop through Downing street for drinks a couple of times a year. We know how the game is played, because the Government have made themselves past masters at courting big corporate institutions. They are the ones who are listening to and influencing that group. They do not care about the people; the people do not matter.
Andrew George: Does the hon. Lady accept that her critique requires the solution that I hope the Government will introduce; democratising the quangos that the present and previous Governments created on the regional basis, and about which she is so critical? Is not the solution that to which she is most opposed: the establishment of a democratic structure to which those quangos should be accountable?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman's party would have acted earlier, sooner and in greater measure. Under the chairmanship of the former Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council, Mr. Chris Clarke, the Liberal Democrats have led the charge on the matter. They wanted to move the matter along. They and their Labour friends, with whom they do deals, have worked hard. The Express and Echo recently showed a picture of Mr. Clarke, the Bishop of Exeter and Chester Long, Labour councillor for Exeter, with a caption saying that they wanted to create a regional assembly and be involved in running it. I do not criticise personal ambition, but the Liberal Democrats cannot pretend, as they usually do, that they are interested in democracy. They are interested not in democracy but in power. They have shown by their actions towards the local regional development agency and the chamber that they are first in the queue to sign up for such developments. They are at one with Labour on this matter in the south-west.
The Government have been softening up people in order to implement the proposal. Throughout the country, including in the south-west, they have set up committees chaired by bishops in order to provide some soul and credibility. However, we can see through that. It is a matter of great regret to my colleagues and I that those committees no longer allow people to attend if they do not sign up to the philosophy to create a regional government in the south-west and to bypass current, democratically elected representatives.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Falmouth and

261WH
Camborne (Ms Atherton), I may have inadvertently implied something that I want her to know I did not intend. When I saw her last night, she was clearly unwell, but she was hoping to attend today. My intervention was intended to express pleasure that she was present, and not to suggest that there was anything untoward about her condition last night, which might have implied that she was on a busy evening out, eating and drinking. That was not my intention.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): I am sure that we all appreciate that intervention. It would help the Chair and the Front Benches if the next speaker were to conclude at about 10.30am.
10.24 am
Andrew George: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths; I shall do my best to keep within the time. I would like to take interventions, but clearly I shall be constrained. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate. This important issue needs airing.
This is the beginning of a debate, not the end. I hope that the many Conservative Members who have attended today's debate—in numbers that we have never seen before on debates on other issues—will sustain their commitment and interest, as it is important that the policy develops with an injection of constructive dialogue involving all parties.
We are pushing back the frontiers with an interesting and challenging development of policy. I have absolute enthusiasm for devolution, but we must ensure that the Government introduce it with flexibility, so that it reflects people's identities. Many Conservative Members recognise that those identities exist, but not necessarily within the constraints of the boundaries created for administrative ease in some parts of the country. Those boundaries do not necessarily reflect the identities of the people in that area. The areas may be collections of shire counties and are sometimes small and sometimes large.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect upon the region of Wessex, the crucible of which lies in my constituency, near the village of Eddington? That is where the Wessex region was created, more than 1,000 years ago. People feel a strong Wessex identity, and that feeling extends not just through parts of the south-west, but through parts of the south-east, too. That strong feeling simply is not there in the south-west. I think that the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, because there is a great miscellany of identities. The south-west is a Government-defined one, which in the long term will not work, although something like a "Wessex region" just might.
Andrew George: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way, he and those living in what he defines as Wessex must bring forward their proposals and make it clear how they believe devolution can be delivered to a Wessex region.
Dr. Murrison: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put a spin on my
262WH
words? He tries to paint me as a Wessex regionalist. I am sure that Lord Bath, proprietor of Longleat and perhaps the most prominent Wessex regionalist, would be delighted to hear that, but for the record, I am not.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That was not a point of order, but a point of debate.
Andrew George: I am grateful for that point of order, which has further muddied the hon. Gentleman's clarification. Whether or not he is a Wessex regionalist, he is suggesting that there might be variations in the model of devolution according to different boundaries in different parts of the country. He made a proposal that might be taken as a variation on the devolution to the collections of shire counties that currently form the boundaries of the Government's south-west region.
Hon. Members have enunciated the Conservative position this morning, and we are hearing a variety of opinions. I do not want Conservative Members to hold back from debating the issue among themselves. Conservatives now strongly favour devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is healthy and helpful. Although Conservative Members clearly do not want to abolish those structures, many of them take a different view on devolution for England.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) pointed out the significance of this day. It is significant not only because of Marconi's original transmission from my constituency to Newfoundland—in which my family was involved—but because the Cornish constitutional convention will today deliver 50,000 signed declaration sheets to No. 10 Downing street. The hon. Lady has presented a distortion of reality; the people signed a declaration that clearly indicates that they are enthusiastic about devolution and, in particular, about devolution to places with which they identify. One such place is Cornwall, which would include the Isles of Scilly, if they were to choose to join.
I am an enthusiast for devolution. However, we must devolve to places that exist in the minds of the people. If we do not do that, I fear that the Government's policy could get derailed. Some of the arguments that have been presented by Conservative Members must be taken on board. Turn-outs have been low in several recent elections. That indicates that if voters do not feel that the body to which they are electing representatives reflects the identity of the place to which they feel they belong, they will stay at home. That undermines the principle of democratic legitimacy, and all hon. Members would like that to be upheld. We want a body to be established in the south-west, and we want it to be supported; it must have democratic legitimacy.
Size is an issue that concerns many hon. Members. Cornwall is a small area, but there are many small regions in Europe, and in other parts of the world. An insular view is often taken in this country; we should lift our eyes, and take succour from the models that work in other parts of the world.
Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew George: I must conclude.

263WH
The Government should not stick to a rigid, obedient, control-freak version of devolution. Devolution must be flexible, and debate should be encouraged; those regions in the country that may seek variation, with regard to size, should express their views. Variable geometry and variable speed should be the principles that inform the way in which this important Government policy is developed in the coming years.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Thanks to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), three minutes are available, allowing me to call another Conservative Member.
10.32 am
Mr. Robert Key: I was born at 1 Penlee way, Stoke Damerel, which is just up the hill from Devonport dockyard, so I understand the south-west. I grew up in the aftermath of a terrible war, in which Plymouth was flattened; bloodied but unbowed. In 1947, I moved to Salisbury, and, subsequently, my father moved to Truro. During the 56 years of my life, the region has changed dramatically, and I want nothing more than to see it succeed.
It is a region, but it does not have an identity of its own; it never has had one, and it cannot have one. Cornwall is proud of its traditions, but it is ungovernable in traditional terms. It should have an assembly, of some sort; Trelawny knew all about that, and we should take note.
Devon, like Gaul, is divided into three parts, and it should look to its county council for salvation, rather than to Bristol, a city state in the west midlands. Bristol was born out of the need to have a focus for colonial trade. If a regional assembly were to be established in Bristol, the history of the city would inform how its inhabitants would think of the rest of the south-west.
Salisbury is on the edge of the region. Historically, culturally, spiritually and economically, it looks south, and it has about as much in common with the Isles of Scilly as they do with Gloucestershire. In 1990, when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, we started the process of improving the delivery of Government services from Whitehall down to local level. We achieved that by bringing together national Government Departments and regional centres. There was never any intention that those regional Government offices should have a democratic dimension, because they were already accountable to the House, through the Members of Parliament and Ministers who represented their regions. It is a grand folly to think that by creating a new tier of politicians and bureaucrats in Bristol, the people of the south-west will be better served. They will not. It will be a waste of money, and will take power from the people and put it in the hands of political parties. If, perish the thought, we had proportional representation, the people would have less and less say over decisions that were taken in their name. I hope that we never reach that point and, as Member of Parliament for Salisbury, I shall do my level best to ensure that we do not.
10.35 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on successfully raising the subject. The question of how we wish to be
264WH
governed in the future requires the full participation of all hon. Members and our constituents. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which seemed to be against taking decisions closer to the people whom they affect. The speech opposed the democratic control of taxpayer's money that is spent in the region and supported the continuation of quangos that spend more in our region than all local councils combined.
Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my speech. I support giving more power to the existing democratically elected and accountable local county councillors.
Mr. Sanders: Therein lies the other point. We have heard about only county councillors. However, 38 per cent. of the south-west's population live in unitary councils. They are not the same thing, by a long chalk.
There are many quangos and organisations, such as learning and skills councils, health authorities, and the Sports Council, that contain people who are often paid to sit on boards and are appointed from London. They are not accountable to the region and spend more money than the councils combined. If the Conservative party argues that all the quangos should be devolved to local authorities, does it say that the health services in this country should be brought under accountable control and devolved down to the authorities that run social services? If so, that is a radical departure from Conservative local government policy.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total budget for the regional development agency last year was £68 million, of which £10 million was spent on administration?
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman makes the point for me. That budget, surely, should be under democratic control.
Such local government has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We recognise that undemocratically accountable government has been exercised in the regions for decades. When the then Conservative Government created the Government office structure, they gave only a new title to administrative offices that already existed in the regions.
Mr. Key: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The whole point was that the offices did not already exist. Some Whitehall Departments had no regional presence and others had a massive regional presence, such as the Department of Transport. The policy was an attempt to bring the delivery of services together and to get Government Ministers and Whitehall Departments to talk to each other about local delivery.
Mr. Sanders: There was still top-down delivery, because the Government offices were answerable to Ministers in London, rather than to people who were elected from within the region. They delivered services

265WH
that were determined by the government in the regions. That was more along colonial lines; the only thing that was lacking was a High Commissioner in the region.
Mr. Key: That is what the Liberals want.
Mr. Sanders: No, we do not. One of the models that I fear more than any other is a London-based model, with a 15 or 16-member assembly for the south-west. That would be the worst possible policy.
We have seen different models introduced in different parts of the United Kingdom. The models in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland are all different from each other. It does not necessarily follow that the same model would be adopted in every region. People have to determine what their regions are, and those regions need to decide what powers they wish to draw down. The process should be driven from the grass roots, not the centre.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is having the wool pulled over his eyes by his Labour allies. When the Secretary of State was asked yesterday, following the statement on the White Paper, whether he could give an assurance that the assemblies would not take any powers upwards from district and county councils, he was unable to give one. It is clear that the new assemblies will take powers upwards, away from the electors, rather than downwards from Westminster.
Mr. Sanders: That does not follow. The right hon. Gentleman's comments highlight the need for Conservatives to get involved in decisions now—to get fully involved in the partnerships emerging in the different regions, which go beyond political parties—and to influence them. The Government are responding to the agendas that they themselves are setting. If Ministers have a top-down plan, they will be vigorously opposed by those in other parties who believe in regionalism as much as they will by the Conservatives.
There are three tests for regional government. First, is it elected and accountable to the people of the area? Secondly, is it efficient, and does it save money by cutting down on bureaucracy and well-paid quango appointments? Thirdly, is it effective; not a talking shop, but a body with real power to tackle real problems? That is the agenda that we want, and those are the tests that we will apply to any regional assembly.
10.41 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Offer a Liberal three minutes, and he will take six. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on his success in achieving this debate, and on the excellent way in which he demolished the Government's ideas and proposals for regional government, especially in relation to the south-west. His debate is timely. It is unfortunate that we have only an hour and a half, because many of my colleagues were not able to speak. Clearly, this is an important issue, which needs to be debated more fully than we have had time for this morning.
266WH
The debate is timely also because the Minister announced only a few weeks ago that it should be possible to get the first regional assembly into operation within the lifetime of this Parliament. That was the first public utterance from the Government that they expected to drive the idea of regional government through during the lifetime of this Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that a timetable has been proposed, that there will be a Bill before us next November and an Act on the statute book by 2003, and that the first referendum will be held in 2004–05?
Is not this whole process driven by political pressure, largely from within the Labour party, and especially from the north-east of England? Will the Minister confirm that he expects the first regional government to be in the north-east? When the Minister made the announcement recently, he said that it was not possible to draw a line under devolution just for Scotland and Wales, in the face of
"demands for similar treatment for the English regions".
Will the Minister tell us where those demands are coming from? Clearly, they are not coming from the elected representatives of the south-west region.
Labour's plans for regional government will mean less, not more power for local communities; a point made on several occasions by my colleagues. It will lead to the abolition of at least one tier of local authority in those regions that adopt the assembly model. Conservative Members believe that the tier most likely to disappear is that of county councils. In 1996, the current Foreign Secretary said:
"Labour has consistently—for over 20 years—argued that two-tier local government could not in general co-exist alongside elected regional assemblies".
Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, as I have only a few minutes.
More recently, the Minister's colleague Lord Falconer said in another place:
"I do not know the precise estimate of cost in relation to expenditure on a regional assembly… As to whether there should be two-tier authorities, in some cases it is not right that there should be. That is something which needs to be looked at particularly in the context of where there is a regional assembly. If one has a regional assembly and two other tiers that looks to be too many."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 368.]>
It is important that the Minister confirms that he shares Lord Falconer's view and thinks it likely that a tier of local authority must be removed from regions that opt for assemblies.
Huge costs would be involved in reorganisation. Figures have been given today in terms of the present costs of RDAs. Would the Minister like to share with us whether his Department has done any work on the possible cost of reorganisation in the tiers below the regional assemblies? It cost millions to reorganise Humberside as a county council. If that were replicated across the eight regions and shire counties involved in the process, the figure would run into billions. Has the Minister's Department done any costings? Exponentially, could not the costs run into billions of pounds?
Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, I will not, as I have only a few minutes.
Business groups remain extremely sceptical about regional government. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said that many businesses thought that the RDAs set up two years ago had yet to prove their worth. The CBI spokesman thought that the case for English devolution had not been made, saying:
"Until this Government tells us what it is for, it cannot really expect us to say whether we support it or not".
That is the case that Conservative Members have made today.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I thank the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for raising what is—I concur with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—an important subject that needs to be discussed widely in the future, in this Chamber and elsewhere. Regional government in England is a key part of the Government's programme for constitutional reform, and I look forward to many interesting debates on the issue. It is a credit to the official Opposition that about 10 per cent. of their Members are present for the debate. They are united in doing what they do best, which is to oppose measures.
Since we took office in 1997, we have secured far-reaching and effective constitutional changes. We have devolved power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and given London a democratically elected strategic body to promote its interests. In mentioning the Opposition's presence in numbers to oppose the measure, I was reminded of a plaque in my constituency that states:
"Near this spot, King Canute reproved his courtiers".
That is an historically accurate version of this story.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If regional assemblies are so inevitable, will the Under-Secretary tell us about the inevitability of removing the shire, unitary, district or parish tier of government? It is easy to be in favour of new tiers of government—Labour is always in favour of over-government—but which tier will be removed? We want to know so that we can warn our councillors that the Government want to abolish them.
Dr. Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman is reading rather too much into what I said. I aimed to underline the foolishness that King Canute felt on that occasion, rather than the wider agenda that King Canute might have had in terms of regional government. Debates on Scottish and Welsh devolution and on the Greater London Authority probably contained speeches that were very similar to those that we have heard this morning. It is significant that Conservatives now play an active role in all those assemblies. The south-east regional chamber has a very active Conservative chairman, many active Conservative committee chairs
268WH
and 40 Conservative council members. On reflection, Conservative Members might feel that their united opposition could be tempered in the future.
Mr. Key: I seek to remind the Under-Secretary that the Labour party was bitterly opposed to the European Union and all that it stood for and to the European Parliament when it suited it.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, and the political circumstances and the political considerations have changed. That is exactly the point that I was attempting to make, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has underlined it. As political circumstances change, so opinions and ideas change and people adopt different positions. My point, contra Canute, is that Conservatives now sit happily in these various assemblies, in precisely the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew George: Does the Under-Secretary accept that Conservative Members seem to be suffering from benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are a brass neck and short-term memory loss? They seem to have forgotten that during the 18 years in which they governed the country, they sucked powers away from local authorities, created networks of quangos and did not deliver the kind of policies that they now claim they would like.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the born-again nature of these defenders of people in thatched cottages. In terms of things that have changed, and of selective memory, we might reflect that one of the reasons put forward for the creation of Government offices for the regions under the stewardship of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was that most other countries in Europe had effective working regions that were able to discuss matters with Brussels, but that Britain had no such regions. The Conservative Government of the time created Government offices for the regions and made representations that those offices should be regarded as regions for the purposes of discussion with Brussels, provided that they were not elected.
Mr. Swire: I am most grateful for the revisionist historical tour that the Under-Secretary is undertaking. At some stage in the next eight minutes, will he address the question that has been asked by every one of my colleagues, namely, what tier of local government will be sacrificed if the regional assemblies go ahead?
Dr. Whitehead: I am very generous in giving way to hon. Members. If I can make some progress, perhaps I shall be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
Over and above the issues of devolution, there remains a missing link: the English regions. Why should what is good for Scotland, Wales and London be denied to the English regions, especially those that say that they, too, want more democratic accountability and greater influence over policy making at regional level? It should not. That is why our manifesto commits us to providing for directly elected regional assemblies in

269WH
those regions where popular support is demonstrated through referendums and where there is predominantly unitary government.
The forthcoming White Paper on regional governance will set out in detail our proposals, and I shall say more about that. People in England deserve the opportunity to choose whether to have a political body—an elected assembly—which pulls everything together at a regional level and which has the legitimacy, the critical mass and the clout to set priorities and to speak up for the region.
Elected regional assemblies will give people in the regions the chance to have a stronger political voice and will bring decision making at the strategic level closer to the people. They can improve delivery by giving the regions the freedom and flexibility to meet their own needs and priorities within the national framework and co-ordinating the many activities and strategies that exist in the regions. They can make government in the regions more accountable to people in the regions, and provide regional stakeholders with a clearer decision-making framework.
I emphasise, for the hon. Member for East Devon, that the regions will be strategic. He is concerned about the position of local government. The idea of regions is to devolve powers and functions down from the centre, not to suck up power from the services from local government. The regions will be closer to the people in terms of strategic delivery.
It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Salisbury making the case against regional government. I took his words down carefully; he said that it would take power away from people and put it in the hands of political parties. I ask him to reflect on the strange practice in this House of electing people to sit for political parties to exercise a democratic function.
The debate has been strange in that Opposition Members have emphasised the idea that the Government have some fiendish plan to impose regions on a reluctant public. That is not the case. The people of each region will decide in a referendum whether and when an elected regional assembly is right for them. Let us be frank; not all regions will want to have an elected regional assembly within the next few years. Although there is a demonstrable demand in the north-east, that is clearly not the case in the south-east, for example. Some regions may never opt for a regional tier of government, which is their prerogative. That is why we are enabling different regions to move at different speeds appropriate to their particular needs—what we call the asymmetric approach.
I am aware of the claims by the Cornish constitutional convention for an elected assembly for Cornwall. One of the convention's points is that the south-west is an artificial entity, but that Cornwall represents an area with which people identify. However, the south-west region has become increasingly well known and accepted since the Government office was established in the early 1990s, and especially since the creation of the RDA. A survey carried out by The Economist in 1999, for example, found that 86 per cent. of respondents in
270WH
the south-west could identify the region in which they lived. It is true that recognition is not the same as loyalty or attachment, but experience from the development of regional government overseas demonstrates that it is not necessary to have a lengthy historical identity to create a modern political identity.
Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I apologise, but I do not have the time to give way.
There is evidence from a number of countries of regions with little or no historical identity successfully developing and maintaining one. Many of the German Lander and. French regions can be given as examples.
Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I want to make progress, so it is difficult to give way.
We should consider the case for Cornwall and how it might fit into a regional assembly for the south-west as we draft proposals for our White Paper. Of course, there will be a substantial debate as that White Paper is produced. Our thinking is that introducing an elected regional assembly with new powers and responsibilities to cover an area and population no greater than that of an existing county does not make a great deal of sense. Indeed, one of the main purposes of our regional arrangements should be to provide a focus for tackling problems that go beyond the existing local government units, not to duplicate the units that are already there.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is conspicuously refusing to answer a question that has been put to him three times. Which tier of local government do the Government expect to remove should regional assemblies come into force?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point that I emphasised: it will be for people in regions to decide for themselves through a referendum whether they want a regional assembly. It may be the case that, subsequent to the creation of a regional assembly, some concern will be expressed about the reorganisation of local government. The hon. Gentleman will not expect, nor should he, a blueprint to be set out this morning, when the whole basis of the idea of regional government is that people decide what they want and how they want it in their regions. Since we came to power in 1997, much has been done to strengthen the arrangements in the English regions.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Is it out of order for a Minister to promise to the House to do something and then fail to deliver? The Under-Secretary promised to answer our questions about which tier of Government he would abolish; he has conspicuously refused to do so.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That is not a point of order. In his own way the Under-Secretary has answered the question.

Landlords and Tenants
11 am
Mr. Chris Mullin: At the outset, I must say that I readily accept the fact that there are many landlords who act responsibly. I accept that the private rented sector has a part to play in meeting housing need. There are also many decent responsible tenants in private accommodation, and I have no wish to tar them all with the same brush.
What I am against, and what my constituents are up in arms about, is bad landlords—landlords who see their only function as collecting rent, and take no interest in the behaviour of their tenants or the condition of their property. Some, indeed, never visit their property from one year to the next. It is an unhappy fact that in Sunderland we have rather a lot of bad landlords. There is a clear correlation between the growth of the private rented sector and the crime, vandalism and general mayhem that blights the lives of all too many of my constituents.
There are parts of Sunderland—I believe this to be true of other northern cities—where the private rented sector is dragging down the entire social fabric. There are streets where my constituents live in dread of the advance of the private sector because they know that it means an influx of antisocial neighbours and a complete lack of interest on the part of absentee owners in the behaviour of their tenants. They also know that that the advance of the private rented sector means a fall in the value of their own property to the point where it can become unsaleable. In extreme cases, they know that the streets in which they live may fall into Beirut-style ruin, leading eventually to demolition. They know all this because they have already seen it happen just a few hundred yards from where they live.
What makes this especially galling is that most of those landlords tend to live in the leafier areas of the city, where they do not have to put up with the conditions that they and their tenants inflict on others. It is even more galling that much of the mayhem they see going on around them is funded out of the public purse through housing benefit, which travels directly from the local authority's bank account into the landlord's bank account without ever passing through the tenant's hands.
Nearly 90 per cent. of the 5,000 or so tenants on housing benefit in Sunderland have their rent paid in that way. When I last inquired, our top 10 landlords were receiving £1 million a year between them in housing benefit, which flowed directly from the public purse into their bank accounts. They have no incentive to take an interest either in the condition of their property or in the behaviour of their tenants. The money will continue to flow regardless. That is an incredible state of affairs. We are funding the destruction of large swathes of our inner cities—and at the same time, we are pouring money into regeneration programmes, much of which will be wasted unless we can devise some mechanism for influencing the behaviour of our most recalcitrant citizens.
For those of my constituents who have the misfortune to live in areas where the private sector is expanding, this is the single greatest issue. It blights their lives. Many are
272WH
elderly, vulnerable people who have lived in or near their present homes all their lives. They can remember a time when the social fabric was intact. They worked hard to make comfortable homes for themselves and their families, and they become distraught as the value of their property falls year by year while house prices generally are rising—even a mile from where they live. The value of property in some parts of my constituency has halved during the past 10 years and that is due, in large part, to the rise of the unregulated private sector.
In some areas of Sunderland, people's only hope is to sell to a landlord at a price far below what any reasonable person would regard as fair. Indeed, there is sometimes a suspicion that landlords allow antisocial tenants to accumulate in a street as part of a deliberate tactic to force down prices. People have broken down in tears in my office as they described the mayhem around their homes. They are desperate to leave, but they are trapped because estate agents advise them that their only hope is to sell to the landlord who owns the properties on either side of theirs at a fraction of what any reasonable person would regard as a fair price.
Lately, there has been a new and ominous development. Property companies are buying up former council houses that were originally purchased under the right-to-buy scheme. They then move in antisocial tenants, whose behaviour the local authority is powerless to influence. It is not unknown for a tenant to be evicted from public housing, only to reappear in an ex-council house a few streets away. One can imagine the message that that sends to law-abiding citizens, some of whom had to pluck up the courage to give the evidence that may have led to the eviction of criminal or antisocial neighbours.
What is to be done? Various solutions have been canvassed. The Government initially proposed to license only houses in multiple occupation. Some of us said, however, that would not solve the problem because many of the houses with the worst problems were single tenancies. Indeed, there is evidence that the worst landlords are switching from multi-occupied houses to single tenancies to outwit the regulators.
It has been suggested that housing benefit regulations should be amended to give local authorities the discretion to withhold payment of housing benefit. That would cause landlords to take much more interest in those whom they put in their properties, and in their behaviour. The object of any changes would not be to remove antisocial tenants from properties, but to change their behaviour. People must live somewhere, but a mechanism is required to prompt them to live in a civilised way alongside their neighbours.
Shelter is against changing the housing benefit regulations because they would cause landlords to discriminate against tenants on housing benefit, particularly in the south.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he say how landlords can influence their tenants' behaviour?
Mr. Mullin: Yes. As I explained, I am talking about landlords who often do not visit their property, and who take no interest in its condition or the behaviour of the tenants. They do not care whether the rubbish is put out

273WH
on time. They may not have a tenancy agreement with their tenants, and even if they do, they may not enforce it. Good landlords take a detailed interest in managing their property, and I seek to spread good practice so that we can make a serious attempt to alter the behaviour of the worst tenants. To be fair, I must add that many tenants who are not badly behaved live in rundown properties because the landlord takes no interest in repairs. If he had to go and collect the rent from them once a week, he would be more likely to be apprised of their immediate concerns, and do something about them.
The third option, which the Government now favour, is to give councils the discretion to license all landlords. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is his intention. Will he also confirm that the factors to be taken into account when considering whether to grant a licence include the condition of the property and the behaviour of the tenants?
Where does the Bill lie in his Department's list of priorities? I am aware that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is bidding for rather a lot of legislation in the next round, and I do not want to see it pushed to the back of the queue and fail for lack of time, as happened last year.
What consideration, if any, has been given to introducing a planning power that would give local authorities discretion to limit the percentage of rented property in any given street? Is it not legitimate for a local authority, in consultation with residents, to consider that 10, 20 or even 30 per cent. of rented property is enough, and more would irrevocably alter the character of an area? Might that not be a legitimate reason for a local authority to turn down an application by a landlord for a licence? I do not ask for an instant opinion, as I have not given the Minister notice of my question, but I would be grateful if he would reflect on it and come back to me.
Finally, I seek a response from the Government to a suggestion about which I wrote to the Minister for the Environment on 6 July. I am still awaiting a reply. I invited my right hon. Friend to close a loophole in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allows absentee landlords to avoid taking responsibility for littering by their tenants. Under section 46 the occupier, rather than the landlord, is liable for ensuring that domestic waste is placed in appropriate receptacles and made available for the bin men on the appropriate day. As a result, landlords have no incentive to take an interest in the disposal of their tenants' waste.
As the law stands, the local authority has to be able to relate a particular piece of litter to a particular tenant, so successful prosecutions are almost impossible to achieve. That is especially the case in multi-occupied properties, which tend to house the worst offenders. As a result, huge quantities of litter are sometimes left by irresponsible tenants to be scattered to the four winds. The same people behave in the same way week after week, and the council is powerless to act, beyond clearing up the mess. The obvious solution is to amend the Environmental Protection Act to allow prosecution of the landlord as well as the tenant. I would be grateful to hear the Government's response to that idea.
274WH
Before I conclude, I must pay tribute to my local newspaper, the Sunderland Echo, which has done much to galvanise local opinion with its "Stop the Rot" campaign. My purpose in securing this debate is to try to generate a sense of urgency among Ministers about what, for Sunderland and many other local authorities in areas of low demand, is a serious problem. It is four years since I first raised it with Ministers, and I have done so repeatedly since then. Indeed, during my brief visit to Government, I arranged a little tour for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who was then the Minister responsible for housing, so that he could see the problem at first hand.
Such is the mayhem caused by irresponsible landlords and antisocial tenants that in parts of my constituency civilised life has broken down. The council has already had to demolish entire streets, and if help does not arrive soon, I can name the next streets to be demolished. I hope that the Minister can assure me today that help is on the way.
11.13 am
Mr. Harold Best: I rise to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), with a mixture of pleasure and sadness. The sadness is due to the fact that the debate is necessary at all. I echo my hon. Friend's final comment about the continuing campaign that some of us have been running for the past five years to get some action on this troublesome problem.
It is difficult to exaggerate the stress, anxiety and damage that is being done. Growing chunks of my constituency, which were once comfortable, well-established family housing areas, have become deserts at some times of the year. Those parts of my constituency have the highest crime rates in the United Kingdom.
I live in a place well known to hon. Members who are cricket fans, and to some rugby fans—outside the gates of the Headingley cricket ground. That was considered a good place to live when I bought the house 30 years ago. All around lived families; every house was owned and occupied by families. There were children everywhere. People took care of their immediate environment and there was little, if any, antisocial behaviour.
We certainly had pubs, and we still do—more than we ever did. We have clubs, too, which we did not have then—and there are more of them now than ever. We also have take-away food places. The number of those has grown, and no matter how one tries to resist, it looks like continuing to grow. Take-away food has become the major litter-generating industry. People claim that it is a service to the community, providing cheap and easy food, but as a by-product, at great cost to the community, it produces mountains of litter in the streets, which are irregularly and infrequently cleaned up. It lowers the status of the area.
I differ slightly on one matter from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. Property prices in some areas have been forced up, not down. Properties have become highly desirable for conversion into houses for multiple occupation. A former family home

275WH
occupied by four people with one car can now house as many as eight young people, who may each want to park a car outside. Those are the large semi-detached homes that people like me live in.
My house is on three floors. I brought up my family there. We have a small drive, which I built, and provision for two cars. We have only one, but the drive meant that a visitor's car can be parked off the street. That kind of concern for a community has gone. We must look for the motor for that change, and it is precisely what my hon. Friend described.
The principle of cause and effect is well understood. Things happen because something causes them to happen. A strange thing about the cause of what is happening in my constituency is that everyone I know, including me, supports the cause—the phenomenal growth in the number of young people entering higher education. I cannot find anyone who opposes that continuing growth. However, it was not planned for. No provision was made to accommodate the phenomenally increased numbers of students. Approximately 30,000 students live within half a mile of where I live. To say that they are densely packed is putting it mildly. The effect on housing stock is as my hon. Friend described.
Litter, filth and the irresponsibility of landlords—and, sad to say, some of their tenants—must be understood and tackled. The phenomenon is not unique to the UK. In 1997 the town of Waterloo, in Canada, was drawn to my attention. It had the same problems and eventually, by empowering local government, it introduced byelaws that did precisely what my hon. Friend has asked for. Landlords were made responsible for everything that took place in or around their property. They were even made responsible for clearing snow—and it really snows in Waterloo. Handing such direct responsibility to landlords has transformed things there, and got rid of most of the problems.
I have drawn that example repeatedly to the attention of Ministers in relevant Departments in the past few years. We are looking for ways of managing the problem. We have to learn the obvious lessons. Six or eight people might live in a multi-occupied house, with a third of them changing every year, so there is a constantly rotating population. To find among all those people someone who takes responsibility is a bit like looking for rocking-horse droppings. It is rare because each resident comes from a background in which somebody else in the house—perhaps their mother—made sure that the bin was filled and put out at the right time, and other such normal events were organised. Now, nobody in a household of eight picks up that responsibility, let alone locking the door at night or closing the windows. That is how we have become the crime capital for burglary, street robbery and armed robbery on a horrendous scale—I cannot exaggerate it.
Making people responsible is going to take time and legislative action. We need the willing and enthusiastic co-operation not only of central Government but of local government. We need sensitive, intelligent interventions by local government to meet particular and peculiar differences in sets of circumstances, and to address particular, peculiar issues. We are not all the same, so blanket legislation will not work. We have to be intelligent and sensitive.
As I have said, it is impossible to exaggerate the despair in my constituency. People have nervous breakdowns and come to my surgery in tears. I live in
276WH
the area, and I cannot walk in the streets without people asking me what I am going to do about one issue, when something is going to be done about another issue, or telling me that the Joneses and the Smiths have sold up, and others are moving out. There is panic in the community.
That has threatened the future of three primary schools, because with no families around there are fewer children, so there are no new pupils. The whole social structure is coming apart, and the argument that landlords are doing us a service by providing accommodation is not laughable, but tragic. Landlords do not build new houses or blocks of flats. They take existing housing stock and corrupt it for a use for which it was never intended. That is the problem that we face; that is the harsh reality.
11.22 am
Mr. Don Foster: I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members will find that housing is either top or near the top of the list in their postbags, and it is the issue raised most often by people who come to their surgeries. It is therefore particularly welcome that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has secured this debate, which touches on the important issues that are daily raised with us by our constituents. He was right to draw attention to his concern about bad landlords and the problems that they create. For example, he described them as people who do not care about their properties and rarely visit them, and who, by their actions, drag down the social fabric in an area as has been so graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). There was some disagreement between the two hon. Gentlemen as to whether that had the effect of raising or lowering the prices of neighbouring properties.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South made some interesting suggestions about the way forward, and I should like to comment on them. I was slightly disappointed—although I do not mean that in a critical way—that he did not focus more on the other half of the title of today's debate: antisocial tenants. It would be appropriate for those people to be mentioned in the remaining contributions. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is now vital that the Government get on with plans to license houses in multiple occupation.
The Minister may recall that the Labour Government, in their 1997 general election manifesto, made a clear commitment to tackling the issue, but we are still awaiting details of proposed legislation. I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date with the Government's plans in that respect.
I also hope that the Minister will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South about the Government's plans for licensing other privately rented properties, which I think is vital. At one point, we were led to believe that the measure might be introduced in certain areas selected by the Government. Now we are being told that local authorities might have the power to decide whether they wish to do that.
It is important to consider some of the other measures that local authorities could, perhaps, adopt to provide some assistance—rent deposits, for example. One of the difficulties faced by many of my constituents—and, I suspect, the constituents of other right hon. and hon.

277WH
Members— is that far too often, when a tenant wishes to move on, a bad landlord makes it unnecessarily difficult to get back the rent or a portion of it, and disagreements then occur. Local authorities might be given the power to set up a central rent deposit system, whereby they hold the deposit on behalf of the tenant, and can arbitrate between the tenant and the landlord as to whether the entire deposit, or an agreed portion of it, can be returned.
It would also be interesting to look at some wider issues. I wonder whether the Minister has had the opportunity to reflect on the role of registered social landlords and their activities in support of regeneration. We have already touched on that subject tangentially, but I am concerned about the areas in which registered social landlords know that they are absolutely certain to be able to fill all their properties, so there is little incentive for them to get involved in regeneration activities.
In other parts of the countries, notably in the north, registered social landlords think it beneficial to be involved in regeneration as a way of making the area more acceptable, and thereby making it more likely that tenants will come into it. There is a disparity between the north, where on the whole registered social landlords are willing to get involved in regeneration, and the south, where that is not the case.
Surely we want a system in which all registered social landlords want to get involved in regeneration. To a large extent, that will depend on their arrangements with the Housing Corporation. Has the Minister held discussions with the Housing Corporation about that aspect of its contractual arrangements with registered social landlords?
Out-of-date legislation on the condition of properties— governing factors such as overcrowding, safety arrangements and so on— makes it easy for bad landlords to continue to be bad. Will the Minister update us on the Government's plans for bringing some of the out-of-date legislation in respect of such matters more up to date?
I shall now talk about antisocial tenants. Many of us find housing high on the list of issues raised by constituents, and within that subject, two categories are the most common cause for complaint. The first is the fact that some constituents do not have access to good housing, and the second is the problem of antisocial behaviour by tenants in neighbouring properties. In the summer recess, the people in my office checked through my case work and discovered that during the past two and a half years, there have been more than 90 cases concerning constituents who have suffered from the neighbours from hell. It is important that we continue to debate that issue.
There has already been much discussion about legislation on homelessness. I welcome some of the developments in that respect, but the wider issue at stake is the action that we must take against neighbours from hell. The Minister will say that the antisocial behaviour order is one of the tools for tackling the problem, but can he tell us how many times such orders have been used? They may be a useful tool in the armoury of
278WH
defence, but they are not proving particularly satisfactory, because of the legal complexities and the time required to obtain them.
It is important to consider what other strategies may also be available. The Government are becoming increasingly interested in schemes such as the introductory tenancy scheme, but several worries have been raised about that, and rightly so. An alternative scheme that is well worth examining is the acceptable behaviour contract, which is drawn up between the incoming tenant and the landlord. Such schemes have been working well in several areas. For example, a scheme for teenagers was drawn up in Islington, and it has been working successfully. The amount of vandalism and difficulties created by young people has been significantly reduced as a result of such contracts. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction to the idea of such a scheme.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to housing benefit, and said that the fact that the payment is made directly to landlords has meant that they have not had to take any action in respect of their properties. As he said, that means that the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, are funding the destruction of large swathes of the housing stock. He was absolutely right to draw attention to the need to re-examine housing benefit, how it is paid and how it is decided who is eligible to receive it.
There is another side of the coin, of which we should also be well aware. One of the problems for many of my constituents who are on benefit is that many landlords are unwilling to accept as tenants people who are in receipt of housing benefit. We are in danger of labelling people who are on housing benefit as likely to be bad tenants. That is not true, and it is important that we get that message across to people. There must be action at Government level to find ways to stop private landlords preventing people on housing benefit from becoming tenants.
Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not tar all people on housing benefit with the same brush. As he will acknowledge, I made that point during my opening remarks.
The situation at the hon. Gentleman's end of the country is different from that at my end of the country. In the south, there is often a shortage of property of all types, whereas Sunderland has a surplus. Landlords need housing benefit, but we do not need them. We have vacant properties. Landlords would change their attitude if councils had the power to change the method of payment. The way round the differences at each end of the country is to give discretion to local authorities according to circumstances in local areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) suggested.
Mr. Foster: I agree. We could solve several problems by giving local authorities greater powers and wider discretion, including powers with regard to antisocial tenants and bad landlords.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West made a valuable point about the difficulty that some towns and cities face because of the increase in the student population. Greater thought is required about how we

279WH
find suitable accommodation for the large numbers of students that we already have, and the increase that we expect.
Mr. Best: Does my friend opposite— I shall call him that as I am not allowed to call him my hon. Friend— agree that we should consider the way in which universities recruit their students? If students were recruited from the area where they already live, that could reduce the pressure that we experience. It may also be more beneficial to the environment, because of a reduction in travelling and other socially damaging effects.
Mr. Foster: I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should not interfere with the university experience by requiring students to attend their local university. However, that is an increasingly an attractive option, given the financial consequences of doing otherwise. Greater responsibility must be given to universities to ensure that they have adequate arrangements to accommodate the students that they recruit. In my constituency, the university of Bath has worked hard with the local council to find interesting and attractive solutions to the problems in the city. Many students may live in one road of houses in multiple occupation. Each student may bring a car, and problems may be created for other property owners and tenants in the road. I am aware of the problem, but I pay tribute to the university of Bath for its development of imaginative solutions.
There are many other issues that hon. Members would raise if we had sufficient time. I want to hear what the Minister will tell us about licensing houses in multiple occupation and other rented property, and his response to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said about requiring landlords to take greater responsibility for activities that occur in properties that they own but rent out to other people.
11.39 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on securing the debate. When I saw the full title of the debate—"Government plans for dealing with irresponsible landlords and antisocial tenants"— I though that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward a challenging issue. It behoves all of us to try to think of satisfactory solutions to intractable problems. We all recognise that; we have all have received constituency correspondence about bad landlords and bad tenants.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's general caveat that he was not having a go at all landlords, some of his remarks suggested that he had forgotten that landlords are involved in business, and if we make the entire private rented sector too regulated and burdensome, they will disappear. In an intervention, he said that the area that he represented did not need the private rented sector— but it would be much worse off without that sector. We must take care not to expect landlords to put right all society's ills.
Mr. Mullin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point; it is not my intention to blame landlords for all the ills of society. None the less, I repeat my point: people's experiences are different in different parts of the
280WH
country. In Sunderland and the other old industrial cities there is a surplus of property, which makes it possible to engage the attention of even the most stubborn landlord, because landlords need tenants for their properties— and they need those tenants to be paid for by housing benefit.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree. An area such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where there is a surplus of low-quality, low-value housing, is the converse of an area such as my constituency, where there is a shortage of housing, property is very expensive, and key workers have difficulty finding a home.
All hon. Members know, from the contents of their postbags, that every constituency in the country has problems with bad landlords, and in particular with antisocial tenants. Therefore, it behoves us to work with all the relevant agencies to try to come up with satisfactory solutions to recommend to the Government— and we hope that they will enact them. The purpose of such debates is to try to come up with constructive solutions.
I shall talk about antisocial tenants first, and then move on to the subject of landlords.
Mr. Best: I have a point to make about landlords, before the hon. Gentleman discusses antisocial tenants. I agree that good landlords exist; anyone would agree with that, if they had been in the presence of a landlord with tears rolling down his cheeks because his family had run the business for generations and the other properties in his area were decaying, with catastrophic consequences for his company. Landlords have a valid point of view, and good landlords should be supported.
I have suggested to such landlords— I will make the same suggestions to landlords organizations— that they might seek to establish certain standards of accommodation, and of behaviour, with regard to their tenants. That might in turn lead to the creation of a kind of joint industry board of landlords, tenants and local authorities— a joint venture to stabilise and improve matters.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will refer later to some of the ideas that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) proposed. I spent three weeks in Leeds, Central, which contains the university ward, during a by-election campaign, so I, too, have some ideas about how to deal with bad landlords. However, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with the tenants first.
Antisocial tenants blight many innocent people's lives, and Conservative Members say that it should be easier to obtain antisocial behaviour orders. Although they are a good mechanism, they are too cumbersome, and too difficult to obtain. Current powers to deal with antisocial behaviour usually require evidence from neighbours, which is often difficult to obtain. It takes time to gather evidence and prepare a case, yet the sanctions imposed by the courts do not necessarily protect the local community from future problems. Landlords are frequently unable, or unwilling, to take action against antisocial tenants, and at present, local councils cannot legally require a landlord to take responsibility for the actions of a tenant.

281WH
I want to draw the House's attention to Newham borough council's action against anti-social residents. It has been the subject of a press release, which I shall quote. It concerns the case of Belinda Baron, which came to court. The press release states:
"It was alleged in court that Belinda Baron had allowed her boyfriend, Christopher Gittings, to threaten the lives of neighbours on more than occasion. Police were called to several incidents. It was also stated in court that Belinda Baron had allowed her son, who is now nine, to abuse, spit at, and throw stones at local people whilst making no attempt to restrain him. Local children had also had their lives threatened and had been subjected to abuse and intimidation."
That is the sort of "neighbours from hell" case that all hon. Members present have encountered in constituency correspondence.
The press release continues:
"Using the Professional Witness Scheme, Newham gathered sufficient evidence, including statements from six local residents, to satisfy the Court that the possession order was justified. The scheme provides support to witnesses who are in fear of further intimidation and reprisal if they give evidence. These proceedings are part of Newham's continuing action to make the borough a safer place to live. The successful court action sends out a clear message that Newham will carry out its duty to protect local people from tenants and residents who are intimidating, abusive and violent."
I praise Newham for taking that action. We need to extend anti-social behaviour orders, and not only to allow the local authority to issue them, but to consider allowing housing associations and registered social landlords, and perhaps residents associations, to have an input.
When we say that we wish to use anti-social behaviour orders, we must think about what will happen, how we will enforce them, and how we will try to rehabilitate people. That is a real difficulty, which strikes at the root of the problem of anti-social behaviour. What will we do when we have issued an anti-social behaviour order? How will we try to rehabilitate people so that their behaviour is compatible with the norms in society? Community service orders may have a part to play, but what does one do with a really awkward customer who refuses to co-operate with a community service order?
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned conditional tenancies, which were part of our policy at the last election. I spoke to the Fosseway housing association this morning, to ascertain its view on antisocial behaviour orders and hear how it deals with the problems. I was told that conditional tenancies would provide one of the best armouries to deal with the problem. A tenant who had a past record of antisocial behaviour would be given a limited tenancy for three months. If he did not behave well during that period, the tenancy could rapidly be removed from him. A fast-track procedure would be necessary to make sure that he could be evicted.
As I said during debate on the Homelessness Bill, the Opposition welcome the idea of licensing houses in multiple occupation. Will the Minister say when he expects that legislation to be introduced?
Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we rather glibly— I may be guilty of this, too— use the phrases "licensing houses in multiple occupation" and "licensing other rented properties", it is important to have a serious debate about the nature of the conditions attached to the licence? Ultimately, it is not the licensing that matters but the nature of the licence.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course. It is self-evident that the purpose of licensing would be to eliminate houses in multiple occupation that are in really bad condition, and to try to root out rogue landlords who are not reaching a reasonable standard. The hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt be on the Committee charged with considering the proposed legislation when the Government bring it forward. No doubt we will have many hours in Committee discussing that precise subject, and I would welcome that debate.
Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that the licence should not relate only to the nature of the property but to the responsibilities of the landlord, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I said in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention that the licence should also root out some of the bad landlords, so I would certainly include the behaviour of landlords.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to deal with the issue of litter, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and for Leeds, North-West. Litter is a difficult and intractable problem, and one would need to think carefully about changing the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take away the responsibility entirely from the tenant and put it on the landlord. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was advocating that. I may have misunderstood him. Perhaps he thinks that there should be a joint responsibility. Will he explain, within the confines of a brief intervention, how that would work?
Mr. Mullin: I have thought carefully about the matter. I am talking about not the odd piece of paper but piles of litter as tall as the hon. Gentleman and me, which stand in back lanes for weeks, and are cast to the four winds. The answer is to make litter a joint responsibility, and to give the landlord— because he, as well as the tenant, can be prosecuted— an incentive to cause the tenant to observe the conditions of his tenancy agreement, which should solve the problem. It is not necessarily the landlord who must clear it up, but someone must— if not the tenant, the landlord, as he is profiting from the business
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Landlords could take tougher action within the confines of a reasonable tenancy agreement. Perhaps I should have declared my interest in the debate as a chartered surveyor, although a non-fee-earning one. I have had to deal with such matters in a professional capacity, which is not easy. Within the confines of what is reasonable to put in a tenancy agreement, that should always be a requirement. In the past, I have very

283WH
strongly advised both landlords and tenants to have a written tenancy agreement so that both parties to the agreement have a clear understanding of their obligations under the agreement.
Perhaps we could insist that landlords put pressure on their tenants to conform to the responsibilities in their tenancy agreements. I would certainly expect disposing of litter to be one of the responsibilities in the tenancy agreement, and local authorities should be able to take action against landlords who do not fulfil their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
Mr. Best: I made a passing reference to the litter industry— or should I say the take-away food industry. Unfortunately, where I live, it is possible on any night of the week to follow the litter trails. They begin at the take-away food shops, and at various points along the way we find half-eaten food and abandoned packaging. To say that that is unsightly the next morning is to put it mildly.
There is a serious health hazard, too. There has been an enormous growth in the numbers of foxes scavenging, and of rats. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that we might impose a levy on the take-away food business, which manufactures not only food but vast quantities of litter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, that litter does not come in small stacks. There are cubic metres of the stuff all over the area. If an additional levy were imposed on them, we might be able to hire cleaners to follow the daily litter trails.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. One need only go half a mile from here late at night to see some of the appalling litter left behind from fast food outlets. We cannot entirely blame the outlets, because it is their customers who are responsible— but the litter bins are crammed full, so it is difficult for people who have been to a fast food outlet to find anywhere else to put the litter, so they drop it in the street. We need to ensure that the local authority licence for a fast food outlet provides for proper litter receptacles that are emptied at regular intervals so that there is always a litter receptacle on or near premises where fast food is served and waste is generated. The hon. Gentleman also makes an interesting point about vermin. Not only rats and foxes but all sorts of other inner-city vermin that can be a health hazard are attracted. I entirely agree with him, and the Minister might like to discuss the matter.
I will move on, because time is short. Licensing for the whole private rented sector, which several hon. Members have called for, would place a large additional obligation on local authorities and would have a huge cost. One would need to examine carefully the national cost versus the benefit. I suggest that we consider a code of practice, perhaps even a star rating system for landlords' properties that house tenants on benefit. After all, the taxpayer pays that benefit, and if he does not get good value because of the poor quality of the property being offered, that is of interest to him.
The idea of somehow restricting benefit to either landlords or tenants, subject to good behaviour, requires careful consideration. Restricting benefits to antisocial tenants would only encourage them to enter
284WH
other areas of crime such as burglary, stealing to fund their drugs habits, and prostitution. To link reductions in benefits to antisocial behaviour requires careful consideration.
Mr. Mullin: Fortunately, there has been careful thinking about that. The suggestion, which I believe the Government accept in principle— the Minister can tell us whether I am right— is that if a local authority in an area such as my constituency, which has a surplus of properties, has the discretion to license landlords, only landlords with sufficiently high standards to attract a licence will be able to take tenants who are paid for by housing benefit. That would provide those landlords with a powerful incentive to get their act together.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is scope for further guidelines— I put it no stronger than that— to cover landlords housing people on benefits. However, I do not know whether we should go as far as licensing all houses where tenants receive housing benefit. One would need to conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis to discover whether it would be worth while.
Mr. Mullin: No. We are talking about giving local authorities the discretion. I appreciate that circumstances vary in different parts of the country. However, in my part of the country— this applies to lots of big industrial cities where there is a surplus of property— the measure would undoubtedly have a powerful impact. The council is begging to be given that discretion, and the sooner we get on with it the better. No more careful thought, please.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would still like to hear what the Government have to say, and find out how much the measure would cost and what the actual benefit would be.
I shall now return to the serious problem raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, which is shared by other university towns. Large numbers of young people are often housed in substandard housing. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman— the Government might like to take notice of this— that the university authorities should take more interest in the housing of their students. I do not know what the arrangements are at the university of Bath, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred, but I suspect that that university takes a fairly close interest.
I see no reason at all, particularly given modern IT, why a university should not maintain a register of all housing available to students. Irresponsible landlords could be struck off that register, or at least a warning could be placed on the register that a particular property was expensive or of poor quality. I see no reason why that could not be done. To be candid, in many cases students do not treat property with proper respect either. If the university authorities took a greater interest in cases of student misbehaviour, there would be an easy mechanism for the landlord to come to the university and say, "Your student has caused so much damage and he has disappeared. I don't know where he is, but I want to recover the money. Will you help me?"
Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he asked, I would like to tell him that the

285WH
university of Bath has agreed with the local council to regenerate some parts of the city with new buildings specifically for students. That avoids the problem of the multiple use of properties. The university has been very imaginative and has introduced requirements not only that students should agree to behaviour codes, but that they should not bring a motor car anywhere near the city of Bath. That is an important measure, which links in with issues of proper public transport. There are some imaginative schemes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is admirable and commendable. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West have said. The problem is serious and it is growing. We rightly encourage more youngsters to stay in further and higher education, but they will require housing in concentrated areas. We must deal with that problem.
Mr. Best: I welcome what the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Bath (Mr. Foster) have said. I would like to be able to say that the university of Leeds had matched, in performance and intent, the good things that have happened in Bath. However, I regret to say— I am picking my words as carefully as I can— that its behaviour in recent years has reflected the other forms of antisocial behaviour that hon. Members have described.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have no doubt that that is correct. University authorities must take a closer interest if they are to keep landlords and their students up to scratch.
This has been an interesting and constructive debate. We have not got to the bottom of how we shall rehabilitate those who are antisocial or a nuisance to the rest of society. I have called for mechanisms that make it easier to issue antisocial behaviour orders, but I am under no illusion but that we also need mechanisms to rehabilitate people. I know the problems that exist and I sympathise with social workers and probations officers, who are extensively involved in issuing orders, because by and large, they must make them work. We shall have to find mechanisms to rehabilitate people.
We must never forget that the antisocial behaviour of a small number of people causes a nuisance to a much larger number of innocent people. The Government and the law should always protect the innocent person, and if there is any doubt, the person responsible for the antisocial behaviour should be penalised.
12.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I am pleased to respond to a debate that deals with such a wide range of issues, including housing, regeneration, and law and order.
The debate is opportune. We recently issued our consultation paper on the selective licensing of landlords in areas of low housing demand, to which I shall return. First, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)
286WH
on raising the issue before us. He has a strong constituency interest and, as a former housing Minister, a first-rate knowledge of the development of Government policy on the subject. I do not, however, want to single him out for praise, because all hon. Members have made helpful and constructive contributions to this thoughtful debate.
I hope— this is perhaps a wish rather than a hope— that the issue is not of substantial concern to too many hon. Members and their constituents. Plans for regeneration are in hand in several areas where economic and social decline is furthered by the activities of antisocial tenants and what can only be described as the villainous activities of landlords. Such people act directly against the regeneration activities that are in hand.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I clarify what the Minister is saying? If antisocial tenants are a problem in an area like mine, which is relatively well off and law abiding, then it must be a problem in every part of the country. The Minister should be under no illusion about that.
Dr. Whitehead: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. One hopes that, in all parts of the country, people on housing estates in the rented and private sectors will live in harmony. The problems that have been mentioned this morning do not occur throughout the country, but it is certainly true that in many parts of the country but not necessarily in all local authority areas the problems are real, and we need seriously to think about them.
I know of the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) has undertaken on housing in multiple occupation, particularly the problems and pressures that houses in multiple occupation occupied by students can bring to an area. The debate has been informed by those who know a great deal about the matter, and they have made solid points.
In the housing Green Paper published on 4 April 2000, we noted that in areas of declining housing demand, particularly in parts of our northern cities, the large-scale operations of a minority of unscrupulous landlords have caused problems. Those problems were often linked to criminal activities such as housing benefit fraud, drug dealing and prostitution. I have already said that those activities can destabilise local communities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has told us how that can happen. That can create social and economic problems that seriously hamper efforts at regeneration, and that makes life difficult for respectable tenants and responsible landlords— and for owner-occupiers, who may come under pressure to sell up and move away.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South pointed out, unscrupulous landlords increasingly offer homes to anti-social households, not least those who have been excluded from nearby social housing because of their misbehaviour. My hon. Friend also spoke of the suggestion in the Green Paper that local authorities could be given discretionary powers to license privately rented dwellings or landlords in particularly problematic neighbourhoods. Licensing under those circumstances would deal with a possible

287WH
surplus of housing in areas where bad landlords and tenants are likely to do the most damage. The Green Paper suggests that a local authority could be given discretionary powers to license an area, perhaps where stress is a particularly difficult problem, but it would not have to use them.
The Government's housing policy statement published a year ago said that we would consult on proposals for the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand. Each scheme would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. The power would not be exercised willy-nilly; a local authority would have to apply to the Secretary of State to be given that discretion. We would countenance such schemes only in areas where tenants could find readily available alternative accommodation should the landlord fail to obtain or lose a licence or withdraw from the market.
Our plans to consult on proposals for legislation were somewhat delayed by the election in June, but the Secretary of State announced on 20 October the start of consultation on our proposed licensing scheme. It is clearly our intention to try to legislate when parliamentary time permits, which I hope will be at an early stage.
We believe that licensing could be one of the range of tools available to local authorities, alongside other measures. The aim would be to enable local authorities to ensure that all landlords played their part in a comprehensive local strategy to tackle the consequences of low housing demand.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister clarify when he is likely to introduce legislation for licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and for the new discretionary licensing scheme? Is it likely that both schemes will be part of one Bill?
Dr. Whitehead: I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman complete satisfaction at the moment, although I will shortly tackle the issue of legislation that is now proceeding through the House. That legislation is not a complete answer to the questions raised today, but the Government intend to legislate on the issues at an early stage.
The Government think that additional regulation is justified for the pervasive and acute problems in several low-demand areas, but that could stifle the supply of private property for renting elsewhere. That is why we propose discretionary powers for local authorities to license private landlords in all or part of their areas. Landlords would need a licence, which would be issued only if they met standards of personal fitness— basically, no criminal record— and management fitness, including safety checks on the operation of their houses.
To keep the focus on better management and the exclusion of criminal landlords, the problem of unfit housing would be tackled separately through the existing or future housing condition regimes.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister rightly refers to future housing condition regimes. Before he moves on, will he bring us up to date on the Government's plans for the introduction of such regimes?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. I was about to underline the
288WH
Government's view that a selective licensing regime will complement measures to provide for, among other things, the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. That future housing regime will run alongside the selective licensing of landlords in specific areas. The hon. Gentleman will be interested in further complementary measures to replace the current housing fitness standard and related enforcement machinery with a new regime based on a housing health and safety rating system. That will apply to all properties, and I will say more about it in a moment.
The selective licensing. of landlords will focus on localised problems that relate to landlords in areas of low housing demand. It will not be concerned with housing fitness as such. HMO licensing will cover the types of accommodation that consistently pose the highest risks across the country, so that selective landlord licensing should ensure that HMO licensing could be properly targeted.
We seek to fulfil as soon as possible some of our commitments on the licensing of HMOs, through our support for a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). Part 3 of that Bill contains specific provisions for the registration of HMOs and new definitions stating what the occupants of HMOs may be regarded as, so that a wider definition can be secured and some related problems can be overcome. The Bill would also give further discretion to local authorities to license blocks of flats or houses with two storeys under certain circumstances. Several elements of legislation that the Government would like to introduce are contained in that Bill, so we have given it considerable support.
Mr. Mullin: I presume that selective licensing will apply not only to multi-occupied houses but to single tenancies, where most of the problems arise in my constituency. Will the management of tenants, the behaviour of tenants and the number of complaints attracted be taken into account when deciding whether to grant a landlord a further licence?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right to draw the distinction between the licensing of HMOs, which is a licensing regime relating to the fitness of properties, and the licensing of landlords in an area of low housing demand, which deals with the landlord's fitness to be a landlord of any sort of housing tenure. Part of the process of granting a licence includes providing evidence to be taken into account, either prospectively or after the licence has been issued, in determining whether it should be continued. One example might be a continuing licence for a pub landlord. If such a landlord has behaved inappropriately in managing properties in an area, the licence would not be renewed.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned antisocial behaviour and neighbours from hell. I have always expressed considerable sorrow for a town near Gdansk in Poland called Hel, where presumably all the neighbours are from Hel. However, we are talking specifically about antisocial behaviour, which can poison tenancy relations in an entire neighbourhood.
In the Green Paper, we recognise that there are, on occasions, unholy alliances between bad landlords and bad tenants. That can create intractable problems,

289WH
which require a multi-agency approach. That was and is a key theme of the policy action team, led by the Home Office, which looked into antisocial behaviour.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to implement strategies for reducing crime at local level. It also allows local authorities and the police, working together, to seek antisocial behaviour orders against anyone who causes harassment, alarm and distress to others.
Antisocial behaviour is a cross-tenure problem. It does not occur only in one form of housing tenure. It can occur in owner-occupied property as well as in rented property. Many antisocial tenants may move into private rented accommodation from the social housing sector and back again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said.
In developing a co-ordinated approach, local authorities can make use of Home Office guidance to local authorities and to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour, especially by issuing antisocial behaviour orders. The Government are also considering measures to speed up the eviction of antisocial tenants in the social sector. The hon. Member for Bath asked how many ASBOs have been issued so far. The answer is 466, although there is evidence that local authorities are beginning to make greater use of them.
I remind the Chamber that part of the problem of obtaining court action against so-called neighbours from hell is that the more that people in the neighbourhood are intimidated, the less likely they are to keep logs and appear in court as witnesses. The introduction of professional witnesses is a great step forward towards ensuring that people need not suffer additional intimidation as a result of appearing in court while ASBOs are procured.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised the issue of conditional tenancies. He may be aware of the emergence of introductory tenancies, which are similar to the tenancy to which he referred. They can play an important role in ensuring that the local authority tackles nuisance and antisocial behaviour on estates. The recent Court of Appeal judgment is welcome. It ruled that introductory tenancies are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That provides reassurance and clarification for authorities that already operate those tenancies and to those local authorities that considered them but were concerned about compatibility.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: People from my local housing association told me this morning that even if a housing association had conditional tenancies and evicted a tenant from such a tenancy, the local authority would have a requirement to rehouse that tenant. As the housing association is the agent of the local authority, it would have a requirement to rehouse those tenants, so it would simply evict the tenants from one place and rehouse them in another. We need to consider mechanisms for dealing with antisocial behaviour and rehabilitating people into society.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am not making the case that introductory tenancies are a
290WH
panacea for the wider problems that he mentions. However, I draw attention to them because they are a method for ensuring that tenants behave in a socially acceptable way when they take up their tenancies, especially if they have a previous history of antisocial activities.
Mr. Mullin: May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that he will address my point about amending section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to littering? I gave him notice of that point and wrote to the Environment Minister on 6 July. I hope that my hon. Friend has had better luck than I had in getting a reply from that Minister.
Dr. Whitehead: As appears to be the custom this morning, my hon. Friend has anticipated me. I was about to turn to that point.
In our Green Paper, we noted that the problem in declining areas with bad landlords and antisocial tenants was compounded by the fact that such antisocial tenants were often dependent on housing benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to that. Housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord, which provides landlords with no incentive to enforce tenancy agreements or manage their property effectively. I recognise the concerns expressed on that matter.
The selective licensing of landlords should ensure that bad landlords are given a chance to get their act together and that, if they do not do so, they are unable to continue to operate unlicensed. It would not be right for unlicensed landlords to continue to be supported with housing benefit payments. With such safeguards as may be needed to protect innocent tenants, we shall need to ensure that legislation on selective licensing closes the door on such payments. We also need to recognise that housing benefit is the right of the tenant and is paid directly to the landlord only when tenants cannot manage their own affairs.
My hon. Friend referred to littering— an issue on which he wrote to the Minister for the Environment. The problem of littering in housing in multiple occupation is often severe, but it is sometimes difficult to prove precisely who is responsible for it. Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is not exactly associated with litter provisions, but it requires the householder to place household waste in the receptacle specified by the waste collection authority for normal weekly collection.
There is a power under the Environmental Protection Act to force the householder to take responsibility for putting the waste out. The problem that might arise in implementing my hon. Friend's suggestion would be that it would give an additional and overlapping power to the landlord. That could cause confusion. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a litter legislation review in hand, and it will shortly publish proposals for consultation. I imagine that that will be one of the issues on which consultation will take place, but as my hon. Friend says, that is not my departmental responsibility.
Mr. Mullin: I sympathise. I once had responsibilities similar to those of my hon. Friend and I know that they

291WH
are vast. I am seeking to address the problem that occurs when a great quantity of litter comes out of what is often, but not always, a multi-occupied house, and no one will accept responsibility for it. The local authorities cannot prosecute, because they cannot identify which individual in the house put out which bit of litter, and that is what they are required to know at the moment. They therefore want the power to prosecute the landlord, in order to prompt him to require the tenant to put things in order.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, indeed. I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that DEFRA's consultation will address his concerns, although I must emphasise that there is a potential problem of confusion in law.
Where poor condition housing— in all tenures— coincides with declining demand for housing and with social problems, we have a serious problem. A vicious spiral can ensue in which problem landlords and tenants play a part. When people start to leave areas and houses are boarded up, crime moves in, conditions deteriorate, and whole neighbourhoods head rapidly down a steep slope. In those situations the licensing of landlords is but one tool available to local authorities to address antisocial behaviour and declining property values. Local strategic partnerships can help to co-ordinate measures and improved public services can help to revitalise an area, as can addressing the quality and quantity of the housing stock.
The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 should enable the Government, by order, to sweep away the constraints surrounding local authorities' support for private sector renewal. That will give local authorities much greater freedom within their housing strategies to use their resources to improve conditions in the private sector.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West and for Sunderland, South raised the issue of the power to limit the number of houses in multiple occupation in a particular street. It is best that I write to them on that matter, and I shall certainly do so. I am sure that they appreciate that there might be problems in planning law if a property were allowed to be developed for multiple occupation if somebody had moved out, but not in other circumstances.
The Government want a private rented sector that is better and bigger. That sector provides essential housing to the young and mobile, and also to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. We want to encourage good landlords through best practice initiatives. We are also conscious that the private rented sector is very sensitive to regulation and to movements in the market for properties for owner-occupation. The hon. Member for Cotswold made the point that in the main it might not be a good idea to regulate all landlords and all rented properties in all areas. Apart from stifling the supply of a much needed resource, that would impose on local authorities the major task of policing the regulation.
In our resolution to press forward with the selective licensing of landlords and HMOs, the Government are focusing on problems relating to the worst landlords in the private rented sector, the most vulnerable of communities and the most vulnerable of tenants.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): We can now move on to the next debate. Meanwhile, I congratulate the Minister on his double innings this morning.

Children's Services (Hertfordshire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I called this debate for three reasons. I wanted to make Ministers aware of the intense local feeling about the intended closure of maternity services at Hemel Hempstead and their move to Watford, to place on record our reasoned concerns on the subject, and to spell out our short, medium and long-term aims.
On 26 September, the local health trust announced that the special care baby unit at Hemel Hempstead was no longer considered safe. It was therefore to be closed and moved to Watford, along with all maternity, women's and related children's services. The move is set to be completed by 4 February 2002. Although there had been some consultation with the primary care trust since July about the safety of the SCBU, as the unit is known, no discussion had taken place with it about the simultaneous closure of maternity and women's units at the hospital. However, we have now been told that the problem had been apparent at Hemel for up to 18 months. Why was it not discussed publicly earlier? Why was it not known about at the general election?
The first explanation of the changes was given at a hastily arranged meeting at Watford general hospital on Monday 8 October. I attended it, along with representatives of the primary care trust and local councillors. The chairman, chief executive and medical director responsible for clinical governance in the West Herts community health NHS trust gave us several reasons for the planned closure and transfer. The main ones were the difficulty in recruitment and retention of skilled nursing staff at the Hemel unit, the difficulty in maintaining duplicate cover as required following the inquiry into the Bristol Royal infirmary, and the case of the nurse who suffered from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. There had been instances of misprescription and misdiagnoses, and a higher than average proportion of nursing staff at the Hemel unit are nursery nurses. They are dedicated staff, but are not trained to fulfil some roles.
The decision comes on top of other issues that have undermined confidence in the West Herts community health NHS trust, and especially in Hemel hospital. The reputation of the hospital was affected by figures that showed that it had one of the highest mortality rates for neck of the femur operations— hip transplants— with one in six patients dying within 30 days of an operation. Action has been taken to respond to that. More relevant to the closure of the maternity unit is that two of the four consultants in the gynaecology and obstetrics team are suspended and under investigation following complaints from hundreds of local women.
An inquiry is due to be published soon, and I do not want to pre-empt its findings. Suffice it to say that, even though they have been replaced, the events have hit public confidence and are probably a much more important factor in putting the skids under maternity and women's services in Hemel than anyone publicly admits. Hemel was already at a disadvantage compared to Luton and Dunstable, which has twice as many consultants in the relevant specialties but handles only 40 per cent. more births. I would like to know the reason for that disadvantage.

293WH
Following the announcement of the proposed changes, all three parties on St. Albans district council unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in the management of West Herts community health NHS trust. However, my constituents are overwhelmingly grateful to and confident in the doctors and nurses at Hemel for the care and treatment that they have provided over the years.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 51,281 local people have signed a petition opposing the disposition made by the local health authority? That clearly demonstrates the general fantastic local confidence in the service.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. Similar petitions have been signed in my constituency and in St. Albans to express opposition to the proposed change, and determination that the services should be restored as rapidly as possible.
I accept that safety must be paramount. If there is a clinical risk to mothers and babies, action must be taken to remedy that. If the only option is a temporary move to Watford— that remains to be proved— it will be painful and difficult for mothers during that period, but so be it. My main worry is that the move will not be temporary, but permanent. That is unacceptable. The chairman of the local hospital trust admitted that even outside rush hour, it takes 27 minutes to get from Hemel Hempstead to Watford. For my constituents in Harpenden, Redbourn, Sandridge and Wheathampstead, journey times can be considerably longer.
Watford rush-hour traffic is notorious. It took me longer to get from the junction of the M1 to the hospital in Watford than it took to get from the House to that junction. On top of that, the hospital is next door to the football stadium. Mothers who must go to the hospital during a home match face intolerable delays.
Ultimately, distance undermines safety and I cannot accept the idea that those services should be so far from my constituents. My constituents in Sandridge and Wheathampstead, who currently have the option of going to the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City instead, are worried that there are rumours of those services moving up north to the Lister hospital. Will the Minister tell us whether that is likely?
The fear that the closure of Hemel Hempstead general hospital will be permanent is exacerbated by the Government's plans for maternity spending, which were announced on 16 October. They show that there are plans to spend more on maternity services in virtually every other hospital in Hertfordshire, but no money is set aside for Hemel Hempstead general hospital. If the Government planned to improve that hospital and ensure that we could return maternity services there, surely the hospital would receive a large chunk of the spending. The fact that that will not happen clearly suggests that there are long-term plans to close Hemel Hempstead general hospital's maternity services permanently.
Mr. McWalter: What the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely correct. The result of that is that £750,000
294WH
of the £1 million given by the Government for maternity services is going to West Hertfordshire. If these plans go ahead, the result of that investment will be a decrease in maternity beds jointly held in Watford and Hemel Hempstead from 63 to 45. That investment would mean a massive slashing of services.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for spelling out how the word "investment" in new Labour speak is a substitute for spending, and often means spending less than under the Conservative Government.
The announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in November of an independent review of the decision gave local people some hope that the move to Watford could be averted. Plans were made for meetings with the review panel at the beginning of December and the end of November. However, the meetings were cancelled. It emerged that the team would not start work until 7 January. It will publish its report on 18 January, but that will be only a fortnight before the movement is to be completed. The planning will certainly be under way by then, so effectively, there is a fait accompli and the review has the appearance of a cosmetic job to endorse that.
The name of the chairman of the review team has been released, but the rest of the panel remain anonymous. We are told that that is because the panel is independent. However, how can we know that if we do not know who is on it? Will the Minister tell us who the people are, why the review will start so late, and its terms of reference? I sincerely hope that my scepticism about the review will be unfounded and that it will serve a useful purpose. If it is too late to stop the transfer, the panel could set down a programme to restore accessible services to Hemel Hempstead or St. Albans within a firm timetable.
There is even more serious concern in my constituency that the move of the women's and children's services may not only prove permanent, but be a prelude to the downgrading of Hemel Hempstead General hospital and the loss of its accident and emergency services. We fear that because we have been here before; in the mid-1980s, the maternity unit at St. Albans City hospital was merged with, and moved to, Hemel Hempstead because, we were told, it had a high risk of perinatal mortality. The subsequently published figures did not demonstrate that, but by then it was too late.
We were told that the move was a one-off. Not so: it was a precursor to the merging of the accident and emergency units and acute services, which also moved to Hemel Hempstead from St. Albans. I strongly opposed the merger, as did most local people and all parties, but it was unanimously supported by the consultants, who argued that the merger would lead to an improved service.
The merger went ahead. Ever since then, I have challenged the health authority to publish figures showing whether the service has improved. It has refused. I have asked Ministers to carry out a study of similar mergers across the country to demonstrate whether they have raised clinical standards. They, too, have refused.

295WH
We fear remorseless centralisation in the national health service. We could accept it more readily if it were based on evidence, but if that evidence exists, it has not been published. The real reasons for the merger are the supposed cost savings, which rarely materialise, and bureaucratic empire-building, which materialises all too often. We fear that the change will be permanent, not temporary. It will lead ultimately to the loss of all major acute and accident and emergency services at Hemel Hempstead, and their transfer to Watford General hospital.
Let us consider the short, medium and long-term. In the short term, we must be sure that the move is truly necessary. We must be assured that all options have been properly considered, including transferring qualified staff, increasing the unit's budget and staff complement, and making more strenuous efforts to recruit staff. We have little faith in the proposed review, which purports to be independent although it was set up by a Minister. The review is mostly anonymous and started work too late. It looks more like a whitewash than an objective inquiry. None the less, we hope that the review will be of some use, but if it is not, we must look to the medium term.
Our medium-term objective is to receive a firm commitment to restoring maternity and related services accessible to people in Harpenden, Redbourn, Sandridge, Wheathampstead and St. Albans. That means bringing those services back either to Hemel Hempstead or to St. Albans. That is the least that we will accept from the review.
If there is a proven case for specialisation and larger hospitals, the only satisfactory long-term solution is a super hospital accessible from Harpenden, St. Albans, Hemel Hempstead, Watford, and the area between those four places. None of the existing hospital sites are large enough or accessible enough to fulfil that role and house a first-class specialist hospital covering West Hertfordshire.
We must not let services implode into one of the existing sites, like a black hole absorbing stars into a minute space of infinite density. It is all the more essential to avoid that, given the current review of hospital services in Hertfordshire. At present, there are no hospitals with specialist standing in Hertfordshire that serve the whole region, so a new super hospital in Hertfordshire would help us to prevent the county from being downgraded to an auxiliary of London and Cambridge.
I wait to hear the Minister's response, and ask her to give me assurances about the short, medium and long term. That would be the best Christmas present that my constituents, particularly future mothers, could receive, and I hope that they do.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) for raising such an important issue and for the way in which he has approached the matter on behalf of his constituents. Clearly, almost nothing is more important to people than the future of their hospital services, in particular those that relate to maternity, obstetrics, gynaecology and other services for women and their
296WH
families. I understand the local worry that will have been caused by the speed with which such decisions have been taken.
I am also aware that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue previously. He has asked a parliamentary question of a ministerial colleague about the urgent transfer of the service. I know that the way in which the decision became known has caused great worry to hon. Members, health service staff, community health councils in the area and local action groups. The residents of St. Albans and Harpenden became aware of the information by way of their local press. I emphasise that the decision to transfer the special care baby unit from Hemel Hempstead to Watford General hospital is clinical. It is not financially driven, but is a response to several adverse clinical incidents combined with acute difficulties in recruiting specialist paediatric nurses to the special care baby unit. That position led Hertfordshire Partnership NHS trust to declare the special care baby unit service at Hemel Hempstead hospital unsafe.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, clinical safety must be of the utmost importance when providing services to families in his area.The decision was made in the best interests of patient care and safety. Given the circumstances, the option to transfer the service to Watford general hospital was felt to be the most appropriate.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend's briefing may be a little out of date in that the Hunt inquiry was established to find out whether such claims— some of which may be founded on misinformation— are true. The Hunt inquiry was due to meet in January but, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, there has now been a fourth postponement until March of the movement of the special care baby unit. Perhaps those developments have not reached my hon. Friend's office, but she must not talk as if that action is a fait accompli— as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden described it. On the contrary, the decision is still very much under investigation.
Ms Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is important to say that the decision came about as a result of clinical safety issues and concern about adverse incidents, together with difficulties in recruiting paediatric nurses. Those difficulties are a matter of fact. The trust has set up several recruitment drives, but has been unable to recruit nurses to the unit. I understand that the cover required is about 16 whole-time equivalent paediatric nurses to sustain the number of beds that were in the special care baby unit, but at the moment it has about 6.45 equivalents. Clearly, there is a real problem. It is a fact that recruiting paediatric nurses to a place such as Hemel Hempstead is difficult, given housing costs and the salaries that are paid. Most people in the area would recognise that that has been a problem for a considerable time. Whether or not that issue is sufficient in respect of the decision to relocate the special care baby unit will be examined by the review. Recruitment problems have been an issue for the trust for some time.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend may be aware of the plan to have a 135-unit nurses home on site, so there will be no problem in the medium and long term.
Ms Blears: I am aware of that. Negotiations are continuing with English Partnerships to look into setting up a multi-storey residential development of 135 single cluster units to attract young nurses to the area. However, such developments will occur in 2003 and, as my hon. Friend said, we are talking about the medium term. I am explaining the reasons for the immediate decision that was taken, which will be the subject of review. I wish again to put it on the record that the decision was not financially driven. It is about safety, clinical issues and ensuring that, in the interim, the situation is managed safely so that we can reassure the people in the area that their families and babies are not at risk, and that the situation will continue to be managed as safely as possible.
I also want to set the issue in the context of the various reviews that are taking place. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about the need to ensure that the decision is temporary and not a fait accompli or a permanent decision. It is important that the matter is considered in the context of the review of services generally. Too often— I have personal experience of this— decisions have been taken that, as a result of subsequent events, almost inevitably become permanent. It is important, therefore, that the temporary decision is based on clinical safety and is not embedded by subsequent actions, from which it is extremely difficult to retreat. I am acutely conscious of the need to do that.
In Hertfordshire and south Bedfordshire, the need for strategic change in relation to acute services is recognised. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the possibility of a new super hospital is not on my agenda. We recognise the need for a review of services, but it is important that all such reviews are linked together. For example, any proposed permanent changes to acute children's services must be subject to formal public consultation with all its implications. People must be involved in the consultation and their views must be taken properly into account. It is important that decisions are made at local level to ensure that maternity provisions, in particular, and provisions for new-born babies are the most effective in terms of local needs. The proposals for maternity services in Hertfordshire also need to be considered in the context of two important developments in the national health service as a whole.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the current national review of links between maternity, gynaecology and other related services. The long-accepted view has been that, once a special care baby unit is moved, the maternity provision has to move. The obstetrics and gynaecology units also then have to move. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern that it is a salami-slicing process and that an initial decision can have many knock-on effects. A substantial number of services could be dramatically changed. It is important to mention that the national review is looking at the links between those various services. It aims to establish whether the accepted view that such services are inextricably linked— and cannot
298WH
under any circumstances be considered differently— is the right approach. In the context of that range of services, that would be a significant change.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the move toward centralisation and bigger services. Within the NHS generally, there is a view that some of those issues should now be reconsidered, that they are not automatically given and there may be different ways of organising services. As a result, more services could be provided safely, closer to people's homes and communities. It is difficult to strike a balance between safety and excellence, clinical quality and local access. However, it is important that we examine those issues and do not accept the idea that because they have been carried out in a certain way in the past, they must continue in that way indefinitely. We must therefore look at the long term and the national picture as well as the local picture.
We must also be aware that there is a large commitment from the Government to increase the number of midwives in maternity services in many local areas. Midwife-led units are extremely popular. They have had excellent outcomes, especially with low-risk births without complications. Local women certainly appreciate midwife services. We are on target to recruit a further 500 midwives by the end of next year, and an extra 2,000 midwives by the end of 2005. It is important to ensure that we not only recruit new midwives, but retain the existing midwives.
I want to deal with the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about funding for maternity care. The funding was recently announced as a result of the £100 million of capital investment nationally, but Hemel Hempstead did not receive its allocation. I understand how my hon. Friend could feel that that reinforced the permanent nature of the removal of maternity care services from Hemel Hempstead.
I firmly refute that position and say that West Herts community health NHS trust received £622,000 for Watford General hospital. There was an allocation of £240,000 for Hemel Hempstead general hospital. That allocation still exists; it has been deferred until 2002. That decision was made immediately before the decision to relocate the special care baby unit, so it would have been inappropriate to allocate the money to Hemel Hempstead. However, I am assured that that allocation has not been set aside. The money is still available, and has not been used elsewhere. Hemel Hempstead has not lost out with regard to those allocations— but any capital allocation will need to be supported by a robust revenue situation in the broader health economy.
As a period of change is under way, the allocation has been deferred until 2002–03.
Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister elaborate on that? One of her colleagues published a list of all of the sums, hospital by hospital. Hemel Hempstead received nothing, so it is interesting to learn of that £750,000. Has it been plucked out of thin air? If the hon. Lady possesses the power to magic money out of thin air, we would like her to exercise it more frequently.
Ms Blears: I do not have a magic wand, and I do not cast spells.
I am assured that the eastern region has had its allocation, and the figures are as I have stated— £622,000 for Watford, and £240,000 for Hemel Hempstead. However, because the decisions to institute the changes were made at the same time, the allocation of those sums has been deferred to 2002. This morning, I sought an assurance that that money is still provided for, and I received it. However, I understand that hon. Members might have seen that their hospital had no allocation, and that they might therefore have assumed that that was confirmation that the decision to move services was permanent, rather than temporary. The situation is still fluid; there is still an allocation for Hemel Hempstead general hospital.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to his constituents' concerns that there might be a proposal to move the maternity service from the QE2 to the Lister hospital. There are no plans to do that, at present— although a general strategic review of acute services is being conducted. I wish to reassure people who live in the area that there will be sufficient capacity for mothers-to-be and families to have access to high quality maternity services in the future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport problems such as congestion, and the time that it takes for patients to travel to the site of the alternative provision. I am aware of those problems. Discussions have taken place with the ambulance services in the area, and the midwifery service, to try to ensure that patients are informed of the preparations that they will have to make, should they need to travel those distances. They should be told how long the journey is likely to take, so that undue distress is not caused to people who are going into labour, who need swift access to a hospital.
300WH
There have been other discussions, in particular with the ambulance services, about what to do about the possibility of increased 999 calls from women who are going into labour, to ensure that the best possible service is provided.
The Dacoram primary care trust, and Harpenden and St. Albans primary care trust, are undertaking a feasibility study of the possibility of establishing low-risk maternity services provision in north-west Hertfordshire. That study is separate from the acute review that is also being conducted, and if it finds that it is possible to provide a midwife-led service in the area, that would benefit local people.
Concerns have been raised in the local media about the cost of the proposed transfer, and about whether resources might be wasted if the independent review panel were to change its decision after improvements had been made at Watford. I assure local people— and hon. Members— that the vast majority of those improvements would have been carried out in any event. We are not in the business of spending money unnecessarily: we are focussing on certain necessary safety improvements. If there are to be any permanent changes that affect maternity services and services for families in this area, they will be the subject of proper public consultation, so that all the people in the community who have raised proper concerns about those issues will have a full chance to get involved and make sure that they have their say on shaping services for the future. I hope that the independent review will be able to look at the proposals that have been made, and ensure that they are robust and properly reflect the clinical and safety concerns in that community. Those concerns must be given the highest priority, but must always be balanced with trying to ensure that services are as close to home and as accessible for local people as possible.

Children's Society
1 pm
Julie Morgan: I am pleased to have secured this short debate today, but I am sorry about the circumstances that have brought it about. My purpose in asking for the debate is to raise concerns about the Children's Society's decision to withdraw from Wales, and the deep feelings of anger and disappointment that that has produced, not only in Wales but in Westminster.
Early-day motion 443 has been signed by 74 Members of Parliament: only 26 of them are from Wales, and the rest are mainly from England. That shows the depth of concern about the work of the Children's Society in Wales and England. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) is replying to the debate today. The Children's Society's reputation is on the line, and it is therefore important that a Minister who has responsibilities in England should reply to the debate, as the issue affects England as well as Wales.
Before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in the voluntary sector. I was an assistant director of Barnado's. I worked with the Children's Society, with which we collaborated on different projects. I was a member of many multi-agency groups in which the Children's Society was involved.
Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned that the Children's Society is involved in multi-agency work. There is one such project in my constituency, which is working with children who desperately need help. Will she make an appeal for the Children's Society to reverse its decision on Friday, and get down to the difficult job of serving children in Wales?
Julie Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that the Children's Society reconsider its decision at its emergency trustees meeting on Friday. We know the importance of its work in Wales, and I am appealing to the society to change its decision.
The Children's Society has a long history in Wales. It began its work in 1887, initially to save children who could fall into moral danger from prostitution or crime. It has always worked closely with the Church in Wales. For many years, the Children's Society in Wales worked with disabled children, and found foster parents for vulnerable children. Subsequently, it moved into community work, and in the 1990s it stepped into a child-centred role running advocacy projects, which has been its main work.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that, in the 2002–03 portfolio, more than £100,000 was allocated for work in Gwynedd and Ynys Mon. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) would wish to associate himself with my remarks. Such advocacy work is desperately needed in Bangor and parts of Ynys Mon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make that point on
302WH
behalf of north-west Wales, as well as the rest of Wales, when she makes her case to try to persuade the board to reverse its decision when it meets on Friday.
Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will put the case for all the projects throughout Wales. I am very pleased that so many Members of Parliament are here to support me today.
There are 13 projects all over Wales. The eight advocacy projects were set up as a result of the Waterhouse report, and act as independent voices for some of the most vulnerable children in Wales. I am sure that we all remember the horrors described in the report. It is essential that the advocacy projects continue to be run by an independent body, such as a charity. Such a body should not be linked to the social services or the Assembly, and should give an independent view. The Children's Society runs the projects and provides an independent voice, but it is helped financially by local authorities and the National Assembly.
The charity is pulling the plug on the children it was set up to serve. Many of the advocacy partnerships still had years to run. No one is criticising the society's good work.
Mr. Wayne David: My hon. Friend will know of the project in the Caerphilly county borough area. I used to work in the youth service and know full well the excellent work that it does. Does she agree that it is highly regarded and is seen as an example of very good practice?
Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend is right. I know that the project is of a high standard. Indeed, at an event held by Community Care at the Hilton hotel last Thursday, the society's work in Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent won an award for innovation. There is no question about the quality of its work.
The community development projects are located in the valleys and west Wales, both of which are objective 1 areas, and in Powys, which was savaged by foot and mouth disease. Compared with England, Wales is a poor country. Does the charity intend to work only in areas where people are wealthy enough to give donations? It is inexplicable that it should withdraw from a poor area such as Wales.
We all understand that the society has financial problems.
Chris Ruane: To what extent does my hon. Friend think that responsibility for this dire situation and for the society's potential withdrawal from Wales rests with decisions taken by the board of trustees and the management? They went on a £12 million spending spree, but failed to appoint a fundraiser for two and a half years. How much responsibility should they shoulder?
Julie Morgan: There are problems with the financial management of the Children's Society, and I hope that the Welsh Affairs Committee will have an opportunity to go into that when it summons the managers to its meeting.
One of our greatest concerns is that the society reached its decision without consulting children, staff, partner agencies, local authorities, the Church or the

303WH
National Assembly. The society has pulled the plug with no warning and without attempting to ensure that provision continues. Jane Hutt, who is the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly, has made a statement that is worth repeating. She said:
"When the news that the society was pulling out of Wales broke, no application for grants was made by the Society to the National Assembly. We have not turned down funding for them, as no request was ever made. Before making the announcement that they were pulling out of Wales they should have come to the Assembly and discussed their concerns".
The society made no attempt to sort out the issue.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing time for this important debate. Does the behaviour that she has aptly described befit a charitable organisation?
Julie Morgan: Certainly not. Many of us respect the society's work, but we are concerned about its actions on this issue. It did not try to sort matters out before the crisis arose. It announced that it would withdraw, but made no attempt to secure services, yet it is supposed to be listening to children. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the society is supposed to be concerned about children, yet it was prepared to end services in Wales without trying to obtain more money. It did not even approach the Assembly, which was the obvious place to go. The chief executive, Ian Sparks, was given a column in Community Care magazine to explain the society's reasons. He said:
"We had no alternative but to withdraw from Wales".
It is a matter of great concern that he could say that when he did not ask for help to remain in Wales.
Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to amputate Wales from its work will damage the society's reputation beyond Wales, especially in its work in England? That will seriously affect its credibility when making representations in places such as this.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before I call Julie Morgan to continue her speech, I apologise to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) for not identifying him when he made his intervention. I say that for Hansard's sake.
Mr. David: Apology accepted, Mr. Winterton.
Julie Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). One of the reasons for having this debate in Westminster Hall is to highlight the fact that the Children's Society sets great store by its ability to influence Governments, and to point out that its actions in Wales will damage that influence in its work in England and Wales.
I applaud the efforts of the staff in trying to create a package that could enable services to continue. I am pleased that the Children's Society will hear from a small group of children and staff from Wales at an emergency meeting that the trustees are holding on Friday, which shows that they are finally being forced to listen. The voices from Wales were not heard when the society made its decision. Only one Welsh representative
304WH
was present when the decision was made. Three young people were there also, but none of them were from Wales.
I am concerned about a report in The Guardian this morning, which has been confirmed by the Children's Society. It says that the society will listen to two children and two members of staff on Friday on condition that there are no demonstrations or banners outside the society's London office.
Dr. Hywel Francis(Aberavon): Does my hon. Friend agree that the volunteers should be able to make representations, as they work hard to assist the society in Wales, especially in my constituency? I know that both Church and community organisations assist the society in its work.
Julie Morgan: Yes, and they do not have a voice. Two young people and two members of staff is the smallest number that could be asked to make representations. The society does not want people to demonstrate and is not prepared to let young people show their feelings. That reflects badly on the society, which seems to be stifling democratic debate.
The most objectionable aspect of the society's decision is that Wales seems to be dispensable. How is it possible, when a funding crisis hits a charity that covers England and Wales, for one arm of the organisation to be chopped off? I know that savings have been planned in England, but to penalise a whole country is objectionable. Why should Welsh children be discriminated against?
There are many issues related to the current situation in Wales. For instance, how can the Society's fundraising continue? I know that Ann Jones, Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd and Chair of the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, has written to the Charity Commission querying the legality of the society's fundraising in Wales. The situation is distressing and a mess, and I am interested to hear the Minister's views on it.
The Children's Society has the opportunity to change its mind on Friday. I hope that it will consider its reputation in respect of its operations in England as well as in Wales, and its influence on Government. I hope that it will reconsider its decision. I know that it has received many representations from all sectors of Welsh society and from people in England asking it to change its mind. I am appealing to the Children's Society to change its mind on Friday. I hope that it will do that and restore its credibility. It can then continue to influence Government policy and the Welsh Assembly's policy, as it has done in the past, and its valuable work can continue without this stain.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for raising the issue. I am also very impressed by the number of hon. Members in attendance. That signifies to me the depth of their concern and the importance of these issues not just to hon. Members but to their constituents throughout Wales. The House is sending a powerful message.

305WH
There can be no bigger priority for any of us than to try to improve services for children in need in general, and for looked-after children in particular, who comprise one of the most vulnerable groups of children in our society. In the past there has been poor management, inconsistent quality and a wide variation in the services available. My hon. Friend mentioned the Utting report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home, the Waterhouse report and the risks that children were exposed to when living away from home in the 1970s and 1980s. Those risks were seriously underestimated, and it is only in recent years that the experiences of thousands of children have come to light.
The Government seek to ensure that all children have the love, care and support that they need for the whole of their childhood, and that they are protected from abuse and neglect. We seek to ensure that the children for whom social services are responsible gain maximum life chances from education and other opportunities so that they manage to reach their potential. All my hon. Friends share those goals for children.
The voluntary sector, including the Children's Society, has for many years been a key partner in what the Government are trying to achieve. The quality protects programme in England and the children first programme in Wales, which have been very important, are examples of that. The Government have not sought to abrogate their responsibilities and push them on to the voluntary sector.
Working in partnership involves recognising that in many communities the voluntary sector is a more appropriate agency to deliver the priorities of Government. Working with local authorities, the voluntary sector can deliver innovation on the ground, which the Government are not in a position to do. We seek to gain the maximum added value from involving the voluntary sector, and that has been vital. That is why a large part of the programme under the £450 million children's fund is to be delivered deliberately through voluntary sector agencies, and why the role of organisations such as the Children's Society is so important in the delivery of Government priorities as a whole— not simply in Wales, but throughout all areas for which we are responsible.
In the review of the position of vulnerable children we highlighted the need to listen to children themselves. That has been at the heart of all the policies that we have developed. The Waterhouse report recommended that
"recourse to an independent advocacy service is available to any complainant or affected child who wishes to have it".
That was a fundamental decision. The Utting report made similar recommendations. As well as listening to children about what they want to happen, we should allow them to influence the development of policy itself. Sometimes the best and most creative solutions come from children's ideas, because they are at the sharp end and they know what works and what does not, and how services could be better organised. We all learn from children's input.
Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree with the view I have formed from listening to evidence, in sittings
306WH
of the Special Standing Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill, that the credibility of the Children's Society in purporting to speak for children in Wales will be seriously undermined if it goes ahead and withdraws from its work in Wales?
Ms Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's view on that matter, and I am sure that it will be reflected by other hon. Members, showing the depth of their concern for their communities, and particularly children. It is crucial that organisations not only speak for children but find out their views before doing so. Organisations should not be a proxy for children's views, but should be in touch with children so that the views they communicate are a true reflection of the situation in communities. That is a priority for us.
Advocacy is important; local authorities plan to spend £9 million this year on advocacy schemes. I think that £750,000 is being spent in Wales this year on schemes such as those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). The voluntary sector has shown that it has the capacity and experience to provide the services in question. The my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was keen to stress that the quality of the Children's Society's services is not at issue, but that there is a need to ensure that those services continue to support young people.
In the past few years, the Children's Society has been a key partner, with the Government and local authorities in England and Wales, in making progress with some of our programmes. For example, last year it worked with more than 40,000 children and young people through 100 projects in England and Wales. The Government are currently funding, through section 64 project grants, three Children's Society projects in England, helping to improve children's participation. Those totalled £120,000 this year. I understand that there is also Youth Justice Board project funding of approximately £100,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was right to say that the Children's Society is very much involved in influencing Government policy and the development of projects. We would clearly want that to continue, but I certainly recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members from Wales about the continuation of the society's role in the present circumstances.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister has expressed the concern of people in Wales and their representatives about the society's decision. Does she believe that the Children's Society is wrong to decide to cut Wales off from its work?
Ms Blears: Decisions made by charities are matters for their trustees. We have a concordat on work with the voluntary sector and charitable organisations, which makes it clear that charities and voluntary organisations are independent bodies. Sometimes the added value that they bring to Government programmes is due to that independence and to responsiveness to certain factors, which national statutory organisations may not have. Their independent status and diversity are valuable.
Although the matter is for the trustees, I can record my concern at the decision. The Prime Minister has also said that it was disappointing. He is aware that discussions are going on and hopes that they will be

307WH
satisfactorily concluded. It is important that hon. Members have raised the matter before the meeting due to take place shortly, at which the matters will be considered. Trustees are legally an independent body and must arrive at decisions in the appropriate legal framework, but they are also partners in Government policy and projects and must be aware of the atmosphere in which they carry out their partnership work on projects that are important to the Government.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Given my hon. Friend's long experience and the way in which she has responded to the debate, does she agree that, as the Children's Society did not approach the National Assembly for Wales for additional funding, maybe— I emphasise the word "maybe"— it had been planning the amputation for a long time?
Ms Blears: I am not in a position to comment on what was in the mind of the Children's Society. I know that it has had a financial deficit for some time, and that it needs to take steps to address that, which it is doing.
The policy responsibility for children's services in Wales rests with the National Assembly, and Jane Hutt, the Minister responsible, expressed her disappointment with the Children's Society's decision. She wrote jointly with the Archbishop of Wales to the society seeking an assurance that it would support the efforts of staff in establishing a new charity in Wales to ensure that the services continue.
The National Assembly has also asked Children in Wales, the umbrella organisation responsible for voluntary and statutory sector interests in Wales, to establish a taskforce to secure practical arrangements to ensure that the services provided by the Children's Society continue to be provided. That taskforce will report early in the new year. The Children's Society has decided to consider its services from July next year, so some interim arrangement is needed to ensure that all services are not withdrawn immediately, as that would mean that the taskforce had nothing to continue with until July. That is an important consideration.
The taskforce is chaired by Christine Walby, who is a trustee of Children in Wales and an honorary research fellow at the university. The taskforce includes representatives of service user interests, the Children's Society staff group, local authorities that sponsor projects, the Assembly and the Church in Wales. It is also vital that children are heard in the process of drawing up the taskforce and making sure that it gets its priorties right.
I hope that the Children's Society's trustees give careful consideration to all the representations made by hon. Members. I am sure that communities are also
308WH
making representations, along with those who have been involved in the society's services over the past few years. The Children's Society must hear from a wide range of people who are concerned and have been involved in projects on the ground, and I urge the society to ensure that its decision making is as open and transparent as possible. I understand that the society faces difficult financial circumstances in ensuring that projects continue.
Mr. Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a sad irony that the Children's Society recognises that it has two roles? First, it provides projects in Wales and England and, secondly, it has an advocacy or influence role. Everyone accepts the value of the projects, but the society's ability to communicate and influence is in question.
Ms Blears: It is my experience that the most effective lobbyists of Government, who influence the development of policy, are often also involved in projects. The best and strongest cases are made from the evidence that people find on the ground in communities. That combination of issues is, in my experience, the most powerful base from which change can come. Simply lobbying in isolation, without the links and routes to project work in communities, can be far less powerful than the combination of lobbying and project work.
The Children's Society has combined those things in the past. Doing so puts organisations in a strong position because, although both roles are valuable in themselves, they give added value when they are linked. Organisations can suggest to policy makers that they consider an idea, because they know from their real-life experience that it works, and that it enables people to have a voice and services to be developed in a direct and focused way. That link is important.
I hope that when the Children's Society trustees consider those matters they will listen to all the representations that have been made. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we hope for a satisfactory outcome from those discussions, one that ensures that children in England and throughout the United Kingdom are properly protected. Those children should be heard, and they should be able to influence and shape the services that we provide for their future.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I congratulate the Minister on her reply and congratulate so many Members from Wales on attending such an important debate. It has been a learning curve for the Chair as well.

Railtrack
1.30 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the implications for the railway system of Railtrack being put into administration. I take this opportunity to declare my interest. I hold minor shares in Railtrack, First Group and Eurotunnel, and am a frequent user of the Great North Eastern Railway service on the east coast route.
The shock waves felt when Railtrack was forced into administration are still reverberating around the railway industry. At a time when the Government are inviting private companies to bid for the public-private partnership contracts to run the London underground, the implications of forcing a solvent public limited company into administration are still being assessed. Under the new management and leadership of Steve Marshall as chief executive and John Robinson as chairman, Railtrack would have undertaken a number of savings this autumn, such as a redundancy programme. Those savings were made impossible by the administration procedure and, regrettably, delays on the railways have increased by 45 per cent. since 1 October 2001. It is worth noting that morale has collapsed among the management and employees, many of whom were shareholders.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and look forward to his reply on why the Government have stopped publishing monthly punctuality figures. The Minister could not admit that they had stopped publishing those figures and simply said that they would publish quarterly figures. That will not be sufficient to enable parliamentarians and others to monitor the huge and regrettable increase in delays.
The net effect of the Secretary of State's decision to force Railtrack into administration is a cost to the taxpayer of £2 million in administration fees and £3.5 billion in the loan facility that was drawn down. That has dented investors' confidence in investing in the railways in future, and has increased the public sector borrowing requirement well into 2002.
The future of the railways will depend heavily on the injection of private capital, especially through the 10-year transport plan. Of the total spending of £63 billion envisaged under that plan, £33 billion— over half— was due to come from the private sector. It will be more difficult, expensive and risky to raise that capital in future in view of the increased risk.
I welcome the opportunity to debate those issues and draw the Minister's attention to what appears to be a climbdown by the Secretary of State in Select Committee evidence given last week. He seemed to say that public-private partnership management contracts with London Underground to run three of the lines would not go ahead if the value for money and safety criteria were not met. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Government have taken that on board, and that those lines may stay in the public sector.
I regret the huge uncertainty about the future of the son of Railtrack, Railtrack's successor, which remains in the balance. Even today, we do not know what shape it will take.
310WH
I turn to a regrettable episode from which we must draw experience, while asking the Minister how the Government will learn their lesson. Many of us prize the role of the independent regulator, which has implications for transport, the health provisions that the House is considering and the Ofcom Bill, which it will consider. Do the Government intend to wave a magic wand to remove the rail regulator's independence and bring him under the Secretary of State's powers of direction?
I regret that the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will be further delayed because the new chairman wants to put his mark on it. Regrettably, the main result will be a deterioration in the railway system, a collapse in staff morale and a dip in performance. As I said, delays have increased since Railtrack went into administration, and the Government have used a regrettable procedure to prevent the SRA from publishing monthly figures.
In preparing for the debate, I consulted two train-operating companies that run services to and from North Yorkshire and have a connection with my constituency. I asked Virgin Trains whether the passenger timetable had been changed since Railtrack went into administration. Their representative confirmed that there had been no changes, but that completion of phase one of the west coast main line development, which will provide a 125-mph service, will slip from September 2002 to May 2003. He said:
"Talks continue on the future of Phase 2 which would have provided 140 mph in 2005."
Railtrack will have to pay considerable penalties as a result. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is deeply regrettable, and he may care to tell us what the penalties are. He might also like to comment on whether the delay would have happened if Railtrack had continued as a company in its own right rather than going into administration.
The representative of Virgin Trains concluded:
"Punctuality remains a problem and Railtrack is currently responsible for about 75 per cent. of our delays, against a norm of about 50 per cent.
Having said all this, Railtrack has now completed 68 per cent. of the Phase 1 work, our first new trains have been delivered and I am confident that passengers will soon be riding on the pilot services."
I was fortunate enough to receive a reply from the chief executive of GNER, who also says that the timetable has not been altered as a result of the administration process. However, I have travelled north by train for the past four weekends and I have suffered an average delay of 40 minutes, which was not the case when the system was recovering after the events of Hatfield and, most recently, Great Heck.
GNER's chief executive says that all the train-operating companies are worried about Railtrack's morale, and about how we can ensure senior management's continuing involvement and support. He says that Railtrack and its administrators, Ernst and Young, plan
"to bring forward some sort of incentive arrangement ensuring that the senior management and others in Railtrack stay totally committed to the business during this very busy period."

311WH
He concludes:
"Clearly there is a difficult balance to be struck between wanting to get the right solution for Railtrack and not rushing into a fudge. On the other hand, if it drags on for ages it would be disastrous for the railway industry in terms of falling morale."
Everyone— this is an apolitical point— hoped and expected the Government to aim for an 80 per cent. increase in rail freight by 2010, and they did. However, they will not achieve that, because Railtrack has gone into administration and because of the new security arrangements at the Channel tunnel. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government expect to meet that target.
The Minister may also want to comment on today's news that the Government, who are having difficulty finding a replacement management team, have now approached John Prideaux, an ex-senior manager of British Rail, to act as interim chairman. He joined Angel Trains and made a sizeable sum out of privatisation, for which I am sure the Minister would applaud him. The press has suggested today that the approach shows the Government to be duplicitous, as they have said that they do not want fat cats to operate companies such as Railtrack, but have turned to someone who is much more of a fat cat than the existing executives.
The cost of administration has run to £1.2 billion in the past two months, which has been largely composed of £450 an hour for the senior administrator and £350 an hour for the others. One wonders why we are Members of Parliament and not administrators. One or two years could be taken up with administration, which was surely not the Secretary of State's expectation. Ernst and Young now says that £3.5 billion will be required by the end of March, and the Railtrack group has said that that sum includes several costs that would not have been incurred if the Secretary of State had not forced its subsidiary into administration. That £3.5 billion includes £118 million of losses on the close-out of interest rate swaps, £79 million provided for utility companies such as electricity firms, and £50 million on professional fees. Those figures are worrying, and the Minister needs to tackle them.
Another worrying development in today's reports in the press relates to safety. Will the Minister explain why on earth the Secretary of State insisted that a new provision be added to the Cullen declaration before he was minded to sign it yesterday? It will push back the date of entry of the automatic braking system beyond the 2010 date originally intended by Lord Cullen. That development is highly regrettable, and we all deplore it. Why did Ministers refuse to guarantee to meet Lord Cullen's 2010 deadline for high-speed trains to have automatic train protection when they have made a commitment to do so on many occasions in the House?
There appears to be some confusion about the status of Railtrack. In reply to a written question, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reported:
"Railtrack is a private sector company. During administration it will continue to be classified to the private sector in national accounts. Its debts will be recorded as a financial liability in the balance sheet of the private corporations sector."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 694W.]
312WH
The Minister will be aware that a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is the official Opposition's spokesman on such issues, drew the following reply from the Government:
"On 5 October 2001 provisional advice was given, based on the provisional information provided, that borrowing by RenewCo.… would be classified as public sector borrowing".— [Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 207W.]
Will the Minister confirm that that is why his Department failed to bring Renewco into being? That sole omission— that failure to act— was probably the decisive reason why Railtrack went into administration.
There was an important exchange of letters between Sir Alistair Morton, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who wrote on 1 October, and Sir Richard Mottram, permanent secretary in the Department, which exonerated the SRA of any responsibility for failing to bring Renewco into effect. Will the Minister confirm that that was a regrettable decision, and could be one reason why the Secretary of State brought Railtrack into administration?
I deplore the uncertainty for the rail industry, all the parties involved and the railway system caused by the Secretary of State's actions, but we must be positive and move forward. Will the Minister say what shape the successor body— son of Railtrack— will have? How long will Railtrack be left in administration? Will its successor be a company limited by guarantee, or will the Secretary of State confirm that private bidders will be eligible?
Shareholders and parliamentarians have a common interest in holding the Secretary of State to account for his actions. I deplore the fact that we were unable to receive many of the documents needed to throw light on how Railtrack was brought into administration. I refer to the recent legal action brought by the Railtrack shareholders' action group, whose lawyers asked the Secretary of State for documents relating to legal claims over his decision to force Railtrack into administration. They say that they have been hampered in their attempts to obtain all relevant facts, most notably by the Secretary of State's inconsistent account of events.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that he will give a positive, forward-looking account and say that Railtrack's period in administration was deeply regrettable and will not last longer than six months. I hope that we will today find out the shape of Railtrack's successor.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. It allows us once again to run through the issues, and I am always pleased to do that. It is your imperative, Mr. Winterton, to ensure that Ministers give full and clear answers to questions, and I shall endeavour to do that.
I was perusing the Yorkshire Evening Press of 28 November, in which the hon. Lady complained that a written answer that I had sent to her was not clear enough. She said:
"I asked a simple question about what is a very important subject. What I expected in return was a simple answer."

313WH
It appears that the hon. Lady did not understand the answer. If at any time today she does not understand what I am saying— if she wants me to slow down or stop— I should be happy to assist her.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Lady does not understand what I am saying, I shall certainly give way.
Miss McIntosh: As the Minister has referred to the written answer, perhaps he would explain the difference between sections 26 and 26(c) of the Railways Act 1993.
Mr. Jamieson: If one of the hon. Lady's bright young advisers— provided with the help of the Short money that a Labour Government generously voted through— cannot help her with her query, I should be happy to refer her to my officials, who could talk through those important matters with her.
The hon. Lady asked a few important questions. I shall give a generic view of Railtrack and the future of the railways. She said that Railtrack was forced into administration. Railtrack attended the hearing, but did not oppose the order. Perhaps the hon. Lady— a shareholder herself— would like to reflect on why the order was not opposed.
Miss McIntosh: I am surprised that I am not on the Government Benches and the Minister is not on the Opposition Benches, as I am answering all the questions.
It is clear that Railtrack did not oppose the petition because the Secretary of State had prepared orders that would have prevented the rail regulator from applying for an interim review. It is complete nonsense to suggest that Railtrack could petition the court; it could not.
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful that one of the shareholders of the company has put on record why Railtrack did not oppose the order. I understood that the company could have opposed it.
The hon. Lady said that morale has collapsed and that there has been a dip in performance. For many years— both before Railtrack existed and recently— we have tracked a dip in performance at this time of year. The quarterly figures give a better guide than monthly or daily performance figures.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Secretary of State's recent comments about PPP and London Underground. She said that the Secretary of State told the Committee on which the hon. Lady sits that PPP would not go ahead if it were not shown to provide value for money. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would question me if the Secretary of State had said the opposite— that PPP would go ahead regardless of whether it gave value for money.
The hon. Lady asked further questions on issues such as investor confidence. It is nonsense to suggest that what happened to Railtrack will deter future investment in private finance initiatives or public-private partnership initiatives. It may disappoint her to know
314WH
that a dozen or more leading banks are working with bidders to support our plans on a number of schemes. That may be bad news for her, but it is the case, so she can change her script from now on.
The hon. Lady asked about the regulator. As she knows, in other utility sectors, regulators have the dual role of balancing shareholder and consumer interests. That would not be the case if the company were under the limited guarantee model. The Government intend to introduce legislation to streamline the regulatory regime by creating a single strategic and economic regulatory body. I hope that that helps the hon. Lady. I assure her that any new body would be a non-departmental government agency and would be charged with developing and executing an industry strategy that was derived from our 10-year plan. The powers and responsibilities will be set out in legislation.
There has been considerable debate on Railtrack in recent weeks, but the railway is important to the general public and to frequent and regular users, such as me. I passed through the hon. Lady's constituency on a Great North Eastern Railway train yesterday— I did not stop because I was on my way elsewhere— and I am familiar with issues involved in railway use.
Let me make this clear from the outset: the Government are committed to the rail system. We pledged funding of more than £30 billion over the next 10 years to maintain and improve the network. That pledge stands, and nothing that has happened during the past few weeks changes that pledge in any way.
The decision to take Railtrack into administration was right and proper. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took no pleasure in submitting the petition to the High Court in October. I remind her of the judge's comments at the time. He made it clear in granting the petition that he considered the administration order to be
"not only appropriate, but absolutely essential."
That is probably why the order was not opposed at the time, contrary to the hon. Lady's comments.
We should not be in any doubt: Railtrack was a company that had failed totally to control its costs and deliver the service that was demanded by its customers, despite billions of pounds of extra investment from the Government. I thought that the hon. Lady shook her head when I suggested that Railtrack had not delivered the service demanded by its customers. If she is suggesting that Railtrack was delivering such a service before October this year, I will be interested to hear that because there has not been a substantial change over recent weeks.
Railtrack's proposal for additional assistance was for an open-ended funding commitment from the Government with no guarantee of improved performance. Without such assistance, the company was clearly insolvent, contrary to what the hon. Lady said. At that point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that enough was enough. He was not prepared to make such a commitment from the public purse.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clear about his duty to rail users and the taxpayer. He had to act. If he had not petitioned for a railway administration order, there was a real danger that the operation of the whole network would have been placed in jeopardy. Rightly, he was not prepared for that to happen.

315WH
It is vital that we use this opportunity to ensure that the future of the rail network is properly secured. In the meantime, the administrator's responsibility is to ensure that the company's railway-related activities are carried out on a business-as-usual basis, while preparing recommendations for the Government on how best to transfer Railtrack out of administration. We stressed our wish to the administrator that, during administration, safety and services for passengers and the position of employees should not be affected. Under section 59 of the Railways Act 1993, the administrator has a duty to manage the affairs, business and property of Railtrack plc for the achievement of the purposes of the railway administration order in a manner that protects the interests of the members and creditors of the company in railway administration. The Government are doing their bit by providing adequate funding to enable the administrator to discharge his responsibilities. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Vale of York suggested that, not only should we not have applied for the administration order, but now that the administrator is in charge of the company, he should not have sufficient funds to carry out the work. The railway system would collapse if the Government did not step in and provide the administrator with the funding that he needs.
The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for administration. Ultimately, that is a matter for the administrator. We share his hope that the process can be completed as quickly as possible. His initial estimate was that it could take up to six months to transfer Railtrack plc out of administration. It has become clear that the state of the company, combined with the time needed for bids to be formulated and considered and for a transport scheme to be approved, makes a six-month timetable practically impossible. I assure the hon. Lady that we share her worries that such matters should come out of administration at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way. We have little time left and it is only proper that I should answer the hon. Lady's questions. I am sure that I will be talking to the hon. Gentleman at another time.
The hon. Lady expressed her concerns about safety. I assure her that we remain committed to keeping safety paramount and at the heart of our policies for revitalising the railways. Railtrack plc, in administration, remains responsible for the safety of the rail network. The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with both Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety is maintained. Alan Cooksey, the Health and Safety Executive's former
316WH
deputy chief inspector of railways, has been recruited by the administrator to ensure that technical issues are given proper and expert consideration while the company remains in administration. Furthermore, no train operating company has raised safety concerns with the HSE since Railtrack was taken into administration.
It is true, as the hon. Lady said, that performance has worsened recently. Obviously, I am disappointed to see any increase in delays on the rail network, but I totally refute her suggestion that they are a result of Railtrack being taken into administration. I assure her that any dip in performance is a replication of what has happened in previous years. It is not due to the administration of Railtrack, but probably to more seasonal matters.
When the SRA publishes its passenger performance measure— the standard measure of rail performance—we will have a clearer understanding of the issue. The PPM will be published in due course, and 1 expect that any dip in performance will be no greater than that of recent years. The matter will be examined carefully, but the hon. Lady's allegations are premature in the extreme. That is not to say that we are complacent. We are working with the administrator, and will continue to discuss with him the best way in which to ensure that Railtrack delivers an improved performance while it remains in administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with the train operators and discusses such matters with them.
The hon. Lady referred to staff morale. Since the company went into administration, it is hardly surprising that the uncertainty has affected Railtrack staff. However, it would not be right or accurate to lay the blame on the staff for any delays, as she was suggesting. There are many dedicated, efficient and effective people in Railtrack and, while administration will no doubt have come as a shock to many of them, I am sure that they will work hard with the administrator to stabilise the company, will continue with its daily business and will keep its programmes moving forward. The railway business will continue. The country needs a rail network and good people to run it. The staff— both current and potential— can be sure that they have a secure future.
This has been another opportunity to set out many of the important issues that were raised by the hon. Lady. If she considers that some matters have not been covered today, perhaps she will jot me a note. I shall certainly respond to her expeditiously, clearly and in plain English. I cannot guarantee that it will be the Janet and John version of matters as they stand, but I shall give her a clear explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Dennis Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his officials next plan to meet the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. [21600]

  Peter Hain
  Whenever this is mutually convenient.

  Ministers are always ready to meet the Chief Minister. I had hoped that he would meet me while he was in London last month. The Secretary of State hopes to visit Gibraltar early in 2002. The Governor of Gibraltar meets the Chief Minister on a regular basis.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what alternatives to the Brussels Process are under consideration to ensure participation in talks on the future status of Gibraltar by the Government of Gibraltar. [21653]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 88–92WH. The Government believe that talks under the Brussels Process represent the best way to ensure a more secure, stable and prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the US Government on the future status of Gibraltar. [21655]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals to consult the people of Gibraltar consequent on the completion of negotiations between Spain and the United Kingdom in relation to the terms whereby the consultative process shall be concluded by a referendum. [20537]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Spanish Foreign Minister announced following their meeting held in Barcelona on 20 November, the British and Spanish Governments aim to reach by the summer of next year an agreement covering all outstanding issues between them over Gibraltar, including those of co-operation and sovereignty. A copy of the press communiqué has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Should a comprehensive agreement affecting sovereignty emerge from these Brussels Process discussions, HMG are committed to asserting the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as stated in the 1969 Order in Council establishing the Gibraltar Constitution. Since the result of such a referendum could trigger the introduction of a primary legislation in
  854W
  the UK, HMG will expect to oversee the organisation and timing of any such referendum, in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.

  Georgia
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Georgia concerning Russian aerial bombardment of Georgian territory in November. [22166]

  Peter Hain
  On 28 November the Georgian Deputy Foreign Minister briefed the British and other EU ambassadors about reported aerial bombardment in Georgia on 27 and 28 November. The Georgian embassy in London has also contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inquiries his Department has made into allegations by the Government of Georgia that Russian aircraft bombarded the Pankisi Gorge. [22167]

  Peter Hain
  We raised the matter with the Russian Government in Moscow on 4 and 7 December, and with the Georgian Government on 6 December. The Russian and Georgian Presidents have agreed to establish a joint commission to investigate the incident.

  Chechnya
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on Russian military action against Chechens located on the territory of other sovereign states of the former Soviet Union. [22168]

  Peter Hain
  We recognise that groups of Chechen fighters located in other states in the former Soviet Union pose a threat to regional security. But Russia must respect the territorial integrity of other sovereign states and not take unilateral military action. We have told the Russians that to do so would be unacceptable and would not solve Russia's security problems or promote regional stability.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on the post-conflict construction of strategic oil pipelines across Afghanistan. [22171]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government support multiple pipelines to create more secure, diverse energy markets, but decisions on individual pipelines are a matter for commercial judgment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of creating a stable, inclusive Government in Afghanistan; and what the British contribution to this effort will be. [21881]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have played an important role in encouraging the interested parties to agree at the Bonn Conference on 5 December, to a power-sharing government. We believe that this is the first step towards a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had a number of conversations
  855W
  with key figures to this end, the British Office in Kabul has engaged directly with United Front leaders, and a senior diplomat, Robert Cooper, attended the Bonn Conference. The Royal Air Force facilitated the travel of some of the delegates from Kabul.

  Council of Ministers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long in advance he receives agendas for meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. [21963]

  Peter Hain
  In accordance with the Council's rules of procedure, provisional agendas are drawn up by the presidency and sent to other members of the Council and the Commission at least 14 days before the beginning of each meeting of the Council of Ministers.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in 2001 towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target of contributing to the Government's target to reduce Civil Service sickness absence rates. [22587]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to reducing sickness absence by 20 per cent. (to an average of 6.5 days) by 2001. This figure was set against the 1998 baseline figure of an average of eight days. We now have a new reporting system in place, which allows us to monitor sickness absence in detail, and effectively manage individual cases. Figures for 2001 have not yet been collated, but early indications are that we are on course to meet the 2001 target.

  Departmental Staff (Absence)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21265]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following is the information:

  Average number of days sickness absence per staff year

  Year

  Days

  1997

  18.9

  1998

  18.0

  1999

  2n/a

  2000

  6.1

  1 Figures for 1997 to 1998 have been uplifted to account for different recording practices in different parts of the Department and its overseas Posts. These figures are based on the average number of days, including weekends, whereas later figures are based on the average number of working days only.

  2 Figures for 1999 could be provided only at disproportionate cost: the method of recording changed part way through 1999.

  We now have a new reporting system in place, which allows us to monitor sickness in detail and effectively manage individual cases. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to reducing sickness absence by 20 per cent. (to an average of 6.5 days) by 2001 and by 30 per cent. (5.6 days) by 2003. These figures were set against the 1998 baseline figure of eight days. Early indications are that we are on course to meet these targets.

WALES

  EU Structural Funds
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary about the role of EU structural funding in the National Assembly's economic development plan. [20045]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss economic development in Wales, among other issues.

  Training
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments and the First Secretary of the National Assembly on measures to improve access to training in Wales. [20046]

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about measures to improve access to training in Wales. [20063]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with ministerial and Assembly colleagues to discuss a range of issues.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced new measures in the Budget to improve access to training and enable employees to attain basic and level 2 skills.

  In addition, the National Assembly is committed to supporting and developing access to learning in Wales.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many households in Wales have benefited from the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [20048]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Inland Revenue estimates that 76,000 families were receiving this benefit at 31 May 2001.

  Innovation and Enterprise
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Ministers and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about steps to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales. [20049]

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Ministers and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about steps to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales. [20064]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues in Government and with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales, to discuss a range of issues, including innovation and enterprise.

  The Chancellor's recent pre-Budget report announced a number of measures which build on existing programmes to promote innovation and enterprise in Wales and across the UK. These include the extension of

  857W
  research and development tax credits to all UK companies and support for small businesses, which will benefit 140,000 small and medium enterprises in Wales.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussion he has had with the First Secretary on prospects for manufacturing growth through inward investment in Wales. [20050]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues including manufacturing and inward investment in Wales.

  Barnett Formula
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the method of calculating the Barnett formula. [20051]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Television Broadcasting
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the availability of free-to-air television programming throughout the whole of Wales. [20052]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have discussed the availability of free-to-air television with Assembly Ministers.

  I am aware that four channels are receivable by analogue terrestrial means from Welsh transmitters (BBC One Wales; BBC Two Wales; HTV Wales; S4C). About 98 per cent. of the population can receive these services. Alternatively, many households near the English border can receive services from England, including Channel 4 and Channel 5 (as well as English regional variants of the other channels). About 40 per cent. of the population live in areas where signals from England are being received. Two aerials are generally required in order to receive both Welsh and English signals clearly.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many statutory instruments dealing with Welsh matters have been passed by Committees of the House since devolution became effective; and if he will make a statement. [20053]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the responses I gave him at the Westminster Hall adjournment debate on 5 December 2001.

  Welsh Language
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Language Board regarding the use of the Welsh language by Westminster Government Departments and UK-level public bodies when providing services to people in Wales. [20054]
  858W
  Mr. Touhig
  None. This is a matter for the Welsh Language Board which is a National Assembly for Wales Sponsored Public Body.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the National Assembly for Wales regarding its review of the future of the Welsh language. [20055]

  Mr. Touhig
  This is a review by the Culture Committee of the Assembly. It is a matter for that Committee to conduct its investigation as appropriate, and so far there has been no approach to this office.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Health Secretary of the National Assembly regarding the length of waiting lists in Welsh hospitals. [20057]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Secretary and Health Minister to discuss a range of issues including the length of waiting lists.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about progress made in tackling child poverty in Wales. [20058]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including matters that affect children in Wales.

  The Government are tackling the causes of poverty, not just the symptoms to ensure all children are given the best start in life. They have pledged to halve child poverty by 2010 and end it by 2020.

  The National Assembly is seeking to complement UK measures with a range of polices and programmes designed to meet the specific circumstances and priorities of Wales.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the failure of Blaenau Gwent CBC to obtain objective 1 funding for the conversion of the Metropole theatre, Abertillery. [20059]

  Mr. Touhig
  The administration of structural fund programmes in Wales and individual project approvals under those programmes are matters for the National Assembly for Wales and its executive agency, the Welsh European Funding Office.

  Port Talbot Steelworks
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about workers' safety at Port Talbot steelworks. [20060]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues, including the steel industry in Wales.
  859W
  A single, combined investigation led by the Health and Safety Executive and also involving the police and Corus is currently under way. This combined approach will greatly reduce the pressure on those giving evidence, as their accounts will be taken by just one investigator.

  Corus has stated that the remainder of the Port Talbot plant is operating normally.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about progress made by the Government in reducing pensioner poverty in Wales. [20061]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including matters that affect pensioners in Wales.

  The UK Government are committed to developing policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity and which tackle pensioner poverty. New measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will benefit thousands of pensioners in Wales.

  The National Assembly is seeking to complement UK measures with a range of polices and programmes to tackle pensioner poverty in Wales.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions has he had with other Government departments about progress made by the Government in reducing pensioner poverty in Wales. [20036]

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about progress made by the Government in reducing pensioner poverty in Wales. [20041]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss a range of issues including matters that affect pensioners in Wales.

  The UK Government are committed to developing policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity and which tackle pensioner poverty. New measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will benefit thousands of pensioners in Wales.

  The National Assembly is seeking to complement UK measures with a range of polices and programmes to tackle pensioner poverty in Wales.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet small business leaders to discuss inward investment in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20062]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with business leaders in Wales to discuss a range of issues affecting their businesses.

  Inward investment makes a significant contribution to the Welsh economy by bringing in new products, new skills and new ideas. Since December 2000, Wales has
  860W
  attracted capital investment of £633 million, promising 5,346 new jobs and the safeguarding of 4,335 existing jobs.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many antisocial behaviour orders have been made in Wales. [20065]

  Mr. Touhig
  Four. The Minister of State with responsibility for crime reduction, policing and community safety, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), recently participated in a Wales-wide seminar to promote ASBOs. I anticipate that this well attended event will result in greater exchange of best practice and lead to an increase in the number of ASBOs being applied for in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Totnes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Totnes. [20077]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans at present to do so.

  Senior Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what new conditions an applicant will be required to agree to before appointment as(a) head of the Civil Service and (b) Cabinet Secretary. [20399]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 626W.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of(a) civilians and (b) members of military organisations killed in Afghanistan in the last two months; [22130]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bombing raids in Afghanistan did not hit their intended targets; and how many civilians he estimates have been(a) killed and (b) wounded by these raids. [21880]

  Mr. Hoon
  The coalition has from the outset of the campaign gone to very great lengths to minimise the risks to civilians from air strikes, which have been conducted against exclusively military targets. Although extensive battle damage assessment is routinely conducted after each strike, we cannot know for sure how many bombing raids may not have hit their intended targets, nor how many civilian casualties may have been caused as a result. While we investigate all such claims carefully, most cannot be verified.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel applications for a war pension from the War Pension Agency are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [22198]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 30 November 2001, there were 4,549 applications for a war pension outstanding from ex-services personnel.

  Prisoners of War (Far East)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the definition of British as it applies to civilian former prisoners of the Japanese differs from that applied to armed forces personnel. [22309]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Under the former Far East prisoners ex-gratia payment scheme, the eligibility criteria for former service personnel are based upon the unit in which an individual was serving. Hence the main eligibility criterion is to have been taken as a prisoner of war while serving with our armed forces. In addition, certain other former military personnel who were taken as prisoners of war while serving in the colonial forces, the old Indian Army, or the Burmese armed forces and who received compensation in the 1950s under UK auspices under Article 16 of the Peace Treaty with Japan are also eligible for the scheme.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the additional cost of extending his scheme of ex gratia payments to all surviving British passport holders and their spouses who were interned by the Japanese; [20321]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the numbers of surviving civilian internees of the Japanese and their spouses who do not qualify for payments under the rules of his scheme. [20322]

  Dr. Moonie
  No estimate has been made of the number of surviving civilians who were interned by the Japanese during the Second World War or of the number of them who were British passport holders at that time. We believe that the available data are too poor to be able to make such estimates.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pensions
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the President of the Council what provisions for hon. Members' pensions were in place in 1974; and what provisions there were in relation to former members of the armed forces in the House. [21491]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Pension provision for hon. Members is made from the Parliamentary Contribution Pension Fund, established by the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pension Act 1965. The provisions in place for hon. Members' pensions in 1974 were made under the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. This provided for pensions based on one-sixtieth of the final year's salary for each year of reckonable service on completion of a minimum of four years reckonable service when they retired on or after age 65. The Act also provided for a862W
  death in service lump sum, typically of one year's pay. Members were required to pay contributions of 5 per cent. of pay.

  No special provisions are made for former members of the armed forces in the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fuel Poverty Strategy
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Draft Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Material Substances Forming Part of the Telecommunications System) Regulation 2001 on the Government's fuel poverty strategy. [22357]

  Mr. Alexander
  Representations were received from manufacturers of energy saving devices operated by power line technology as part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment consultations in the summer of 2000.

  Powerline Technnology Industry
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the draft Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Material Substances forming part of the Telecommunications System) Regulation 2001 on the viability of the UK powerline technology industry. [22359]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department undertook widespread consultations on this matter in the summer of 2000. All representations have been taken into account in developing the Government's policy on this issue.

  Micro-CHP Boiler Systems
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has prepared a regulatory impact assessment on the impact of the draft Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Material Substances forming part of the Telecommunications System) Regulation 2001 on the introduction of micro-CHP boiler systems to the UK market. [22360]

  Mr. Alexander
  No representations about such boiler systems were received during consultations for the regulatory impact assessment carried out in summer 2000.

  Radio Interference
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints her Department has received about radio interference from products compliant with standard EN50065–1. [22274]

  Mr. Alexander
  There are none recorded.

  Unsolicited E-mail
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has undertaken into systems that allow people to opt out from receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail; and what evaluation she has made of their effectiveness. [20831]
  863W
  Mr. Alexander
  In response to proposed or adopted European legislation, my Department has consulted publicly on the effective regulation of unsolicited commercial e-mail on a number of occasions over the last few years. This consultation has covered existing and potential self-regulatory, co-regulatory and statutory approaches towards schemes for both opting in and opting out, but has not produced a consistent consensus in favour of one solution over another.

  Employment Tribunals (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment tribunal cases there were in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; and what was the total level of compensation paid. [22644]

  Alan Johnson
  It is not possible to tell from the database of the Employment Tribunals Service how many employment tribunal cases there were in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997, nor the respective total level of compensation paid.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the voluntary code agreement regarding the sale of fireworks. [21475]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) and for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 5 December 2001,Official Report, columns 305–06W.

  Manufacturing Industries
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of Government financial assistance is paid to manufacturing industries in(a) Worcestershire and (b) Herefordshire. [20655]

  Alan Johnson
  Businesses in Worcestershire and Herefordshire can be eligible for assistance under the smart scheme as follows:

  All SMEs (fewer than 250 employees)

  Exceptional Projects—up to 30 per cent. of eligible project costs to a maximum of £450,000.

  Development Projects—30 per cent. of eligible project costs to a maximum of £150,000.

  Technology Reviews—up to a maximum of £2,500.

  Technology Studies—up to a maximum of £5,000.

  Small Enterprises (fewer than 50 employees)

  Feasibility Studies—75 per cent. of eligible project costs to a maximum of £45,000.

  Small Enterprises (fewer than 10 employees)

  Micro Projects—50 per cent. of eligible project costs up to a maximum of £10,000.

  SME businesses in certain local authority wards in Herefordshire and Worcestershire may be eligible under the enterprise grant scheme for grants of up to £75,000 or 15 per cent. of eligible project costs for projects involving fixed capital expenditure of up to £500,000.
  864W
  Herefordshire
  Backbury; Bateman; Berrington; Bircher; Border; Bringsty; Broad Oak; Bromyard; Burghill; Burmarsh; Butterley; Castle; Cradley; Creden Hill; Dinmore Hill; Doward; Eardisley; Fownhope; Frome; Frome Vale; Garron; Golden Cross; Golden Valley; Gorsley; Hagley; Hampton Court; Harewood End; Hatfield; Hegdon; Hergest; Hollington; Hope End; Kingsland; Kingsthorne; Kington Town; Leadon Vale; Ledbury; Ledbury Ward (DET NO1); Leintwardine; Leominster North; Leominster East; Leominster South; Lyonshall with Titley; Mansel; Marcie Ridge; Merbach; Mortimer; Olchon; Old Gore; Pembridge; Penyard; Pontrilas; Pyons with Birley; Ross-on-Wye East; Ross-on-Wye West; Stoney Street; Thinghill; Tram Inn; Upton; Walford; Weobley; Whitfield; Wilton; Wye.

  Worcestershire
  Bayton and Mamble; Cofton Hackett; Kyre Vale; Lindridge; Martley; Temeside; Tenbury Town; Uffdown; Vale of the Teme.

  In addition, businesses in the wards of Cofton Hackett and Uffdown in Worcestershire may be eligible under the regional selective assistance scheme for grants of up to 20 per cent. of eligible project costs for projects involving eligible costs of more than £500,000. The minimum level of grant is £75,000. SMEs may be eligible for a supplement to the 20 per cent. aid ceiling.

  Since 1 April 2000 to date grant has been paid to businesses in Herefordshire and Worcestershire as follows:

  £

  Smart

  657,000

  Enterprise grant

  32,000

  RSA

  232,000

  Food Supplements Directive
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications for trade with(a) the United States of America and (b) other non-European Union countries of the forthcoming EU food supplements directive. [21692]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Officials have looked into the trade implications of the forthcoming EU food supplements directive. In negotiations the Government argued for a safety based approach to regulation of these products that ensured any adverse impact on trade was kept to a minimum. We have received no adverse comments from the US or other non-EU countries about the trade implications of the directive.

  Mobile Phones (VAT)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the rates of VAT are in each EU member state on mobile phone(a) handsets and (b) services. [21555]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the topic is published by the European Commission in a document entitled "VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the European Community" (DOC/2905/2001), a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Ethnic Minority Business Forum
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has responded to the Ethnic Minority Business Forum's report to her of 18 September. [23033]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have today put a copy of my response to the Ethnic Minority Business Forum's report in the Library of the House.

  The Government welcome the report and look forward to working with the Ethnic Minority Business Forum to ensure that our policies and business support address the needs of ethnic minority businesses.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many person days per annum safeguards inspectors from(a) Euratom and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency have spent at Sellafield since December 1993; if she will list the facilities inspected; and if she will list the reports arising from the application of safeguards at Sellafield over this time. [19886]

  Mr. Wilson
  The safeguards provisions of the Euratom Treaty apply to all civil material in the UK and the Euratom Safeguards Office therefore inspects all parts of the BNFL Sellafield facility where such material is located. Since 1994 these inspections have involved between 1,400 and 1,750 person days of inspection each year. Reports on Euratom Safeguards Office activities are published periodically by the European Commission, most recently in July of this year (report reference COM(2001)436 final, accessible at the website of the European Parliament—Department of Trade and Industry Explanatory Memorandum 11669–01 refers).

  In addition to ongoing Euratom Safeguards Office inspections, civil material at UK nuclear facilities is subject to the terms of the tripartite safeguards agreement between the UK, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under which the IAEA designates certain civil UK nuclear facilities, or parts of them, for inspection. In the period in question, the IAEA has chosen to inspect the following parts of the BNFL Sellafield facility: the THORP Fuel Receipt and Storage area, the Special Nuclear Materials Store 9, the Oxide Fuel Storage Ponds, and the THORP Plutonium Store. The number of person days of inspection effort involved in these inspections has reduced from some 290 per year in 1994 to about 190 in 2000—reflecting moves by the IAEA to focus its efforts on the facility's major plutonium storage areas. Reporting on IAEA safeguards activities is included in the IAEA' s Annual Reports (accessible at the IAEA' s website).

  Venture Capital Funds
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 29 November 2000,Official Report, column 1039–40W, on venture capital funds (RDAs), which companies SEEDA has invested in using the regional venture capital funds. [22330]

  Alan Johnson
  Regional Venture Capital Funds (RVCFs) are being established to ensure that appropriate small businesses in each of the English regions are able to access equity based finance in amounts below £500,000 866W
  and to demonstrate to institutional investors that robust returns can be made in this sector. All RVCFs will be commercially focused and experienced private sector fund managers will make all investment decisions.

  Following a competitive bidding process a SEEDA sponsored proposal to establish a fund in the south-east region received a conditional offer of support from the Small Business Service (SBS). The fund in the SEEDA region is expected to begin investing in spring 2002.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the gender pay gap in the private sector for women in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment; [21780]

  (2) if she will publish the most recent figures to show women's mean hourly earnings as a proportion of men's broken down by occupation. [21777]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Vernon Coaker, dated 12 December 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the earnings of women compared to men. (21777, 21780).
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide hourly earnings data for full-time and part-time employees, broken down by gender. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy. In the attached table, data has been provided for average hourly earnings for males and females and female earnings as a proportion of male earnings by occupation and for the private sector. These are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

  Average hourly earnings1 of men and women and women's hourly earnings as a proportion of men's hourly earnings by occupation and in the private sector by full-time and part-time2

  Men (£)

  Women (£)

  Proportion

  All occupations3

  11.26

  9.13

  0.81

  Managers and administrators

  17.80

  12.83

  0.72

  Professional occupations

  16.44

  14.98

  0.91

  Associate professional and technical occupations

  13.78

  10.96

  0.80

  Clerical and secretarial occupations

  7.47

  7.28

  0.97

  Craft and related occupations

  8.41

  6.13

  0.73

  Personal and protective service occupations

  8.60

  6.19

  0.72

  Sales occupations

  9.04

  6.45

  0.71

  Plant and machine operatives

  7.43

  5.83

  0.78

  Other occupations

  6.41

  5.22

  0.81

  Private sector

  Full-time

  11.16

  8.50

  0.76

  Part-time

  7.14

  6.09

  0.85

  1 Earnings are for employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence and exclude overtime.

  2 Great Britain, April 2000, not seasonally adjusted.

  3 The earnings data by occupation is for full-time employees only.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey.

  Enterprise Grant Areas
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the results of the review of enterprise grant areas; and if she will make a statement. [21783]
  867W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The enterprise grant scheme is being considered as part of the wider review of DTI business support. Any further changes to the geographical coverage of the scheme will not be decided until after the end of the wider review.

  Standing Committee on Regional Affairs
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will table a motion under Standing Order No. 117(6) to refer(a) the progress made by regional development agencies in fulfilling their
  868W
  objects, (b) the role of regional chambers in scrutinising RDAs, (c)
  the contribution made by RDAs in addressing strategic transport issues, (d) the progression made with economic regeneration of EU Objective 1 regions, (e) the issues and concerns raised about the forthcoming Regional White Paper and (f) other matters, to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. [19266]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  A motion was agreed by the House on 5 December that the Committee meet to discuss 'Regional Governance in England' on 18 December.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railtrack
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 276W, on Railtrack, if he will place in the Library advice he has received on contingency plans if the Company Limited by Guarantee fails to achieve a credit rating of A/A2. [19190]

  Miles of rails replaced per year by Railtrack Zone and nationally

  Zone

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Southern

  57.6

  53.6

  85.2

  55.3

  31.5

  32.1

  49.2

  54.3

  45.4

  21.3

  31.4

  Great Western

  19.1

  29.1

  28.4

  47.7

  22.6

  12.7

  32.7

  30.1

  29.2

  48.2

  36.7

  Midlands

  36.7

  24.4

  12.8

  28.0

  23.4

  19.6

  16.8

  32.2

  39.1

  31.2

  31.0

  North West

  50.3

  47.0

  43.3

  21.8

  23.3

  10.4

  42.5

  11.1

  19.0

  15.8

  13.7

  London North Eastern

  52.0

  18.5

  28.2

  38.6

  35.6

  19.3

  26.9

  36.0

  28.5

  39.7

  81.3

  East Anglia

  12.6

  11.5

  13.9

  7.4

  11.9

  10.4

  17.9

  16.9

  20.3

  23.3

  24.9

  Scotland

  8.4

  5.3

  11.3

  7.6

  2.5

  4.7

  10.9

  8.9

  25.4

  30.6

  29.5

  National

  236.7

  189.4

  223.1

  206.4

  150.8

  109.2

  196.9

  189.5

  206.9

  210.1

  248.5

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions he has met the Railtrack administrator since 7 October. [21942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials meet him regularly and report to Ministers.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has held with the Treasury on the treatment of Railtrack while in administration in the national accounts. [22066]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: My Department discusses a range of issues with the Treasury. They include the possible treatment of Railtrack plc in the national accounts.

  Roads
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road schemes costing more than £5 million were commissioned between 1992 and 1997. [21496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Work started on 70 local and 76 trunk major road schemes between the financial years 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed restrictions on railways there were for each month between January 2000 and November 2001(a) in total, (b) subdivided by zonal area and (c) subdivided by train operating company area. [21036]
  870W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The credit rating of the proposed Company Limited by Guarantee would depend upon its structure and financial framework.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total length of track on the rail network which has been replaced was(a) in each month between January 2000 and November 2001 and (b) in each year between 1990 to 2001 (i) in total, (ii) subdivided by zonal area and (iii) subdivided by train operating company area. [21039]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table from Railtrack shows for each calendar year between 1990 and 2000, the annual totals of rails replaced nationally and by Railtrack Zone. I understand that data are not available according to calendar month or train operating company area.

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack reports that the number temporary speed restrictions in place across its network in Great Britain for each month was:

  Number

  October 2000

  504

  November

  626

  December

  1,100

  January 2001

  1,045

  February

  964

  March

  1,188

  April

  908

  May

  779

  June

  773

  July

  742

  August

  753

  September

  696

  October

  675

  November

  659

  Note:

  Prior to October 2000 national figures were not compiled

  These national figures cannot meaningfully be broken down into the areas covered by each train operating company area because the services of many train operating companies overlap. Individual speed restrictions will often affect the trains of several operators all using that line.

  District Line
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money has been spent on repairs and renewals on the District line in each of the past six years. [20124]
  871W
  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. London Underground, however, advise that the following has been spent on repairs and renewals on the District Line:

  £ million

  1996–97

  47.4

  1997–98

  49.5

  1998–99

  64.4

  1999–2000

  61.5

  2000–01

  77.5

  Reliable data for 1995–96 are not available.

  Rents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage real terms increase in each year he predicts for formula rents for(a) registered social landlords and (b) council tenants in Barnet until 2011. [20837]

  Ms Keeble
  We estimate that council rents in Barnet would rise by an average of 1.6 per cent. in real terms in 2002–03 and 2.2 per cent. a year in real terms thereafter until 2011–12 if rents are adjusted in line with our proposals. Over the period 1991–92 to 2001–02, council rents in Barnet rose on average 2.5 per cent. a year in real terms. Estimates for future years are based on property valuations and other data provided by the London Borough of Barnet which may be subject to amendment. The figures for 2003–04 and later years may also be adjusted as a result of Spending Reviews.

  We do not hold data on the registered social landlord rents at the individual authority level. Nationally, our rent restructuring proposals would result in RSL rents rising by RPI plus 0.5 per cent. a year until 2011–12. This figure is subject to periodic reviews by the Housing Corporation.

  Manchester International Airport Group
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what proportion of residents from each English region travelled from airports in the Manchester International Airport Group in the last year for which estimates are available; [21427]

  (2) what proportion of residents of the North West Region travelled from airports in the Manchester International Airport Group in the last year for which estimates are available. [21428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures are not available in the form requested. The information that is available about the use of UK airports relates to the number of passenger journeys made to and from each airport, and not to the number of individual passengers who use each airport. The number of passenger journeys is as follows.
  872W

  Arrivals and departures of UK residents at the Manchester International Airport Group1 by region of residence of passenger: 1999–20002

  Thousand

  Standard region

  Passenger journeys

  North

  555

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3,785

  East Midlands

  1,787

  East Anglia

  33

  South East

  450

  South West

  275

  West Midlands

  1,218

  North West

  7,118

  Region unknown3

  739

  England

  15,960

  1 Manchester, Bournemouth, East Midlands and Humberside airports.

  2 Figures for Manchester and Bournemouth airports are for 2000, those for East Midlands and Humberside are for 1999.

  3 This relates to journeys where the relevant information was not collected from the passenger.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement about the local finance settlement for the London borough of Havering. [21431]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We announced the provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 to the House on Tuesday 4 December 2001. Havering will receive £202.869 million in their provisional Standard Spending Assessment for 2002–03, an increase of £10.357 million (or 5.4 per cent). This translates into £143.003 million in provisional grant for 2002–03, an increase of £7.605 million (or 5.6 per cent). These increases are on a like for like basis, adjusted for changes in functions. The final settlement will be announced early in the new year.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1067W, on council tax benefit, for what reasons the announcement on the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme has not been made; and if he will hold consultations for this year's settlement for Poole unitary authority. [22338]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have announced the abolition of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme with effect from 2002–03 in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services."

  My officials sent a consultation paper on the local government finance settlement for 2002–03 to local authorities on Tuesday 4 December. Under the proposals, Poole unitary authority receives an increase in general grant of £2.9 million, or 4.4 per cent. The covering letter to the consultation paper invited local authorities to make written representations on the proposals in time for them to be received by Thursday 10 January.

  Private Landlords
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to allow local authorities to register private landlords; and if he will make a statement. [21781]
  873W
  Ms Keeble
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 284W.

  Regional Government
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what consultations he has had with the National Assembly for Wales when preparing the forthcoming White Paper on regional government in England. [22074]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The White Paper will be about regional governance in England. However, meeting in Cardiff on 30 October 2001, the annual plenary meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (which brings together Ministers of the UK Government and of the devolved Administrations) noted the progress on the Government's White Paper on English regional governance. The devolved Administrations expressed their support for extending the benefits of devolution where there was a regional demand for this, and offered to assist the process based on their experience of devolution to date.

  The National Assembly for Wales will be consulted in the usual way on any issues arising in or from the White Paper which will affect its responsibilities or operations.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the role of regional development agencies has been considered in the preparation of the White Paper on English regional government. [22061]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The role of the regional development agencies is being considered in the preparation of the White Paper.

  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment has been made of devolution in other EU member states when preparing the forthcoming White Paper on regional government in England. [22060]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are looking at a wide range of information sources during the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper. The Department's own review of research on international experience, published in October 2000, shows that EU member states have a wide variety of approaches to devolution.

  Overseas Vehicle Registration
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many haulage(a) firms and (b) vehicles have moved from UK registration to overseas registration in the past three years. [21943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information on the number of firms that have registered abroad is not available. It is estimated that around 200 vehicles were registered in other member states while still specified on British operators' licences. Following a Transport Tribunal ruling in January 2001 the UK licensing authorities deemed it no longer acceptable for foreign registered vehicles to be used under the authority of a British operator's licence.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many different point-to-point rail routes were operated in(a) 1993, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [21944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This would depend on the definition of a point-to-point rail route. The relevant National Rail timetables contain all the planned services for particular years. Copies are in the Library of the House.

  Buses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many buses have been registered to operate in England and Wales in each of the past seven years. [21947]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is available for the years 1997–98 to 2000–01:

  Total number of buses1 registered to operate in England and Wales

  Number

  1997–98

  49,400

  1998–99

  51,200

  1999–2000

  51,200

  2000–01

  51,600

  1 Having nine or more seats

  Source:

  DTLR survey of PSV operators

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many different bus routes there were in England and Wales in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [21946]

  Ms Keeble
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the figures for total vehicle kilometres operated by local bus services in England and Wales during the period are as follows.

  Million kilometres

  1996–97

  2,270

  1997–98

  2,259

  1998–99

  2,284

  1999–2000

  2,247

  2000–01

  2,269

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many bus routes in Cornwall have benefited from Government funding in the last 12 months. [21757]

  Ms Keeble
  Monitoring information supplied by Cornwall county council shows that a total of 99 routes were supported by them using rural bus subsidy grant in 2000–01. In addition, the council receives revenue support grant to assist in meeting its expenditure needs, including the provision of other subsidised bus services.

  Rural Bus Challenge funding was provided in 2000–01 for the Helston-Redruth Branchline Bus Service and the Gorran and District Ring-and-Ride projects. Another project to improve a number of services in the Bodmin Moor area was also approved in the 2000 challenge competition.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including their voting record; and if he will make a statement. [22183]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 7 December. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The main focus of the Council was on the Galileo satellite navigation project and on aviation security. I am pleased to say that on both issues the outcome was satisfactory from our point of view.

  On Galileo, Ministers were asked to agree to the release of funding from the Trans-European Networks (TENs) budget to enable the project to proceed to its next phase, and to agree on the management structure that the project would have. I was among Ministers to press for deferral of decisions on the project. I drew attention to the concerns which the recently issued PricewaterhouseCoopers report had raised, on public sector funding, overall cost and lack of commercial benefits. The report made clear that any decision on the joint undertaking would have funding implications, so I argued that a decision on this should not be taken while funding issues were not sufficiently clear. There was also some discussion of the details of the draft Regulation to establish the joint undertaking, but a majority of member states declined the Commission's request for a vote to agree the text. Decisions on the next phase of Galileo were deferred and no formal conclusions were agreed. The Presidency indicated that the Galileo project might be discussed further at the European Council at Laeken later this month.

  The Council reached political agreement on a regulation establishing a Community framework for airport security standards and monitoring. The Commission had initially insisted on arrangements to oversee member states who were operating more stringent security measures. But in response to concerns which I and others expressed about the need for freedom to respond to perceived security threats it accepted that member states should be free to apply additional measures, provided they were in accordance with Community law. This important measure should ensure that high standards are in place throughout the EU and create a safer environment for air passengers using EU airports.

  There was discussion of a draft directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, on the transposition of JAR-OPS standards into EC law, and on a draft directive on the training of aviation cabin crew. No decisions were reached on the first two issues, and the Presidency concluded that no progress was possible on the third. The UK view is that provision for cabin crew training should be included in the JAR-OPS legislation.

  The Council noted the difficult economic situation faced by the air transport sector. On war-risk insurance, member states wished to return to a market approach, but the industry was not ready for that yet. In the interim the Commission was prepared to continue to approve state aid measures up to end March 2002, subject to monthly reviews. Ministers also noted the need to consider
  876W
  urgently ways to address possible unfair competition from third country carriers; the Commission will present a proposal in the near future.

  The Council noted the importance of making early progress on the recent proposal for a Directive to replace the hushkits regulation.

  The Council reached political agreement on the regulation to establish a European Maritime Safety Agency, which was proposed as part of the ERIKA II package of maritime safety proposals. We are content with the text as agreed.

  The Council agreed the text of a Directive to simplify reporting formalities for ships leaving and entering Community ports. It was able to accept the European Parliament's position on the proposal, and therefore reached agreement at the First Reading.

  I and the French Minister, with support from the Commissioner, stressed the need for member states to make quick progress on ratifying the Hazardous and Noxious Substances convention and other maritime pollution compensation Conventions, as the December 2000 Council Conclusions had urged.

  The Council noted a Presidency progress report on the proposal to update Regulation 3820/85 on commercial drivers' hours and rest periods. Further consideration of this will pass to the Spanish Presidency.

  I maintained the UK's opposition to the proposal to extend the fitting of speed limiting devices to goods vehicles above 3.5 tonnes and to coaches/buses with over eight passenger seats regardless of weight. I argued that we were not in favour of a threshold below 7.5 tonnes, but that an extension of European regulation to 7.5 tonnes would be in line with UK law. I expressed my doubt that the safety and environmental consequences of fitting limiters to lighter vehicles would be beneficial. The Presidency concluded that Council adopted the proposal by qualified majority. The proposal will now be considered by the European Parliament early in the new year.

  The Council reached political agreement on a draft directive setting out initial and ongoing training requirements for professional drivers.

  Following the recent fires in Alpine road tunnels, the Commission reported to the Council that it would propose legislation early in 2002 to improve safety. The proposals will address issues relating to technical equipment, driver information, traffic controls and training of operational staff. We await further details of the proposals, and will need to examine them carefully.

  The Presidency presented its conclusions on the Commission's White Paper on transport policy, published earlier this year. The Presidency largely agreed with the White Paper's assessment of the negative impact of uneven development of different transport modes, and believed that modal shift and enhancement of quality should be promoted. It hoped the Council would further examine the White Paper and looked forward to Commission proposals to implement the priorities emerging from further discussion.
  877W
  Under Other Business, I raised the issue of the new digital tachograph and the deficiencies in the Regulation on which the specification is based. I had previously written to the Commissioner asking her to propose amendments to address these shortcomings, which would create serious enforcement difficulties. Other Ministers at the Council supported me in asking the Commission to re-examine the issue and bring forward a new proposal to amend the Regulation. I expressed my disappointment at the Commission's response, which did not address the concerns we had put forward.

  Finally, the German Minister spoke of the safety benefits of ensuring that rigid bull bars were not fixed to road vehicles above 2.5 tonnes, through voluntary agreements with industry. The Commission agreed that this was a useful suggestion, but stressed that it was the responsibility of the Internal Market Commissioner.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Elderly Persons' Homes
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many elderly persons' homes there were in the(a) county of Essex and (b) unitary boroughs of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea in (i) 1971, (ii) 1981, (iii) 1991 and (iv) 2001. [21754]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is as follows:

  1971

  1981

  1991

  2001

  County of Essex

  Independent

  1—

  1—

  260

  210

  Public Sector

  1—

  1—

  55

  12

  Thurrock

  Independent

  1—

  1—

  2—

  12

  Public Sector

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  Independent

  1—

  1—

  2—

  65

  Public Sector

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2

  1 Information not readily available

  2 Included within "county" figure above

  A1
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what timescale there is relating to the removal of the roundabouts between Blythe and Peterborough on the A1. [21759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday (PQ 3108).

  Planning Applications
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent guidance he has issued to local authorities on the procedure for considering major planning applications. [22290]

  Ms Keeble
  On Friday 2 November 2001, the Government announced new targets for 2002–03 for local authorities' handling of planning applications. The new targets for major planning applications are that 60 per cent. of major industrial, commercial and residential applications should be decided within 13 weeks.
  878W
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give reasons for not calling in planning applications. [22731]

  Mr. Byers
  As part of our fundamental review of the planning system, we have decided that as from today we will give reasons for our decision not to call in planning applications. This decision, which forms part of the raft of measures in our Planning Green Paper published today, is in the interests of transparency, good administration and best practice. The Courts have established that there is no legal obligation to provide reasons for not calling in an application.

  It should be borne in mind that the issue before him for decision is not whether the application should be granted planning permission but whether or not he should call it in for his own determination. The Secretary of State's policy on calling in planning applications—which is to be very selective—is set out in the written reply by the then Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) to a parliamentary question on 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 138. That approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Local planning authorities are normally best placed to make decisions relating to their areas and it is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is due to be(a) completed and (b) operational. [22287]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), which runs from the Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction in Kent, is expected to be completed and operational in 2003. Section 2, from Ebbsfleet in Kent to St. Pancras in London, is expected to be completed and operational in 2007.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total costs up to 1 December associated with the negotiations for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link are. [22250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions employs a number of consultants who advise on engineering, financial, legal and other issues related to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL). Their work has recently included the negotiations for finalising section 2 of the CTRL. and negotiations with Railtrack relating to their purchase of section 1. The total annual budget for CTRL advisers is around £7 million.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent research he has undertaken to assess the impact of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance; and if he will make a statement. [21816]
  879W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department of Transport in 1992 published the "Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance". This was and remains the largest UK study of the relationship between aircraft noise and physical sleep disturbance.

  More recently the following reports, commissioned by the DETR, have been published:

  "Night Noise Contours: A Feasibility Study" (Porter et al, National Physical Laboratory, 1997)

  "Adverse effects of night-time aircraft noise" (Porter et al., NATS/DORA R&D Report 9964, March 2000)

  "Aircraft Noise and Sleep—1999 UK Trial Methodology Study" (Flindell et al., ISVR, Southampton University, November 2000)

  "Perceptions of Aircraft Noise, Sleep and Health" (Diamond et al., DSS, Southampton University, December 2000).

  Copies of these reports are available in the House Library and a fuller explanation of Government-supported research on aircraft noise and sleep disturbance is available on the Department's website at http://www.aviation.dtlr.gov.uk/ sleepdisturbance/index.htm.

  The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), announced in May 2001 that as a new full-scale objective study into sleep disturbance would be unlikely to add significantly to our understanding, the Government would concentrate instead on further research into subjective responses to annoyance by night and by day. Since that announcement a contract for the project has been awarded and a steering group representing aviation and environmental interests has been formed to oversee the work, and has met once. We are also setting up a peer review group representing both national and international experts. As well as re-assessing the association between the Leq index and reported annoyance the study will attempt to examine subjective valuation of the nuisance from aircraft noise.

  VED Rebates
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many motorists qualified for a VED rebate because they bought a licence for the year starting July 2000 with half yearly payments. [21803]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Licences taken out between July and October 2000 did not qualify for the rebate. The total number of six-monthly licences taken out in the period November 2000 to June 2001 was approximately 2.8 million.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many hon. Members have made representations to his Department about constituents who missed out on a VED rebate because they bought their licences for the year starting July 2000 with a single payment. [21804]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of such cases referred to the Department to date by hon. Members stands at 67.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research he has commissioned into the effectiveness of the goods vehicle excise duty relief scheme; and if he will publish the results of this research. [22252]
  880W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The rebate scheme for goods vehicle excise duty had two stages: a rebate of up to 50 per cent. of the cost of a licence against licences in force on 30 November 2000; and a similar rebate against all licences taken out between December 2000 and November 2001. Following these transitional arrangements a new structure of vehicle excise duty for goods vehicles came into effect on 1 December 2001.

  Rebates totalling £236 million were paid out in respect of some 250,000 goods vehicles against licences in force on 30 November 2000. Although the total amount rebated against licences taken out between December 2000 and November 2001 has yet to be finalised, it is expected to be of a similar order.

  The Government have not formally commissioned any research on the impact of these rebate schemes. The Road Haulage Forum gives Ministers and the haulage industry a regular opportunity to discuss, take account of and assess the impacts of fiscal and other factors affecting the haulage industry.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the extra funding under the Winter Supplementary Estimates to the Supply Estimates 2001–02 for the Highways Agency is to be spent. [22246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The extra funding will be spent on local network management and technology schemes, the M42 active traffic management pilot, the system for managing project and on the civil service reform fund programme. The Winter Supplementary Estimates also include a reduction in funds that have been transferred to local authorities for roads that have been detrunked this year.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research was commissioned prior to the decision to decrease the housing revenue account subsidy, as outlined on page 5 of the Winter Supplementary Estimates to the Supply Estimates 2001–02; and if he will publish this research. [22249]

  Ms Keeble
  The decision to decrease the housing revenue account subsidy provision for 2001–02 in the Winter Supplementary Estimates was informed by changes in the amounts claimed by local housing authorities for reimbursement of the rent rebate element on their second advance claim forms. These claims govern on-account payments for the second half of the financial year.

  New Local Government Network
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent meetings Government Ministers have had with representatives of the New Local Government Network. [21984]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Colleagues and I meet up with representatives of the New Local Government Network and many other groups interested in local government from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and I met with representatives of the
  881W
  New Local Government Network on 20 June and on 18 July. The Minister for Local Government attended conferences held by the New Local Government Network on strategic partnering on 16 July and on procuring best value outcomes on 30 October. I spoke at an NLGN conference on best value on 3 December and met representatives of the NLGN at a conference on 29 October. Ministerial colleagues also hold meetings with NLGN representatives from time to time, the details of which are not recorded by this Department.

  Lincolnshire County Council
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the National Standards Board is investigating complaints on alleged breaches of the code of conduct by Lincolnshire county councillors; and if he will make a statement. [22217]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The Standards Board is not able to investigate any complaints about breaches of the code of conduct until the council has adopted a code as required under section 50 of the Local Government Act 2000.1 believe that Lincolnshire county council has yet to adopt such a code.

  Planning
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his Green Paper on Planning. [22729]

  Mr. Byers
  Following our review of the planning system, I am today publishing a Green Paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" setting out our proposals for reform.

  A good planning system is vital to our quality of life. We need a system that fully engages people in shaping the future of their communities and local economies. The present planning system is too complicated, too slow and engages insufficiently with local communities. We need to make it more efficient and more accessible so that it better serves everybody with an interest in the growth and development of their community, whether individuals, businesses or representative organisations.

  The Green Paper sets out our proposals for simplifying the complex hierarchy of regional, county, unitary and local plans. We propose to replace local plans with new Local Development Frameworks that will have two main components: a set of core criteria that will allow local authorities to express a vision for the future of their areas and a strategy for its delivery; and action plans for specific areas where detailed planning is required. These include, for example, neighbourhoods, villages, town centres and major development sites. We intend that action plans should be a particular focus for community participation in the planning of local areas.

  The Green Paper proposes a much stronger emphasis on customer service, including delivery to business. New targets for processing planning applications by local authorities will distinguish business from householder applications in order that all applicants should have a clear and realistic expectation of the speed of decision. We propose that delivery contracts should be agreed between
  882W
  local authorities and business for the biggest planning applications that would include an agreed timetable for reaching planning decisions.

  The Green Paper proposes the introduction of business planning zones in which planning consent will not be necessary for certain businesses so long as strict quality standards are met. We propose that each region should have at least one zone to promote technology companies.

  The Green Paper seeks to put communities at the heart of the planning system. We propose better community participation in the preparation of our new Local Development Frameworks and action plans. A statement of community involvement will set standards for consultation on planning applications and plans. Master planning of major sites will help developers plan for higher quality development, in partnership with local people and local authorities. There will be a much clearer procedure for submitting planning applications and a new emphasis on openness and accountability within the planning process.

  I also propose to speed up the handling of planning applications that have been called in and appeals that have been recovered for my determination. I give reasons where applications are called in but, up to now, they have not been given when I decide not to call in an application. In the interests of greater openness I shall, from today, give reasons in both circumstances.

  Copies of the Green Paper are being sent to every Member representing an English constituency and they will be available in the Vote Office and in the Library. An electronic copy can be viewed at www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk.

  Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will publish his consultation paper on Compulsory Purchase and Compensation. [22730]

  Mr. Byers
  Following the fundamental review of compulsory purchase procedures and compensation, I am publishing today a consultation paper setting out our proposals for major changes to the way that the compulsory purchase and compensation system operates. Our objective is to make the system simpler, fairer and quicker. We will:

  simplify the law

  clarify the powers available for acquiring land for planning and regeneration purposes

  speed up the confirmation process

  ensure that implementation follows promptly once an order is confirmed

  provide a fairer basis for assessing compensation.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what evidence he has collated on how speed cameras have contributed to reducing road accidents in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [22231]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A Home Office study published in 1996 showed that accidents fell by 28 per cent. and speeds were reduced by an average of 4.2 mph at speed camera sites. Eight police force areas have been trialling a new
  883W
  funding system for speed cameras. Monitoring of the first year's operation of the pilots has shown a 47 per cent. reduction in those killed and seriously injured at camera sites and an 18 per cent. reduction in KSIs in the areas as a whole. The new funding system is now available nationally and I fully expect that, as more areas join, the numbers of those killed or seriously injured will decrease still further.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations he has received from the US Government on Spain's policy that the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on Aviation Security should not apply to Gibraltar; [21654]

  (2) what representations he has received from NATO on Spain's policy that the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on Aviation Security does not apply to Gibraltar. [21656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received no such representations.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if applications may be made for new neighbourhood wardens schemes starting in 2004; [22222]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and (b) other bodies on marketing, expansion and funding opportunities for the neighbourhood wardens scheme; [22219]

  (3) what the budget is for the neighbourhood wardens scheme for (a) 2001 and (b) 2002; [22226]

  (4) which areas are running the neighbourhood wardens scheme, and what assessment he has made of the results of the scheme in each area; [22225]

  (5) what funding will be available for the (a) continuation of current and (b) creation of new neighbourhood wardens schemes after 2004. [22221]

  Ms Keeble
  Following discussions with officials I announced continued funding for existing neighbourhood warden schemes in England at the annual wardens conference on 19 November. Marketing expansion and funding opportunities for wardens schemes were discussed at that conference and continue to be reviewed.

  There are 85 neighbourhood and 125 street warden schemes covering each of the government regions. The Government have commissioned a national evaluation of the neighbourhood warden programme which is due for completion by mid 2003. The evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of scheme impacts and to understand the processes of scheme implementation. It is not possible to consider each and every scheme in the same detail but care is taken to ensure that all regions receive roughly equal coverage that enables a picture of national-level impact to be established. In addition, schemes are encouraged to undertake local-level evaluations appropriate to their needs. Street warden schemes in England have yet to start and will be subject to a similarly rigorous evaluation process.
  884W
  Government funding for neighbourhood wardens is £5 million for 2001–02 and £4.5 million for 2002–03. For street wardens the figures are £5 million and £10 million respectively.

  The continuation of funding for existing and future warden schemes will depend on the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review and at this stage it is too early to make applications for new schemes.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the economic impact of the Galileo project for the UK transport sector and (b) the number of jobs the project will create for British industry; and if he will make a statement. [22236]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A UK cost-benefit assessment carried out in September for my Department and the British National Space Centre by ESYS Consulting suggested that Galileo could yield net economic benefits for UK users and suppliers, based on European Commission studies and discussions with potential UK users. However, the recent study for the Commission by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), released on 22 November, excludes supplier benefits and estimates a much reduced and narrower range of benefits for transport users than previous Commission estimates. The report also made clear that there would be a need for continuing public sector funding throughout future phases of the project. On Friday the Transport Council deferred decisions on the next stage of Galileo in order to allow time for further consideration of the PWC report.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of Britain's national income is spent on(a) roads, (b) railways and (c) the underground. [22079]

  Mr. Jamieson
  About 1.4 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product is spent on the provision and maintenance of transport infrastructure and support for public transport services.

  Of this figure, about one third relates to roads and one third is spent on the railways. The remaining one third covers all other forms of transport spending, of which spending on London Underground forms a small proportion.

TREASURY

  Departmental Rents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual rental value is of the London Headquarters of(a) HM Customs and Excises, (b) the Inland Revenue, (c) the Government Actuary's Department and (d) the UK Debt Management Office; and what assessment he has made of the rental values of similar office space size in (i) Coventry, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Wolverhampton and (iv) Stoke on Trent. [10249]

  Ruth Kelly
  The following table lists the annual rental value of the London headquarters of(a) HM Customs and Excise; (b) the Inland Revenue; (c) the Government

  885W
  Actuary's Department; and (d) the Debt Management Office. HM Customs and Excise and the Government Actuary's Department co-locate in the London accommodation, so the rental value has been apportioned based on their percentage of occupation.

  No assessment has been made of the rental value of similar offices in (i) Coventry, (ii) Birmingham, (iii) Wolverhampton and (iv) Stoke on Trent as the Departments do not have offices of a comparable size. Neither the Government Actuary's Department nor the Debt Management Office occupy any space outside of London.

  Annual rental value of London headquarters

  £

  HM Customs and Excise

  5,000,000

  Inland Revenue

  2,200,000

  Government Actuary's Department

  650,484

  Debt Management Office

  957,852

  Mortgage Advice
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow the Financial Services Authority to take over the regulation of mortgage advice to consumers; and if he will make a statement. [8928]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: I am announcing today that, in the light of representations made by the industry and others, and taking account of the views of the report and responses to the Banking Services Consumer Codes Review, I have decided to extend the FSA's powers to enable it to regulate mortgage intermediaries and advice.

  Manufacturing Summit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) he and (b) other Treasury Ministers will attend the manufacturing summit in early December. [15698]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury attended the "Manufacturing and the Regions" summit on 5 December.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the countries eligible for debt relief under the heavily indebted poorer countries initiative whose debt repayments to the United Kingdom are now being held in trust, (b) the amount of money held in trust in respect of each such country and (c) the level of debt outstanding to the United Kingdom from each such country. [18387]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since the Chancellor made the announcement on 2 December, the following countries have made payments that are eligible for the hold in trust policy:

  Country

  Payments held in trust (£000)

  Amount of debt (£ million)

  Burkina Faso

  64.9

  1.0

  Central African Republic

  2.4

  0.5

  Ethiopia

  60.9

  15.4

  886W

  Country

  Payments held in trust (£000)

  Amount of debt (£ million)

  Guinea

  91.7

  5.3

  Vietnam

  730.5

  54.4

  Yeman

  106.8

  3.3

  Ethiopia and Guinea have since reached their Decision Point, where they are no longer required to make payments to the UK. Burkina Faso had reached Decision Point before December 2000, but interim relief has been suspended. Payments from Burkina Faso will continue to be held in trust.

  The following countries have reached a Decision Point since the Chancellor made the announcement, but prior to Decision Point did not make any payments for holding in trust. Now that they have reached a Decision Point, they are all receiving 100 per cent. debt relief and are no longer required to make any payments to the UK.

  £ million

  Country

  Amount of debt

  Chad

  0

  Gambia

  0

  Guinea Bissau

  0

  Madagascar

  25.5

  Malawi

  3.9

  Nicaragua

  1.0

  Niger

  10.9

  Rwanda

  0.1

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0

  Zambia

  239.2

  The following countries have not yet reached a Decision Point under HIPC, and any payments they do make will be held in trust:

  £ million

  Country

  Amount of debt

  Angola

  118.6

  Burma

  23.1

  Burundi

  0

  Congo

  143.1

  Cote D'Ivoire

  48.0

  DR Congo

  165.5

  Ghana

  216.7

  Kenya

  52.9

  Laos PDR

  0

  Liberia

  18.4

  Sierra Leone

  3.6

  Somalia

  29.2

  Sudan

  374.9

  Togo

  15.7

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the treatment of interest earned on money paid as debt service payments by highly indebted poor countries to the United Kingdom and currently held in trust by the Government. [18386]

  Mr. Boateng
  Money that is held in trust will be returned when the proceeds can be shown to go towards poverty reduction. At that point, the UK will return all payments made since 1 December 2000. The commitment of the Chancellor's speech on 2 December 2000 was that the UK will not benefit financially from these historic
  887W
  debts and as such, all payments made will be returned to fund poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals in HIPC countries.

  Small Businesses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 271W, for what reason he will not reply on the representations he has received on changes to insurance policies and premiums for small businesses since 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [18400]

  Ruth Kelly
  We receive a great many representations from both industry and individuals. Identifying those that have been sent on a specific subject could not be done without disproportionate cost.

  Golden Jubilee Coin
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans have been made for the production of a Crown piece to mark the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [18548]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recommendation that in 2002 a crown piece should be issued to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne. Further details will be announced shortly.

  Earnings
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people whose earnings were(a) below a third and (b) between a third and a half of median male earnings paid tax on each of the last six years. [20456]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the proportion of taxpayers whose earnings were(a) below a third of male median earnings, and (b) between a third and a half of male median earnings are in the table:

  Employee taxpayers as a percentage of employees

  Year

  with earnings less than 1/3 of male median earnings1

  with earnings between 1/3 and ½ of male median earnings1

  1995–96

  61

  95

  1996–97

  56

  91

  1997–98

  56

  93

  1998–99

  56

  100

  1999–2000

  59

  100

  2000–01

  69

  100

  1 Male median earnings figures are based on New Earnings Survey, full-time male employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence.

  The taxpayer estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and the employee estimates are based on the Labour Force Survey. These estimates are subject to sampling errors and changes in the percentages over time should be treated with caution.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will place in the Library in respect of each ward where an exemption from stamp duty will be introduced 888W
  the (a) average property price and (b) percentage of properties purchased where no stamp duty was paid in the last year for which information is available; [21112]

  (2) what impact he expects the exemption from stamp duty to have on the prices of houses valued below £150,000 in wards in which an exemption from stamp duty will apply. [21009]

  Mr. Boateng
  The ward-based information requested is not available.

  The Government intend the exemption to help in the revival of property markets in qualifying areas, which will make investment in these areas more attractive and encourage people to live and do business in them.

  Food Supplements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in(a) the retail and (b) the manufacture of specialist health food products; and what assessment he has made of the impact on employment in these sectors of the forthcoming EU Directive on food supplements. [21690]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 12 December 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people employed in (a) the retail and (b) the manufacture of specialist health food products (21690).
  There are no separate figures available for retailing specialist health food products as these estimates are combined with other specialist retailing.
  In December 1999, the latest date for which estimates from the Annual Business Inquiry are available, there were 900 employee jobs in the manufacture of homogenised food preparations and dietetic food in Great Britain.
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the proposed EU directive would not have any immediate effect on employment in these sectors as it would not immediately outlaw any products currently sold in the UK.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21822]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has a number of alternative working policies in place such as flexible working hours, working part time, compressed hours as well as working at home. These are available to all staff by agreement with their manager. Details are advertised on the Treasury's Intranet. All staff have the opportunity to work at home occasionally on appropriate work with their manager's agreement. About 30 members of staff regularly work at least one day a week at home with access to the Treasury's IT systems.

  Hypothecated NHS Tax
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the public's willingness to pay a hypothecated NHS tax. [22302]
  889W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have made their commitment to increasing resources over the next three years for the NHS, funded from general taxation and linked to reform. Decisions on taxation will be for future Budgets and spending will be for the Spending Review.

  Customs and Excise (Fraud)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the total expenditure on HM Customs and Excise and (b) the total expenditure on counter-fraud work within HM Customs and Excise in the last year for which figures are available. [21732]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Many Customs and Excise activities play an important part in countering fraud, including tax control work, debt collection and publicity. However, since 1 April 2001 the Department's restructured Law Enforcement function has had prime responsibility for tackling indirect tax fraud, drugs smuggling and the range of other criminal matters assigned to Customs and Excise. Many Customs Law Enforcement officers have a multi-functional role, tackling both tax fraud and non-tax criminality.

  Because of restructuring, it is not possible to provide equivalent figures for earlier years, but in 2001–02 the Law Enforcement function of Customs and Excise has a budget of some £320 million current, and £40 million capital. The Customs and Excise voted departmental expenditure limit (as amended by the recent Winter Supplementary) is £1,122 million.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 55W, on capital assets, what record the Office for National Statistics keeps of the advice it gives to Departments regarding the accounting treatment of PPPs. [22289]

  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 12 December 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning what record the Office for National Statistics keeps of the advice it gives to Departments regarding the accounting treatment of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). (22289)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) keeps records of all advice given on classification issues. The ONS has not however been asked for advice on the accounting treatment of capital assets under individual PPPs. This is decided by departments on the basis of generally accepted accounting practice, as specified in the Resource Accounting Manual published by HM Treasury. The National Audit Office audits department's decisions. The agreed treatment is reflected in the national accounts.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies were open in each of the last 10 years to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22431]
  890W
  Ruth Kelly
  No competitive grant schemes are currently administered, or have been administered in each of the last 10 years, by the Chancellor's Departments and agencies.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22419]

  (2) if he will list the competitive grant schemes, administered by the Treasury and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; and, for each scheme in each year (a) the number of applicants, (b) the number of successful applicants, (c) the total of grants awarded, (d) the number of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22430]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22414]

  Ruth Kelly
  No competitive grant schemes are currently administered, or have been administered since 1997, by the Chancellor's Departments and agencies.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to the(a) state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and (c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22406]

  Ruth Kelly
  No competitive grant schemes are currently provided, or have been provided since 1997, by the Chancellor's Departments and agencies.

  Spirits (Taxation)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his plans are for consultation on the proposal to introduce a tax stamps system for spirits. [23122]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following initial discussions with the drinks industry over the summer, customs and Excise published on 11 December 2001 a formal consultation document on this proposal. A copy of the consultation document is available in the Library.

  Financial Services Authority
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the scope of the Financial Services Authority's responsibilities. [23124]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the light of representations made by the industry and others and taking account of the views of the report and responses to the Banking Services Consumer Codes Review, I have decided to extend the FSA's powers to enable it to regulate mortgage intermediaries and advice. The FSA will also be given responsibility for regulating general insurance intermediaries.
  891W
  Giving the FSA powers to regulate mortgage and insurance intermediaries will streamline regulation. Intermediaries selling a range of products—general insurance, pensions, or mortgages—will all come under the FSA as single regulator, minimising compliance costs.

  I intend to consult others on the appropriate transitional arrangements to ensure a smooth handover of responsibility to the FSA.

  A regulatory impact assessment of the decision to give the FSA responsibility for regulating mortgage advice and general insurance intermediaries is available in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the rates of child benefit for the first and subsequent children from April 2002 required to ensure that if a higher rate taxpayer in receipt of child benefit paid tax on it at(a) the higher rate or (b) the standard rate, the net cash amount of benefit received remained at the level already announced from April 2002; and if he will estimate (i) the gross annual programme cost of increasing child benefit to those levels and (ii) the net cost to the Exchequer of raising child benefit to those levels (1) with no taxation and (2) with higher rate taxpayer recipients paying tax on the benefit at the higher rate, taking into account the consequential effects on working families tax credit, income support payments and other means-tested benefits. [22058]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Child benefit will be £15.75 per week for the first child and £10.55 per week for subsequent children from April 2002. If it were taxable at the basic rate, in order for a taxpayer to receive the same net benefit it would have to be increased to £20.20 per week for the first child and £13.55 per week for subsequent children. If it were taxable at the higher rate, the corresponding figures would be £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children.

  The gross programme cost of increasing child benefit to £20.20 per week for the first child and £13.55 per week for subsequent children would be £2.5 billion in 2002. The gross programme cost of increasing child benefit to £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children would be £6 billion in 2002. The net cost to the Exchequer of these increases would depend on how they were treated in income-related benefits and working families tax credit.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Maths Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many maths teachers were employed in 892W
  secondary schools in (a) 1984, (b) 1988, (c) 1992, (d) 1996 and (e) 2000; and what their qualifications were. [8405]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time teachers who spent some or all of their time teaching maths in English maintained secondary schools are as follows:

  Academic year

  1983–841

  1987–88

  1991–92

  1996–97

  Maths teachers

  40,500

  35,500

  31,000

  25,200

  Qualifications—maths main subject2

  Degree

  28

  27

  30

  40

  BEd

  6

  8

  9

  16

  PGCE

  0

  7

  10

  11

  Cert. Ed.

  19

  15

  15

  12

  Other

  3

  3

  4

  2

  Maths subsidiary or related subject2

  18

  14

  10

  —

  Other subjects2

  26

  25

  22

  20

  Total2

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 1983–84 survey did not separately identify PGCEs which trained students to teach maths. Most maths-qualified teachers with a PGCE will be included in the 'degree' or 'other' columns

  2 Percentage

  In 1996–97, subjects were not designated as main, subsidiary or related. All subjects were treated as at the same level. The concept of related subject was not used for maths.

  The percentages of teachers with each qualification have been rounded to the nearest whole number and as a result the component parts may not add to 100 per cent.

  Data for 1996–97 are the latest available.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the levels of teacher vacancies were in January in(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools broken down by (i) Government office region, (ii) subject and (iii) level; and what changes there have been in these totals from those issued in the SFR 16/2001 on 20 April. [9109]

  Mr. Timms
  Teacher vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post in the English maintained schools sector in January 2001 were as follows:

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All maintained schools sector

  Grade

  Head

  0.8

  0.8

  1.0

  0.8

  Deputy head

  1.8

  1.2

  2.9

  1.7

  Classroom teacher

  1.5

  1.5

  2.3

  1.4

  Government office region

  North East

  0.6

  1.0

  0.1

  0.8

  North West

  0.4

  0.6

  0.9

  0.5

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  0.3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  East Midlands

  0.7

  0.6

  2.2

  0.7

  West Midlands

  0.7

  1.1

  1.5

  0.9

  East of England

  1.7

  1.7

  1.8

  1.7

  London

  3.3

  3.8

  4.6

  3.5

  South East

  1.6

  2.1

  4.4

  2.0

  South West

  0.6

  0.7

  1.3

  0.6

  England

  1.2

  1.4

  2.2

  1.4

  893W
  The number of teacher vacancies in the maintained schools sector in January 2001 was as follows:

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Special

  All maintained schools sector

  Grade

  Head

  150

  30

  10

  190

  Deputy head

  270

  80

  30

  380

  Classroom teacher

  1,690

  2,480

  240

  4,400

  Government office region

  North East

  60

  100

  1—

  160

  North West

  110

  150

  20

  280

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  60

  110

  10

  190

  East Midlands

  100

  100

  20

  210

  West Midlands

  140

  240

  30

  400

  East of England

  310

  340

  20

  670

  London

  820

  880

  90

  1,790

  South East

  420

  550

  90

  1,060

  South West

  90

  110

  10

  210

  All vacancies

  2,110

  2,590

  280

  4,980

  1 Less than five

  Note:

  Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding.

  Classroom teacher vacancies in maintained secondary schools by subject were as follows:

  Vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post

  Number of vacancies

  Mathematics

  2.1

  410

  Information Technology

  2.8

  120

  Sciences

  1.6

  400

  French

  1.6

  160

  German

  0.8

  30

  Other languages

  3.2

  50

  All languages

  1.5

  250

  English

  1.8

  360

  Drama

  1.7

  60

  History

  0.5

  40

  Social Sciences

  0.4

  20

  Geography

  0.6

  50

  Religious education

  1.8

  100

  Design and technology

  1.3

  210

  Commercial/business studies

  1.3

  40

  Art, craft or design

  0.7

  50

  Music

  1.8

  80

  Physical education

  0.8

  100

  Careers

  4.3

  10

  Other main and combined subjects

  1.7

  200

  All subjects

  1.4

  2,480

  Note:

  Totals may not appear to equal the sum of the component parts because of rounding.

  As in previous years, the provisional numbers of vacancies published in SFR16/2001 have changed slightly following further validation checks on the data. The total vacancy figures for the nursery and primary phase remain unchanged at 1.2 per cent. and 2,110 posts. The total vacancy figure for the secondary phase has increased from 2,580 to 2,590; the rate remains unchanged at 1.4 per cent. The total secondary schools classroom teacher vacancy figure has increased from 2,470 to 2,480; the rate remains unchanged at 1.4 per cent. The total vacancy figures for special schools remain unchanged at 2.2 per cent. and 280 posts.

  Capital Spending (Schools)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of grant allocation for capital spending in schools is(a) discretionary and (b) must be spent on items stipulated by the Government. [19709]

  John Healey
  The table shows, for next year, the proportion of capital investment in schools through discretionary funding which is un-hypothecated; discretionary funding which is hypothecated for schools capital investment; and funding which must be spent on specific schools capital projects. The table shows this for both capital grants and for all capital support.

  Percentage

  Percentages related to the, financial year 2002–03

  Grant

  Total capital support

  Discretionary: un-hypothecated

  —

  16

  Discretionary: hypothecated for schools capital

  74

  41

  Project specific

  26

  43

  Notes:

  1. Discretionary un-hypothecated: denotes capital support that is allocated to local authorities for schools, but which they are able to use for other services.

  2. Discretionary hypothecated for schools: denotes funding that is allocated to local authorities or schools to be spent on school capital works in accordance with their highest priorities.

  3. Project Specific: denotes funding that is allocated to local authorities or schools to be spent on specific agreed projects.

  4. Total capital support includes grant and credit approvals including PFI credits.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Government grant allocation for capital spending on schools by LEA in each year since 1997, excluding centrally managed initiatives. [19710]

  John Healey
  Tables showing the capital allocations by local education authority in England from 1997–98 to 2001–02 have been placed in the Libraries. Table A shows this for capital grants, table B shows this for all capital support.

  Selection
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills(a) how many and (b) what percentage of those schools which have chosen for the current year to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude, have selected by the means of (i) standardised tests, (ii) reports from primary school, (iii) interview with pupil, (iv) interview with parents and (v) a combination of the above. [20736]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally. School admissions are dealt with at local level by the relevant admission authority for each school. It is the responsibility of admission authorities to set their own admission arrangements, after consultation with other admission authorities in their area, and they are expected to have regard to the guidance in the School Admissions Code of Practice. Where a school has a specialism and gives priority to pupils on the grounds of aptitude for that specialism, it is up to the school's admission authority to
  895W
  decide how to assess pupils' aptitude, though the school must publish its admission arrangements, including details of any aptitude testing.

  Scottish Students
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the number of students resident in Scotland who attend further education in England and Wales. [21542]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The number of students studying in further education sector colleges in England in 1999–2000 was 3.7 million, of which 5,600 were resident in Scotland.

  For information on students attending further education colleges in Wales I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Teachers' Work Load
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received about the work load in pre-school nurseries and playgroups. [21955]

  Mr. Timms
  I am not aware of any recent representations on this issue.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is her latest assessment of the number of hours being worked by teachers each week; and if she will make a statement. [21956]

  Mr. Timms
  The PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) teacher work load study indicates that, during term time, teachers work around 52 hours per week. PwC's final report will in due course be referred to the School Teachers Review Body.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the findings of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into teachers' work load before 24 January 2002. [21958]

  Mr. Timms
  The final report from PricewaterhouseCoopers is available on the DfES website at the following address: www.teachernet.gov.uk/ workloadstudy.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the terms of reference were for the PricewaterhouseCoopers report into teachers' work load. [21959]

  Mr. Timms
  The aim of the work load study was to identify the main factors that determine teachers' and head teachers' work load, and to develop a programme of practical action to eliminate excessive work load and promote the most effective use of all resources in schools.

  Boxing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will introduce boxing into schools as a specialist part of the sports curriculum. [22078]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The new National Curriculum for Physical Education, which was introduced in September 2000 specifies six areas of activity which schools should provide. Boxing is not one of those activities and there are no plans to introduce it.

  Indiscipline (State Schools)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will make it her policy to publish data on levels of indiscipline in state schools; [22258]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 6 December on levels of indiscipline, for what periods since 1987 data 2001, Official Report, column 450W on levels of indiscipline in state schools are available on a consistent basis; and if she will publish such data. [22257]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not have consistent data on levels of indiscipline in schools. Methods for gathering information about pupil behaviour changed after Ofsted was set up in 1992, and a further change took place in 1996–97.

  Information gathered by Ofsted inspectors about indiscipline in schools informs statements given in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20672]

  Estelle Morris
  The level of wage costs within departmental budgets this year and in future years will be dependent upon negotiations. Departmental reports published next spring will give details of Departments' expenditure.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  CSA
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to compensate parents with care who have suffered financial loss as a result of the CSA not reflecting the amount they have been denied as a result of non-receipt of child support payments. [13608]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In common with other Government agencies, the CSA can make payments to compensate its clients for financial loss suffered as a result of maladministration. This compensation scheme can cover maintenance payments lost as a result of administrative failures in the agency. Compensation payments cannot, however, be made to cover maintenance withheld by non-resident parents where the CSA has acted correctly in seeking to enforce liability.

  Benefit Systems
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the
  897W
  local government performance indicators for 2000–01 on housing benefit and council tax benefit for each local authority. [15151]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Best Value Performance Indicators for housing benefit and council tax benefit for English local authorities are contained in The Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators Order 2000, SI 2000 No. 896. A copy is available in the Library.

  Performance indicators for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the Accounts Commission for Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales respectively.

  Date

  Measure

  February 1999

  Introduction of the Carers Grant—to enable local authorities to provide a wider range of services to give carers a break

  December 1999

  The Employment Relations Act gave carers in paid work the right to have time off to deal with family emergencies

  February 2000

  Introduction of carers website to give details of services and benefits affecting carers

  March 2000

  Introduction of the work life balance initiative to promote good practice to help employers explore work life balance

  April 2000

  The Carers and Disabled Children Act gave local councils the power to give carers a needs assessment in their own right. The Act also allows local authorities to give vouchers for buying-in provision when a carer needs respite

  April 2001

  The ICA Earnings Limit was increased by £22 to the level of the National Insurance Lower Earnings Limit to help carers who are able to combine work with caring

  April 2001

  The Carer Premium paid through Income-Related Benefits was increased by £10 per week, to provide additional financial support to carers who are less well off

  July 2001

  Launch of UK Online Life Episode "Looking after someone" to provide a wide range of information for carers

  In autumn 2000, a substantial package of measures to help carers was announced. This amounts to over £500 million of extra support in the first three years covered by the announcement.

  It includes a number of improvements to the main carer benefits aimed in particular at helping older and poorer carers, as well as helping carers to keep in touch with work by making part-time employment more worthwhile financially.

  The package also included measures to remove the barrier that prevents people aged 65 or over from claiming invalid care allowance will be removed; ensure entitlement to ICA will continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the disabled person; and rename ICA as `Carer's Allowance'.

  These changes will be introduced by Regulatory Reform Order (RRO) at the earliest opportunity.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Buckingham constituency are on the new deal programme, broken down by each category of the new deal. [17852]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Carers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the measures the Government have brought in since 1997 to assist people who are carers for others. [12335]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government's general approach to carers is outlined in "Caring About Carers", the report of the National Carers Strategy published in February 1999. A great deal has already been achieved to implement the Strategy and further work is continuing.

  The table shows the measures introduced specifically for carers since 1997:

  Programme

  Number of people on Programme1

  New deal for young people

  4

  New deal 25 plus

  20

  New deal for lone parents

  217

  New deal 50 plus (employment credit claims)

  310

  1 End September 2001

  2 Figure for end of August 2001

  3 Figure for end of October 2001

  Note:

  The figures are not cumulative

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Information at constituency level is not available for the new deals for disabled people and partners.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Government Departments have signed new deal employer agreements. [18053]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Twenty-seven Government Departments and agencies have signed national new deal employer agreements. A number of other Departments and agencies have signed employer agreements with their local jobcentres.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on the new deal for young people in the Loughborough constituency have joined(a) subsidised employment, (b) the Environmental

  899W
  Task Force, (c) the voluntary sector and (d) full-time education or training in each year since its first year of operation. [18492]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Number of young people starting NDYP options in Loughborough

  Year

  Subsidised employment

  Environment task force

  Voluntary sector

  Full-time education and training

  1998

  5

  3

  5

  19

  1999

  9

  25

  22

  50

  2000

  6

  20

  19

  19

  20011

  6

  8

  11

  20

  Total

  26

  66

  57

  108

  1 To end September

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the expected reduction in debt in 2001–02 from cases of overpayment. [18987]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount of new debt recorded from April to October 200] was 14 per cent. lower than the same period in 2000–01.

  Debt Management System (Cancellation)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 from the cancellation of the debt management system. [18995]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The debt accounting and management system (DAMS) procurement contract was discharged in July 1999. The costs of DAMS are commercial in confidence, but the Benefits Agency paid only for what was of value. No costs were incurred after 1999.

  Overpaid Benefits (Recovery)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the target saving in 2000–01 from the recovery of overpaid benefits was achieved. [18997]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The overpayment recovery target for 2000–01 was exceeded by 1.2 per cent.

  Departmental Resources
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the unallocated resource provision referred to on page 96 of the 2001 Departmental report. [19523]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The unallocated resource provision referred to on page 96 of the 2001 Departmental Report contains two separate elements of agreed funding.

  The first relates to the Welfare Modernisation Fund; the level of funding was agreed in the last Spending Review. Use of the funding is subject to joint Treasury and Departmental agreement, before it may be allocated to specific projects.
  900W
  The second relates to the Departmental Unallocated Provision, which was established in accordance with treasury guidelines; to be a source of funding held by the Department, initially unallocated for specific use, but to be used as the first port of call to meet unexpected funding pressures, rather than a call being made upon the Reserve.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children were living in poverty in(a) April 1997 and (b) April 2001. [19805]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Child poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional concepts, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment, and opportunities to learn. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of(a) council and (b) registered social landlord tenants in each region of England are in receipt of housing benefit; and how many of these are pensioner households in each case. [19819]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Percentage

  Housing benefit

  Pensioner households

  Council tenants

  Housing association tenants

  Council tenants

  Housing association tenants

  England

  54

  56

  46

  42

  North-east

  57

  60

  39

  54

  North-west

  56

  59

  41

  52

  Yorks and Humberside

  55

  52

  54

  31

  East midlands

  51

  58

  53

  25

  West midlands

  52

  49

  46

  46

  East

  50

  64

  56

  51

  London

  54

  55

  37

  33

  South-east

  51

  53

  47

  43

  South-west

  57

  65

  51

  46

  Notes:

  1. Council housing covers housing rented by local authorities and New Town development corporations. Housing association covers housing associations, charitable trusts and local housing companies.

  2. Pensioners are defined as households where the benefit recipient and/or the partner are aged 60 and over.

  3. These estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1999–2000

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his statement of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 972–75, what plans he has for training to be provided for the long-term unemployed under his proposals. [20271]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The primary aim of the StepUP pilots will be to give people experience of work rather than training. We expect employers offering transitional
  901W
  jobs to help people gain the skills, the support and the experience of work they need, rather than follow a set training programme. This will act as a stepping stone to jobs in the local labour market.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to question 12335, from the hon. Member for High Peak, tabled on 31 October, relating to carers. [20283]

  Maria Eagle
  The question was answered today.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what strategy there is to ensure that all pensioners who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee know they can apply for the extra income. [19363]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: There are a number of measures already in place to ensure that pensioners know they might be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  From 15 October 2001, callers to the Retirement Pension Telecentre who are not already receiving MIG are asked a series of questions to identify if they may be entitled and encouraged to claim if they wish to do so. Those pensioners who claim Retirement Pension by post are sent a MIG leaflet.

  We are looking at a number of options to extend this service so that a claim to MIG will be invited automatically following certain key life events, for example when the pensioner reaches age 75 or 80, or when another benefit, such as Attendance Allowance, is awarded.

  We are also working in partnership with organisations for older people to improve access to benefits and take up of the MIG. This includes projects on a national good practice guide and a survey of local take up initiatives.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the employment implications of BAE Systems' decision to close the Regional Jet RJ and RJX programme; and what steps his Department is taking to provide assistance to the employees being made redundant at Woodford. [20354]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Redundancies were announced by BAE Systems on the 27 November at a number of UK locations including Woodford where 993 redundancies will take place.

  Employment Services have arranged a meeting with the management team at BAE on the 5 December to discuss the support available for employees. This is likely to include an on-site Jobshop, with support for employees' jobsearch, along with training and careers advice and guidance. We will be working with local training providers and the North West Development Agency to ensure that support meets local needs.

  Remploy
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees of Remploy have been dismissed in the past 12 months; and how many of these were trainees. [20424]

  Maria Eagle
  During the 12 months from December 2000 to November 2001, 2,315 people left Remploy's employment, for a variety of reasons.

  The number of trainees leaving the WorkStep programme without employment during this period was 189. Reasons for leaving included poor conduct, resigning for personal reasons, and medical reasons.

  During the same period, Remploy took on 344 trainees into permanent positions in Remploy sites and progressed another 121 trainees into external employment.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-disabled workers have been recruited through agencies who are employed by Remploy. [20425]

  Maria Eagle
  Remploy rarely recruits employees through the use of employment agencies relying mostly on the Employment Service to refer candidates for employment.

  Remploy does use agency labour (not employed by Remploy) from time to time to address temporary work load fluctuations, or the need for specialist skills. These individuals are supplied by an agency, often on a weekto-week, short-term, temporary basis, to meet customer demands while avoiding incurring long-term costs and liabilities.

  Currently, Remploy is using around 30 agency employees in this capacity.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the total cost of administration in Remploy in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [20426]

  Maria Eagle
  The total costs of administration in Remploy were:

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  19.6

  1998–99

  17.6

  1999–2000

  17.7

  2000–01

  18.0

  These totals cover all salary and bought-in costs for everything except direct labour, factory overheads, sales and marketing, distribution and financial charges.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the individual annual remuneration was to(a) the Chairman and (b) executive directors of Remploy in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv)2000–0l. [20427]

  Maria Eagle
  Individual annual remunerations were as follows.
  903W

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Chairman (D. G. Heywood)

  14,000

  13,000

  10,400

  —

  Chairman (A. E. Pedder—appointed 1 January 2000)

  —

  —

  10,800

  72,500

  Chief Executive (A. G. H. Withey)

  110,000

  115,000

  114,500

  47,700

  Chief Executive (R. Paffard—appointed 1.11.00)

  —

  —

  —

  58,000

  Finance Director

  78,000

  80,000

  84,100

  87,800

  Personnel Director

  76,000

  78,000

  83,000

  86,200

  Operations Director

  76,000

  79,000

  84,200

  97,200

  Sales and Marketing Director (appointed 1 November 1998 to 31 December 2000)

  —

  31,000

  76,400

  —

  1 Mr. Pedder's involvement was increased to provide cover until the new chief executive was appointed, and to develop the new strategies for the company.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what were the average weekly hours worked by Remploy employees in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [20432]

  Maria Eagle
  Remploy does not record average weekly hours of work for its employees.

  However, in this period the standard contracted hours of work for employees have reduced.

  In 1997–98, standard hours were 37 per week. On 31 May 1999 they were reduced to 36.5 hours per week and on 5 June 2000 they were further reduced to 36 hours per week.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to review the(a) design and (b) content of the disability living allowance claim form to make it more accessible to people with mental health problems; and if he will ensure that mental health service users play an active part in this review. [20781]

  Maria Eagle
  We are currently looking at how the disability living allowance claim form can be made more easily accessible for all disabled people: This follows changes earlier this year, when we reduced the claim pack by nine pages without losing essential information. However, we recognise that people with mental health problems can have special difficulty expressing their needs on a claim form, which is why we are considering alternative methods of obtaining the information we need, for example, by using Community Psychiatric Nurses to interview some people with mental health problems.

  We intend to consult organisations of, and for disabled people, including those with mental health problems, as part of these initiatives.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the Government last year added regulation 10C of DLA Regulations, pursuant to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1972 on what constituted attention in section 72(1) for the disability living allowance care component. [20880]

  Maria Eagle
  Regulation 10C was added to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Regulations 1991 with effect from 25 September 2000 in order to make clear that remote "attention" via the telephone, or other electronic means, does not count as attention in connection with bodily functions for the purposes of the care component of disability living allowance. This 904W
  restores the original policy intention that attention in connection with bodily functions must be carried out in the presence of the severely disabled person.

  HIV
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will amend the Liability Discrimination Act 1995 to protect people with HIV from discrimination at the point of diagnosis. [20879]

  Maria Eagle
  We are currently considering what amendments should be made to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what entitlement self-funding residents in residential or nursing care have to(a) attendance allowance, (b) nursing care contributions from their local health authority in England from 1 October, (c) attendance allowance and (d) nursing and personal care contributions under the scheme for such support proposed by the Scottish Executive. [20898]

  Maria Eagle
  People in residential care or nursing homes in England and Scotland who fund the whole cost of their care from their own resources can receive attendance allowance. From 1 October 2001, such residents in England can have the opportunity to have their need for nursing care assessed by an NHS nurse. This determines the level of payment that the NHS pays to the nursing home in respect of that person's nursing care: low (£35 per week), medium (£70 per week) and high (£110 per week). Such payments are disregarded in determining whether or not a person is a self-funder.

  Proposals for changes to the provision of nursing and personal care in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Executive. If, however, the result of the proposals for personal care are such that people who were self-funders no longer meet the whole cost of their care from their own resources attendance allowance will no longer be payable.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Social Fund payments made at the Wallasey or Hoylake offices which are paid off-line will be met from(a) additional departmental funds and (b) existing Social Fund allocation for the Wirral area. [20909]
  905W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: As is the normal practice for all social fund payments, any which are paid off-line are being met from the existing social fund allocation for the Wirral District. However, as a matter of course, the District budget is closely monitored.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the winter fuel allowance to disabled people. [21440]

  Mr. McCartney
  Help is already available, through disability benefits and the disability premium in income support, in recognition of the extra costs, including heating, which disabled people may have. There are no plans to extend the winter fuel payment scheme to disabled people under age 60.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people will receive winter fuel payments in 2001–02 in Portsmouth, South. [21799]

  Mr. McCartney
  Last winter, around 17,600 people aged 60 and over in Portsmouth, South constituency received a winter fuel payment. The figure for this year will be similar.

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with members of the Scottish Executive since 3 May on free care for the elderly in Scotland; and what was the outcome of such discussions. [21628]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 154–55W, and the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 347W.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from independent financial advisers regarding the implementation of stakeholder pensions. [21543]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Ministers have many meetings with pensions industry representatives, including independent financial advisers.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional IT systems will be required in respect of the new pension credit; and how many additional staff he expects to employ. [22374]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Pension credit will be introduced initially on the Department's existing computer systems, in order to de-risk the project. It will transfer as a replacement system, on modernised IT, at a later date, when the new benefit has been successfully implemented.
  906W
  The pension service, to be launched in April 2002, will administer pension credit, ensuring that pensioners received a joined up service. The numbers of staff required to deliver this new service are still being finalised.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 758W, what precedent exists for awarding the Jubilee Medal to non-service men and women, particularly to those working in the emergency services. [19092]

  Tessa Jowell
  In 1997, the Silver Jubilee Medal was awarded to a wide range of recipients other than the armed forces, including the police, local services (including fire, health, social and education) and the civil service.

  On the question of eligibility for the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb).

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to award the Queen's Jubilee Medal to the(a) Fire and (b) Ambulance Service. [20968]

  Tessa Jowell
  As I announced on Tuesday 4 December, the Government have decided that eligibility for the Golden Jubilee medal should be extended to include members of the emergency services: the police, fire and ambulance services, the Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Mountain Rescue service. As is the case for the armed forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the medal will be issued to serving members who have completed a minimum of five years' reckonable service on 6 February 2002.

  A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  English National Stadium
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what time limits she has set for discussions between Patrick Carter and the Football Association on the English National Stadium; [18513]

  (2) when she expects discussions about football's national stadium between the Football Association and Patrick Carter to be concluded; when she will publish the report of Patrick Carter's investigation into the English National Stadium; and if she will make a statement. [18512]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not set a deadline, but we hope to make an announcement and publish Patrick Carter's report before the Christmas recess.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how far below the water table the playing surface is of the proposed National Football Stadium in the Birmingham bid. [19701]
  907W
  Mr. Caborn
  Birmingham city council have confirmed that the proposed level of the playing surface is above the water table.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the non-parliamentary

  Date

  Minister

  Event

  12 June 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Presentation of the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction 2001

  18 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch of Architecture Week

  20 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Smith Institute seminar

  25 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch of South East England Cultural Strategy

  26 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  CBI Tourism conference

  27 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  5th Lottery Monitor annual conference

  27 June 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of the Film Council's Regional Investment Fund for England

  29 June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Announcement of site for Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain

  2 July 2001

  Secretary of State

  South West Regional Cultural Strategy launch

  2 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  New Opportunities Fund Digitisation Launch

  3 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of NESTA awards

  4 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Dinner for South West Tourism and industry representatives

  5 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Royal Academy of Dance Academic awards

  5 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Lunch with North Devon Marketing Bureau and Exmoor tourism representatives

  10 July 2001

  Secretary of State

  Radio Festival

  11 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  British Hospitality Association's annual reception

  11 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of National Foundation for Youth Music, Early Excellence Centre

  12 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Regional Cultural Consortium strategy launch

  13 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  North West Development Agency annual conference

  13 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of North West Regional Cultural Strategy

  13 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Physical Education and Sport conference

  17 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Liverpool Football Academy

  17 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Brookfield High School

  20 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  East Midlands Sport Board "Government Plans for Sport"

  22 July 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Welsh Tourism industry dinner

  23 July 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Opening Ceremony of Cerebral Palsy—Internal Sports and Recreation Association World Games

  16 July 2001

  Secretary of State

  British Inward Tour Operators Association reception

  16 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  National Heritage Memorial Fund Reception to celebrate the 21st Anniversary of the Fund

  26 July 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of British Library's Exhibition: "Lie of the Land"

  1 August 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of Playday 2001—Children's Play Council

  6 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Supporters Direct conference

  6 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Institute of Sports and Recreation Management conference

  10 September 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of Audiovisual Industries Training Group report

  13 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Julian Stair exhibition at Contemporary Applied Arts

  19 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Launch of North East Sports Strategy

  20 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Medilink Live Medical Technology Fair

  20 September 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  English Historic Towns Forum conference

  22 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Sport Across Staffordshire

  24 September 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Sport England conference "Past, Present, Future"

  25 September 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of British Hospitality Association's Industry Forum

  25 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of new Collections Centre, Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  26 September 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Arts and Business reception

  26 September 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of "Whose London" (LWT Community Arts initiative)

  4 October 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Launch of Non-League Club Directory

  4 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the Japan 2001 "Facts of Life" exhibition at the Hayward Gallery

  8 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the Paul Robeson exhibition at the Theatre Museum, Covent Garden

  8 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Opening of Robin Howard Dance Theatre

  9 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch second round of Artsmark scheme

  10 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Good Practice in Financing the Creative Industries conference

  11 October 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Launch of Anti-Racism Charter for Sport

  11 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Paul Hamlyn Foundation awards for Visual Artists

  12 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Tourism Management Institute seminar

  16 October 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Launch of Colchester Utd. Community Sports Trust

  16 October 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Opening of Ipswich FC's Training Academy

  908W
  events at which (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have made a speech in an official capacity since 8 June; and what was the (i) purpose and (ii) date of the attendance. [21379]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The information requested is in the following table. This excludes speeches made at party or other non-departmental events.
  909W

  Date

  Minister

  Event

  16 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of the "Radical Fashion" Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum

  17 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Design Conference at Imperial War Museum

  17 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of "Art on The Line" Exhibition at Courtauld Institute Gallery

  17 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Taking the Lead: Good Design in Public Buildings" conference

  17 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Yorkshire Tourist Board's Annual Tourism conference

  18 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Heart of England Tourist Board's annual general meeting

  18 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Reception to celebrate the 10th Birthday of Public Monument and Sculpture Association at Courtauld Institute Gallery

  19 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Cheltenham Literature Festival

  22 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  "A Media Odyssey"—Society of Editors conference

  22 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of Channel Four's "Four Minute Wonders"

  23 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of the Regional Task Force report "Renaissance in the Regions"

  23 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Lunch with Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

  25 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Restaurant Association's annual business conference

  26 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Historic Environment Forum seminar on the Valetta Convention

  27 October 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Opening of Michael Young Centre in Cambridge

  29 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch of Centenary Development at Tate Britain

  29 October 2001

  Secretary of State

  Museums Association conference

  29 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of ITC guide "Adjusting the Picture"

  31 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  New Statesman Media Lecture

  1 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  "Excellence Through People" awards ceremony

  1 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Sport England Regeneration Policy Advisory Group dinner

  6 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Coalfields Lottery conference

  6 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Launch of the "Timestars" Teletext pages

  6 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Local Government Association Launch of "Realising the Potential of Cultural Services"

  6 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  British Video Association annual general meeting

  7 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  British Casino Association annual general meeting

  7 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Empowering the Learning Community Steering Group meeting

  8 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Arts and Business Awards 2001 at the National Theatre

  8 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  Westcountry Excellence Food and Tourist awards

  9 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Society of Chief Architects of Local Authorities (SCALA) conference

  9 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Linbury Biennial Prizes for Stage Design at National Theatre

  9 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of London's Living Library 2001

  13 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Tourism Society annual dinner

  13 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Cultural Strategy

  15 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Hands On! conference at Stratford Circus Arts Centre

  19 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Champions for Change Millennium awards

  20 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Arts and Corporate Social Responsibility seminar

  20 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Opening of the River Tees Watersport Centre

  20 November 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  South East Tourist Board awards ceremony

  21 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch of English Heritage annual report

  21 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Business in Sport and Leisure annual conference

  21 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Skillset annual awards

  21 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Launch of Gateway to the South Bank public art project

  22 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Foreign Press Association lunch

  22 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Celebration of the Age Concern Millennium awards

  22 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  "Switzerland Lights Up Tate Modern"

  24 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Annual Congress of Athletics

  25 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Shakespeare Schools Drama Festival Showcase at Duke of York's Theatre

  26 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Institute of Public Policy Research lecture

  27 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  Community Media Association annual festival

  27 November 2001

  Secretary of State

  British Art Market Federation anniversary dinner

  27 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  Artsmark Awards for London Schools

  28 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Central Council for Physical Recreation annual conference

  29 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Institute of Sports Medicine annual awards

  30 November 2001

  Minister of State for the Arts

  National Literacy Trust annual conference

  30 November 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Arts and Business: New Partners reception

  3 December 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  "Broadband Britain—the Content Challenge" conference

  4 December 2001

  Secretary of State

  Launch of Spirit of Friendship Festival

  4 December 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  Sport England national conference on Sport and Regeneration

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21837]
  910W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department is committed to the work-life balance of its staff and supports a range of flexible working patterns including part-time working, job-sharing and homeworking. Staff are encouraged to make use of the Department's formal home working policy for regular home working. Staff are also facilitated
  911W
  and supported to work from home with their manager's agreement. There are currently seven staff working from home on a regular basis, with resources available to support a further six opportunities. A number of staff throughout the Department also work from home on an occasional basis.

  The Department publicises its policy on flexible working and encourages managers to respond positively to requests as part of its commitment to the diversity agenda.

  Youth Services (Ilford)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives her Department(a) has implemented and (b) plans to implement that encourage youth participation in sports and cultural activities in the Ilford, North constituency. [22292]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to the development of sport and increasing opportunities for participation throughout the country, particularly among young people. The strategy for sport—A Sporting Future

  Recipient/project name

  Award amount (£)

  Award date

  Local authority

  Distributing body

  Avigdor Primary School Parents' Association

  Avigdor Cultural Club

  4,700

  6 November 1997

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  The New Redbridge Wind Orchestra

  Music in the community—The New Redbridge Wind Orchestra

  3,750

  6 November 1997

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  Take Away Productions Ltd.

  The Take Away Project

  5,000

  19 March 1997

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  Triple's Show Gang

  This group produce an annual amateur drama production. The award will pay for their first production which will raise funds for Haven House hospice

  2,859

  25 July 2001

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  Wanstead and Woodford Cine and Video Club

  Video equipment, portable screen and sound equipment

  5,000

  13 May 1997

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  Quadraphonic

  Quadraphonic' CD

  5,000

  19 March 1997

  Redbridge

  Arts Council of England

  Note:

  According to the information supplied by the Arts Council of England

  RALP awards benefiting Redbridge

  Organisation

  Postcode

  Awarded (£)

  Artform

  Borough(s) of

  Arts Initiative Ltd.1

  E1 6LS

  30,000

  Combined Arts

  Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest

  para active theatre2

  IG3 9SX

  12,102

  Drama/Theatre/Combined Arts/Dance

  Barking and Dagenham, Newham, Redbridge (went on to tour other boroughs)

  Pascal Theatre Company3

  WC1H 9AR

  25,000

  Drama/Theatre

  Barnet, Camden, Harrow, Redbridge

  Shruthi Laya Shangam4

  SE26 4ES

  17,330

  Music/Dance

  Lambeth, Lewisham, Redbridge

  The Lions Part5

  E11 4HB

  15,920

  Drama/Theatre

  Camden, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Redbridge, Southwark

  1 Linked: a two mile long multi-media, sound and music site-specific art installation by Graeme Miller w/support from Museum of London, about the history of the M11 Link Road and residents of the 400 houses which once stood there.

  2 A1-Daakan: towards the costs of a devised performance piece which will tour London venues, integrating Indian classical dance, Filmi dance, physical theatre, mask and puppetry and supported by a series of related educational workshops.

  3 London-Continental: The development and production of a new play which will be based on interviews with over 60s who lived in the East End as young people, and their grandchildren.

  4 Unique music and dance fusion: a series of performances of new work by Prasanna Ramaswamy by Western and Indian artists at Royal Festival Hall, developing a fusion of Western and Indian Classical music and dance, and including involvement of London-based students.

  5 Land Girls/A Sleep of Prisoners Double Bill: a theatre double bill commemorating World War 2 (a play from 1951 and a new devised work) to be performed in London churches including outreach and workshop programmes for older people as part of the research process.

  912W
  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 sport for young people at the local level rests with a number of organisations including Sport England, local authorities, local education authorities, schools, sports governing bodies, sports clubs and volunteers.

  A number of national programmes which will provide better sports facilities and improve sports provision are being implemented in the London borough of Redbridge including lottery funding where around £4.5 million has been committed to community sports facilities in the borough, the School Sport Co-ordinators programme where a bid is currently being worked up by the local authority and NOF Round three under which £2.1 million has been allocated to the borough. A secondary school in the borough is also showing interest in designation as a specialist sports college.

  The Arts Council has made six lottery awards in Ilford, North totalling £26,309 (details as follows). London Arts Board has made five awards benefiting Ilford, North, totalling £100,352 (details as follows), through the Regional Arts Lottery Programme.

  Boxing Centres
  Mr. Wray:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding her Department provided to local boxing centres in the last 12 months. [22077]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the year up to 30 November 2001, Sport England has made awards under the Lottery Sports Fund of £81,250 to the Finchley and District Amateur Boxing Club and £36,206 to the Riverside Leisure Centre in Bristol for the purchase of boxing rings and equipment. In addition nine awards totalling £30,929 have been made under the Awards for All programme for boxing equipment or to boxing clubs.

  Historic Environment
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the Government's statement of policy towards the historic environment. [22961]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and I will publish our statement "The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future" tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available at my Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Database
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make the national registry and voting data electronic; and if he will make a statement. [22440]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply

  The LASER (Local Authorities Secure Electoral Registers) project has been established by my Department, in conjunction with the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), the Office of the e-envoy, the Electoral Commission, the Local Government Association and electoral administrators. Its aim is to provide electronic access for authorised users to electoral registers on a national basis. Tenders have been sought for work on the preliminary stages of the project, which will benefit from £12 million Capital Modernisation Funding.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to facilitate geographic access to magistrates courts in the county of Essex. [R] [21752]

  Mr. Wills
  I have no proposals in respect of geographic access to magistrates courts in Essex. It is the Government's policy that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts in 914W
  Essex, as with each of the 42 magistrates courts committee areas, are for the local courts committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of Witham magistrates court. [R] [21751]

  Mr. Wills
  I am not aware of any agreed plans that the Essex magistrates courts committee may have in respect of the Witham magistrates court.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department introduced a major new flexible working package in 2001, including the option to work from home on a regular basis.

  Any individual may seek to work from home for personal reasons, and staff are encouraged to make out a business case by using comprehensive guidance, available electronically, to consider feasible options. The department will support staff with the necessary equipment within the home environment where appropriate.

  The Court Service has set up a pilot exercise to explore the merits of home working on a more extensive scale, to establish whether there are significant benefits to the organisation.

  Currently there are fewer than 40 staff who work from home on a regular basis. However, we fully expect that number to increase.

  Commission for Judicial Appointments
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in the establishment of the Commission for Judicial Appointments since the first Commissioner was appointed in March. [23120]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to tell the House that Her Majesty yesterday made Orders in Council appointing seven new Deputy Commissioners to assist Sir Colin Campbell, the First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments, in conducting an ongoing audit of the appointments procedures for judges and Queen's Counsel. The remit of the Commission also extends to investigating individual complaints about the way these procedures are applied. The Deputy Commissioners are:

  Urmila Banerjee

  Tony Boorman

  Jane Drabble

  Frances Heidensohn

  Sir Duncan Nichol

  John Simpson

  Jean Tomlin.

  915W
  Additional, John Simpson is also appointed as Commissioner for Judicial Appointments in Northern Ireland.

  Land Registry
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made towards the implementation of the recommendations made in the Quinquennial Review of Her Majesty's Land Registry. [23035]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have approved a wide-ranging programme of work in response to the review. Details will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  HM Land Registry is committed to providing the world's best service for guaranteeing ownership of land, and for facilitating property-related transactions. As a fourth time Charter Mark winner, the Land Registry already delivers excellent service to its customers. Further improvement to its internal operations recommended by the review are being pursued vigorously. By bringing forward this wider work programme, the Land Registry can, with the help of other Government Departments and stakeholders, develop innovative and customer-focused services for an even better service.

  The main elements of the wider programme, much of which depends on the Land Registration Bill introduced in July, are to:

  develop and promote electronic conveyancing services, including the National Land Information Service;

  expand the geographic coverage and content of the land register;

  explore ways in which the land register can contribute to making the property markets more efficient and more transparent;

  consider the business case for providing further advisory services relating to land registration by 2003; and

  launch a new independent adjudication service for land registration disputes in 2003.

  Those elements of the programme which are for the Land Registry to take forward will be delivered through a new 10-year strategic plan which I shall publish in the spring.

  I and ministerial colleagues in other Departments with responsibility for land and property markets will monitor the delivery of the programme closely. We will also review the arrangements for consultation across and between Government and those involved in these markets.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinian Territories
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the money her Department spends multilaterally in the Palestinian territories goes towards furthering peace and security in the region. [21873]

  Clare Short
  Our multilateral contributions comprise: £25 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for Palestinian refugees; 5 per cent. of the World bank's resources; and approximately 19 per cent. of the European Commission's aid budget. All of these 916W
  efforts are designed to contribute to the peace process by helping to build capacity in the Palestinian Authority and to help meet the basic needs of the local population.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department in the Palestinian territories. [21875]

  Clare Short
  Our overall aim is to help promote peace, stability and economic and social development. The UK's bilateral inputs are designed in the broader context of the overall international effort. We work increasingly through World Bank and European Commission channels. The objectives for the UK programme are to support the middle east peace process through capacity building and institutional development for the Palestinian Authority; and to help meet basic human needs, through delivery of health and education services.

  Poverty in the west bank and Gaza Strip has increased during the current crisis. Estimates suggest that the poverty rate has risen during this period from 21 per cent. to 35 per cent. The Palestinian economy shrank by 8.2 per cent. in 2000, while unemployment has risen sharply from a low of 10 per cent. in September 2000 to current levels of over 28 per cent. We have allocated additional resources to deal with the current emergency. We are targeting areas known to be major causes of poverty including unemployment, and lack of access to basic services and water and sanitation.

  In 2001–02, we have increased our bilateral allocation from £8 million to £14 million. In addition, we have contributed £25 million this calendar year to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for education, health, relief and social services to Palestinian refugees in the west bank and Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department is providing to revive the Inter-Congolese dialogue aimed at ending the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [22473]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £525,000 this year in financial support for the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. This consists of a contribution to the costs of staging the Dialogue and support to the Facilitator's Office. The Dialogue is due to reconvene in South Africa early next year. We will actively consider the possibility of any further assistance as needs become clearer closer to the time.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking, in co-operation with other Departments to promote the peace effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [22446]

  Clare Short
  HMG continue to press all parties to honour their commitments which they have made under the Lusaka Peace Accord. Progress on Lusaka is the key to making progress towards peace in DRC. We are providing support to the Facilitator's Office of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue and has been quick to offer support to take forward opportunities on Disarmament,
  917W
  Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) activities in DRC. These are both key elements of the Lusaka Accord. We are also supporting gross roots peace-building initiatives in the east of the country and a nationwide radio infrastructure project to assist the Congolese people in keeping up-to-date with developments in the peace process.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the measures taken by her Department to encourage free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. [21874]

  Clare Short
  DFID has provided support for civic education programmes and for the training of independent national electoral monitors through local non-governmental organisations. However, recent Zimbabwe Government proposals to exclude civil society from supporting election processes may restrict this work and further undermine international confidence. The EU and Commonwealth are continuing to urge an early invitation to international election observers to create a climate conducive to free and fair elections.

  Departmental Staff (Home Working)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21827]

  Clare Short
  We are currently preparing a guide for staff and their managers on the range of flexible working options available in DFID, including working from home. My Department has approved medium and long-term plans to introduce worldwide remote access for all staff that need it. Our records show that over 500 staff worldwide are currently able to dial into our information technology systems from home. We are currently gathering information on how many of these staff work from home regularly.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the Government will ratify the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; and if she will make a statement. [22263]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 December 2001, Official Report, columns 458–59W, to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown).

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Post-16 Education (Rural Areas)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of young people living in rural areas in the United Kingdom went into post-16 education compared to the national average in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16535]
  918W
  Alun Michael
  The DfES, which is responsible for the publication of statistics on participation in education, does not produce figures on the basis of an urban/rural breakdown. Figures for individual local education authorities and local skills councils are available in their statistical bulletin "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in each Local Area and Region, England, 1994–95 to 1998–99", available on their website.

  Castle Cement Plant, Ribblesdale
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tests have been carried out by the Environment Agency on dioxin emissions at the Ribblesdale plant of Castle Cement in the past 12 months; and if she will publish the findings. [18543]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Since November 2000 the Environment Agency has conducted three sets of dioxin tests on the kilns at Castle Cement's Ribblesdale plant. The individual sample results are shown in the table. The dioxin limit in the site's Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) permit is 0.8 ng/in3.

  Sample point

  Date sample taken

  Results ng/m3 dioxin

  Stack from kilns 5 and 6

  14–15 February 2001

  2.887 and 1.628

  Kiln 7

  1–2 May 2001

  0.001 and 0.001

  Stack from kilns 5 and 6

  16–17 August 2001

  0.212 and 0.295

  Kiln 5a

  16 August 2001

  0.053

  Kiln 5b

  16 August 2001

  0.216

  Kiln 6

  17 August 2001

  0.200

  Full details of these results are available on the agency's public registers, at the local Environment Agency office (Richard Fairclough House, 50 Knutsford Road, Warrington, WA4 1HG) and at the Ribble Valley borough council's offices.

  The agency, in accordance with its enforcement policy, has investigated the breach of the emissions limit that occurred at the stack from kilns 5 and 6 on 14–15 February 2001 and a warning letter has been issued to Castle Cement. Over the period to August 2001, I understand that the company undertook its own exploration of emissions from the stack, including sampling. Following the February breach, the agency commissioned work modelling the likely fate of dioxins in the environment and the human food chain. This concluded that even under the worst conditions, individuals in the community exposed to the levels found during the breach of the limit would be most unlikely to exceed the World Health Organisation guideline intake. However, the agency will not accept any re-occurrence of the elevated levels found in February 2001.

  Agricultural Development Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether funding from round three of the Agricultural Development Scheme will support projects outside areas directly affected by foot and mouth disease. [18872]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: Yes, projects from all areas of England are eligible provided that they meet the eligibility criteria for the

  919W
  scheme, including the requirement that they are directed at sectors affected directly or indirectly by foot and mouth disease or address structural or other weaknesses highlighted by foot and mouth disease.

  Environmental Management Systems
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the standard for environmental management systems 1SO 14001 is one of the measures of environmental management standards recognised by her Department as demonstrating a commitment to responsible environmental performance; and if she will make a statement. [20512]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department acknowledges the important role of the international standard for environmental management systems, ISO 14001 at the global level. It provides organisations with a sound mechanism for demonstrating publicly their commitment to pollution prevention, to responsible management of environmental risks and impacts and to continual improvements in performance. Having an independent third party certify that the organisation has implemented the management system in accordance with the requirements of the standard is something that is increasingly valued by various stakeholders.

  Carbofuran/Chlorfenvinphos
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her EU counterparts regarding the revocation of licences for the use of(a) carbofuran and (b) chlorfenvinphos; and if she will make a statement. [20663]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Under EU rules the UK is not obliged to inform other member states of any national review programme of pesticide products undertaken to address national issues. However, all member states and the Commission were informed of the UK programme to review organophosphate compounds which included carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos. In addition, all are automatically informed of any new product approvals and revocations. The separate European programme intends to review all active substances used in plant protection products within the community and all member states and the Commission are involved in this decision-making process.

  The approval holders for carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos chose not to submit supporting data for their products under the UK review and therefore these products will not be available in the UK after 31 December 2001. Under the European review programme carbofuran has been supported so far although its continued use will depend upon the assessment of the data submitted. Chlorfenvinphos has not been supported. The impact of the European regime will not be felt until 2003 when all the compounds not supported by companies anticipating extensive data requirements will be withdrawn.

  Member states, can however, carry out their own review exercises and carry them out at different times to the European review. In this case, the UK
  920W
  organophosphate review was introduced to address public concerns about the safety of these compounds and we have acted in a consistent manner to revoke their use where appropriate. However, the impact of the loss of these products is not underestimated and officials will continue to do everything possible to help the trade and user groups.

  Animal Health Bill
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the compatibility of the Animal Health Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights. [21103]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: As at 4 December the Department has received four pieces of correspondence from interested organisations and individuals which, among other issues relating to the Animal Health Bill, commented on its compatibility with human rights legislation.

  Waterways
  Dr Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received concerning the management of Britain's waterways, with particular reference to those in the north-east. [19993]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has received a number of representations recently on the review of the Environment Agency's navigation responsibilities, but none related specifically to the management of waterways in the north-east.

  Rural Reports
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the reports by the Rural Task Force and by Lord Haskins. [23123]

  Alun Michael
  I will be publishing the Government's response to the report of the Rural Task Force tomorrow. The published document will also be a response to the report of Lord Haskins, also published on 18 October, and will also take stock on the progress on delivering the Rural White Paper.

  Biosecurity
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps she plans to take to assist farmers to meet appropriate biosecurity measures. [18023]

  Mr. Morley
  Many farmers are operating high biosecurity standards as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak and it is in their interest to maintain high standards into the future. I have therefore asked my officials to prepare a Code of Practice that will recommend best biosecurity practice to be available to all those engaged in livestock farming. The code will draw on the advice that has been given by the local Biosecurity Units of the State Veterinary Service during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 330W, on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on which date each of the seven new statutory statements of complaint was received; and on which dates the responses were made. [22372]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  PCA case

  Date received by Home Office

  Date answered by Home Office

  No. 1

  21 May 2001

  2 July 2001

  No. 2

  6 August 2001

  31 August 2001

  No. 3

  5 September 2001

  17 October 2001

  No. 4

  7 September 2001

  24 October 2001

  No. 5

  11 September 2001

  22 October 2001

  No. 6

  18 September 2001

  25 October 2001

  No. 7

  5 November 2001

  1—

  1 Outstanding

  Immigration
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of applicants seeking an extension of an existing leave to remain there are; how many of these cases have been awaiting decision(a) more than 12 months and (b) six to 12 months; how many such cases have lost entitlement to disability related benefits; and whether a protocol has been agreed with the Department of Social Security to backdate benefits when the claim for extension is decided. [20902]

  Angela Eagle
  Statistics on the number of applicants seeking an extension of an existing leave to remain and the length of time they have been awaiting a decision are not available.

  I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that payment of disability living allowance or attendance allowance can continue where a recipient has applied for an extension of leave to remain.

  Deportation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to detain a person whose name has been communicated to him and to deport him. [20262]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on
  11 December 2001.

  Custody
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of people arrested remained in custody for longer than two hours in the last 12 months. [20929]

  Beverley Hughes
  Available data on arrests for notifiable offences are based on aggregated returns made by the police. The information collected is by sex, age group, ethnicity and offence category. Information is not collected on the time people were held in custody.
  922W
  The authority for police power of arrest is set out in sections 24 and 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Reviews of the detention of each person in police detention in connection with the investigation of an offence shall be carried out periodically in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the same Act.

  Languages (Detainees and Translators)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers speak(a) Arabic, (b) Hindi, (c) Urdu, (d) Farsi or Dan and (e) Pashto as a first language; how many officers, and at what grades, are trained to speak each language; and how many translators are available for work in detention camps in each region of England and Wales. [21308]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the languages spoken by prison officers is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. Translation arrangements in Immigration Detention Centres are provided primarily by external translators and on occasion by Immigration Service staff.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 2 November from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the state of roads and pathways under the control of the Prison Service relating to the Sudbury Park estate, Ashboume in Derbyshire. [21470]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 12 December 2001.

  Forced Marriage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the practice of forced marriage among British Muslims. [21618]

  Angela Eagle
  The practice of forced marriage is wrong. Forced marriage occurs where a marriage is conducted without the valid consent of both parties, and where duress is a factor. It can affect many communities from a variety of cultural backgrounds and continents, not just Muslims. All major world religions condemn forced marriage.

  On 6 November, the Government announced their action plan to tackle the problem, including measures to support victims, in response to the report of the Working Group on forced Marriage "A Choice by Right" published last year. Copies of this report, the joint Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office action plan and the progress report on the latter are available in the Library and on the Home Office website.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British Muslims have complained to the Department about being forced into marriage against their will in the last five years. [21614]
  923W
  Angela Eagle
  We do not have figures covering the past five years. During the past two years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had over 300 inquiries on forced marriage. These include people who have:

  (i) already been forced into a marriage and are back in the United Kingdom and have contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO);

  (ii) people who have made telephone calls to the FCO prior to leaving the United Kingdom, stating they fear they may be forced into a marriage;

  (iii) people who have escaped a forced marriage and have been repatriated back to the UK with the help of the Consulates ;and

  (iv) people who are still in the countries where they have been taken to by their families to be forced into a marriage but are unable to escape because they are being held against their will.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures there are to ensure that British Muslims are able to choose their marriage partner freely. [21615]

  Angela Eagle
  Under United Kingdom law, any marriage requires the valid consent of both parties. We are seeking to raise awareness of the legal position in the communities affected by forced marriage, particularly community leaders and potential or actual victims.

  Prison Diets
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the diet of prisoners. [20959]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Public sector prisons provide three meals a day for prisoners. Catering departments prepare multi-choice menus, which meet the needs of the establishment's population and enable pre-selection to take place. All prisons must comply with all food safety legislation and must have regard to particular dietary and religious needs. The Prison Service Catering Manual, which is published as a Prison Service Order, provides full guidance for catering staff on hygiene and food safety, nutritional requirements, diets for special groups, food quality and quality control, and customer surveys. Its requirements apply to both Prison Service and contractually managed establishments.

  Homicides
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides were committed in each year from 1997 to 2001 by criminals who were on early release from prison at the time of the attack. [18418]

  Beverley Hughes
  Records held centrally are not in a form as to permit routine analyses of the re-offending of all those on early release.

  However, figures are available for homicides by persons who had previously been convicted of homicide in England and Wales, and are as follows:

  1997: 2—One offender committed suicide after the second offence.

  1998: 2

  1999: 5—One offender committed suicide and one offender died following the second offence.

  2000: 0

  2001: 0

  924W
  Data for suspects convicted of homicides by previous homicide convictions are published annually in tables 4.10 and 4.11 of Criminal Statistics England and Wales.

  Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his reasons for excluding the police from awards of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal. [18507]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  As I announced on Tuesday 4 December, the Government have decided that eligibility for the Golden Jubilee medal should be extended to include members of the emergency services the police, fire and ambulance services, the Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Mountain Rescue service. As is the case for the armed forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the medal will be issued to serving members who have completed a minimum of five years' reckonable service on 6 February 2002.

  A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Internet Proof
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to(a) identify and (b) remove barriers to the take-up of internet proof of (i) age and (ii) identity authentication services by (A) individuals and (B) business users. [21940]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the e-Envoy in the Cabinet Office will shortly publish consultation papers that identify, and propose policies to remove, barriers to the take up of authentication services based on the use of digital signatures.

  Some of the approaches to authentication proposed in these consultation papers could be extended to provide proof of age.

  The Government continue to support the tScheme; an industry-led voluntary co-regulatory approval body for Trusted Service Providers (TSP). tScheme or equivalent approval will be required for authentication services used to support electronic transactions with Government.

HEALTH

  Chorley and South Ribble Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that Chorley and South Ribble accident and emergency department plays a central role in achieving the improvements to services planned by the Government; [8414]

  (2) how many ambulance emergency cases were taken to Chorley accident and emergency ward in each of the last five years; and how many of these were then taken to Royal Preston hospital; [8440]

  (3) what plans he has to extend services at Chorley casualty department; [8412]
  925W
  (4) what change in service levels has taken place at the accident and emergency department at Chorley hospital in each of the last five years; [8442]

  (5) if he will support a casualty department at Chorley and South Ribble hospital; [8411]

  (6) what assistance he provides to recruit extra staff to work on the accident and emergency department at Chorley and South Ribble hospital; [8415]

  (7) how many people have been treated at Chorley accident and emergency department in each of the last five years; [8441]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  All ambulance patients

  4,046

  5,840

  6,491

  7,097

  All ambulance patients admitted to Chorley

  1,544

  2,576

  2,812

  3,303

  All Chorley ambulance patients admitted to Preston

  169

  239

  277

  291

  Total A&E patients transferred to Preston

  760

  1,339

  1,415

  1,472

  The unification of the accident and emergency department for Chorley and Preston has brought many enhancements to service levels and an increase in activity, as shown in the tables. The rotation of consultants and their junior colleagues between the two sites has enabled medical staff to gain the relevant experience at both locations to provide comprehensive, quality health care. This has led, specifically at Chorley, to more consultants working on the hospital site and, at the same time, to an increase in the number of middle grade doctors working over the 24-hour period.The accident and emergency service for Central Lancashire, which is provided on both sites, already has an excellent record of recruiting staff for the department. It is, for example, one of the few units in the north-west with a full complement of nursing staff.

  Chorley and South Ribble accident and emergency department was redeveloped and expanded in August 1996. The link with Preston has secured the future of this service, so that the population of Chorley and South Ribble will continue to enjoy access to two accident and emergency departments, at Chorley and Preston. Based on existing guidelines, and through its partnership arrangements, Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital has the capacity to provide 24-hour A&E cover in all clinical situations.

  Total attendances at Chorley accident and emergency in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Number

  1996–97

  42,600

  1997–98

  45,620

  1998–99

  46,670

  1999–2000

  48,481

  2000–01

  48,504

  The Boards of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston acute hospitals national health service trust made it clear that Chorley will continue to provide 24-hour emergency services. The Chorley and South Ribble primary care trust supports that plan. In addition, Chorley and South Ribble district general hospital will continue to play a major role in the provision of orthopaedic services for Central Lancashire.
  926W
  (8) if he will ensure that emergency and orthopaedic services continue to be dealt with at Chorley and South Ribble hospital; [8413]

  (9) if he will make a statement on the merits of operating a full accident and emergency department at Chorley hospital. [8443]

  Jacqui Smith
  Chorley and South Ribble accident and emergency department plays a central role in the current services and will continue to do so. Figures for the number of accident and emergency cases taken to Chorley and Preston are based on the accident and emergency information system, which was introduced in 1997–98. Comparable earlier data are not available:

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) digital and (b) analogue hearing aids have been fitted under the NHS as part of the modernising NHS hearing aid services project. [15598]

  Jacqui Smith
  By the end of November 2001, 18,227 adults had been assessed for digital aids and 16,628 digital hearing aids had been fitted by the 20 national health service trusts involved in the pilot project. Additionally, another 1,146 analogue hearing aids were fitted at those centres.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 948, on digital hearing aids, if the funding decisions for 2002–03 for the sites already providing digital hearing aids will be based on maintaining annual levels of service in the provision of digital hearing aids at each site. [22375]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Funding decisions for 2002–03 will be made in time to allow sites to make plans for delivering services for that financial year.

  Therapy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects that his Department funds that provide medically approved therapy through leisure and sporting outlets; and if he will make a statement. [17735]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not fund any projects to provide therapy through leisure and sporting outlets, although there are exercise referral schemes whereby primary care staff can refer patients to leisure centres for advice and assistance in increasing physical activity. However, I understand my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the provision of hydrotherapy services. Hydrotherapy can be provided by the national health service and patients in the first instance should discuss their condition with their general practitioner or consultant, who can advise and refer appropriately.
  927W
  Furthermore, I am informed that there are local hydrotherapy services in the North-East at Middlesbrough General Hospital, Hartlepool University Hospital and University Hospital of North Tees. In addition, there are special schools with hydrotherapy pools, which may be available when not being used by the children. These are:

  High Tunstall Comprehensive School in Hartlepool

  Bishopsgarth Comprehensive School in North Tees

  Whitehouse Farm School in Stocton

  New Ormesby School or Tennyman Junior School in Middlesborough have special units and possibly have pools.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in delivering a Diabetes National Service Framework. [17887]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Diabetes National Service Framework standards will be published shortly and the delivery strategy in summer 2002. Publishing in this way will enable us to engage the national health service, partner agencies and people with diabetes more closely in planning and managing the implementation of the Framework. It will also enable us to take account of the resources that will be available in future to support implementation, and the changing roles and responsibilities of NHS organisations and staff. We are also responding to the current pressures on the NHS, particularly in primary care.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the level of capacity required before the development of a National Service Framework for Diabetes. [20858]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will be publishing the Diabetes National Service Framework in two stages, with the standards this year to be followed by the delivery strategy in summer 2002. Publishing in this way will enable us to engage the national health service, partner agencies and people with diabetes more closely in planning and managing the implementation of the Framework. It will also enable us to take account of the resources that will be available in future to support implementation, and the changing roles and responsibilities of NHS organisations and staff.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's homes in England and Wales that(a) are open and (b) have closed are now under investigation for possible child abuse; and if he will make a statement. [17886]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of children's homes in England that are under investigation for possible child abuse.

  Although the number of children's homes in Wales that are involved in such investigations is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, a survey carried out in 1998–99 on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Crime Committee established that 32 forces in England and Wales had been investigating claims of institutional child abuse or were doing so during
  928W
  the period covered by the questionnaire (1 January 1998 to 30 June 1999). Many of the remaining forces stated that they had been engaged in such inquiries at other times.

  A similar survey was carried out by ACPO earlier this year to which 32 forces responded. During the period covered by this survey (1997 to 2000) those 32 forces detailed 96 investigations (some of which may have involved more than one institution).

  In-patient Treatment
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months for in patient treatment in the Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority area in (i) March 1997, (ii) September 2001 and (iii) each reporting period in between. [17993]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information relating to in-patient waiting times in the Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority is shown in the table.

  Patients waiting for elective admission, Newcastle and North Tyneside HA, March 1997 to September 2001: Ordinary and day case admissions combined

  Quarter

  Total waiting

  Over 6 months

  Over 12 months

  March 1997

  8,932

  1,949

  47

  June 1997

  9,253

  2,157

  207

  September 1997

  8,983

  2,305

  320

  December 1997

  9,315

  2,364

  357

  March 1998

  9,427

  1,993

  47

  June 1998

  9,191

  1,851

  60

  September 1998

  8,847

  1,890

  121

  December 1998

  9,033

  1,790

  108

  March 1999

  8,252

  1,565

  93

  June 1999

  8,598

  1,561

  108

  September 1999

  8,420

  1,639

  133

  December 1999

  8,789

  1,765

  101

  March 2000

  7,891

  1,407

  85

  June 2000

  8,175

  1,639

  141

  September 2000

  7,714

  1,722

  169

  December 2000

  7,649

  1,664

  162

  March 2001

  7,275

  1,363

  71

  June 2001

  7,253

  1,384

  120

  September 2001

  6,945

  1,422

  55

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  External Auditing
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of external auditing for the NHS has been in each of the years from 1990–91 to 2000–01. [18068]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Cost of external auditing for the national health service (England)

  £000

  Cost of external audit

  Other audit remuneration

  1990–911

  81

  0

  1991–92

  16,260

  0

  1992–93

  17,097

  0

  1993–94

  28,834

  8,284

  1994–95

  31,105

  11,841

  1995–96

  30,559

  13,937

  1996–97

  28,656

  14,647

  929W

  Cost of external auditing for the national health service (England)

  £000

  Cost of external audit

  Other audit remuneration

  1997–98

  28,279

  16,182

  1998–99

  29,346

  16,018

  1999–2000

  29,105

  16,030

  2000–012

  35,244

  13,176

  1 The limited information shown for 1990–91 covers only the few organisations which included previous year figures in their 1991–92 accounts.

  2 Data for 2000–01 remain provisional and are subject to continuing audit by the National Audit Office.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the maximum outside night-time noise event target of 60 dBu in the World Health Organisation Charter on Environment and Transport includes noise from aircraft. [18439]

  Ms Blears
  The World Health Organisation guidelines on community noise express maximum noise events as dBA Lmax. The outside night-time noise event target is 60dBA Lmax and does include noise from aircraft.

  Haemoglobinopathies
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments he has made of the effectiveness of(a) genetic, (b) pre-conceptual and (c) ante-natal counselling offered by the NHS in relation to (i) sickle cell, (ii) thalassaemia and (iii) other haemoglobinopathies. [18893]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report of the survey of haemoglobinopathy screening policy and practice in England www-phm.umds/haemscreening/publications published in October this year indicates that few national health service trusts outside high haemoglobinopathy prevalence areas currently use specialist counsellors.

  No assessment of the effectiveness of genetic, pre-conceptual and ante-natal counselling in the NHS has been made. However, the NHS Plan makes a commitment to implement effective and appropriate screening programmes for women and children. This commitment includes a new national linked ante-natal and neo-natal screening programme for haemoglobinopathies (sickle cell and thalassaemia) by 2004. The screening programme will look at the issue of counselling as part of its overall remit.

  Patient Safety
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the work of the National Patient Safety Agency; [19057]

  (2) which health authorities are participating in the pilot study areas investigating systems to report failures and near misses. [19059]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Patient Safety Agency was established on 2 July 2001 to improve the safety of national health service patients by promoting a culture of reporting and learning from adverse healthcare events. It will establish and operate a national system for reporting, analysing and learning lessons from adverse events and near misses involving national health service patients. The 930W
  National Patient Safety Agency will also provide advice and guidance to assist in the promotion of patient safety in the NHS.

  The new reporting system is currently being tested at pilot sites in the following health authorities:

  England

  Birmingham Bradford

  Cambridge and Huntington

  Camden and Islington

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Dudley

  East London and the City

  East Riding

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Leicestershire

  Merton, Southwark and Wandsworth

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  North and East Devon

  Oxfordshire

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Tees

  Wakefield

  Wiltshire

  Wales

  Dyfed Powys

  Iechyd Morgannwg.

  Aluminium
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out into the medical impact of aluminium on the human body(a) via its use as a food packaging material and (b) in terms of its presence in drinking water. [19077]

  Ms Blears
  The most recently published study by the Food Standards Agency showed that exposures of United Kingdom consumers to aluminium from the typical diet in the UK were well within the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) established for aluminium in 1989 by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, even for those eating above-average amounts of food. Although general exposures from the diet are low, the Food Standards Agency currently has four research projects to test if there is migration of aluminium into food from, respectively, glazed ceramic ware, paper and board, kitchen ware and glass.

  Aluminium in drinking-water is a minor contributor to oral intakes of aluminium in UK consumers.

  A wide range of types of research contributes to scientific understanding of the effects of aluminium in humans. There is no comprehensive national or international database of current research on aluminium. The most relevant studies listed in the National Research Register concern the role of aluminium in dementia, clinico-pathological correlates of dementia in Down's syndrome (including aluminium absorption), possible protective effects of selenium and magnesium on the toxicity of aluminium, and a clinical trial of immunotherapy with aluminium hydroxide. The National Research Register is a database of on-going and recently

  931W
  completed research projects funded by, or of interest to, the United Kingdom's national health service, and is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  In addition, the Department and the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority are funding continuing studies of health outcomes in relation to the Lowermoor water pollution incident of 1988, in which the principal pollutant was aluminium sulphate at very high concentrations.

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts provide treatment and which health authorities have purchased treatment for individual patients(a) inside and (b) outside their own area, for macular degeneration. [19416]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000–01, there were 3,317 in-patient episodes in England with a primary diagnosis concerning age-related macular degeneration (AMD). The hospital trusts that provided the treatment are given in list 1, the health authorities that purchased treatment from within their own area in list 2, and those that purchased treatment from outside their area in list 3. An appraisal of the use of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of AMD, which is being conducted by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), should be completed in July 2002 provided there are no appeals. NICE' s guidance will provide for a consistent approach to the purchasing of the treatment.

  List 1—Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) for primary diagnosis "Degeneration of macula and posterior pole" (ICD10 code H35.3), by hospital trust, NHS trusts in England, 2000–01

  Number

  RP6

  Moorfields Eye hospital

  329

  RL4

  Royal Wolverhampton hospital

  293

  RQ6

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospitals

  153

  RR8

  Leeds Teaching hospitals

  130

  RBU

  Central Manchester healthcare

  120

  REU

  Burnley healthcare

  115

  RLZ

  Royal Shrewsbury hospitals

  106

  RTX

  Morecambe Bay hospitals

  92

  RLW

  City hospital

  90

  RJY

  Wigan and Leigh health

  84

  RHM

  Southampton University hospitals

  79

  RGU

  Brighton healthcare

  74

  REF

  Royal Cornwall hospitals and west Cornwall

  72

  RKC

  Warrington hospital

  70

  RLN

  City hospitals Sunderland

  64

  RJ5

  St. Mary's hospital

  63

  REZ

  Rochdale healthcare

  52

  RDZ

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch

  50

  RVY

  Southport and Ormskirk hospital

  48

  RA5

  East Gloucestershire NHS trust

  47

  RFK

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham University

  45

  RA7

  United Bristol healthcare

  44

  RE7

  West Cumbria healthcare

  44

  RM1

  Norfolk and Norwich healthcare

  44

  RMR

  Blackpool Victoria

  44

  RCB

  York health services

  42

  RTH

  Oxford Radcliffe hospital

  41

  RMF

  Preston Acute hospitals

  34

  RJE

  North Staffordshire hospital centre

  33

  RCX

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech hospitals

  32

  RTG

  Southern Derbyshire Acute hospitals

  31

  RDF

  Forest healthcare

  30

  RPL

  Worthing and Southlands hospitals

  30

  RWE

  University hospitals of Leicester

  30

  RGT

  Addenbrookes

  29

  RMB

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  27

  932W

  List 1—Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) for primary diagnosis "Degeneration of macula and posterior pole" (ICD10 code H35.3), by hospital trust, NHS trusts in England, 2000–01

  Number

  RNT

  Stoke Mandeville hospital

  27

  RCC

  Scarborough and north-east Yorkshire

  26

  REM

  Aintree hospitals

  26

  RBN

  St. Helens and Knowsley hospital

  25

  RTD

  Newcastle upon Tyne hospitals

  25

  RTK

  Ashford and St. Peters

  25

  RGQ

  Ipswich hospital

  23

  RD1

  Royal United hospitals Bath

  22

  RA9

  South Devon healthcare

  21

  RJ1

  Guy's and St. Thomas' hospital

  21

  RCV

  Central Sheffield University hospitals

  19

  RCJ

  South Tees Acute hospitals

  18

  RWA

  Hull and east Yorkshire hospitals

  18

  RWP

  Worcestershire Acute hospitals

  18

  RJZ

  King's healthcare

  16

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals NHS trust

  15

  RMC

  Bolton hospitals

  15

  RJ7

  St. George's healthcare

  14

  RTA

  South Durham healthcare

  14

  RWJ

  Stockport

  13

  RDE

  Essex Rivers healthcare

  11

  RN3

  Swindon and Marlborough

  11

  RWF

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

  11

  RAJ

  Southend hospital

  10

  RBA

  Taunton and Somerset NHS trust

  10

  RH8

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  10

  RKB

  Walsgrave hospitals

  10

  RDU

  Frimley Park hospital

  9

  RTP

  Surrey and Sussex healthcare

  9

  RAG

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu hospital

  7

  RBL

  Wirral hospital

  7

  REX

  Oldham

  7

  RGB

  Huddersfield healthcare services

  7

  RGN

  Peterborough hospitals

  7

  RK9

  Plymouth hospitals

  6

  Other trusts (inc. unknown and foreign)

  73

  3,317

  Of the 3,317 cases with this diagnosis, 1,907 (57 per cent.) were treated within the health authority of residence.

  List 2—the following HAs have purchased treatment from trusts within their own area; the majority of these have also purchased treatment from outside their area:

  QEM: Wolverhampton

  QEF: Shropshire

  QC4: Morecambe Bay

  QDH: Leeds

  QDA: Wigan and Bolton

  QDV: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  QCY: North-west Lancashire

  QET: Norfolk

  QAM: East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  QDR: North Yorkshire

  QCV: North Cheshire

  QC7: Sefton

  QDW: Dorset

  QDK: North Cumbria

  QCT: Bury and Rochdale

  QDY: Gloucestershire

  QD8: Avon

  QAN: West Sussex

  QEH: North Staffordshire

  QCJ: Southern Derbyshire

  933W

  QD9: Birmingham

  QCL: Leicestershire

  QC2: Liverpool

  QCX: East Lancashire

  QD3: Southampton and south-west Hampshire

  QD6: South and west Devon

  QC5: St. Helens and Knowsley

  QA3: Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  QCF: Suffolk

  QCE: Oxfordshire

  QA8: Buckinghamshire

  QAH: Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  QER: Cambridge

  QEN: Worcestershire

  QDF: East Riding

  QDP: Tees

  QCP: Nottingham

  QC3: Manchester

  QDN: Sunderland

  QAL: West Surrey

  QDD: Bradford

  QAT: Camden and Islington

  QAX: North Essex

  QD5: Somerset

  QDJ: Newcastle and north Tyneside

  QDE: County Durham

  QC8: Stockport

  QA5: Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  QDX: North and east Devon

  QD7: Wiltshire

  QAY: South Essex

  QAF: West Kent

  QDT: Calderdale and Kirklees

  QDC: Wirral

  QC9: West Pennine

  QCR: Sheffield

  QC I: South Lancashire

  QAJ: Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  QCC: Northamptonshire

  QD1: North and mid Hampshire

  List 3—the following HAs have purchased treatment from outside their area:

  QAQ: Barnet

  QAP: Barking and Havering

  QAR: Brent and Harrow

  QEC: Dudley

  QCM: Lincolnshire

  QCN: North Nottinghamshire

  QEP: East and north Hertfordshire

  QCW: South Cheshire

  QEE: Sandwell

  QA4: Enfield and Haringey

  QA7: Berkshire

  QAK: East Surrey

  QAW: East London and the City

  QAG: Kingston and Richmond

  QEQ: West Hertfordshire

  QA2: Hillingdon

  QDG: Gateshead and south Tyneside

  934W

  QA6: Bedfordshire

  QAD: Croydon

  QEK: Walsall

  QEJ: South Staffordshire

  QAV: Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  QC6: Salford and Trafford

  QD2: Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire

  QDQ: Wakefield

  QAA: Bexley and Greenwich

  QEL: Warwickshire

  QEG: Solihull

  QCH: North Derbyshire

  QDL: South Humber

  QAE: East Kent

  QED: Herefordshire

  QCQ: Rotherham

  QCK: Doncaster.

  University of Leicester Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents were reported by patients while they were on the premises of hospitals in the University of Leicester Hospitals Trust in the last 12 months. [20260]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of statutory reportable "incidents" is collected under Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995. This covers reportable infectious diseases, and accidents that result in more than three days absence from work, deaths in the workplace for example.

  The number of RIDDOR incidents recorded at University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service Trust (UHL) in 2000–01 was 89—the latest year for which figures are available. This figure includes both patient and staff incidents.

  In terms of public liability claims against UHL, under the NHS Litigation Authority's "Non-Clinical Pooling Scheme", the total number of accidents reported by patients and visitors over the last 12 months was 20.

  Delayed Discharges
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average delay for patients with delayed discharges has been in each quarter since 1996. [20862]

  Jacqui Smith
  No information was collected centrally about the length of delay for patients with delayed discharge until the first quarter of 2001–02. In the first two quarters of 2001–02, the breakdown of lengths of delay is shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Delay

  Less than eight days

  26

  Between eight and 14 days

  18

  Between 14 and 28 days

  20

  More than 28 days

  36

  Renal National Service Framework
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measurements of capacity he used when deciding on the feasibility of introducing a Renal National Service Framework. [20864]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Renal National Service Framework was announced on 27 February 2001. An external reference group led by Professor Robert Wilkinson and announced on 14 September 2001, will develop proposals for modernising services and improving patient care over a 10 year period in planned stages. The programme will build on the already agreed and funded targets for expanding kidney dialysis set out in the NHS Plan, and increased transplantation rates agreed with, and funded through, United Kingdom Transplant.

  Transsexual People
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 978W, on transsexual people, (1) if he will make it his policy to issue guidance on the protocols of care for transsexual people, irrespective of the issue of funding for gender reassignment surgery for particular individuals; [20845]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to issue guidance on the provision of health care for transsexual people, including care for conditions other than that of transsexualism. [20846]

  Jacqui Smith
  The provision of services for transsexuals has to be very comprehensive as most will require specialist counselling and psychotherapy before surgery takes place, and appropriate care afterwards. The Department does not produce care protocols for treatments, as these are clinical issues and are best left to the professional bodies. The Royal College of Psychiatry has already produced guidelines on child and adolescent gender identity services, and is planning to produce clinical guidelines for adults in 2002.

  Decisions on the types of services that should be delivered to meet the needs of a population have to be taken on the front line by the local heath commissioners. It is their responsibility to be aware of the needs of the population and in deciding what services to provide they should take account of resources. However, there should be no blanket ban on the provision of any service and each case should be considered on its merits. Whatever care is being given, all patients are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect for their individual needs.

  Surplus Hospital Sites
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the money raised from the sale of surplus hospital sites has been spent; and what plans he has for the use of future proceeds. [21000]

  Mr. Hutton
  Receipts from the sale of surplus hospital sites are distributed equitably across the national health service to be reinvested in land, buildings and equipment. Future proceeds from sales of surplus estate will be distributed this way, and used for new investment.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has discussed with the Department of Work and Pensions to develop a National Service Framework for vocational rehabilitation. [20814]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Department is already working with the Department of Work and Pensions on pilot schemes to use health and employment services to get people back to work, or remain in work, following illness or injury. We shall be exploring ways in which NHS Plus can contribute to this as well.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidents have been caused by(a) powered wheelchairs and (b) electric two seater scooters in each of the last two years. [R] [21793]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Medical Devices Agency received a total of 7,222 adverse incident reports concerning medical devices between 1 December 1999 and 30 November 2000. Completed investigations so far from these reports show that 424 related to electric-powered wheelchairs. The causes of 317 of these completed investigations had some link to the wheelchair itself or its accessories or its instructions for use.

  The MDA received a total of 7,886 adverse incident reports concerning medical devices between 1 December 2000 and 30 November 2001. Completed investigations so far from these reports show that 322 related to electric-powered wheelchairs. The causes of 208 of these completed investigations had some link to the wheelchair itself or its accessories or its instructions for use.

  The MDA has no recorded incidents concerning electric two-seater scooters.

  Neonatal Staffing Study
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the 1999 UK Neonatal Staffing Study in the Library. [21700]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Yes.

  Fish and Chip Shops
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason fish and chip shops may be classified under health and safety regulations as dangerous premises for the employment of young people under 16. [22304]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended, allows local authorities to introduce byelaws with respect to the employment of children. Such byelaws may prohibit the employment of children in any specified occupation. Local authority byelaws do prohibit children below the minimum school leaving age from working in commercial kitchens and may deem fish and chip shops to come into this category. It would be for individual local authorities to provide a definition of a commercial kitchen in relation to their own byelaws.

  Social Exclusion
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the competitive grant schemes, administered by his Department and its agencies, open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion in this country; and, for each scheme in each year(a) the number of applicants, (b) the number of successful applicants, (c) the total of grants awarded, (d) the number of pages in the application form and (e) if the grant can be used to fund the core costs of the applicant organisation; [22382]

  (2) if he will publish a list of the grants made under the competitive grants schemes, administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22384]

  (3) how many competitive grant schemes, administered by his Department and its agencies were open in each of the last 10 years to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22381]

  (4) what estimate has been made of the administrative cost to (a) the state, (b) unsuccessful applicants and (c) successful applicants of the competitive grant schemes, provided by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion; [22385]

  (5) if he will place in the Library, a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes, administered by his Department and its agencies open in each year since 1997 to organisations in the voluntary and community sector for the purposes of tackling social exclusion. [22383]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not run any competitive grant schemes aimed specifically at tackling social exclusion. However, most of what the Department does has great potential to tackle social exclusion by improving health and wellbeing. The Department, through the section 64 general scheme, makes grants to voluntary organisations working in health and social care to tackle health issues which in, for example, reducing health inequalities and reaching disadvantaged groups, assist in tackling social exclusion.

  The section 64 general scheme is primarily aimed at national voluntary organisations although local projects of national significance can be funded. The degree to which individual section 64 grants tackle social exclusion would be impossible to calculate. Project, core and capital funding is available. Information is not available on the administrative costs of the scheme. A copy of the latest section 64 application form has been placed in the Library. Information on the number of applications received, approved and their total value for 1996–97 to 2000–01 was in the reply given by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 25 July 2000, Official Report, columns 501–02W. Information on individual grants in payment is routinely displayed on the Department's
  938W
  website at www.doh.gov.uk/sect64/grants. Information on grants in payment for 2000–01 is currently being amended and will shortly be displayed on the website.

  The Department also funds the Opportunities for Volunteering Scheme. Under this scheme we make funds available to 17 national agents (voluntary organisations) to enable them to support local projects involving volunteers in health and social care related activities. A number of these national agents deal with vulnerable groups and a particular focus of the scheme is to provide opportunities for unemployed people to undertake voluntary work.

  The 17 national agents deal with applications direct from local projects. Administration costs for applicants are not known but the national agents receive approximately £530,000 per annum to cover administration and project support costs.

  In 2000–01 some 487 projects were funded. A copy of the scheme's general notes of guidance 2000–03, which sets out the basic principles of the scheme and the types of applications considered by the 17 national agents, and the Annual Review 2000–01, which provides details of the funded projects, have been placed in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Cars
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many, and what make and model of cars have been purchased by each Government Department since 1997. [21988]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is no centrally held record of all cars that have been purchased by all Government Departments since 1997. The Government Car Service has purchased the following cars since 1997, including cars purchased on behalf of the Cabinet Office:

  Make and model

  Number purchased

  Ford Mondeo

  76

  Ford Galaxy

  3

  Vauxhall Omega

  59

  Vauxhall Vectra

  78

  Vauxhall Astra

  15

  Rover 400

  7

  Rover 45

  9

  Rover 800

  9

  Rover 75

  5

  Land Rover Discovery

  1

  Jaguar/Daimler

  10

  Nissan Primera

  9

  Peugeot 607

  1

  Toyota Prius

  1

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance is given to Government Departments on the purchase of car fleets. [21986]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is no specific central guidance issued on the purchase of car fleets. However, Government Departments have to be satisfied that they are achieving value for money and that they comply with European Union regulations on public procurement.
  939W
  The purchase or hire of cars and other vehicles is subject to the Suppliers Directive (93/36/EC as last amended by Directive 97/52/EC). Together with the relevant Remedies Directive (89/665/EEC) the Suppliers Directive has been given effect in the UK by the Public Supply Contract Regulations (SI.1995/201, last amended by SI.2000/2009). Compliance with these Regulations will also fulfil the purchaser's obligations towards suppliers from third countries pursuant to the EEA Treaty, various Europe Agreements and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. The current threshold is £93,896 and there are rules that require recurrent purchasers to be considered in aggregate over a governed period for the purpose of applying the threshold. Government Departments and other public bodies are responsible for complying with the regulations. The commission will follow up complaints of non-compliance with the member state concerned and may initiate proceedings under Article 226/EC. In the UK interested suppliers harmed or at risk of harm from the breach of the rules can seek interim or final remedies in the High Court (Court of Session in Scotland) which may lead to an interim or final injunction or the award of damages.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12256]

  Mr. Leslie
  Expenditure on information literature, advertising and campaign material—which includes the cost of employment recruitment—over those years is as follows:(a) £1,347,820; (b) £2,172,064; (c) £1,511,039; (d) £2,565,074; (e) £4,032,479; (f) £3,449,218.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21316]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are at present three new deal placements between the ages of 18 and 24 within the Cabinet Office costing an average of £17,833 (which is 940W
  made up of basic salary, Employers National Insurance and Pensions Contributions). Taking into account available subsidies this figures reduces to £15,523 per placement.

  The Cabinet Office has subsequently employed three new deal placements over the age of 24 on a permanent contract through open and fair competition.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if the Department broke even on an accruals basis in 2000–01; [21464]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the performance of his Department in meeting its (a) break-even and (b) other public service agreement targets this year. [21329]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office does not have a specific break-even performance target, as it does not on the whole charge for its services apart from the administration and management of civil service pensions and for some of the activities delivered by Centre for Management and Policy Studies.

  However the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), which is an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, and the Central Office of Information (COI), which is an executive agency and separate Government Department reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister, both have a key performance target to break-even on an accruals basis.

  The GCDA met its break-even target for the financial year 2000–01. This was reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year 2000–01, which were laid before Parliament on 17 July 2001. At this stage, it is on course to meet its target in 2001–02.

  Central Office of Information (COI) met its break-even target for the financial year 2000–01. This was reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for the financial year 2000–01, which were laid before Parliament on 20 July 2001. It is on course to meet its target for 2001–02.

  The Department is on course to deliver its agreed public service agreement targets, as detailed in the Cabinet Office's Departmental Report 2001, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

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

London Traffic: Congestion Charging
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the plans of the Mayor for London to improve traffic flow in London are workable.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government and the Mayor both recognise that traffic congestion is a problem in London. Indeed, the Government have a public service agreement target to reduce congestion in large urban areas below current levels by 2010. The Mayor's plans to tackle congestion are outlined in his transport strategy and his particular scheme of congestion charging is currently the subject of consultation in London. It is the responsibility of the Mayor to satisfy himself that his particular plans to improve traffic flow are workable. This morning the department received his plan for spending the net proceeds of the charging scheme.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but does he not think that he has ducked my Question very successfully? I asked him whether or not the Government think that the Mayor's plans are workable. Of course, I know that the matter is the Mayor's responsibility, but surely the Government should also have some responsibility for it. If the scheme to charge people a fee for entering the central area of London in a car is introduced next year at much the same time as the whole of Trafalgar Square is closed and the streets around it are pedestrianised, are we not likely to see some of the largest traffic queues ever in London? Might it not be sensible, therefore, for the Government to move with the Mayor to bring in a much stricter veto on the holes which are constantly being dug in London's main streets by utility after utility?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord economically asked about seven questions in one, but I shall seek to focus on the central one. The 1999 Act placed the responsibility for transport in London clearly on the Mayor and on Transport for London. The Government's responsibilities in that respect are basically to approve the proposals he puts forward for using the net proceeds of the charging when and if it is imposed. Having said that, one would expect the Mayor to be alive to the importance of getting this right in the sense that he does not need me to remind him that he will face an election as Mayor shortly afterwards. I believe that it is one of the largest
1302
schemes of congestion charging that has ever been attempted in the world. Clearly, substantial technical, administrative and traffic management issues will have to be addressed by the Mayor before he makes his decision in February next year whether or not to proceed with his current timetable.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any substance in the press speculation that the Government are to drop their plans for a PPP for the Tube in exchange for the Mayor dropping his plans for a congestion charge?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I know of no such plans or proposals. I believe that the Government are currently considering three proposals from the private sector for the three major contracts to modernise the Tube, which, as the House well knows, should bring in some £13 billion worth of investment over the next 15 years, equivalent to £4,000 expenditure for every family in London. Although these issues interconnect, I do not think for a second that they are tradable.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister has still not said whether the Government consider that the Mayor for London's plans are workable. Do the Government consider them to be workable or do they consider them to be unworkable?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have not given a view on that because one does not devolve powers and then seek to second-guess authorities to which the powers are devolved. The Mayor is well aware of his obligations under the Act. The Government have set out in their guidance to local authorities elsewhere in the country what criteria need to be met before the Government will give approval to their schemes. However, in London, the May or makes that decision subject to the one caveat I mentioned to the noble Lord who asked the Question. Obviously, there are discussions at high level between the various bodies, but the responsibility rests fundamentally with the Mayor to judge whether he has a sound scheme and whether it is ready to be implemented. The Government broadly support congestion charging, but it has to be done well for it to be effective.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may help to reach a decision in this matter if I mention that I live 70 miles north of London and that it is quicker and cheaper for me to drive myself from door to door rather than travel by train. On the previous occasion I did that I had to wait 40 minutes at King's Cross for a taxi.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will share the concern that any noble Lord, but particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should he so delayed. He raises an important issue; namely, that it is not simply a matter of congestion charging. There is a range of measures to tackle the intractable problems of major congestion in London. I refer to the London bus initiative which I shall not discuss in

1303
detail. My next point is more relevant to the noble Lord's question. A high level group comprising my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, the Mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority are considering how significant improvements can be made to rail links into London, both by making the existing franchises work significantly better by such obvious measures as having spare drivers, spare trains and more back-up capacity so that if something goes wrong it does not become critical, and by considering major new potential investment schemes such as the east London crossing, both north and south, CrossRail and Thameslink.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that congestion charging would disadvantage those least able to pay?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. Those least able to pay are in practice those who are reliant on bus travel for getting around in London. Currently, the level of congestion in London and the lack of adequate priority for buses significantly disadvantages them. I believe that the range of measures to improve bus transport will be considerable. Noble Lords will be delighted to hear that some 800 buses will be fitted with cameras to photograph bus lane infringements. There will be priority improvement measures for 21 bus routes and a range of other measures will seek to raise our bus system to the level that is necessary. That will ensure that those who are most disadvantaged have better transport in London.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the London area, unless there is a combination in the next five to 10 years of successful plans for congestion charging and improved public transport, we shall have serious gridlock at all rush hours on the model of Tokyo?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the point that my noble friend made in the first part of his question—that it is crucial to have an integrated approach to the various elements. If we do not have such an approach, I do not know whether we would experience gridlock, but I trust that that will not be the case.
Noble Lords will be aware that traffic speeds in London have reduced by some 3 miles an hour during the daytime off-peak period from what they were 30 or so years ago. Traffic volumes in central London will increase by at least 15 per cent over the next 15 years. Carrying on as we are is therefore not adequate. That is why the Government's 10-year strategy set out a range of measures to address the problem. For the record, there is substantial agreement between the Mayor, TfL and the 10-year strategy about what needs to be done to improve London's transport system in relation to most, if not all, of the issues. The challenge is to get the implementation right.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I urge on the Mayor the wisdom of making some of the schemes experimental, so that when they go wrong, as they definitely will, there will be much better opportunities to alter them.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is sense in the advice that the noble Lord offers. To some extent, that is what is happening in other areas of traffic management and transport improvement. For example, the London Borough of Camden is currently piloting a system for lane rentals before such a scheme is extended more widely—if the Government feel that that is necessary. I should have thought, however, that it would be difficult to pilot congestion charging in relation to part of the system because, as we know, it is the central area in its totality that is the problem area. That puts even more emphasis on the importance of ensuring that planning and preparation are well founded and not rushed in any respect.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there is congestion in London, why do the powers that be deliberately add to it? I give the example—I raised this with the Minister the other day—of all the side-roads around Westminster and Victoria, which are being dug up and frantic and uncomfortable humps are put in them. Wherever there is a straight piece of road, it is immediately made smaller because the pavement is extended into it. Is that the responsibility of the council or the Mayor? If it is not the Government's responsibility, will the Minister breathe down the necks of whoever is responsible and tell them to stop it?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I expressed sympathy with the noble Earl on this issue on a previous occasion. A kinder way of looking at the matter would be to say that the current volume of investment in parts of London is impressive. There does not appear to be a massive shortage of money for such schemes. The sensible answer would be that the works to which the noble Earl referred have an effect on traffic calming—they slow down cars that are approaching junctions and make it easier for pedestrians to cross at crossings. Pedestrians have a stronger sense that they, rather than the cars, have priority. Such efforts improve the quality of the environment. King's Road, for example, feels better compared with the situation some years ago, now that its pavements have been widened, its road lanes narrowed and the access roads have been closed off or had speed reductions put in. I do, however, take the noble Earl's point. This is a matter for the London boroughs rather than the Government or TfL. Discussions will no doubt take place in the usual places on these issues.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Yes, my Lords, we are well over time now.

School Playing Fields: Sales
2.47 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many school playing fields were sold off for development between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001; and what the percentage change was from 1999 to 2000.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the information is not available in the format requested by the noble Lord because central records do not show if the land was sold for development. However, between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001 the Government approved 37 applications to sell school playing fields that were larger than a sports pitch. That is a 9 per cent increase on the 34 applications approved in the previous year. All the applications met our strict criteria.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Why are there no accurate figures? The Government set up the Playing Fields Monitoring Group in April 2000 to report the figures accurately each month. Is she aware that pages 4 and 6 of the Labour Party's manifesto for 1997—the sports manifesto—gave a clear indication that playing fields would not be sold? However, figures I have show that last year 446 fields were approved for development and only 47 applications were refused. Further, is it true that so far this year 172 consents have been given and only six refused? Is it any surprise that the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation are so concerned about the Government's lack of action?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord raises several points, which I shall attempt to answer in detail. I am well aware of the Labour Party's manifesto. Indeed, examining playing field sales falls within my portfolio. I want to put accurate figures on the record. Since October 1998, 95 applications involving the loss of school sports pitches have been determined. Two were rejected. Of the 93 applications that were approved, almost 40 per cent—36 of them—were at closed or closing schools. Therefore, 57 applications were approved at operating schools, 34 of them resulting in improved sports facilities, including new or replacement sports pitches, all-weather pitches and sports halls. Since July, the new advisory panel, which includes the National Playing Fields Association, has had responsibility for determining recommendations to Ministers on which of the proposals should be taken forward. I am delighted with the work that the panel has done so far.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we lose school sports fields, we lose sports fields for the whole community? That means a lower level of activity generally, particularly when one considers that
1306
most social activity sports and participation sports need grass pitches. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Department of Health, for example, has been consulted to see what damage is being done to its preventive health scheme by this loss?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the criteria used to determine whether sports fields may be sold are, first, that the remaining playing fields must meet the school's needs, including the needs of other local schools; secondly, that the community of playing fields must be protected; and, thirdly, that any proceeds are used to improve school sports or education facilities. No application failing to meet those criteria can be allowed. We work extremely closely with the Department of Health on all these matters. Indeed, trilateral meetings take place on a regular basis between the Department lot Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to discuss sport in general. Officials work closely on all those matters.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister help the House by giving the statistics relating to the number of sales that were approved in, say, the past 20 years, especially in the 18 years from 1979 to 1997? Is it not hypocritical of Members opposite to complain about defects in the monitoring system when we know that, if they had their way, they would sell the lot?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's comments. Until 1998 there was no control over the sale of school playing fields and, therefore, statistics are incredibly difficult to ascertain. We have attempted to work out a guesstimate of what we believe to have been the case; it shows that probably approximately 30 to 40 playing fields a month were sold off. That compares to a current figure of approximately three a month. However, they are guesstimates, and I should not wish to be held responsible for those figures. We simply do not have the information.
One substantial change is that the proceeds from sales must be used for education and sports facilities. Only where we are completely satisfied that the money will be used in that way will such sales be agreed. Further, we ensure that the community at large and, in particular, the schools benefit by having additional facilities or, at least, facilities that do not take away sporting opportunities for young people and the community at large.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the £750 million which the New Opportunities Fund was announced to be giving to sport or any of the additional £31 million of lottery money, as declared by Tessa Jowell in a Written Answer in June this year, has yet been spent on the creation or improvement of playing fields? Indeed, has

1307
any of that money been spent on protecting playing fields, used not only by schools but also by local communities, which are under threat?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, £580 million is available from the New Opportunities Fund for PE and sports programmes in England. As noble Lords may be aware, that money will be used to improve PE, sport and adventure. It will also contribute to integrated sport, education and health outcomes, which I consider to be an important part of the New Opportunities Fund spending programme. The allocation of the money has now been announced. I shall give only one or two examples of the allocation, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with the full details as I am conscious of your Lordships' time. Eighty-nine million pounds will go to local education authorities in the North West; £81 million to London; and £61 million to the West Midlands. Those funds will be an added and very valuable resource in improving sports facilities throughout England. However, noble Lords are correct in assuming that we need to look at this matter in the context of additional facilities for communities, support for schools and, of course, the outcome in terms of sports activities and health.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister say how many new playing fields were acquired for schools which lacked them and needed them during the year referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monro?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not able to give that information to the right reverend Prelate simply because it would he available on a local education authority basis. However, I am happy to see what information I do have and I shall write to him.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is the Government's attitude, if already formulated, towards the launch today by the National Playing Fields Association of a document which states that all playing areas should have six acres as standard? Is that possible? I refer not only to schools but to parks and so on.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have our own criteria on which we work very closely with schools to ensure that in the development of schools' playing facilities adequate space is made available for children at both primary and secondary level. I value very much the work of the National Playing Fields Association. I have not yet had the privilege of reading the document that was launched this morning; no doubt it will arrive on my desk during the course of the day. I am sure that I shall be able to welcome it and to say how much we value the contribution that the association makes to this debate and the work that it carries out directly with the department. That work is invaluable not least in looking at the role of schools in sport.

Liver Disease
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to deal with the increase in the number of deaths due to liver disease, particularly among young women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are considering the findings on liver disease, referred to in the Chief Medical Officer's annual report published yesterday. We intend to publish a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, which will involve all government departments, local organisations such as the NHS, local authorities and the police, as well as voluntary organisations. We are also investing in alcohol education and health promotion to address the issue of problem drinking, particularly among young people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, what immediate steps can the Government take to create an awareness of the risk, and, in particular, the differential risk, between men and women of excess alcohol consumption over the Christmas period? Can a way be found to incorporate that point into the drink-drive campaign?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the drink-drive campaign has already started and therefore it would be difficult to make changes to it. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the Chief Medical Officer's report is a wake-up call. We need to ensure that we get across the right health promotion messages, in particular to young women, to ensure that people are aware of the risks that they run in misusing alcohol. We are giving urgent consideration to the CMO's report, both in relation to short-term and immediate health promotion messages that need to be put across and also in relation to a proposed longer-term alcohol health strategy.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I declare an interest because my late wife died of liver disease at the age of 42. She died as the result of a university visitation to South-East Asia where, I gather, this type of disease is very prevalent. I wonder what warnings are given to intending visitors to that part of the world.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware whether specific warnings are given in relation to liver disease. There are many causes of liver cirrhosis. It can be present at birth as an inherited disease; it can be, as my noble friend has suggested, a side effect of certain medications; or it can be caused by parasitic infections. However, the most common causes are sustained alcohol misuse or the late effects of infection with one of the hepatitis viruses. However,

1309
I take my noble friend's point. As part of a general strategy in relation to alcoholism prevention, I shall certainly be prepared to look at the point that he raises.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Government promised to publish a national strategy consultation paper last year, yet they have still not done so. What is the reason for that delay? Furthermore, the Minister will have noticed two very worrying studies that have taken place into alcohol abuse among teenagers. What in particular is he doing with his colleagues in the DfES to ensure that proper education programmes are run in schools to warn teenagers of the dangers of alcohol abuse?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, over the past three years the Department for Education and Skills has made £21 million available to schools through the Standards Fund to support the training of teachers and to deliver effective drug, alcohol and tobacco education programmes. Such training and programmes are obviously very important and we shall need to evaluate their success.
So far as concerns the consultation paper, we stated in the NHS Plan that we would implement a strategy by 2004. We shall need to take forward a consultation process as part of that. However, that strategy is best informed by the current work and report of the Chief Medical Officer. I can assure the House that we shall redouble our efforts to ensure that we take forward those messages.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, would the Government consider promoting alternatives to drinking for young women and girls, such as healthy living centres where they will be able to take part in such activities as yoga, aerobics and swimming? Does the Minister agree that that would be a positive measure?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that health promotion messages are likely to be more effective with young people if such messages are positive. That is an important consideration which we shall need to take forward.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for his Answer. But, why should people with terminal liver disease caused by contaminated NHS blood products, not least young women, be treated less favourably than people with HIV from the same cause? Is not that morally wrong and inhumane?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that question. He will know that the first decision on that matter was taken by the previous government. It was reviewed by this Government on coming into office. The position taken by the Department of Health is that where it is not liable it cannot make specific payments. I am afraid that that is the position in the case of the people
1310
mentioned by my noble Friend, who have undoubtedly suffered a great tragedy. That decision was reached only after careful consideration.
Lord Patel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the term "ladette" and its effect on young women? If he is, can he tell the House what advice the Government have with regard to it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have checked the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The definition of a ladette is a young woman who behaves in a boisterously assertive or crude manner and engages in heavy drinking sessions. That is not to be confused with a "chapess", of whom there are rather more in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what research is being carried out to determine why alcohol affects women's livers more than men's?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I held a meeting with the Director of Research at the Department of Health this morning and asked him that question. Apparently, it is due to metabolism, which means that women have less water and more fat.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister join me in welcoming the establishment of the National Treatment Agency, which assists those suffering from drug addiction to recover? Can he say whether the Government are prepared to extend the activities of that agency to cover alcoholism, as they indicated in the past they might? If so, when is that likely to happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right to pay tribute to the potential of the National Treatment Agency. The question of whether its remit should be extended to alcoholism is still under consideration. I cannot give him a date as to when such a decision might be made.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the dangers of alcohol do not apply to older people, such as Members of your Lordships' House?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am advised that studies have shown that frequent drinking of a small amount of alcohol, but not more than one to two units per day, can offer protection from heart disease to men aged 40 and over and to post-menopausal women. I would say that the longevity of Members of your Lordships' House pays testimony to the healthy properties of House of Lord's claret.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the festive spirit, but is my noble friend the Minister aware that government spending on preventive measures against alcoholism represents only one-twentieth or

1311
less of the amount spent on preventing drug addiction? Does he not think that the Government should redress the balance?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The programmes to which he refers have come about as a result of central programmes being developed and centrally funded. Historically, alcohol prevention services have been funded at local level. The department does not hold figures to show how much money is being spent on that. I have no doubt that we shall have to return to the issue of funding as part of developing a national strategy. As part of the development of the health service and health improvement programmes it is open to local health authorities, together with primary care trusts, to look to see whether the development of prevention programmes might be a charge on their own budgets.

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 Baroness Park of Monmouth set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Mayhew of Twysden to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Gould of Potternewton be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Zimbabwe
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth Baroness Park of Monmouth rose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for over four years, Zimbabwe has patiently and alone suffered a steady and remorseless erosion of freedom and the rule of law, and the world has done little or nothing to help a brave and decent people. As Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said:
"There can be no freedom where there is no rule of law, no freedom where people are not safe … Zimbabwe's strength lies in racial and ethnic diversity. We will overcome attempts to divide us, we want national integration. We are not interested in racism in reverse".
1312
There, from a respected trade union leader, we hear that those fighting the battle for democracy and the rule of law are ordinary Zimbabwe citizens, black and white. Too many people in this country and elsewhere chose at first to think that this was a matter concerning the interests of a handful of rich white colonialists selfishly hanging on to land which they callously took from the Africans in colonial times, and that to criticise Mugabe was a racist act and politically incorrect. The truth is that very many of the farms were bought from the government after independence and, after being certified as useless and derelict land, they were then turned into viable farms. They now employ and house large numbers of Africans. There is a school, a clinic, a visiting nurse and a shop on most farms. They are flourishing and viable communities and the lives of the workers are bound up with the farms. Two million people—26 per cent of the labour force—stand or fall with the farms. Most farmers care deeply about their workers.
President Mugabe's land policies—that is, the seizure of farms and the resettlement of so-called veterans (in fact young, ruthless thugs from the towns who were not born when the independence war was fought)—have nothing to do with land reform. They are, like the brutal military suppression of Matabeleland in the 1980s, a demonstration of ruthless power and revenge for the political rejection Mugabe suffered in the referendum of 1997. They are also an election tactic.
The 91,000 families supposed to have been resettled when land was bought in the 1980s with funding provided by the British Government were given no funds and no help, and the infrastructure of the farms was stolen or destroyed. Much of the best land was, in any case, given to the government's political friends and much remains unsettled.
The white farmers have accepted the need for land reform, but they argue that the Africans already on the farms who are familiar with the work and to whom they would gladly sell the infrastructure of farm machinery through the government would have a far better chance to succeed if the government gave them title to the land. Without collateral they cannot secure the loans which every farmer needs to operate.
The CFU has trained 10,000 peasant farmers a year and runs programmes for water development and bore hole drilling schemes. By 1999, there were nearly 6,000 small farmers whose income was over 215 million Zimbabwe dollars. The government would have none of that and under the fast-track programme have, according to the Secretary General of GAPWUZ, the agricultural union, systemically displaced, in Mashonaland alone, over 15,000 people. The families were told to find a place to live elsewhere and ended up on the road or in the equivalent of refugee camps, but without care. Only 50 out of more than 700 farm families were resettled in one district because the veterans demanded party cards in the vetting exercise which they conducted.

1313
Farm workers are punished because they are suspected of supporting the MDC. Mugabe's stated aim is to create no more than a subsistence economy. He wants,
"to put Africans on the land so that they can grow food to feed themselves and to pay for health and education services".
In fact the veterans are not even doing that. Their main object has been to loot and destroy, and to terrorise their own people.
The commercial farms earn over 40 per cent of the country's revenue from exports. Now they are actually forbidden to plant. In one week last year, over 10,000 hectares of grazing was burnt. There is no grazing for the animals, no currency to buy cattle feed and no diesel to move it. As the order not to plant includes maize—maize planting last year was down 40 to 60 per cent—a maize shortage is certain and famine will follow. The tourist and ancillary industries and the industrial infrastructure connected with farming are collapsing. In April last year the budget deficit was 15 per cent of GDP. Interest was absorbing 45 per cent of total government revenue. On the foreign exchange front, the country was 1,000 million US dollars short of requirements.
We are looking at the murder of a once prosperous country, a country where the veterans can enter a hospital and beat doctors and nurses for treating an MDC casualty and where 551 schools, according to the teachers' union, have been invaded with over 2,000 teachers beaten and a number raped. In Matabeleland a year ago, the Chamber of Industries reported that 50 per cent of its members faced closure and that 200,000 jobs would be lost. Unemployment stands at over 50 per cent. In Mashonaland over 6,000 families have been displaced by violence. The business community has been threatened and intimidated everywhere. Zimbabwe has the human resources and the skills to make a success of a peaceful and orderly transfer of land to many potentially well-qualified Africans, with the good will and help of the commercial farmers, under arrangements which would have protected and advanced the economic well-being of the country. The will to do that with mutual respect exists. One man with his corrupt associates has instead created a black hole of starvation, violence, lawlessness, corruption and destruction.
Until recently, the courts stood courageously between him and some of the worst excesses, but the police have ceased for nearly three years to enforce the law or to protect citizens from unbridled violence. The High Court, which ruled that the veterans should be removed from 600 farms, spoke in vain. The police refused to act. The judges have been replaced by political cronies who have declared the land grab to be legal. The veterans continue to murder and pillage unchecked.
Despite massive intimidation, including murder, the MDC still won an impressive number of seats in the last election and has steadily stuck to the democratic way despite every provocation. The next election—if Mugabe does not find a way to move to martial law first—will be very difficult. Mugabe, not content with
1314
blowing up the one Zimbabwe newspaper that has steadfastly reported the truth, torturing journalists and now declaring that the foreign press, including the South African press, are terrorists, will, as on the last occasion, certainly try to prevent foreign observers seeing what is happening. He has already taken steps to abolish the overseas vote which could have allowed a disgruntled army to have a voice.
We are about to see one of the few successful African countries, rich in resources and in skilled labour, go under, destabilising the whole area with terrible consequences, not only for its own people, who already have a serious AIDS problem to add to everything else, but for all the surrounding countries. Hundreds of thousands of displaced farm workers will walk the roads, as many are already doing and flood into Botswana, Mozambique and South Africa, into Malawi and Zambia.
Our Prime Minister recently spoke of a new African initiative and appointed a Minister for Africa. We are fortunate to have that Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replying to this debate today. What are we doing about this catastrophe, which we have all seen coming for at least three years? When the first land seizure was announced in 1997, the IMF, the World Bank and the European Union—Mugabe was seeking money from them all—refused to proceed unless and until the rule of law was restored. So did we. In a tactic Mugabe was to use many times, up to and including the Abuja Conference this year, he left the negotiations to junior Ministers who were allowed to agree a reasonable action, and then went back on the bargain.
In 1998, under UN auspices, the donor countries met in Harare and agreed to set up a technical support unit to be funded by the UNDP to work out a scheme with the Zimbabwe Government. Nothing was done. The UNDP came back with a fresh plan last year with the same outcome. At that conference, considerable resources were pledged by donors. The World Bank agreed to release frozen funds. Predictably, Mugabe, who already owed it 20 million US dollars, reneged on his agreement and the World Bank withdrew its support. The IMF actually gave him some money in 1999 but then withdrew all support with the breakdown of law and order. In March this year there were meetings with the EU Commission in Brussels, when the EU believed that dialogue would build a confidence and a consensus—those magic words—with Mugabe, and the Belgians and the French, who received him with much pomp and ceremony, tried to advance their particular interests in the Congo. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether those meetings and Mr Mbeki's presence at Feira produced any results.
Mugabe, his Ministers and senior army commanders are making far too much money out of corrupt deals with President Kabila, on diamonds in particular, and incidentally on the destruction of the habitat by the cutting down of all the great forests, to have any intention of honouring the Lusaka Agreement and calling home an army which was said last year to be costing £1 million a day. That is because

1315
of the riches that he and his associates derive from the concessions that the army is protecting. Oryx Diamonds, according to the Helen Suzman Foundation, is only one of a large number of lucrative ZAN U-PF investments in the Congo.
It was unfortunate to say the least that the new Commonwealth Secretary-General's African adviser who, as a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group, was sent to monitor the elections last year, and who accompanied him to Harare to advise him on his first visit, should have been Moses Anafu, director of Oryx Diamonds. He was forced to resign from the observer group. But I wonder what his advice might have been.
The EU on its most recent visit to Harare in the wake of the Abuja Agreement from which so much was hoped—another example of Mugabe's tactic of sending a compliant Minister while he himself was in Libya "on holiday" and then reneging on the agreement—saw for itself what Mugabe is really like. It may at last be ready to take some real action against him.
The Commonwealth has been a most bitter disappointment and has supinely failed to act. Although prepared to be tough with Pakistan and Fiji, it has done nothing about Zimbabwe. It was deeply unfortunate that the Brisbane Conference, when it might at last have been prepared to act, was cancelled. What is it now doing about the election? Time is running out. For the first year or two it was understandable that both it and we should believe that the best tactic was quiet diplomacy exercised through the African states, and Her Majesty's Government could argue, not unreasonably, that, as the former colonial power, open condemnation by us could only make things worse. But there is much that we could do and have not done.
Despite the strong support, financial and in terms of bodyguards, that Mugabe can count on from Libya—and Gaddafi has unfortunately some standing with President Mbeki because of the ANC's past ties with the country—South Africa is at last moving to bring pressure to bear and recognising that Nelson Mandela was right to call Mugabe a tyrant who should be brought down. I hope that we are telling the South Africans in the strongest terms that, as the most powerful nation in the area, only they can avert destabilisation.
For our part, we should be organising with the EU and with the United States, whose Congress has recently moved against Mugabe, the complete freezing of the assets of Mugabe and his ministers. He should not be able to go to Spain for an eye operation or to Libya on holiday, and we should be ensuring the maximum publicity for his outrageous acts. Terrorism does not flourish only in Afghanistan and we should not forget the wider implications for Africa of Gaddafi's growing influence in Zimbabwe and his ambition to lead an African union. That has connections with our other problems over terrorism which we should not ignore.
1316
Finally, it is outrageous that, if a recent Observer report is true, 150 Zimbabwe citizens, members of the Commonwealth, seeking asylum in this country should have been turned back from Heathrow last month—34 are in detention and two members of the MDC who were beaten and tortured have had their applications for asylum refused. At the very moment that we are debating a terrorism Bill, should we be refusing to help the victims of terror?
We must make the people of Zimbabwe understand that we care about what is happening. We must be seen to do something. It is no longer enough to say that we must be ever so tactful and let someone else do it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on raising this extremely important topic. It may be that nothing we can say or do will influence events in Zimbabwe or deflect President Mugabe from moves to entrench his powers. It may be that the forces of the so-called war veterans, having been unleashed, cannot now be reined in. Before the parliamentary elections, I was told confidently not to worry about the land grabbing and squatting, that it was all simply an election ploy, and that as soon as the elections were over it would all be reversed. We know that that is not what happened. The situation continues. Sometimes it seems that the activities of the war veterans can he turned on and off like a tap. Their activities are not a consistent daily, or even weekly or monthly event. They are concentrated and take place for the maximum possible advantage.
Having said that, if we talk or behave as though we were still the colonial power or the legatees of the old white settlers, we shall have absolutely no influence. Unpalatable though it is, it is necessary to recall that if we say the wrong thing, we simply exacerbate the situation in Zimbabwe; we do not ease the tensions. I should pay a passing reference to the recent history and problems of Zimbabwe. We must recall that Zimbabwe—wrongly, in the case of the governing party—still lives in a siege mentality. It has not yet emerged from the mentality of fighting a liberation war. One tragedy is that the two main political parties found themselves to be mainly—although not exclusively—tribally based. That has not made the situation easier.
It is true that Zimbabwe suffered badly for its support of the African National Congress during the years of the apartheid regime. I regret to say that few voices were raised at that time to help Zimbabwe. It may well be—this is my passing view, as it were—that those in Zimbabwe are suffering from a kind of persecution complex because of all the praise lavished on South Africa following its independence. Zimbabwe in some ways feels itself to be the poor relation.
That in no sense means that we should acquiesce in the undemocratic things happening in Zimbabwe or defend the current threat to democracy and thuggery.

1317
I would certainly not do that; I have far too much respect for Zimbabwe's people. I must say to the people and Government of Zimbabwe that, no matter how strong their feeling, frequently expressed, that the land was stolen in the old colonial days, this does not mean that they can neglect the realities of today's events. It is impossible to transfer land without compensation.
In some respects—I do not wish to be too hard on the commercial farmers—I could almost accept the take-over of the land for the Zimbabwe people if the land was being put to proper use. That, as the noble Baroness said, is not so. There has been no real training programme for the people taking over the land. There has been no seed distribution, and no attempt made to realise any, let alone the full, potential of the land. That is disgraceful.
All of us who are concerned with Zimbabwe want the best possible use of the land and the greatest possible prosperity for its people. We must double and redouble our efforts in the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations to try to ensure proper, structured land reform to bring the land into use.
Yesterday, we learnt that President Mugabe has now said that the presidential election will take place in March—although he has not yet told us the date. It is essential that the date is set as soon as possible and that observers are allowed into the country to oversee the elections. President Mugabe blows hot and cold. Sometimes he agrees to having observers; sometimes he is against; sometimes he says maybe. Sometimes he says, "Observers, yes; monitors, no".
It is not in Zimbabwe's interest to keep out observers. In fact, observers need to be in the country as soon as possible. It is all very well being an observer on election day or a few days beforehand. I have twice been an observer in South Africa and once in Uganda. In only one case was there any hostility. People were glad to see us there. I am not sure that if election observers were sent to this country for our elections, we would greet them with quite the same enthusiasm. It might help if we were prepared to do so. However, that is by the way.
As I said, observers should be in the country as soon as possible. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the attempts being made to keep people off the electoral register are stopped. If we are to have a transparent, democratic election, everyone who is entitled to vote should be there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned the courts. Until recently, they have been extremely independent and strong in support of democracy. A couple of days ago, I was glad to read that the challenge in the courts by the Movement for Democratic Change about who should be allowed to be registered had succeeded. I must admit that I do not know what has happened since, but I hope that the courts stand firm and hold the government to account. The rule of law must be upheld and there should be no barrier to registration during the elections.
1318
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. She was somewhat scathing about dialogue—perhaps I am being too harsh on her; I hope that she will not take this amiss—suggesting that it had achieved nothing. I certainly share her disappointment that the most recent Commonwealth agreement appears not to be holding up. I am also disappointed that the recent ministerial visit to Zimbabwe, in which my noble friend Lady Amos took part, has again not found favour with the Mugabe regime. As the noble Baroness said, it is difficult when we get conflicting responses from government ministers on the one hand and from President Mugabe on the other. We must have clarity and know who is responsible.
I sometimes wonder whether President Mugabe understands or is aware of the damage being done to his country and to the region. For Zimbabwe to be importing food—to be crying out for food aid—is astonishing. It beggars belief that a country that used to export maize in huge quantities is now dependent on outside grain to prevent famine. We must be careful what we say, but I say that President Mugabe should withdraw his statement that non-governmental organisations will not be allowed to supervise food aid distribution. Food aid should not be used as a political weapon, and he should lift his threat of an embargo.
The threat to the region is serious. It is bad enough that Zimbabwe is being destabilised and faces a severe future. But the whole region of southern Africa is being destabilised by President Mugabe. Many of us in this House—including, I am sure, the noble Baroness are friends of Zimbabwe. For a number of years I was chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. There were many of us fighting for Zimbabwe's freedom. We certainly did not fight for it on the basis that the situation would be the same as under the previous regime.
Perhaps I may allow myself one particularly barbed comment. It is ironic that many of the actions of President Mugabe have been carried out under the old legislation of the Smith regime, left on the statute book by the government who negotiated Zimbabwe's independence. That proved a monumental error.
I wish Zimbabwe well, as I am sure does everyone. However, if President Mugabe believes that election by non-transparent means will help his people, he is wrong. If he is to be elected, he must be elected in a clear, transparent, democratic election. Everyone in this House and outside wants to see that happen.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for initiating the debate. As one who worked in Zimbabwe for many years, she spoke with a great deal of knowledge.
The situation in Zimbabwe is depressing because there appear to be no bright spots to highlight. We on these Benches have always tried to be measured in our response so as not to provide ammunition for a government mouthpiece such as the Herald or to enable it to quote our words and accuse us of

1319
aggravating the situation. However, the situation is so bleak that there is no point in doing otherwise than highlighting how dire it is.
The fact that Zimbabwe is facing economic collapse cannot be ignored. The situation faced by the white farmers has economic implications. They farm the commercial farms, which are the source of revenue and hard currency. Without that source of hard currency, which is being destroyed for short-term political ends, the economy is in dire straits.
Although we often raise the issue of white farmers, a much larger and hard-hit group, which we should never forget, is the farm workers. During the past 18 months, hundreds of thousands of them have been displaced and some have been murdered by the forces supporting the government because they supported the MDC.
Land reform cannot be ignored. It is not an easy issue, but I believe that one of the defects of the Lancaster House agreement was that land redistribution was not then dealt with fundamentally. However, much of the land redistribution is being done purely for political ends.
Land distribution is also contributing to the massive food crisis that is affecting the country. Zimbabwe should be one of the richest agricultural countries in Africa. I worked on a farm there and I know of the incredible ability of the soil to grow crops. However, there is a disparity between the rich farmland of Msonediland and the less fertile regions of Bulawayo to the south.
The food crisis—and the Government of Zimbabwe have called for 80 million dollars to redress it—is uneven in its effect. The fact that the government want to control the distribution of food, and perhaps in the run-up to an election claim the credit for providing food, is totally reprehensible and unsupportable.
The political unrest which is growing within the country is difficult to understand in a mature democracy. As a member of the opposition, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for those people who are prepared to stand up for their political views, knowing that many of their colleagues and friends have been killed for holding those views. The government's continued use of violence, which is growing, shows their desperation.
That is also shown in the collapse of the rule of law. In that respect, the last bastion in Zimbabwe seemed to be the brave stance taken by the supreme court. However, as that body has been packed with government sympathisers it is unlikely that the supreme court will deny the government's wishes in the future.
In order to prepare for the debate I pulled out the press cuttings for the past month. They are a thick tome and read like a tragedy. Many people consider the elections the country's salvation, as they were in Malawi. However, laws are being changed and such great damage is being done to civil society that an enormous amount of effort will be required after the
1320
elections to redress that; and that is provided that the elections bring about a government with a representative mandate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, mentioned his monitoring experience. I, too, have had monitoring experience in South Africa, Tanzania and Malawi. One of the questions which monitors always ask of themselves is whether they are rubber-stamping the process. The claim of "free and fair" elections should never be given as a reliable guide, a "rubber stamp", to an election team. The problem goes back to the formulation of the register. "Free and fair" cannot be the case when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, those who have been displaced have been denied access to the electoral register and those between 18 and 30 have been denied the right to vote. Therefore, even if an election takes place under the present system, the question of whether it will be free or fair might well already have been answered.
Others in the region are beginning to question whether Mr Mugabe's stance is sustainable. Although many believe that the criticism by Mr Mbeke, South Africa's president, of what is going on in Zimbabwe has been a long time coming, I was pleased to hear it.
I have only two questions to ask the Minister today. First, have the Government reassessed their position? All the issues to which I have referred illustrate that asylum seekers coming from Zimbabwe have real cause for concern about being returned. Do the Government intend to review their policy considering that two supporters of the MDC who it is believed may face certain death if they return have had their asylum applications refused?
It is too tempting to ask the Minister what the Government intend to do to solve the problems in another country and to expect her to come forward with all the answers. I do not expect that. The problems that have been caused in Zimbabwe during the past few years must be addressed by the people of Zimbabwe. It is their prerogative. However, there are issues which friends of Zimbabwe must examine, which leads me to my second question. The American Congress has passed a Bill for smart sanctions. I believe that the British Government will act within the remit of the CHOGM in March, but should there not be an emergency CHOGM before then? Should not the Government act to institute smart sanctions and perhaps freeze the assets of members of the Government of Zimbabwe?
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for giving your Lordships' House an opportunity to debate the situation in Zimbabwe. The three episcopal areas in my own diocese are twinned with three of the four dioceses in Zimbabwe. We have a longstanding interest in the life of the people of that land.
It must be said that injustice and oppression are not totally new creations of the Mugabe government. In the 1960s and 1970s I was a missionary in the

1321
neighbouring country of Zambia during the days of the Smith regime's UDI. I still blush at some of the letters and statements of the white bishops and church leaders of Rhodesia in those days. For example, the then Bishop of Mashonaland wrote a letter to The Times in December 1976 arguing against democracy for the African people of Rhodesia. He warned that independence would mean the creation of a Marxist state, the consequent loss of the Cape sea routes, the isolation of South Africa and Britain becoming a colony of Russia.
In the context of such wild and exaggerated rhetoric, the Independence Address of Robert Mugabe seemed wise, measured and civilised. Twenty years ago, as the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, on its first day of independence he made a particularly encouraging speech on reconciliation, during which he said that:
"We are called to be constructive, progressive and for ever forward looking, for we cannot afford to be people of yesterday, backward looking, retrogressive and destructive. If yesterday I fought you as an enemy, today you become a friend and ally. If yesterday you hated me, today you cannot avoid the love that hinds you to me and me to you".
He went on to say:
"It could never be a correct justification that because the whites oppressed us yesterday, when they had power, the blacks must oppress them today because we have power. An evil remains an evil, whether practised by white against black or by black against whites".
Those were fine words, but sadly the love binding together the people of Zimbabwe now seems to be fraying. We see injustices multiplying, not only black against white, but also black against black. The hoped-for democratic age has not yet materialised, while violence, fear and intimidation surround the run-up to next year's presidential elections. It does not give one confidence that, in seeking re-election, President Mugabe is not allowing international observers to monitor the polls.
Of course the issue of land reform bedevils the situation. Those difficulties were highlighted by the Anglican Zimbabwean bishops in their statement made in June of this year. Land reform, they truthfully pointed out, was essential, but it must be lawful. Who could disagree? But again, we should not forget history. From 1890 the land was taken by white invaders and settlers, often at gunpoint. In the 1930s, those white settlers divided the land, often earmarking the best arable land for the whites. It is true that generations of such settlers worked long and hard to make the land some of the most productive on earth. They made many sacrifices to secure a better future for themselves and their children. Of course they then wanted to hang on to what they had created, or at least they wanted to be well compensated for their loss.
At the end of UDI, the constitution agreements with Britain ensured that their land possession would be legal. But the fact is that, until recently, less than 1 per cent of the population owned 70 per cent of the land. No African government, however benign, could allow that situation to remain indefinitely.
Sadly, over recent years the redistribution of land has not been accomplished with the peace and order associated with lawfulness. It has been accompanied
1322
by murder and violence, with the police often turning a blind eye. But yet again, it must not he thought that such violence has suddenly been invented. A report from March 1977 published in the Sunday Times tells of a white farmer beating to death a black labourer. He unleashed four blows to the face, a kick to the head and two kicks to the chest after the 65 year-old labourer had planted maize incorrectly. The magistrate said that he did not consider that the assault itself was a serious one, fined the farmer 300 dollars and detained him in gaol for two months.
Let us take the words of the then new president at the first Independence Day seriously and seek to be,
"constructive, progressive and for ever forward looking".
The news surrounding land reform is not all dire. Yesterday, in preparation for this debate in your Lordships' House, I received a fax from one of our local Zimbabwean bishops. He reports that the resettlement programme has been assisted by a team made up of commercial farmers and government officials called the Zimbabwe Joint Resettlement Initiative. It has been set up to resolve the land question amicably and without contesting compulsory acquisition in court. The Churches are playing their part in trying to defuse the situation by maintaining a dialogue with the government, with war veterans and with the traditional chiefs. In July an open meeting with government Ministers took place at Victoria Falls, with a second meeting held in November involving war veterans. Even though the war veterans would not accept the blame for the violence on the farms, they committed themselves to ensuring that peace would prevail in the future.
But between those meetings the spate of abductions and the murder of two war veteran leaders has brought instability to Bulawayo. The Church was very vocal in condemning those crimes and the suspected perpetrators, members of the opposition party, were quickly arrested. Even that was a cause for disagreement, for it was claimed that no such swift action had been taken by the police when members of the opposition party had been the victims of such attacks.
The third of the Churches' meetings regarding land reform is due to begin tomorrow. It is to be held in the rural areas where much of the violence and intimidation has taken place, and where the traditional chiefs still exercise a great deal of authority. In the planned meeting, the Churches hope to encourage and support this force for stability in a changing land in unstable times.
I share those positive actions with the House because, as the noble Baroness indicated in her contribution, in many other ways the situation is dire and tragic stories abound. To cite only one example, the future of 6,000 orphans among farm workers hangs in the balance. The organisation formed to care for them has depended on a wide network of solidarity among farm labourers, farmers, Churches, NGOs, volunteers and agri-industrial corporate support. Farm invasions have destroyed that caring and financial net.

1323
As we have heard, over the weekend there were press reports that the Zimbabwean Government are restricting the distribution of food aid to their own agencies. If that is the case, it will be extremely serious for the work of the Churches and the other aid agencies who work in good times and bad to bring help and healing to the most vulnerable. But I am pleased to tell the House that Christian Aid workers have reported that, until now, their activities have certainly not been curtailed.
It cannot be denied that the country which used to be called the bread-basket of Africa is in a bad way. The economy has collapsed, unemployment is universal, insurance companies have stopped insuring goods in transit through Zimbabwe, and tourism has collapsed as safari lodges are invaded and wildlife poaching mounts. Inflation is rife. Earlier this year one of my brother bishops in Zimbabwe reported a 70 per cent increase overnight in bus fares. More and more people are going hungry. The harvest due next month will be poor and will be made even poorer as inflation and lack of foreign exchange prevents the purchase of fertilisers. There is no money for educational supplies and, of serious concern, there is no money for drugs. Few families have not been touched in some way by HIV/AIDS and the purchase of drugs to slow the onslaught of illness is almost impossible.
It is difficult to be optimistic about developments in the short term as a deeply unpopular government struggles to hold on to power. There is a limit to what can be done by outside agencies, in particular by the British Government as a symbol of the previous colonial regime. But, along with other noble Lords, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what help the British Government might offer to ease this serious situation.
The Zimbabwean Church remembers each August its first martyr, who died at the hands of his countrymen, in part as a result of his attempt to plant the church among his own people. The blood of that martyr proved to be the fruitful seed of the church. In politics as in religion, in the last resort the future of Zimbabwe lies with the Zimbabwean people themselves. In the medium to long term there is much cause for hope. The land is naturally productive and the peoples of Zimbabwe, of whatever race or tribe, are sensitive and hardworking. Zimbabwe will see better days, and the Churches will be doing all that they can to ensure that those days come soon.
3.51 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to declare an interest as one of your Lordships who has family and many friends in Zimbabwe. What I say today will reflect my own thoughts—they are not necessarily theirs—and it will be said with a love for Zimbabwe and all its people.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for introducing the debate. She encapsulated the problems very well in what she said. I am grateful, too, to the
1324
right reverend Prelate for reminding us of the original words of President Mugabe, upon which he has now reneged.
The latest matter on which he has reneged is the Abuja Agreement. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, as far as our Government are concerned, the Abuja Agreement is dead and that we are no longer trying to hang on to something that was clearly used by President Mugabe as a ruse for delayed action and for carrying on and intensifying what was going on before. There is no doubt that the intimidation is worse and that the level of fear, of both blacks and whites, is at a higher level than it was before Abuja.
Over the past months, I have sent various e-mails to the Minister's office to ensure that she was aware of some the events happening in Zimbabwe. Sadly, when I have requested replies, they have not necessarily been forthcoming. I hope that today she will be able to put us firmly in the picture.
One of the great problems with Zimbabwe is obtaining accurate information; it is at a premium. If you read some of the comments of the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister, Mr Stan Mudenge, and compare them with what you read elsewhere, you would believe that he lived on a different planet. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, wondered whether President Mugabe was aware of the damage that he is causing to his country. Most certainly he is—but he does not care.
President Mugabe is not the only person who gives cause for concern. It is not only a question of getting rid of President Mugabe but of the whole of the ZANU-PF elite. If we get rid of President Mugabe, there will be four or five others ready to step into his shoes, with exactly the same policies, exactly the same terrorism of the blacks and exactly the same downward spiral that we have witnessed.
Like my noble friend Lady Park, I shall start with farming, because that is a tragic situation. In the year 1999–00, 850,000 tonnes of maize were grown; next year there is expected to be a maximum crop of 255,000 tonnes. Cotton is down from 34,000 tonnes last year to 12,000 tonnes this year. Planting is down 75 per cent within the past two years. Since January 2001, nearly a quarter of a million cattle have been sold and not replaced.
That has been compounded more recently because of President Mugabe's wonderful resettlement programme. The blacks have now introduced their cattle into areas where there are wild buffalo; the wild buffalo carry foot and mouth; the cattle now have foot and mouth and the export of beef from Zimbabwe has had to be stopped. There is a limited supply, but one of the good areas through which foreign exchange could get into Zimbabwe has been closed off through its own stupid internal policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to some of the good farming land in Zimbabwe, but there is some rotten, awful farming land which the white farmers are farming and which is being resettled at the moment. Here we will see history repeating itself. We saw it in Tanzania, where unprofitable farming land was resettled. I know one person who farmed quite a

1325
chunk of Tanzania. The land was resettled with 200 families—and there is now not one person on that land. Exactly the same will apply in Zimbabwe.
It is sad that young farmers, of all nationalities, are leaving Zimbabwe at an unprecedented rate. Already there is famine in parts of the country—but, in that time honoured phrase, you have not seen anything yet. Next year will see a dramatic increase in famine. We will see horrible pictures on our television screens and there will be a rush to try to help. If that rush starts before the presidential election, the only person who will get credit will be Mr Mugabe.
I hope that the Government will take a strong line on this issue. Any aid, maize, or whatever foodstuffs are needed, going into Zimbabwe should not go through the Zimbabwean Government but through the NGOs and aid agencies and it should be seen to go through them. Otherwise, the President will use it entirely for his own advantage and intimidation.
I turn now to tourism, one of Zimbabwe's main potential opportunities. In 1999, there were 1.4 million visitors; there were less than a quarter of that last year. By March of this year, the industry had lost 5,000 jobs in the previous 12 months; 100 tour operators had closed down; and Qantas and Lufthansa airlines had left Zimbabwe because of a lack of people wanting to go there. Those policies do not help the local people of Zimbabwe; they put them out of work.
As well as going to view the magical scenery of Zimbabwe, one goes to look at the wildlife. I raised the issue of wildlife in our previous debate on Zimbabwe, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, replied. Let us look at what is happening in the private reserves. In the Save Valley reserve—one of the biggest in the world, with 320,000 hectares of land—more than 3,000 animals have been lost through illicit poaching in the 12 months to June this year. This area comprises 20 landowners, 22 local communities and five district councils. It was the epitome of an African solution to an African problem, but it is now failing.
There has been rampant poaching—not through the organised gangs that we saw in the early 1990s, which were sponsored by outside nations and by the government, but through people trying to get some meat to eat. The wildlife lost includes wild dog, elephant, lion, sable, eland, giraffe, kudu—and, on that reserve, 36 out of the 70 rhino are missing. It is a tragic story. The very biodiversity of that part of Africa is now at stake. There have been huge losses. The reserve employs 1,200 unskilled workers, and they, too, are suffering as a result of the policies.
The same can be said of the reserves in the Midlands and Bubiana. Losses have been caused by poaching and indiscriminate fires, and, where the wildlife has not been killed, much of it has moved on to areas outside the reserves. Sadly, in the national parks, too, there is an increasing amount of poaching.
As I said, obtaining accurate information has been difficult. I hope that the Minister has seen the report in July this year from the Zimbabwe Network for Informal Settlement Action. From a sample taken in central Mashonaland, of the 5,689 farm workers
1326
estimated to have lost their jobs, only 1,593 had been resettled. The rest were internal migrants. It is estimated that there are now some 3 million internal displaced refugees within Zimbabwe. None of those people will be allowed to vote in the coming presidential election.
Worse than that is the consequential effect on the children of farm workers in the area. The supplementary feeding of under-fives has decreased by 56 per cent. Pre-school activities have stopped entirely for 36 per cent of the farm workers' children. The dispensing of medicines has ceased at 19 per cent of farms; and farm health workers are no longer being paid on 15 per cent of farms. This is tragic; the very core and future of Zimbabwe are not being looked after. The orphans who were once looked after by those families have suffered more than others.
What action should we now take? I take a much stronger view than some other speakers. The time for constructive engagement is over. The European Un ion should implement smart sanctions as soon as possible—as the Americans have done. All the travel of the Zanu PF elite and their families and henchmen should be stopped, including that of some whites who are supplying arms to the regime. The daughter of a friend of mine was at a mixed school in Zimbabwe. Not one of her black friends is in Zimbabwe at the moment. If their travel were stopped, it would bring it home to their parents just what a mess they are making of the country.
We ought to freeze the assets of all ZANU-PF elite and the Zimbabwean Government. At the same time, we must get over the message that the sanctions are not targeted at the Zimbabwean people but at the ruling government. The Americans are already close to losing a trick. I hear that they are not winning this important propaganda war. I hope that we shall cease to provide aid for resettlement and trim our aid programme heavily. I hope that, at the same time, we shall offer a new, enhanced aid programme for the future when certain conditions are met and the elite have gone.
I hope that President Mbeki of South Africa will pass the test that he has set himself of influencing Zimbabwe. The country has lost 25 million dollars in the recent past, thanks to Zimbabwe. When we were children, we used to play a game called "beggar my neighbour". President Mugabe is doing that with serious money to all the surrounding states.
I very much hope that the Government, together with the other European Union countries, will take firm action now. Unless that happens, they will continue to be led by the nose, as they have been over the past year, and at the end of the day President Mugabe will still be laughing at the European Union. I hope that that does not happen.
4.3 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for introducing this topical debate. Hardly a day goes by without more revelations of human rights violations and of the increasingly dire social, political and

1327
economic crisis in Zimbabwe. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put his name on the list of speakers. We look forward to hearing his comments.
This subject has been raised many times in this house, particularly at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. The Minister for Africa has consistently given assurances that pressure will be brought to bear—through Britain's membership of the Commonwealth and through the European Union—on Robert Mugabe to end the increasing cycle of devastation in his country.
However, as the Foreign Secretary recently conceded in another place, the Abuja accord has effectively broken down. Moreover, all the assurances given by the Zimbabwean Government, and by Mugabe himself, have proved to be false dawns.
Whatever measures Her Majesty's Government have taken and continue to take, my experience of having lived most of my life in southern Africa leads me to suggest that African problems require African solutions. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has reservations about that but certainly so far as concerns the present crisis, I believe that South Africa holds the key to resolving the impasse.
We can pontificate as much as we like in this House, but the relationship that Mr Mugabe has with Thabo Mbeki is a very long and special one. It is encouraging that at long last he is changing his views on the country. Even more so, pressure needs to be brought to bear through SADC. Essentially, it is Zimbabwe's southern African neighbours who have the ability to get to the heart of Mr Mugabe—essentially we are talking about one man. When she replies to the debate, will the Minister outline what measures Her Majesty's Government have been taking to encourage President Thabo Mbeki to exert much-needed pressure on his northern neighbour?
South Africa has been placed in an awkward predicament. Thabo Mbeki has tried in vain for several years to exert diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe through maintaining friendly relations with his old friend and comrade, Robert Mugabe. However, this kid gloves strategy has effectively back-fired on the South African economy, and more recently on the South African rand, which has fallen dramatically. I am not saying that that is entirely the result of the crisis in Zimbabwe, but the crisis has certainly had a knock-on effect on the economies of the entire region.
I was therefore encouraged to note President Mbeki's remarks last weekend, when he publicly acknowledged that Mugabe's policies have destroyed southern Africa's second largest economy and that the country's presidential election, scheduled for March next year, is unlikely to be free and fair. Such words do not come easily from Thabo Mbeki. He appears to have decided that the most effective means of bringing pressure to bear on his old friend Mugabe is to work through SADC.
1328
It has been mooted that South Africa could effectively bring the Zimbabwe Government to their knees by imposing economic sanctions, through interrupting the supplies of electricity and maize, as well as the credit lines it has been giving to the Zimbabwe Central Bank and various public enterprises. However, Pretoria has repeatedly stated that sanctions are not an option. Diplomacy and leadership through SADC remain the strongest weapons at President Mbeki's disposal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, has eloquently outlined the gravity of the current situation in Zimbabwe. I totally agree with her remark that we are currently experiencing the murder of a once prosperous country. That is true. The sad reality, however, is that this is not just a crisis about the seizure of more than 5,000 white-owned farms. Most speakers would agree that land reform in Zimbabwe is necessary—but necessary only so long as it is fair, and only so long as it is done in an orderly fashion. The real crisis lies in the devastating effect that this policy has had on millions of poor Zimbabweans. Agricultural production has slumped alarmingly and the country, which has historically enjoyed food surpluses, now faces the unthinkable prospect of severe famine.
The harsh statistics speak for themselves. In 1980, one Zimbabwe dollar was equal to £1. Now, £1 buys more than 300 Zimbabwe dollars. If we look back 10 years to 1990, Zimbabwe's per capita annual income was 920 US dollars. That figure has now fallen to below 530 US dollars. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned an unemployment figure of 50 per cent. I understand that at present it is nearer 60 per cent. With more than 25 per cent of working-age adults HIV positive, the outlook could hardly be bleaker.
Apart from supporting South Africa in the initiatives through SADC, have Her Majesty's Government adopted the imposition of smart sanctions on Zimbabwe similar to those passed recently by the US House of Representatives in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill? Those penalties would involve travel bans on Mugabe, his cabinet and senior ZANU-PF officials. Most importantly, it would impose a freeze on the assets of Robert Mugabe and his henchmen.
We have debated this ongoing crisis for long enough. Time is running out for the people of Zimbabwe. Her Majesty's Government need to offer unconditional support to the SADC initiatives and, together with our partners in the European Union and the Commonwealth, ensure that the forthcoming presidential election is as free and fair as possible. We live in hope.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, it is normal to start a speech by congratulating the person who has initiated the debate. I question whether I want to thank the noble Baroness for introducing the subject. The debate has been as I imagined. I am the seventh speaker and I agree with every word of the previous speakers. Indeed

1329
I suspect that I shall agree with all who follow. However, before deciding whether to participate in the debate, I asked myself a number of questions. Will I gain new knowledge about Zimbabwe? Will I hear new initiatives from the UK Government? Will the outcome of the debate influence President Mugabe? I thought that all three points would be answered in the negative.
I declare an interest. I am a personal friend of Morgan Tsvangirai and for the past 10 years have served with Gibson Sibanda, parliamentary leader of the MDC on the ILO governing body. I have twice spoken at MDC meetings in London and chaired a rally in which Morgan Tsvangirai took part. However, I am uneasy about the righteousness expressed by some speakers, and the impotence felt by the same people, who might find themselves named within a few days by the Herald as the justification for what President Mugabe seeks to do.
I sought some positive aspects of the debate. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who said that it was all gloom and asked whether there is any brightness. I believe that there is. Eighteen months ago I went to Zimbabwe. I wrote a report, partly on behalf of the ILO, which I circulated to Her Majesty's Government and a number of noble Lords who have an interest in that country. Alas, everything that I had forecast from talking to bankers, industrialists, farmers and trades unionists has come about, except that there is not yet civil unrest to the degree that I forecast, although that is partly through the intimidation of the Government of Zimbabwe.
Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda were leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. In the one-party state which has existed for a number of years they have become more and more the only democratic organisation where dissenting voices can he heard in debate. As in many developed and developing countries, trade unionists have become the voice of the masses in every sense of the word. I take comfort from two facts. First, when I asked members of the World Bank, the IMF, banks and farmers, "If the Mugabe regime were to be removed, democratically or by whatever means, how long would it take for the economy of Zimbabwe to recover?", a number of people said that it would be not more than three years because the fundamentals in Zimbabwe are so strong. With good governance, a democratic government and the rule of law, it could recover quickly.
My second reason for optimism is that Zimbabwe is but four months away from an election. I know and have heard of the ongoing intimidation. I have great admiration for Morgan, Gibson and their colleagues who face that intimidation. They are optimistic that if the rigging of the election can be minimised, the voice of the Zimbabwe people will render their verdict on President Mugabe.
While noble Lords may be guilty of rational thought, I do not believe that President Mugabe is involved in rational thinking. He seems to have some intellectual belief that because Morgan Tsvangirai
1330
does not have seven degrees and Gibson Sibanda was a railway engine driver they are in some way incapable of running the country. The right reverend Prelate referred to the speech that he made on the opening of the Mugabe regime. It demonstrates the journey the president has taken from his past to present position.
I disagree with only one aspect of the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I do not believe that a phalanx of ZANU-PF would be prepared to carry on the fight if President Mugabe were to fall under a Madrid taxi or find himself out at the election. A number of people will certainly fight to hold on to those things that they have acquired. Some months ago, the MDC dismissed the rumours of a coup and Morgan Tsvangirai remains confident that the senior echelons in the armed forces will obey the instructions of a democratically elected government. From talking to people within ZANU-PF—by no means at the lowest level—I know that there are those in that organisation who would want to find a solution. They have sought a solution which would remove President Mugabe with honour, security and a pension. That has been rejected. As with so many states, whether eastern European or others—we remember Ceausescu—when the head is removed what appears to be a solid phalanx falls quickly. I have some optimism in that direction.
Therefore, the question is how we can ensure that the elections are free and fair. President Mugabe has blown hot and cold about monitors. I understand that his position today is yes to Commonwealth observers; no to EU observers; no to white observers; and yes to Indian, Asian and African observers. It may be different tomorrow. However, he accepts, therefore, the principle of an observer presence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about the need for an African solution to an African problem. I am far less critical of the Government of South Africa than some speakers. I believe that determined efforts have been made privately. Contacts have been retained between the trade unions in South Africa and those in Zimbabwe and between the ANC and the political parties in Zimbabwe. At the diplomatic level, the South African Government have made efforts—they may be somewhat greater than we can acknowledge publicly—but the fact of life is that all those efforts have not succeeded.
In this week of Human Rights Day, Morgan Tsvangirai congratulated the president of South Africa on his latest statement. It is one to be grasped. How do we ensure that we have fair elections? That is a positive note. I am not sure whether smart sanctions imposed before or after an election are crucial. However, calling for sanctions in this Chamber will be used by President Mugabe as an argument that such sanctions are not being brought: because the world at large sees his regime for what it is: as a colonial fight in which, he pretends, the British Government and British people are involved.
We have to travel with a little caution if only because the journey to democracy could be quite short. I may be accused of being hopelessly naïve; that my knowledge is superficial; and that the situation is far

1331
more grave. However, my last ray of optimism is that my sources are Morgan Tsvangirai, Gibson Sibanda and the MDC. While they raise the alarm bells and want us to do everything we can to ensure free and fair elections, they are prepared to go into those elections and believe that they can be won. We owe it to them to take that optimistic view. I think that the UK Government have handled a very difficult situation as well as they can. We start from the premise that anything we say can be counter-productive. That it why I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside that we have to be careful about exacerbating the situation, if only because it could improve the chances of President Mugabe remaining in power, however rigged are the elections. I do not expect the Minister to do anything other than agree with the sentiments expressed by noble Lords and offer the continuation of the present policy. I think that the answer lies with SADC, the EU and the presidents of that region of Africa saying to Mugabe that the elections that take place in March must be seen by Africa to be free and fair. That is possibly the only pressure to which President Mugabe will respond.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Blaker: I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on securing this important and useful debate.
The most important thing for Zimbabwe in the coming months is that the elections should be free and fair. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, the observers—I hope that there will be observers—must be in position well before the elections take place. We have seen in the past that intimidation occurs in the period before elections. My impression is that Mr Mugabe has refused to agree to foreign observers. I should be interested to learn fro0m the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, when she replies to the debate, whether that is correct. The reporting on Zimbabwe has not been good recently, partly because the media are focused on Afghanistan and partly because Mr Mugabe has banned all foreign reporters in Zimbabwe.
When the European Union delegation of Mr Michel, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, Mr Solana and Chris Patten saw Mr Mugabe three weeks ago, Mr Mugabe stormed out of the meeting and refused to have observers from the European Union. Mr Michel was reported to have said after that meeting that the European Union would not recognise the elections. I was encouraged by that remark. Whether he really meant it, I am not sure, but at least it showed that there are strong feelings about the matter.
I want to ask the Minister about the position of SADC. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that SADC has a key role. There was a call by Mr Mbeki not long ago for SADC to ensure that the elections are free and fair. SADC has put forward detailed and good proposals for the conduct of elections in the 14 member countries of that organisation. I shall not go into detail but mention only the interesting proposal that transparent ballot
1332
boxes should be provided, presumably to prevent the stuffing of ballot boxes before election day. SADC emphasises the importance of election observers before and after the elections, so I should be grateful if the Minister will say something about SADC's position on the issue of observers. It is important that SADC should play its part but also that there should be other observers from other organisations.
It is important, too, that the world should be prepared to do something if the elections are not free and fair. I emphasise the word "do" as opposed to "say". So far there has been much talk, representations and concern expressed, but not much has been done. It is interesting that when the parliamentary elections took place last year, all the observers' reports were hostile, adverse and critical, but nothing whatever was done. These elections could be an important turning point. If Mr Mugabe wins and the world stands by and does nothing, the vertiginous descent into chaos will accelerate. Zimbabwe will become even more in hock to Mr Gadaffi, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred. If the elections are not free and fair and Mr Mugabe wins, have the Government considered what they will do then? It is much better that we should think out these matters before the elections occur, rather than have confused consultations with all our friends and allies after the elections.
Before the parliamentary elections, which Mr Mugabe "won", intimidation was fierce. It is now being stepped up again and is focused on the media, in particular. The printing press of the principal independent newspaper was blown up, local editors and journalists have been beaten up and arrested on spurious charges and foreign journalists have been banned. One can be sent to prison for criticising the president. The Zimbabwe Government have accused the BBC of stirring up revolt by its foreign language programmes and the headquarters of the MDC have been burnt.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Brett, in paying tribute to the MDC and to its leader, Mr Tsvangirai, in particular. I have great admiration for him and his organisation. The MDC refuses to respond to violence with violence; it is committed to democracy and peaceful change. And it is setting an example that is very important for Africa. It is possible that the MDC will win even if Mr Mugabe does his worst. It has had good results in recent mayoral contests. It leads in the opinion polls, although they may not be accurate as they are taken mostly in the towns where the MDC is stronger because of Mugabe's intimidation in the countryside.
Have Her Majesty's Government, the European Union or the Commonwealth considered the position if the MDC wins? It is possible that Mr Mugabe might refuse to recognise the result and imprison the MDC leaders. That happened in a similar situation in Burma, and there the situation is still the same many years later. What would the Government or the EU do? Let us think about it now, rather than after the event.
What is anyone doing now about stopping the descent into disaster? I understand the Government's reservations about the United Kingdom acting alone,

1333
which is to be avoided if possible, as we are the ex-colonial power. But should we not be doing more than issuing statements of concern and making verbal representations? The Abuja agreement has been signed, but, as has been said, that is now a dead letter as it was ignored by Mr Mugabe. What could the Government do? Like other noble Lords, I, too, refer to the resolution passed by the Congress of the United States to freeze foreign assets of Mr Mugabe and his cronies and to restrict their foreign travel. Why cannot the same be done by the EU? If the assets of bin Laden can be traced and frozen, so can those of Mr Mugabe and his henchmen.
I agree that the actions of the Commonwealth have been disappointing; so too have the statements of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He recently warned Pakistan's rulers that there were limits to the tolerance of the world community in accepting their slow return to democracy. The Government of Pakistan have undertaken to have elections in October next year. I do not recall Mr McKinnon saying anything critical to, or about, the Government of Zimbabwe. He has certainly not said anything about their destruction of democracy.
I want to refer to one or two of the answers recently given by the Minister. I must express my sympathy to the noble Baroness for the fact that she suffered a harangue, which lasted 90 minutes, from Mr Mugabe a few weeks ago. On the "Today" programme on 21st November when questioned about international observers, she said that the question of free and fair elections is a matter for the Government of Zimbabwe to resolve. We all know that if that is the case the elections will not be free and fair.
In answer to a parliamentary Question from me on 6th November, the Minister said:
"perhaps I should remind the House that Zimbabwe is an independent country".
She later added:
"we cannot force them to have international election observers".—[Official Report, 6/11/01; cols. 127–28.]
But could we not put some pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe? Austria is an independent country, but we intervened in its affairs. Serbia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan are also independent, but we have intervened in all of them. The doctrine is evolving that intervention in an independent country is permissible to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. In a document issued in the summer, the Government favoured the further evolution of that doctrine. Do we not face a humanitarian catastrophe in Zimbabwe? Could not the European Union at least follow the example of the United States Congress?
4.31 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the election next March will be a turning point. We should consider the circumstances in which it is to take place and whether it is possible to say, even at this stage, whether the conditions exist in which a free and fair election might theoretically be held.
1334
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, has already reminded us of the widespread violence and intimidation before the parliamentary elections. At least 30 MDC members were killed during the June parliamentary campaign and there has been a relentless onslaught on MDC leaders and activists since then. When Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition, was campaigning at a by-election recently, a group of more than 100 ZANU-PF youth supporters attacked his convoy and five MDC supporters were seriously injured. At another by-election, ZANU-PF thugs set fire to the house of an MDC official and assaulted his pregnant wife as she fled from the fire. At the Chikomba by-election on 14th September, Mr Felix Mazava, a headmaster of a primary school, was abducted and beaten to death, allegedly by ZANU-PF supporters.
Only the day before yesterday, it was reported that the body of 29 year-old Augustus Chacha, who was kidnapped by suspected ZANU-PF supporters from his home in Shurugwi on Saturday, was found dumped in a dam a kilometre from his home. He had been an active supporter of the MDC in the nearby village of Gonye before he moved to Shurugwi in August this year because of political violence around his previous home.
The police have not investigated any of those incidents of violence against MDC supporters. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, when any member of ZANU-PF or the war veterans is attacked or murdered, the full armoury of the state is deployed against the nearest MDC target. The case of Cain Nkala, a leading ZANU-PF activist in Bulawayo, has already been mentioned. Following his murder, 14 MDC supporters were arrested and at his funeral, President Robert Mugabe accused the MDC of being a terrorist organisation. Two suspects, Mr Khentani Sibanda and Mr Remember Moyo, said during their bail application at Bulawayo High Court that they had been tortured. Mr Sibanda said that he had confessed after being tortured by the police and when they threatened to kill his family. Mr Moyo told the judge that the police in Mbembesi camp tortured him and forced him to confess to the murder by holding his legs apart and kicking him in the groin.
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa articulated the feelings of the whole world when he said:
"Clearly, in a situation where people get beaten up, where people get disenfranchised, obviously there cannot be free elections".
He added that pressure on the Zimbabwean Government from the Commonwealth, SADC and the EU had not curbed Mugabe's attacks on the opposition. His brother, Mr Moeletsi Mbeki, has used even blunter language, warning that ZAN C-PF is preparing for,
"a major onslaught against the population, and against supporters of the opposition movement",
using militias armed with Angolan weapons. He has called for drastic measures against Harare to defuse the looming danger that could engulf the whole of southern Africa. I shall not go into detail on how

1335
Zimbabwe's economic crisis is threatening to spill over into neighbouring countries, because others have already put it better than I could. That situation presents dangers for the whole region.
President Mbeki's reference to disenfranchisement related to the demand by the Registrar-General's office that voters must produce proof of residence. That will exclude whole slices of the population, including rural women, the urban poor who lack a freehold, farm workers and young people, together with an estimated 3 million Zimbabweans who are living outside the country and who, I understand, used to be able to vote by post. There are reports of voters being turned away from registration centres because of minor discrepancies in their identity cards and the other documents that they produce.
The problems are already happening. These are the circumstances in which an election will be held. It is already late in the day, because the registration process, although it was extended, is due to finish on 19th December. If the SADC observers are to be the only ones allowed to monitor the elections, they ought to be present in Harare and other places right now. If they arrive only after the various measures that the noble Baroness outlined in her evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, it will be too late. I understand that she told the Select Committee that, at a meeting of CMAG Ministers on 20th December and at a meeting of the SADC security organ at some point in January, assistance would be given in setting out agreed standards for a free and fair election in Zimbabwe. She said that once the outcomes of those meetings were clear, the international community would be in a better position to draw up the criteria that will guide the decision on whether a free and fair election is possible or has taken place. The problem is that it will be over by then. The circumstances will have been arranged by Mugabe and his thugs—the so-called war veterans, most of whom are far too young to have fought in the liberation war. They will be unleashed on the voters of Zimbabwe, who will be prevented from arriving at a free decision.
Coupled with the attacks on the opposition, another particularly alarming feature of Mugabe's strategy to remain in power at all costs has been violence against the free media and the intimidation of journalists and media workers. We have already heard mention of the events at the start of this year, with the terrorist attack on the presses of the Daily News. Five of its six presses were shattered by a huge bomb. It was clear that only Mugabe and ZANU-PF had the motive and opportunity to commit such an act of terrorism, which was of a piece with all their other efforts to silence criticism.
Just the other day, on 30th November, a drunken mob attacked the offices of the Daily News, smashing windows and destroying hundreds of copies of newspapers. The mob also attacked Mr Cyrus Nhara, a photojournalist who was trying to film the event. He escaped with bruises, although he lost his spectacles, the film and his shoes. The mob was led by Mr Winston Dzawo, a ZANU-PF central committee member.
1336
The government have now tabled a Bill requiring all journalists to be licensed by a statutory commission that will have the power to discipline them, suspend them or strike them off the register for alleged breaches of a planned code of conduct. As has already been said, foreign journalists are not going to be allowed to work in Zimbabwe. The information minister, Mr. Jonathan Moyo, has already branded six journalists working for foreign newspapers as terrorists, although in fact only one of them is not a Zimbabwean.
Journalists are being picked up and detained on spurious charges. The Daily News reporter Mduduzi Mathuthu and his colleague the photographer Grey Chitiga were detained on 18th November on allegations of kidnapping and torture, but the charges were later dropped. Mr. Mduduzi was picked up and questioned again on 28th November in connection with an article he wrote saying that people had walked out on a speech that was being made by the vice president at a public rally.
The rule of law has been fatally undermined, as the International Bar Association showed in the report that it published following a mission to Zimbabwe last March. Because of a shortage of time, I shall not go into the very damning conclusions that it reached in that report.
Zimbabweans are now the third largest group of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, and that is obviously connected with the way in which events are developing in that country. I am very glad that, in her excellent speech introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned the fact that Zimbabweans are the third largest group of asylum seekers to be fast-tracked through Oakington and the second largest group of asylum seekers in prison. If journalists, MDC members and other critics of Mugabe have good reason to fear persecution, why are those who do manage to escape rushed through the system and sent back?
This morning, the Minister told the Foreign Affairs Committee that she was concerned about the timing of international observers being admitted for the presidential elections. As I said, with the flawed registration process coming to a conclusion a week from today, I believe that it is already far too late for a proper assessment to be made of the conditions in which free and fair elections could take place. However, I urge the noble Baroness to persuade SADC not to wait until it can send delegates to Harare to observe events, but to produce a preliminary assessment of the conditions, as was similarly done prior to last year's Peruvian elections. That was a very effective means of highlighting the international community's concerns and of pointing to the particular conditions in the country that made it impossible for free and fair elections to be held.
If we did that in the case of Zimbabwe and brought out all the facts, some of which I have tried to describe in the course of these few remarks, we would at least set the scene for a judgment by the international community on the events that are to take place in March.
4.43 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I too have personal connections with Zimbabwe. Furthermore, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I lived in Zambia, although at a rather different time, at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. I have been in a position to see the rather contrasting fate of those two countries.
The tragedy of Zimbabwe is that its dire problems are entirely man-made. The current conditions of lawlessness, mob rule, violence, repression, economic chaos and impending famine are the direct consequences of very deliberate political decisions rather than incompetence.
When I first visited the country in the late 1980s, it was still relatively stable and well ordered. There was also a general feeling, to my mind at least, that its people had done a remarkable job, as had its president, to put the horrors of the civil war behind them and concentrate on moving forward. That was only a few years after the civil war had ended. The country had a highly developed agricultural industry, producing ample food for domestic consumption and a surplus and cash crops for export. At that time, tourism was booming.
Since then, however, as we have heard from all speakers today, the country has changed beyond recognition. As economic conditions have worsened and pressure on the government to deliver has grown, President Mugabe has sought to distract attention by relaunching an old conflict which had been very largely dead and buried. In doing so, to maintain power he has demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice not only all the considerable achievements that the country and its people had made since independence, but the fate of all Zimbabwe citizens except the political elite.
One has only to look over the border to Zambia to see the achievements that have been made—albeit from an extremely low base—during the same time, particularly since the 1991 multi-party elections. In fact, I left Zambia on the very day that the Kaunda regime, after 27-odd years, ended. Since then the situation has improved, although very slowly. Contrast that with Zimbabwe, to which we used to go to buy provisions and supplies. The contrast is very marked indeed.
The facts of the current conditions in Zimbabwe are well known; there has been no dispute about them in today's debate. We have heard some very graphic descriptions. The terror unleashed on the country by gangs of ZANU-PF thugs, otherwise known as war veterans, operating under the government's control, has wrought untold damage. My noble friend Lord Caithness has given a very thorough analysis of the agricultural conditions. Agriculture is the key point facing the country. Zimbabwe, incredibly rich in agricultural resources, is now producing next to no food. That can only signal dire consequences ahead.
1338
We have also heard that Zimbabwe's independent judiciary survived for a surprisingly long time considering the pressure from the government. However, that independence has now largely gone. As the regime of terror has continued, we have heard of the moves to frustrate the opposition MDC's campaign. Those moves include intimidation, the unlawful arrest of officials and the destruction of opposition offices. The tourism industry has almost totally collapsed. Moreover, Zimbabwe has no money to buy food, and it is not growing Food itself now. Given the acute food shortages that will inevitably occur, the country's lack of foreign exchange and its lack of ability to generate any, the suspension of the rule of law, mass dissent and the impending presidential election, it becomes clear that the potential for very serious conflict is both real and immediate.
It is equally clear that the policies pursued by interested parties, including Her Majesty's Government, the Commonwealth, the EU and indeed SADC to attempt to control Mugabe have not worked. Despite the Abuja agreement he has continued his policies of brutal repression and destruction. I do not seek here, however, to criticise Her Majesty's Government. I believe they have done their very best to influence President Mugabe both directly and through other interested parties to the limits of a constructive, non confrontational approach. We are indeed lucky to have the Minister with responsibility for Africa, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replying to the debate and in this House. Looking back through the reports of the multitude of occasions when Ministers—the noble Baroness and her predecessors—have reported back to the House, their efforts are very clear.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brett, I thought long and hard about intervening in this debate. There is very little dissent in the western world about current events in Zimbabwe. I partly see the noble Lord's point that the louder we shout in the United Kingdom, the more strength is put to Mugabe's elbow. Hitherto I have agreed with that view, and I have imposed a self-denying ordinance on contributing to debates. However, my feeling now is that the situation is becoming so severe and urgent that a stronger approach is required.
We know that President Mugabe is not overly concerned about the international reputation of himself or his regime, nor indeed about the economic well-being of those whom he governs. That clearly reduces the effect of international pronouncements. I do not think for a moment that he will be receiving a copy of Hansard tomorrow or that he will be unduly concerned about what your Lordships have said. However, we do have the opportunity to influence the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and they have the opportunity to influence the policy of the Commonwealth and to make representations to SADC, the EU and of course directly to South Africa.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that as far as possible the solution must 1x a regional one. Mugabe will not feel threatened while

1339
there is a degree of tacit acquiescence with his domestic policies. He will begin to feel threatened only when pressure is applied through African leaders. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that once the regime begins to crumble, as it inevitably will, then it has the potential—as history has shown over the past 10 years or so—to fall extremely quickly.
Looking at what has been done by SADC and by South Africa, it is clear that, on a diplomatic level, South Africa has been making strong representations towards Zimbabwe. But we have not heard—we understand the reasons why—strong condemnation from President Thabo Mbeki. However, it appears that that situation is now changing; that the consequences on the destabilisation of the region and the devaluation of the rand, which is now happening extremely quickly, is scaring both investors and the administration in South Africa. That is a good thing because we need President Mbeki to make strong representations to President Mugabe that a continuation of the present regime is unacceptable. I urge the Government to do everything they can to support that stance.
We need to look towards what has been done in the United States in terms of more direct action. The so-called "smart sanctions" that were passed by Congress to freeze assets and impose travel bans are the type of measure we should urgently consider, not on a unilateral basis but by applying pressure within the European Union and among other partner countries. The time has come for much tougher action against the Mugabe regime. It is a question of timing. The consequences of not taking action are frightening.
The elections are close. I listened with care to what noble Lords said about the possibility of those elections being free and fair. They cannot possibly be entirely free and fair if one considers what has happened historically. The question is: what pressure can we apply to reduce the level of intimidation that Mugabe is able to exert?
Zimbabwe is a wonderful country. I share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that in the not too distant future it will return to being a great country. But how it gets there is of the utmost importance.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is to be congratulated on assembling a formidable force today. I am sure we will be heard in Zimbabwe in the way that we would like to be heard.
I shall be brief because so much has already been said. It was disappointing that SADC chose not to confront President Mugabe on Monday, in spite of the strong and welcome statements we heard last week from President Thabo Mbeki. But it has been an enormous relief, as my noble friend said, that the South African president finally decided to speak out in his own way. I can only speculate with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that he still feels that quiet persuasion will
1340
be more effective than threats of sanctions in preventing more bloodshed and intimidation before the presidential elections.
Another powerful voice known to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, is that of Mr Zwelinzima Vavi, the general secretary of COSATU—the Congress of South African Trade Unions. He said quite bluntly on Monday that Zimbabwe could be saved from economic collapse only if President Mugabe was removed from power at the next election. Mr Vavi told trade unionists from all over southern Africa that Mugabe's sole aim was power. He said he was,
"desperate and does not care how many corpses he leaves behind".
The opposition parties in Zimbabwe will be greatly cheered by those comments from next door, because the MDC needs all the encouragement it can get. It has done well to stay in the race and is already a favourite having just captured its third mayoral election in the town of Cheguto, with Harare itself now in its sights before February. But it is still fighting against enormous odds, not just the rhetorical question of whether there will be free and fair elections, which none of us can answer, but also the reality of daily intimidation and violence against its activists and even its supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with characteristic skill described the pain that that is bringing every day to families. The victims include teachers, members of the clergy and local leaders whose very lives are often at stake alongside the people they serve.
The task of political parties and their organisations is made much less easy by the government's attacks on members of the judiciary who, as long as they remain independent, are supposed to be the final arbiters of any electoral fraud and malpractice. However, many of them feel too enfeebled to be so.
The official ZANU-PF policy of intimidation extends to other parts of the constitution—elected MPs, trade unions and the national and local media. The attack on national newspapers, like the Daily News is well known; but the work of local media rather less so. Those who follow Zimbabwe closely depend on reports from local journalists and non-governmental organisations. The international press and the outside world owe a huge debt to those individuals who, in a fine tradition, take personal risks every day to observe the situation—like the recent violence of ZANU-PF thugs in Epworth—at first hand and report it as accurately as they can. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Mr Moyo's new Information Bill contains much to be feared for those people, especially the new commission with its accreditation rules, many of which are aimed directly at the foreign correspondents on whom we here all depend.
I look forward to the noble Baroness's analysis of the vexed land issue and should like to ask two questions following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. Does the Minister believe that the Abuja declaration helped the situation or was it merely an expression of good will? Or was it something much more sinister, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested? Secondly, is the UNDP, which has been

1341
charged with this responsibility for so long, making any headway in arriving at the great compromise involving the international community? Or will that important question be permanently left to politicians? If there is to be a new UNDP report, when will it be implemented and who will follow it up? Who will be responsible for it? I appreciate that the noble Baroness may not he able to answer those points.
Despite the prevailing economic gloom already described, there have been one or two encouraging signs. Tobacco prices have picked up. I notice that, while the tobacco industry is set to decline by one-third next year, small-scale producers are expected to double their share. Their role must not be overlooked. That is an encouraging sign and is partly due to increased planting by small-holders and not just to the decline of the commercial farms. However, it is a straw in the wind compared with the overall slump in agriculture as a whole, the continuing land invasions, the aggression against the larger commercial farmers and farm workers, and the unhappy, unnecessary migration of skills out of the country. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the possible abuse of food aid as a political weapon. I hope that the predictions of the right reverend Prelate in relation to the non-governmental organisations and Churches will prove right.
The Zimbabwe Foreign Minister, Mr Stan Mudenge, has yet again accused Britain of interfering—I hope that the noble Baroness will resist—in internal African affairs, which is all he can devise as a foreign policy. Mr Patrick Chinamasa, the Justice Minister, followed suit. Whatever the mistakes of the past, that is a crude form of racism which most Zimbabweans know to be shallow and transparent in the light of their government's well-publicised and anti-democratic policies.
Of course Britain will and must receive that criticism like water off a duck's back. We shall always go on taking an interest in Zimbabwean affairs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put it, we do not have to say "the wrong thing". We need to speak with conviction.
I am sure that the Government will stand firm, will continue to ignore the blandishments and will help to resist Mr Mugabe's bullying of his own people. The time is long past when liberals in the United Kingdom from all parties were, with good reason, praising Mugabe's achievements as a freedom fighter in the wake of the civil war and the Smith era. His South African comrades in arms are now at last disowning him too. If the opposition can keep up the momentum, it should be only a matter of time—let us hope it is well before the next CHOGM—before the front-line African states all see the value of united action. If sanctions are not imposed, at the very least there must be a determined effort by the international community to insist on election observers from all countries and to reassert the rule of law and democracy.
5 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on introducing this important debate. The House has certainly enjoyed some powerful and well informed speeches.
As Zimbabwe descends ever further into the abyss, one of the most important issues is the shameful threat to its government's last truly vigorous domestic critics—the press. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the government are preventing most foreign correspondents from entering the country. Some have already been thrown out, including representatives of British and other countries' national newspapers and the BBC. The BBC World Service is doing tremendous work in Zimbabwe. Is the Minister aware of any steps taken by the Zimbabwe Government to block access to, or to jam, external broadcasting services of which they disapprove?
Over the past 18 months the editors and staff of the three principal Zimbabwe independent newspapers, the Daily News, the Zimbabwe Independent and The Financial Gazette, have been subjected to almost daily violence and intimidation by the so-called "war veterans". Their journalists have been arrested and tortured by the police with beatings and electric shocks. Thousands of copies of those papers are taken and destroyed to preserve the state monopoly on information. Ruling party militants randomly attack vendors selling independent newspapers.
The chairman of the Zimbabwe journalists' union, Basildon Peta, is the target of repeated threats simply because he has had the courage to speak out against the government. Geoffrey Nyarota, editor of the Daily News, has faced an attempt on his life, and, as has been said, his printing press was blown up in an effort to silence him. That harassment has extended to directors and shareholders.
Despite those threats, the Daily News remains the best selling newspaper among a population tired of government control propaganda trotted out by The Herald and The Chronicle. But none of that intimidation has been able to stop the revelations of the government's responsibility for violence, their contempt for the law and the extent of the economic crisis Zimbabwe now faces. So the government intend to rush through parliament the Bill mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who spelt out some of its consequences.
In addition to possible licence revocation, journalists may receive a prison sentence of up to two years, or a fine of up to 1,800 US dollars, if the output meets certain requirements for punishment. It will be a crime to criticise the president or to "spread alarm and despondency". Publications that breach those requirements can have their assets seized. Two weeks ago the government accused six foreign journalists of "assisting terrorists" for reporting on recent violence in Bulawayo. That would make them liable to the death penalty under the proposed legislation.
Any media house—local or foreign—represented in Zimbabwe will be obliged to pay contributions to a "media and information fund" for the notoriously

1343
erratic Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, to use as he pleases. The size of the contributions has yet to be determined, but that is also Moyo's prerogative. Jonathan Moyo is wanted in Kenya and South Africa for alleged fraud.
The measure I am discussing is one of the most draconian pieces of parliamentary legislation ever proposed in a Commonwealth country. If passed, it will ensure that all information in Zimbabwe is subject to the strictest controls. It is aimed at one thing—shutting down a critical press ahead of what is expected to be a violent and extensively rigged presidential election.
The media are one of the most powerful forces within our modern world. They have the capacity for great good and for great harm. They can inform, challenge, debate and hold accountable those institutions of the state that would otherwise govern untrammelled. We in this country take press freedom very much for granted and, perhaps because of the excesses of some newspapers, fail to appreciate the vital role that it has to play in our democracy. The people of Zimbabwe have little to support and protect them against the Mugabe regime and the press there has been at the forefront of the championing of democracy. I trust, therefore, that the Minister and the Government will do all in their power to ensure that foreign journalists have access to the country before the presidential elections and that they will make full representations against the new Bill, both within the Commonwealth and more widely.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I apologise for rather unexpectedly standing between the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and his speech. However, I shall be brief as I agree with almost everything that has been said this afternoon. All of us view with sadness and horror what has happened over the past few years in Zimbabwe, which was once a prosperous and happy country.
I view with disappointment and sadness what has become of President Mugabe over the past years. When he won the election in 1980 I felt very alarmed at what he might do. He was an avowed Marxist and had made some fiery and provocative speeches. But in the event he was both sensible and magnanimous to those whom he might well have thought did not deserve that magnanimity. We should remember that. I think that he acted sensibly largely as a result of his experience of living in both Tanzania and Mozambique. He saw what their governments did on independence and he had no wish to preside over a bankrupt country, as both those countries in the end turned out to be.
As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, President Mugabe talked at the outset about reconciliation and said that he wanted a partnership between white and black and a prosperous country. However, that has not been the case in the past few years. As the economy deteriorated and his popularity evaporated, he thought it necessary to pursue economic policies as
1344
well as those directed against white farmers which have brought about the present catastrophe in Zimbabwe. It is a human catastrophe in terms of human rights, as my noble friend has just said, and an economic, political and, of course, agricultural catastrophe. I refer also to the muzzling of the press.
The only comment that I mildly disagreed with was when the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said that he did not think that what President Mugabe was doing was rational. However, from President Mugabe's point of view, his actions are wholly rational. All that he wants to do is to stay there, and the only way in which he will do that is by doing precisely what is he doing.
I fear that President Mugabe is not, in the present circumstances, likely to listen to or bow to outside pressure—particularly, I am afraid, from this country. That only affords him an opportunity to make another outburst against colonialism, and I am not sure that that helps those whom we seek to help. However, that does not mean that we should do nothing. The problem is, what do we do?
I do not have many ideas that differ from those that have been advanced in this debate. The Commonwealth must do more. It was a great pity—although I understand why—that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting did not take place in Brisbane. That would have provided an opportunity for heads of government to put pressure on President Mugabe—that is very difficult to do when one is not face to face. The Secretary-General should try to persuade black members of the Commonwealth to put pressure on him. It is undoubtedly true that what is happening in Zimbabwe will have an effect, sooner or later, on its neighbours. It is as well that they should understand that.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about South Africa. South Africa is the key to this matter. I was cheered by the recent statement by President Mbeki. I was even more cheered by what President Mandela said right at the beginning of all this. President Mbeki has become more aware of what the problems are—for him as well as for Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that he is the key and that he has the power to make things happen. To Zimbabwe, South Africa is absolutely vital.
I hope, too, that the Government can persuade the European Union to take a more active part—perhaps a leading part—in trying to persuade President Mugabe in this regard.
Lastly, I very much agree with my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Caithness that we should try to do something about the finances and travel arrangements of members of the Mugabe regime and their friends. We should ensure that they do not consider themselves welcome in civilised countries.
Those are not spectacular remedies and, in the short term, they may not have very much effect. However, they should certainly be related to a free and fair election—we must make that abundantly plain. In the end, the remedy must lie in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. However difficult it is, they have to be

1345
responsible for their future. I hope that they will have all the help that we in this country can properly give them.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I should much rather listen to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, than detain the House for too long with my speech—I am not an expert on Zimbabwe. We know how long the noble Lord spent working on the subject. One of my many memories from the Lancaster House conversations—he may not be aware of this—is that he was sufficiently caught up in those discussions that he took, almost sight unseen by his private office, a speech on the future of Europe that was written by the junior members of the planning staff, one of whom was my wife. He delivered it at a major event in Aachen the next day. I still cherish the headline in the Financial Times the following day:
"Carrington announces major changes of British policy towards Europe".
I am not, as I said, an expert on southern Africa and I therefore want to talk briefly about the wider context and raise the question of multilateral co-operation. We all recognise, after this sober and very well-informed debate, the difficulties that the United Kingdom would have acting on its own. As the former colonial power, the UK is an easy target. It is easy to charge that Britain is interested only in defending white farmers, even when it is clear that that is not the case. One therefore has to have sympathy with Her Majesty's Government and the Minister—they have a thankless task. We all know that the Minister has worked extremely hard on this matter and will have an acute sense of the limits of Britain's influence if we act on our own.
We have heard in great detail about the current situation's dangers, which involve the destruction of the economy and of communities. There is a rising number of internally displaced people, which is leading to the destruction of order—not just of property rights but of the whole structure of law and order. In the long run, that could weaken the state and reduce the Zimbabwean state to an instrument of force that depends on a dominant and authoritarian leader, who is himself gradually dying.
We have also heard evidence of cross-border corruption, of Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo and the profits that are flowing across the border from the Congo. We have also heard about the dangers of spill-over to Zimbabwe's neighbours, particularly South Africa, which is not the strongest state. It needs considerable assistance and already has high unemployment. That situation would be exacerbated if a flood of refugees crossed the border from Zimbabwe. Indeed, there have already been several such problems in South Africa—local people have had to compete for work with people from Zimbabwe.
We also recognise that there is a major spill-over to Britain. Asylum seekers look in the first instance towards this country, and calls for help—for aid now and for reconstruction later—are likely to be delivered to us. Will the Minister give more details about the
1346
Government's current attitude towards asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Under the current circumstances, those who are threatened in Zimbabwe clearly deserve to have a sympathetic hearing in Britain. Some of the stories that we have been hearing about refugees from Zimbabwe are, to say the least, disturbing. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Minister that the current policy towards asylum seekers from that very troubled country is in good hands.
I turn to the wider context. There are many other weak states across Africa. The danger of state collapse or of corrupt leaders spreading violence and thus devastating the chances of economic development are not found in Zimbabwe alone. The problem in west Africa involves Charles Taylor and Liberia spilling over the borders; that is very much part of the problem that we face in Sierra Leone.
We have learnt that British intervention in Sierra Leone unavoidably involves co-operation with those who have influence over Sierra Leone's neighbours—the French in Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea, the Americans in Liberia, and so on. The problems in central Africa involve the dreadful legacy from President Mbutu's despoiling of Zaire for so many years. That very large country is left with immense disorder. We even see some dark clouds in east Africa, where the willingness of those in power to give up power and to accept the outcome of elections is in doubt. I understand, for example, that the opposition leader in last year's Ugandan election found it very convenient to disappear last summer; he turned up two days later in New York saying that he was fearful for his own safety. We know that Kenya is not a perfect democracy. It is very sad that two countries that have had economic success and political recovery in recent years are again possibly threatened—I put it no stronger than that—by disorder.
Britain can do something in terms of democracy and order through its own example. I underline the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside. Britain could invite people from those countries to observe our elections. They would see that occasionally British governments do give up power—not entirely by a fair election system, of course, but one to which we know that the Labour Party is deeply wedded. But at least in this country we have a semi-fair voting system which occasionally allows governments to change and does not give a government who have 40 per cent of the votes more than 65 per cent of the seats. That is perhaps something that we can show them. It might even have an interesting effect on us if they were to ask awkward questions.
What else can Her Majesty's Government do? Clearly any action must be multilateral: through the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations and other global institutions. Several noble Lords have clearly said that our first aim must be to support South Africa and its efforts within SADC. Although we may agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that African problems require African solutions, I fear that the accumulation of problems

1347
across Africa risks overwhelming the capability of African governments and, in particular, the Government of South Africa, who are now engaged in a number of problems, to solve them on their own. Here, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have said, the value of the Commonwealth is clearly at its highest. The pressure is from other former colonial states to accept the loss of power. Accepting the importance of order as such clearly is extremely valuable.
I want to ask the Minister a little more about the role of the European Union and how far the EU has moved on joint action towards Zimbabwe. Africa is, after all, now very much Europe's south. Over the past nine months we have received some very strong signals from the Bush Administration and its predecessor that disorder in Africa would be Europe's primary responsibility. The United States saw itself as working mainly elsewhere. The EU is the major trading partner of almost all states in Africa. It is the main aid supplier to all of them and the main recipient of refugees. Therefore, we clearly need a more coherent EU strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.
I suggest that that is another area where Britain must lead in shaping EU policy because the gap between the rhetoric of EU governments and the commitments which they are prepared to make is sometimes embarrassingly large. I remember the prolonged argument surrounding the South African trading agreement in which Italy, Spain and Portugal, in particular, resisted making minor trade concessions and blocked a major political initiative.
I also want to ask the Minister how far we have got in preparing smart sanctions in the EU as a whole. We remember that when General Pinochet was in Britain the Spanish asked for his extradition to Spain. I note that President Mugabe has recently been in Spain. There are some interesting parallels which we might wish to explore with regard to that. If we are pursuing smart sanctions, clearly they must involve both travel and funds.
At this point, perhaps I may something to the Conservative Benches in this Chamber. On a number of occasions over the past few months the questions of off-shore financial centres, tax avoidance and other matters have arisen. This type of smart sanction requires tighter controls of off-shore financial centres. We all recognise that. After all, since September 11th the Bush Administration has totally reversed its position on off-shore financial centres from wishing to weaken OECD activities on this matter to wishing to strengthen them.
In our policy towards Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands, as well as, of course, towards such places as Switzerland and the City of London itself, we must recognise the implications of pursuing this type of smart-sanctions policy. General Abacha and his family, who despoiled Nigeria of a great deal of oil revenues, kept rather a lot of their money in London as well as in Jersey and Guernsey. Therefore, we may need to look at our own policies in that regard.
1348
We recognise the limits of Britain's influence. We also recognise the unavoidability of British involvement in what happens in Zimbabwe. That involvement is clearly best expressed through working with others as far as possible to bring joint pressures to bear.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Park for opening this debate with her usual precision, accuracy and clarity. I was particularly pleased that my noble friend Lord Carrington was able to participate. There have been many superb speeches, but my noble friend was, in effect, in at the founding of the republic and therefore speaks with particular experience and authority. We were very grateful for his involvement in the debate.
My noble friend Lady Park painted a picture, which was then reflected in many speeches, of a country of starvation and unemployment. Clearly we are looking at the potential for a full-blown humanitarian crisis. We have heard a dreary catalogue of horrific figures: 25 per cent of the population are HIV infected; 29 per cent of children are undernourished; 35 per cent of the population have insufficient basic food; there is 80 per cent inflation; law and order is collapsing; and press freedom is suppressed, as my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us. In addition, violence is everywhere—in Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Masvingo, Manicaland and the Midlands. Everywhere, day after day, miserable violence and brutality take place. Of course, that presents a direct threat to the stability of the whole of southern Africa and has very serious implications for even wider global stability.
I accept totally the corrective perspective which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, added to this gloomy picture. I believe that he was right to remind us that the situation could turn round. Potentially, Zimbabwe is a very rich country and matters could come right. But what is the condition? The condition is that the ageing tyrant Mugabe should go and that there should be free and fair elections which would see him on his way. That is the big question. Shall we be able to see those free and fair elections? At present the omens are not good.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us, there have been monstrous denunciations of the Movement for Democratic Change. There have been clear indications that Mr Mugabe wants to stay and turn up in glory at the postponed Commonwealth meeting—that is probably his ambition—a few months from now. The question of monitors seems to be on and off. I gather that, although the monitors are not to be from the EU, some will be admitted. Perhaps the noble Baroness will enlighten us on whether there will be monitors at all. If they are admitted, is it too late anyway? As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the registration process is well on its way and almost over. If that is rigged—all the evidence is that it is being rigged—we can, even now, say goodbye to the prospect of free and fair elections.

1349
Therefore, however much one wants to be optimistic and however much one salutes, as I certainly do, the immense bravery and courage of Mr Tsvangirai and his colleagues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, referred, the plain fact is that this is a rapidly deteriorating situation. It is one where I believe we have reached a turning point in relation to our own attitudes and in relation to asking ourselves what action we can possibly take.
In passing, perhaps I may reiterate a point that I believe was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and many others, including my noble friend Lady Park. Is it correct that we are sending back and rejecting for asylum MDC supporters? Can the noble Baroness tell us how many, why and in what conditions? Until we know that, I, for one, shall have a very unpleasant feeling that we are not treating our brave friends in the right way but are perhaps sending them back to a horrific fate.
The right thing for us all to have done—most of your Lordships have sought to do it—is to say, "Never mind about all the criticism and the misery. What can we do?" Perhaps the answer is that we cannot do very much, as the noble Baroness has indicated from time to time in the past. That is slightly different from the tone taken by the Prime Minister when, in an exuberant moment, he addressed his party conference. He said:
"There must be no tolerance for Mugabe's henchmen".
I do not know whether that will be turned into practice, but it indicates that we should perhaps be a little more vigorous.
I sympathise. It is easy when not in government and when one is on this Opposition side to say, "Do something; do something". The noble Baroness would be right if she were to say that it is all too easy to produce menus of action when one is outside government. But, in the delicate position inside government, it is obviously much more difficult. However, I agree with noble Lords who have said that perhaps the point has come at which we should change gear in our tone and the vigour of our approach to this matter.
We should consider getting away from the tone of apology and inferiority complex in our language and the view that we cannot enter into this issue, even where the rule of law is being openly flouted, because we were once a colonial power, we are a northern European country, this is Africa and our writ should not run here. I believe that we can go a little further than that. We can say that we share—most of the nations of Africa aspire to share, even if they do not succeed—the values of democracy and the rule of law.
We should not have stayed silent earlier in the year when the Belgians and the French received Mugabe in great pomp and circumstance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, stated. That was a bad moment in Britain's democracy when one felt not at all proud to see the way in which the Government behaved. We should be more pressing on the European Union, even now. I believe that it is more ready to act, but we should ask it to specify at what point it will act. Will that be when the
1350
elections turn out to be unfair and not free? What kind of sanctions will be introduced? Are we suggesting a menu of actions not to be acted on now but if and when things go badly wrong? We should be unapologetic in our support for a much more vigorous Commonwealth pattern of activity. I believe that the Commonwealth Heads of Government will not meet formally until March. However, I hope that before then there will be informal meetings to discuss how they can keep up the pressure.
As my noble friend Lord Carrington rightly reminded us, we should give every encouragement and support to Mr Mbeki. As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, stated, Mr Mbeki has reached his present position—which is much more encouraging—with difficulty. Before, he had a certain relationship and respect for Mugabe. Now I think that has gone. It has been difficult for him. We should recognise that difficulty and support him and his colleagues.
We should back the SADC recommendations vigorously. Although at present SADC has moved away from the idea of sanctions, we should maintain an open and full dialogue with SADC about future dangers. We should welcome the proposal by the US Congress for targeted sanctions, which is to he signed by the President before Christmas. That reflects a completely new view in Washington of a much more robust kind and a realisation that what is happening in Zimbabwe could have major implications for stability in the entire region and even wider.
We should say openly that if the election situation spirals downwards as already looks likely and the elections are to be rigged to give Mugabe another six years of presidency finally to ruin his nation, we should consider smart sanctions and the freezing of assets. We should do more than consider them; we should work at how to bring in smart sanctions, freezing of assets, travel bans and other measures which would really begin to bring home to Mugabe and his gang that they are isolated pariahs in the world.
The truth is—this is all that needs to be said—that quiet dialogue was well-intentioned. I understand why that approach was used, but it has failed. Mr Mbeki realised that it has failed. We all know that it has failed. A turning point has been reached when we must take a stronger line, on behalf of ourselves as a nation but also with all the other multilateral groups in which we work, of which there are many. We pride ourselves on all the areas in which we operate around the world. Let us use these opportunities. In the mean time, as summarised by my noble friend Lady Park, what we see is the murder of a nation. That can be stopped, but there is not much time.
5.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for initiating this important debate. Zimbabwe is rightly the cause of much concern and debate in this House and beyond. Noble Lords today have again given voice to that concern. We all

1351
listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He was responsible for negotiating the Lancaster House agreement. We all value his knowledge, experience and words of wisdom. I am pleased that the noble Lord was able to participate in today's debate. The many reports from Zimbabwe of politically-motivated violence directed at the political opposition, journalists, teachers, farmers and ordinary Zimbabweans are deeply worrying to the international community.
The Government of Zimbabwe have sought to portray the country's problems as the understandable consequences of a spontaneous popular clamour for land. That approach does not bear detailed scrutiny. No one doubts the urgent need for land reform in Zimbabwe, but ordinary Zimbabweans can distinguish between an effective, transparent and sustainable land reform programme and the Zimbabwe Government's current fast-track programme.
A number of noble Lords spoke specifically about land. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that it was a pity that the importance of land was not recognised at Lancaster House. In his statement to the plenary session of the Lancaster House talks on 11th October 1979, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated:
"We recognise that the future government of Zimbabwe, whatever its political complexion, will wish to expand and extend its land ownership. Any resettlement scheme would clearly have to be carefully prepared and implemented to avoid adverse effects on production. The Zimbabwe Government might well wish to draw in outside donors such as the World Bank in preparing and implementing a full-scale agricultural development plan. The British Government recognise the importance of this issue to a future Zimbabwe government and will be prepared, within the limits imposed by our financial resources, to help".
Given that so many Members of your Lordships' House spoke about land reform—the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—it is important to say a little about some of the history of our relationship with the Zimbabwe Government with respect to land. Between 1980 and 1985 the UK Government provided £47 million for land reform, £20 million as a specific land resettlement grant and £27 million in the form of budgetary support to help meet the Zimbabwe Government's own contribution to the programme. Three million pounds of that money was eventually returned.
In 1998 we participated in a land reform conference in Zimbabwe and endorsed the principles agreed at that conference, as did the Government of Zimbabwe. Those principles included transparency, respect for the law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe's wider economic interests. We remain willing to support a land reform programme that is carried out in accordance with the principles agreed by donors and the Government of Zimbabwe in 1998. In the absence of a government-led programme which we felt able to support, the Department for International Development established in March 2000 a £5 million land resettlement challenge fund to support private sector and civil society led resettlement initiatives.
1352
Unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government have not allowed such private sector initiatives to proceed. They pressed ahead with their fast-track resettlement programme. In late 2000, the UNDP administrator proposed to the Zimbabwe Government a slowing down of their fast-track resettlement programme to fit Zimbabwe's implementation capacity and independent monitoring of the situation in commercial farming areas, including law and order. This year, at the Abuja discussions, we reiterated our support for an effective and well-managed land reform programme and undertook to support such a land reform programme as long as the Government of Zimbabwe met their commitments under the Abuja agreement. The right reverend Prelate is right. When I went to Zimbabwe, the Commonwealth team welcomed the Zimbabwe joint resettlement initiative. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the UNDP has recently been in Zimbabwe looking at land. It has concluded its work on the ground. We expect its report shortly.
Zimbabwe's crisis goes beyond land. Its once independent judiciary has been systematically undermined; its police and armed forces have been politicised; its health and education systems are under severe strain; and its once dynamic economy has contracted by 8 per cent this year and, if that continues, it faces total de-industrialisation within three years. Zimbabwe's reputation as a friendly, attractive place to do business has been tarnished. Worse still, its economic implosion is damaging the economies, investment prospects and business confidence of its SADC neighbours.
Zimbabwe was once one of Africa's brightest stars. It is salutary to witness the decline of a country, which, at independence, had the full support of the international community. That analysis is not controversial. Even those whom President Mugabe considers to be his friends would agree with it. The real debate, as we have seen today, is about how the international community can best achieve a change in direction. There are calls from some for sanctions and travel bans, but, in the same breath, demands to get access for election observers. There are some who believe that Zimbabwe's problems can be solved by giving the Government of Zimbabwe more time and engaging it again in dialogue, despite their scant regard to date for the commitments made under the Abuja agreement.
The reality is that Zimbabwe, in the words of Malawi's Foreign Minister Patel,
"needs a careful and mature approach".
That is a very important comment because we have worked hard to ensure that this is not a bilateral problem. Sanctions may seem attractive at first sight, but unilateral measures may not be effective. They could actually play into the hands of those who maintain that the root of the problem is the UK/Zimbabwe relationship. I shall return to that issue later. But I also recognise that open-ended dialogue has brought little progress.

1353
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that what we say in this House has an impact. There is a sense that it is used to build popular support. The Government of Zimbabwe use what is said in this House and what is said by the Government to portray this issue as one which is between white and black, between the developed and the developing world and between the rich and the poor. But, and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, what we say also has resonance with those who want to see an end to violence and intimidation. So it is very important that the language that we use is such that the Government of Zimbabwe understand our concerns, but also that those who are in opposition understand that we want to see a different kind of situation in Zimbabwe.
As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said, this is a situation that requires an African solution. It is clear to me from my work on the issue that if the Government of Zimbabwe are going to listen to anyone, they will listen to their closest neighbours. The best route to a resolution of Zimbabwe's crisis is sustained, focused and unremitting international pressure. We shall remain committed to our key objective—a democratic, stable and prosperous Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the need to work with the European Union and with the Commonwealth. We have worked with allies and partners to build the broad coalition. We shall continue to do so. We are working with our EU partners through the mechanism of consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement.
We are also working with our Commonwealth partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, described the Commonwealth with respect to this issue as being supine. She expressed some disappointment at the Commonwealth's failure to suspend Zimbabwe. Action against a country that flouts the principles of the Harare Declaration is usually taken only in certain narrowly defined circumstances—mainly the unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government. That limit on the Commonwealth mandate is too restricted. That is why we support an expansion of the Commonwealth action group's role to cover a wider range of situations. That matter will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in March next year.
We went the extra mile at Abuja on 6th December. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that I thought that Abuja helped. It produced a broadly acceptable framework for addressing and resolving concerns. But, as noble Lords know, the Government of Zimbabwe have failed to honour their commitment.
We are also working with SADC, and specifically with the Governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi and Botswana. We welcomed the visit to Harare by the SADC heads of government on 10th and 11th September and the most recent visit by Ministers earlier this week.
My noble friend Lord Hughes spoke of the importance of regional concerns. The Government of Zimbabwe have not so far responded to them.
1354
However, the important point is that all this action by the international community is complementary and a signal of growing international consensus on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked specifically what we are doing to encourage President Mbeki in terms of pursuing this situation. Zimbabwe has been discussed between ourselves and the South Africans at every level. I saw at first hand, when I visited Zimbabwe as part of a Commonwealth group and we had representations from a range of stakeholders, the concerns being expressed about the breakdown of the rule of law, the importance of human rights and freedom of expression. But, we also had representations from other organisations who considered that the approach being taken by the Government of Zimbabwe was the correct one.
The result of Zimbabwe's repeated failure to work constructively with the international community is the prospect of tough joint action. We believe that that approach is beginning to work. The world knows what is happening in Zimbabwe. International opinion across Africa, Europe, North America and the Commonwealth is consistent. The 15 countries of the European Union expect Zimbabwe to return to sustainable and democratic policies by the end of January. The United States Congress has set stiff conditions for the resumption of full relations with Zimbabwe.
The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group will meet in London on 20th November to begin preparations for the Heads of Government Meeting in Australia in March. Zimbabwe will be an item on the agenda. The UN Development Programme has recently been in Zimbabwe to see for itself what is happening on the ground.
I turn to the election which President Mugabe has said will be in March, although an actual date has not been set. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the meeting of the SADC security organ will be on 17th December, not in January.
This morning, when I gave evidence on Zimbabwe to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I said that the international community needs to be clear about the standards against which we judge whether the people of Zimbabwe have had the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in an environment free of harassment and intimidation.
I agree with noble Lords that it is important that observers are allowed in early to enable observation of the run up to the election. The MDC is in court today to challenge the provisions of the election legislation.
My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Howell of Guildford, and others raised the subject of international observers. We think their presence essential. President Mugabe has said that international observers will be welcome, but not from the European Union. He went on to say that there are some "good countries" in the European Union and that observers from those countries would be invited in their own right, not from the EU as a body. My noble friend Lord Brett specifically asked me to clarify that point.

1355
With respect to what the standards might be—the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, pressed me on this—this March, SADC's parliamentary forum produced some impressive norms and standards for free and fair elections in the region. Those were agreed by parliamentarians from across the region, including Zimbabwe. It is important that a judgment on next year's election is reached according to those regional standards. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we have urged SADC to take early action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how, if the SADC norms were implemented, they would allow observers to comment on or evaluate the registration process, which comes to an end a week today?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the SADC standards were set by SADC parliamentarians. We have urged acceptance of those standards by SADC governments. Independently of that, we as an international community must be absolutely clear about the norms and standards by which we will judge whether the people of Zimbabwe have had an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in an environment free from harassment and intimidation.
I am conscious of the time, and should like to address all the questions that have been raised.
The Government of Zimbabwe know that they are heading for international isolation if they continue on their unsustainable course. I hope that noble Lords will agree that we act most effectively when we act together. Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the importance of Zimbabwe's economy. Unemployment is at 60 per cent and rising; inflation is at 86 per cent and is expected to reach 100 per cent this year. The Government of Zimbabwe's policies are extremely damaging to business and investor confidence—both within Zimbabwe and across the southern African region.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about smart sanctions and mentioned recent US legislation in particular. That was picked up by several other noble Lords. The US legislation does not mean immediate sanctions. It invites the Administration to consult on and co-ordinate international action against Zimbabwe. As such, it puts significant further pressure on Zimbabwe's ruling party. It means that the Administration can use smart sanctions if they wish to. But the passing of the legislation does not mean an automatic move to smart sanctions.
The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about our relationship with the EU and its work. Since March, the EU has tried to conduct a dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe. Our approach did not work, so we had no option but to consider stronger measures. Article 96 was the logical next step. It is a formal mechanism that sends the Government of
1356
Zimbabwe a clear political signal and gives them 75 days to address EU concerns. Article 96 does not mean sanctions. It provides an implicit threat, but the purpose is to find solutions with Zimbabwe and a return to Cotonou's essential elements: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. A meeting under Article 96 for dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe is scheduled for 19th December.
With respect to general sanctions, we will consider other measures as and when appropriate. We consider concerted international action to be the most effective. UN sanctions binding on all member states are the most effective option, but those would require consensus in the Security Council, which is unrealistic at this stage. However, efforts under way in the Commonwealth and the EU will receive our continued support.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, all spoke about food shortages and the possibility of a humanitarian crisis. It is already clear that Zimbabwe will be seriously short of staple grains. Those shortages have been made more certain by Zimbabwe's imposition of untenable price controls. The government confirmed to donors on 23rd October that they face a major shortfall in maize and appealed for donor support.
The United Nations Development Programme is preparing a package of measures for consideration by the donor community later this week. The Department for International Development and other donors pre-empted the Government of Zimbabwe's appeal and are providing supplementary feedings through NGOs to children and adults in the worst affected areas. There are obvious concerns that any donor response reaches the needy and will not be used for political purposes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Avebury, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, raised the subject of asylum. Members of the MDC have been seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. However, we have received no representations from the MDC on the issue. As far as we know, it is satisfied that our procedures for assessing asylum claims from Zimbabwe is fair. I will write to noble Lords on that subject, as time does not permit me to go into more detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke about some difficulties facing other countries on the African continent. Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to working in partnership with leaders in Africa who are committed to reform, to forge a new partnership to support sustainable development on the continent. That will not be easy, but that is our commitment. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about the regional conflict in the Great Lakes region and Zimbabwe's relationship to it, are important to remember.

1357
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, spoke powerfully about the situation facing journalists. We protested to the Government of Zimbabwe in the strongest possible terms about remarks describing some journalists as terrorists. That is clearly absurd. We will continue to make our views clear, but, in reply to the noble Lord's specific question, I am not aware of the Government of Zimbabwe having blocked access to external broadcasting services with which they do not agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked me if we were considering what we would do if the MDC won the election. Of course, we are considering all possibilities. I thank the noble Lord for his sympathy for my position, but I hope that noble Lords recognise that my shoulders are broad enough to carry the weight of criticism from the Government of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said in a slightly different context, it is like water off a duck's back.
In a more serious vein, I thank noble Lords for their recognition of the Government's work in seeking to bring about real change in Zimbabwe and their kind words on my role in that work.
In conclusion, let me make our position absolutely clear. The Government have worked tirelessly to build international consensus. We have made our views about violence and intimidation known in the strongest possible terms. The Government have not been apologetic in our handling of relations with the Government of Zimbabwe. I have sought to ensure that Members of this House understand that there are limits to our influence with the Government of Zimbabwe and that is why we have said consistently that it is important that Zimbabwe's neighbours need to make their views known to the government. That is now happening.
Let us not forget that our concern should be for the welfare of all Zimbabweans. The vast majority of the victims of violence are black Zimbabweans. At least 32 have been killed this year. Thousands have been attacked and threatened. Many live in towns and have no connection with the land occupation. Their only interest is a job, enough food to feed their families and the desire for their opinions to count. They are the reason we remain committed to finding long-term solutions to Zimbabwe's problems. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, that the people of Zimbabwe must find a solution. They have a right to matter in their own country.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, time allows me only most warmly to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lord Carrington, for their interesting and valuable comments. I have only two comments to make. First, I should have declared a double interest. I have family in Zimbabwe but I also have a number of African friends whom I knew in the pre-UDI days and for whom I care.
1358
Secondly, I regard the debate as a message to the people of Zimbabwe, not to Mr Mugabe. I believe that that is worth sending. We are sending it and I hope that they will hear and know when times are better that we were their friends when times were bad. In that context, there can be no possible excuse for not giving asylum, whether or not the MDC has decided we have been fair. We must offer that asylum and give it.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Care Homes
6.2 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden Lord Mayhew of Twysden rose to call attention to the state of local authority funding for care home places; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the subject is sadly topical and one could wish that it was not. I am grateful to those who have indicated that they wish to take part in this short debate because there is a wealth of experience in this House.
At the beginning, I want to outline the character of the current financial position in social care at the national level in England. The Local Government Association estimates that between the current level of government support to social services, which fund much of the social care industry, and the true level of expenditure required to meet local need, there is a shortfall of no less than £1 billion.
At local level, where it is all happening, or sometimes not happening, this is a cross-party issue. The Chancellor's recent Budget report elicited much regret and disappointment in the field at the inadequacy of the resources.
To take an example from the South West, local authorities there estimate that the shortfall in their region alone is some £70 million. Throughout the country a similar picture is seen; and that is irrespective of the political composition of the authorities, of whether they are county councils or unitary authorities, and no matter how high-performing or innovative they are.
There are, however, some particular and additional pressures facing authorities in the South East. That is not only because of higher costs, but also because of the purchasing advantages that the London boroughs have over those authorities with boundaries which are contiguous to London.
Those are both matters to which I shall return, but I hope first to illustrate the general situation by drawing on our experience in Kent, where I am lucky enough to live. I suppose I should accordingly declare an interest because although neither I nor my family is likely to be applying for these facilities in the near future, one can never tell.
It is helpful to look at Kent's position because the county council is recognised by the Audit Commission as being at the forefront of innovation. Nevertheless,

1359
its experience, for example, in relation to hospital discharges delayed by bed shortages in care homes is serious enough. In November, 173 beds in National Health Service hospitals were blocked in that way. The regional average for the South East is worse.
There is great concern in Kent as to how the authority is to meet the needs of those older people who need support, either to continue to live at home or to return home after an unforeseen admission to hospital, as well as those who need to move permanently into a residential or nursing home. It is not an exaggeration to say that in Kent we are facing a crisis in the social care market.
I speak of a market because, like most local authorities. Kent County Council has to rely heavily on the private sector for the provision of nursing and residential care for people who can no longer look after themselves.
Of the total of about 17,000 beds that the private sector still provides for adults, the county council buys about one-third. Across the country a thriving independent care home sector is pivotal to the effectiveness of the overall healthcare system. A further one-third of those beds is paid for privately. In the South East generally and in Kent in particular, a high proportion of elderly residents are having to pay for their own care. Even when they do receive council support, relatives often have to make up the difference between what homes charge and what local authorities can afford to pay. The remaining one-third is bought by other local authorities or health service bodies from London and the Home Counties.
The trouble can be very simply put. Kent, to continue giving that as an example, is funded for these purposes only to an extent that leaves a substantial shortfall between what the council can afford to pay the homes and what the homes need in order to be commercially viable. The Government's funding formula for residential care of the elderly is lower per head in the South East than anywhere else in England, even though charges are higher in the South East than in any region other than London.
That is of course partly because costs there are higher but it is partly because the proportion of standard spending assessment paid, for example, to Kent in grant from central government has fallen by 2 per cent in the past four years. Yet SSAs are intended to measure need to spend and they determine levels of Exchequer support for council spending.
The fact that we are not in the presence of some sellers' ramp may be seen from the number of home providers who have gone out of business in Kent alone. The East Kent Health Authority has suffered a loss of nursing beds of about 25 per cent since 1999. The figure for the West Kent Health Authority is 11 per cent. Between the two authorities, the overall decline is 17 per cent and they cover the greater part of the county. Not all beds that are on offer are available to the county council because they cost more than the council can afford. Therefore the loss of contracted
1360
beds to the county council is of the order of 21 per cent. Nationally, I believe that 50,000 beds have been lost since Labour came into office.
Home providers' own rising costs, which have been fuelled by the strength of the economy in the South East, have been added to by the expense of the Government's admirable strict new statutory standards for providers and new obligations placed on employers. However, no additional funding has been made available to pay for those requirements.
Next year will see the transfer to local authorities of responsibility for the care of people who previously had preserved rights to income support. Yet no additional funding is being held out. For residential care, the independent sector calculates that charges of £300 per week are the minimum required to enable homes to stay in business. Yet to bring fees up to that figure from the present average of around £260 per week paid by the county council would cost the authority an additional £6.5 million per year.
For nursing home care the position is even more dire. The average fees presently paid by the county council are £376 per week. The independent sector states that continued viability will require £500 per week. Yet even to increase the present average paid by the authority by £100, to £476 per week, would cost an extra £7 million per year.
The Strategic Director of Social Services for Kent, Mr Peter Gilroy, points to additional costs for the support of independent providers of domiciliary care to enable them to meet the higher standards and the increased expectations of older people. Taken together, those cost pressures mean that Kent County Council will have to find between £16.9 million and £17 million extra.
The story does not stop even there. London boroughs receive SSA typically on a far more generous scale than Kent. This year, for example, SSAs provide for £351 per person per week for residents in Kent aged over 65 years, while the comparable provision in Islington, for example, is £917. While I accept that some of the difference can be attributed to higher levels of deprivation—although Kent itself has too many deprived areas—some of that difference in funding is enabling London boroughs to place their clients in homes in Kent, with obvious consequences for the bargaining position of the less well resourced county council. For example, 1,700 looked-after children have been placed in Kent by other councils.
I suppose that it is hardly surprising that the grievous state of so many hospitals nowadays should be the primary focus for government attention, but the pressure to vacate beds in itself increases the pressure on nursing and residential beds outside the hospitals. When rising pressure is applied to a falling number of beds, the inevitable result will be longer delays before hospital beds can be cleared of patients who no longer need them, but who cannot manage on their own.
As the Continuing Care Conference has stated, it is important that care is provided within an enduring, sustainable and long-term care policy framework, not a series of short-term, politically expedient policies.

1361
The recently announced settlement for social services appears superficially to be generous, as it puts further money into the care of the most frail and vulnerable people in our society. But the difficulty with this additional investment is that much of it is hypothecated to specific new tasks and so still leaves the core services with insufficient money. I am afraid that the expectation is that the recent settlement will lead to further and greater problems in funding social services over the coming year. The chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beacham, is a well-known Labour supporter. His comments on the Chancellor's Budget Statement illustrate that these are cross-party anxieties.
Perhaps I may finish my remarks with a further illustration from Kent. The county council is faced with a stark choice either to make an unacceptably high increase in precept or to make large savings which inevitably will impact on the elderly and the vulnerable. It is no good the Government willing the end in this field if they are not prepared to will the means.
For my part, I hope that the Minister will take advantage of this brief debate to show that the Government have taken on board the grave position in this area and will meet the urgent need with no less urgent action. I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the timely debate introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I think that he is a neophyte to the little gang of noble Lords who congregate on these occasions. After the deliberations last year on the Care Standards Bill, I think that they know each other's views. Having said that, the noble and learned Lord is a most welcome neophyte and we look forward to his continued presence in future debates.
I wish to make a number of brief, sharp points. First, in the care home industry, we need to encourage a flourishing private sector. We need it because between 1996 and 2010 demand for places will grow at the rate of I per cent per year. Even on the most optimistic of assumptions, at the point when the time-horizon of the Royal Commission on long-term care expires in 2050 we shall need to double the number of places. We shall need to do so because direct local authority provision is hugely more expensive than that of the private sector. At the time when the Royal Commission reported, on average a local authority place cost £360 per week for residential care, compared with £238 per week in the private sector. The Audit Commission found that the standards of local authority provision were no higher than those of the private sector.
Secondly, this industry—if I may call it that—is faced with a disastrous squeeze. That has been the case for a number of years. Fees have been falling behind costs, which have been and will continue to be greatly elevated by the 11 per cent increase in the national minimum wage recently introduced. The current shortfall in fees for publicly funded residents is
1362
authoritatively estimated by the industry to be running at between £50 and £100 per week per resident—that is the national shortfall; it may be worse in Kent—which translates into a 30 per cent to 50 per cent shortfall.
Thirdly, as a result, care homes are resorting to increasingly desperate expedients to remain in business. I shall categorise them. Desperate expedient one concerns the provision of free nursing care so generously introduced by the Government. Many homes are trying to use that money to subsidise the fees, so residents will be no better off. That is not how it was intended the money should be used. Parliament did not vote for that.
Desperate expedient two is to sting the private payer in order to subsidise the public payer. Care providers charge the public sector the marginal cost for care, while the gap between that and the full average cost is met by the private fee payer. An excellent firm which I have looked at recently, Westminster Care, charges the average local authority a fee of £370 but charges £535 for the average self payer.
Fourthly, the desperate expedients I have outlined are not proving sufficient to enable care homes to stay in business. Laing & Buisson, the authoritative source in this area, estimates that 25,000 beds have been lost over the past two years. It believes that a similar number will be lost over the coming five years. Others in the industry think that the situation is even worse, that the crisis is accelerating and that the loss will amount to 5 per cent of all beds over the coming two years. Such losses do not imply only financial costs—on occasion some of those concerned with these matters are accused of being spokesmen for the Treasury. When a care home closes, there is also a human cost. We know that when an older person is moved from one home to another, very often they die shortly thereafter. Thus finance and humanity point in the same direction.
I have come to my fifth point. I regret that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will now stop nodding in agreement with my words. I am sure, however, that they anticipate what I shall say. The situation demonstrates the absolute futility and absurdity of the majority recommendation of the Royal Commission, of which I was a member, franked, I am afraid, by noble Lords opposite, that care should be provided free for all. If money is put into that provision, then it will not be available to address the terrible shortfall that ultimately will mean little care available to anyone.
I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who, as chairman of the Royal Commission, has a deep knowledge of these matters, is not in his place to dispute the point with me. I look forward greatly to debating the subject with him one day. However, we have not yet managed to coincide on a platform. Every pound spent on free care is one pound less available to keep the sector thriving, in business and providing decent levels of care. I have in reserve attacks for certain other groups of people. However, there is some good news—I pay tribute to my noble friend here which is that the Government

1363
have at last noticed that the position is unsustainable. As I remember it, there was a kind of denial phase; then there was a phase of, "Yes, we realise that, but we cannot get any money to do anything about it"; and now we are moving into a better and more open phase.
There are a number of hopeful signs. One is that the agreement with the private sector, Building Capacity and Partnership in Care, produced in October 2001 by my noble friend's department, sets out better ways of contracting for services which can provide a combination of viability, efficiency and better services.
The second hopeful sign is the hike of 5.4 per cent in the money available for residential and domiciliary care to local authorities contained in the revenue support grant settlement. I have seen all kinds of figures as to what this hike represents. The Government's own document states that the figure is £175.9 million and the figure of £300 million has appeared in some newspapers. Whatever it is, it is a good deal better than the figures we have seen in the past.
To their credit, the Government are now concerned about profitability in the industry and are studying the matter. It is to be hoped that where study starts today, money will flow tomorrow.
I said that I would attack more than one group of people, and here is the bad news. The Government are planning—I use the phrase hoping not to shock any noble Lord—to kick the sector in the goolies with the new standards that they propose to introduce next April. I am a great defender of the British Civil Service, to which we owe a great deal—this House contains many fine examples of that institution—but when the document Fit for the Future first appeared, I simply could not believe my eyes. It was as though a jobsworth at the Department of Health had plucked from a shelf ancient standards based on the days—they were my heydays in politics—when regulation was all. We did not worry about the cost to the private sector nor its effects. The great thing was to have regulations that bureaucrats could impose on private industry. This is a document for the 1970s; it is not a document for the new millennium.
If anyone should think that I am exaggerating, they should look at the suggestions for room sizes for old people and consider how the industry is supposed to economically convert existing homes to provide the new metricated room sizes. They will find their confidence in the British Government shattered because this is a policy to destroy enterprise and standards. In the long run, it will generally reduce standards under the guise of increasing them. These were Bourbons among bureaucrats. They had forgotten nothing from the 1970s and learnt nothing from the 1970s.
I do not know how Ministers allowed this to slip past their eyes—it must have been a momentary inattention in the excitement of the many good things they were doing—but they woke up when MPs signed Early Day Motions as their constituents pointed out to them that they were about to be forced out of business.
1364
This was an all-party matter. My party is sometimes accused of being a regulatory party and the Conservative Party of being a deregulatory party, but people from all sides could see lousy regulation when it was displayed before their eyes.
I know that the Government have shifted quite a bit on the issue. I pay tribute to John Hutton, the former Minister, who was very active in bringing about that shift. We no longer have bedroom size, we have recreational facilities size—and that is progress. But there are still ludicrously damaging remnants around. For example, all facilities are supposed to be checked by occupational therapists. That would be all right if there was not such a major national shortage of occupational therapists, with no way of remedying the situation.
Again typical of the numerically-driven rather than practical regulation, there is to be a set ratio of 80:20 of single and shared rooms. That would be absolutely wonderful—I would love everyone to have their own room; I would love everyone to have their own suite of rooms—but if there is no money to pay for it, there will be a bad result because there are simply not enough rooms.
The new regulations are at present out for consultation. I hope that the Government remain in listening mode. The costs of the regulations—on top of the squeeze that has already got the industry into such trouble—are frightening. The banks are starting to say, "We will not lend money on residential homes. No, you cannot borrow to keep the business going. We do not like the security any more". People are saying increasingly, "I am not going to convert my home. I can sell it for more money as a private home for someone to live in than by staying in business". Some people are, for their pains, criticised as being profiteers. It is a curious situation for the Government to stop someone turning in a decent profit and then complain that they are profiteers when they refuse to go on working their guts out for nothing.
Everything that is being done to help on the local authority side—and I welcome and pay tribute to the tremendous change in attitude—is in danger of being spoilt by these regulations. When they come to the other place, we will find that many Members oppose them. So will many in this House. I say to the Government that many of their most loyal supporters will oppose the regulations unless there is further change. I trust the Government. Therefore I trust that, even at this late hour, they will see sense. If perchance they do not—and no doubt there is room for compromise—I do not believe that this House will shirk its duty to pay true scrutiny to the legislation. If we do not, we will be conniving in a situation which could leave—with the very best intentions, I freely admit—old, frail and vulnerable citizens literally with nowhere to go.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is a timely and important debate. Neophyte or not, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on initiating

1365
it. I also congratulate him on eliciting a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, the first half of which I agreed with wholeheartedly—for a change.
It is vital that proper resources are allocated to the residential care of older people, not only to ensure that there is a quality and quantity of residential care available to those who need it, but also in terms of the knock-on effect on the NHS if there are insufficient ca re places and bed blocking occurs.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the number of care beds is shrinking dramatically. Fifty thousand beds have been lost in the past five years; 30,000 of those in the past three years. In some parts of the country, there has been a continual fall in care beds over the past five years. One in five beds occupied by people over 75 is now blocked because of delays in discharging.
The problem of bed blocking is particularly bad in the South East, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out. Ten per cent of all acute beds are blocked in the South East region by delayed transfers from hospital. The cost of bed blocking to the NHS has recently been estimated to be as high as £3 billion.
The problem is not only about the numbers of beds. The King's Fund report, Future Imperfect?, published in June 2001, commented on huge problems being experienced by the sector in maintaining quality. There is a major recruitment and retention crisis, together with a worrying picture of inadequate training for care and support workers. The report stated:
"Immediate action is needed to avoid a catastrophe"
and estimated that a further £700 million of extra resources was needed by social services each year. However, social services cash is rising by only 3.5 per cent per year compared to health spending rises of 6 per cent.
There has been some acknowledgement of this problem by the Government. They have allocated £300 million to end bed blocking—£100 million this year to local authorities and £200 million next year. Their target is to unblock 1,000 beds this winter and 2,300 by 2002–03. "This winter" is now upon us. How many beds have been unblocked so far in using this cash? How much of it has actually been spent to date, and to whom is the funding going?
Even if the funding is being spent and if it is going in the right direction, even Labour-supporting local authority leaders such as Sir Jeremy Beecham say that it is too little, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out. Quite apart from the King's Fund figures, some estimates say that three times that amount is needed to stop the decline in the care sector.
Then there is the issue of personal care and nursing care, and the extent to which they should be funded by government. We have debated this on numerous occasions in this House, not least when the Health and Social Care Bill was before the House. The view on these Benches has always been that it is wholly unjust that people with Alzheimer's and similar chronic conditions are treated differently from those who are regarded as having treatable illnesses.
1366
As part of our partnership agreement with Labour in Scotland, the Scottish Executive, to its enormous credit, took the decision to fund all long-term personal care. The sky has not fallen in, as some Members on the Labour Benches would have us believe. Money for free nursing care is, frankly, inadequate. Depending on a person's condition, nursing care costs—
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord noted that the first action of the new Labour leader in Scotland was to re-examine that policy; and those who know have no doubt that he would like to dump it but is being stopped from doing so, and thus saving the Scottish exchequer from bankruptcy, by pressure put on him by those in the noble Lord's party.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that just shows the benefit of having the Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland. I am sure that the noble Lord's words will be taken very seriously by the Scottish electorate.
Depending on a person's condition of health, nursing care costs are met in rising hands of £35, £70 and £110. What level of nursing care can those amounts actually buy? In many areas of the country the bands do not cover real nursing costs. In London and the South East, costs can be up to 80 per cent higher than this. Furthermore, what guarantee is there that self-funding residents will actually receive the extra cash? That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
As it is, the whole process of carrying out assessments looks as though it is getting off to a slow start. These need to be carried out by Christmas. Health authorities are faced with an impossible task and local authorities are having to guess the amount of nursing care which is appropriate. No wonder the head of policy at Help the Aged commented:
"The whole thing is going to end in tears. The operation looks a complete mess".
And a group of major charities representing older people, including Age Concern and Help the Aged, have described the scheme as,
"unfair, unworkable and a broken promise to the elderly".
In the face of this, can the Minister give assurances on progress to date? Will assessment targets be met? Will costs be covered? Will residents receive what they are due?
There is a further problem with insisting that not all personal care is free; namely, the need for people on low to middle incomes to sell their homes. Some 160,000 people have had to do this since the Government took power in 1997.
Granted, the Health and Social Care Act, which completed its passage earlier this year, now provides for loans and deferred sale provisions. But loans still have to be repaid after death and property has to be sold. That causes particular hardship to former carers who are living in the family home. Also, such loans are available only to those with assets of less than £18,500.

1367
There are some excellent care home providers. There are also some bad ones. My honourable friend Paul Burstow, referring to a recent survey, demonstrated how 30 per cent of residents in care homes are regularly prescribed anti-psychotic medication and that they receive four times as many prescriptions as older people living in their own homes.
Our aim must be to make sure that, in the way in which we allocate resources and in the standards that we set, we ensure that the best homes are allowed to thrive and the worst wither away. At present, however, all the pressure seems to be on local authorities to do the exact opposite. In fact, many of them seem to pay less for care in private homes than they do in their own homes. Evidence is accumulating that self-funding residents are paying higher fees than they should to make up for these shortfalls.
One of the key findings of the King's Fund report, Future Imperfect?, was that there is a "damaging preoccupation" among commissioning bodies with containing costs rather than promoting quality in care services. The situation is compounded by the fact that higher standards are being introduced as a result of the Care Standards Act and its regulations. We have heard that a large number of closures may be necessary because of the way in which the regulations insist on shaft lifts rather than stair lifts for communal areas. Is that correct? On these Benches we firmly support the new regulations, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. But if the regulations are to come into effect, how will the cost of work such as this be recognised in commissioning by local authorities?
The answer to these issues lies to a large extent in additional resources for local authorities commissioning residential care. The King's Fund was not alone in saying that social service allocations should rise at the same rate as the increases for the NHS. In addition to commissioning care home places, it is vital that resources are made available to allow older people to stay at home where possible through good home care services. Some of the models which allow that to happen—such as the Rapid Response homes service, created in partnership between Sheffield City Council and the health authorities and trusts in that city, are excellent.
Rehabilitation services are also crucial. The Government have promised considerable resources in this area. But many of us are concerned about the restrictive definition of "intermediate services", which means that such services can only be provided free outside an NHS hospital for six weeks.
There are other matters of concern. There needs to be a fundamental review of the NVQ in care work, and action to ensure that care workers receive the training that they need. Commissioning bodies must take training costs into account in setting prices.
Finally, to return to former battlegrounds, we must adopt an integrated, holistic approach to health and social care, so that cost shunting which leads to bed blocking does not occur. There needs to be an appreciation that health and social care are two sides
1368
of the same coin. There must be an end to the uncertainty and delays when older people are due to be discharged from hospital, caused by the fact that NHS care is free whereas personal care is not.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for introducing this important debate. I am taking part because I have followed with growing concern developments in care home provision in Kent—where, like the noble and learned Lord, I too am lucky to live.
I want to approach the subject from a regional angle. Debate about the current situation has been in the public domain in Kent for some time. Some valuable observations have been brought to my attention—observations which I am sure are not unique to Kent and which may help to put more general points into context.
Like other councils, Kent County Council relies on purchasing services from independent sector providers. Market demand for care homes is high in Kent. The county has a large independent sector for social care and Kent County Council purchases only around one-third of the 17,000 beds. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, a further third is paid for privately, and the final third is bought by other local authorities and health services from London and other Home Counties.
The number of nursing beds in Kent has been reduced by 17 per cent over the past two years. For several months it has been almost impossible for the county council to place people in nursing homes at all. Few homes are prepared to take new patients—or "clients" as they might appropriately be called—at the prices which the council can afford.
A council's ability to pay reasonable prices for care services is governed by the funding available to it. This funding is subject to significant regional variation. During 1999 and 2000, the North East received about £4,800 per head; London £5,000 per head; and the South East £3,700 per head.
In spite of such variation, the situation in Kent is not unusual. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned the Laing and Buisson figures. The widening gap for councils in the South East from the rest of the country comes on top of a growing national under-funding of social services. Over 80 per cent of local authorities over-spent their budgets in social services last year. At present local councils are spending 10.2 per cent more on social services than the government standard spending assessment. While the pressure is most apparent in care of the elderly, most authorities' overspend is in children's services. Nevertheless, the fact remains that local authorities' main problem with regard to care home places is underfunding. They are unable to contract for care at levels which reflect realistic care home costs.
It is a familiar story. However, there are issues unique to the care homes and domiciliary service

1369
industry which have exacerbated the problem of general underfunding. Difficulties are faced by local authorities and care providers alike.
Care homes and nursing homes are closing for a number of reasons. For example, new employment legislation has had a significant impact on the industry. Strangely, the inability of many homes to recruit and retain staff is to some extent due to economic growth. Care homes are unable to match the pay being offered in the retail sector and elsewhere. The recent King's Fund report, Future Imperfect? quotes the Association for Residential Care. It states:
"In some parts of the country providers say that the only people applying for vacancies are those that McDonald's and Tesco have already rejected. and if employed they come with high … training needs.
New government standards flowing from the Care Standards Act have placed new costs on the industry, yet no specific new funding has been made available to make up the shortfall. Many of the new standards are welcome. Everyone would like to see improved standards in nursing and residential care homes and domiciliary care services. But at what cost? The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in a powerful speech, drew the House's attention to the cost to homes of the regulations, and those homes are closing.
The implications for hospital admissions and discharges have already been mentioned. On 9th October government figures suggested that approximately 6,000 beds were blocked by patients well enough to be discharged. Less than a week later, the Daily Mail suggested that the true figures was 100 times higher than the figures announced by the Government. This has led to increasing numbers of operations being cancelled. The figure has risen by over a third since last year.
The implications for the elderly and others needing long-term care are also clear. The element of choice is fast disappearing from the care homes industry. People will go where the local authority can afford to accommodate them. Some families will pay for care themselves if finances permit them to do so, although, with the care homes industry becoming increasingly a seller's market, this will become an option for only a few.
While specific local difficulties require local solutions, there seems to be a general impression that until the true costs of providing care are recognised little progress can be made. An objective assessment of what care costs per head would afford us a realistic estimate of appropriate fee levels.
The picture seems gloomy but the willingness of local authorities to work with central government is most encouraging. Local authorities have in the past demonstrated how effectively they use one-off injections of money. For example, winter allowances have had a wholly positive impact on hospital throughput. However, local authorities have stressed that funding will be successful only if it is direct. Every 1 per cent increase in fees paid to independent care providers by Kent County Council amounts to £2.4 million per annum. That money has to be found somewhere; and it has to be found quickly.
1370
All this is familiar ground. What is unfamiliar is the likely severity of the situation. The future promises additional pressures for local authorities and care providers. In April 2002 local authorities will be responsible for preserved rights residents, taking the proportion of care homes residents having their fees paid by local authorities to over 60 per cent. And we should not forget those older people who will continue paying for personal care rather than care in a residential home.
The care homes sector and local authorities face difficult times. Let us hope that an accurate assessment of the real cost of providing care will ensure that those who need it will receive it and to the highest possible standard.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for introducing the debate. As noble Lords have said, this is not a new problem. It was indeed forecast because it is a demand-led service and the people who are getting older are in the system now. The problem does not arise unexpectedly. It was building up through the 1990s and has grown worse in London and the South East, as several noble Lords have said, because homes cost more, the alternative use of homes is greater and the care staff cost more money. It has been a major problem facing councillors of every political party. It is not a political argument at this level because every councillor must face the same problem.
In Oxford, we have cut from our budget all the discretionary services we can think of in order to feed the money into social services. But that process has to stop somewhere; otherwise roads disintegrate through potholes and other services get into a state of dereliction. One can only continue so far. There is room for increased efficiency. We have increased our efficiency but not sufficiently to close the gap.
Independent care home owners protest very loudly, sometimes to me, that we treat them differently from the people in our own homes. We still have some of our own homes although they will be externalised. However, the same people are not being compared. We house the more difficult and more objectionable people. I am convinced that the answer does not lie in comparisons between public and private sector homes.
The problem of finding care for the elderly mentally infirm is particularly acute. Some of those who are cared for are "warehoused"—as I term it—in homes in which they are over-prescribed with anti-psychotic drugs. One could say simply that they have been abandoned. That does go on and it is a dispiriting experience to visit such homes.
Local authorities need long-term funding to enter into contracts with the private sector which the private sector knows will stand up: they are bankable; they can invest money on that basis. At present: that is not so. We pay between £100 and £150 a week below the market rate for the remaining care homes in the

1371
county. The number is diminishing. That means that an elderly person has often to be sent out of county, away from their friends and families. There are many devices but it means effectively that the old person is abandoned. That is a problem, which places a huge burden on carers as many of them go on caring for people rather than sending them away. I have the figures for Oxfordshire of the number of beds blocked in acute hospitals. They amount to between 50 and 60. People could either go to a nursing home if there was a bed for them, or to their own homes if the county council could provide satisfactory domiciliary care. We can do neither. I had a letter from the director of social services last week saying that the county council was tightening the eligibility criteria for care in the person's own home. The words may sound nice but in reality they mean that people will be given inadequate care.
This issue is an incubus around the neck of the National Health Service, as well as being dispiriting for people in hospital and their carers. I play in a brass band, and I am reminded that two years ago virtually the whole town turned up because the community hospital in the town was to be closed by the Government. They did not close it in the end; they closed one ward somewhere else and two others instead. At the same time as care homes have been closed, the Government have been closing community hospitals as well.
I do not believe that this problem is separate from the problems in the National Health Service. The two services work closely together. It is entirely a question of the availability of doctors, nurses or high technical equipment in hospitals. The John Radcliffe is full of the stuff. The hospital does not have enough staff but it has plenty of high-tech equipment. We want to take people out of the hospital system and put into proper care, or to support them in their own homes, but we need more money to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to over-regulation of homes, and, like him, I shall look at that issue carefully. We need to pay care home owners a reasonable price for the service that they offer, whether to the elderly, the mentally infirm, or whoever. If we are not careful, people will not provide that service. It is time that the Government woke up.
I shall quote something that I heard this morning, which is:
"It is winter all the year round in caring for the elderly nowadays".
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I begin my speech with the customary declaration that I work for Age Concern. I join other Members of your Lordships' House in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for giving us the welcome opportunity to have this short, but valuable, high quality debate.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for a rare opportunity to focus on the issue of social care. All too often, we concentrate on the far more dramatic and
1372
emotive problems of the NHS. The diminution of social care services such as bathing, domiciliary care or handy person schemes do not command the headlines in the same way as waiting times for surgery or time spent on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. But they are clearly connected.
In many ways care home closures are but one manifestation of the much broader problem of the chronic under-investment in social care. We need to look at that issue before we can get to the heart of the matter, which is demand. We know from the Government's own figures that underfunding of social care has reached unprecedented levels. The Department of Health's publication, Personal Social Services Current Expenditure in England: 1999–2000 shows that gross expenditure by social services on older people in 1999/2000 was £5,640 million gross and net expenditure following fees and charges was £4,160 million. While the Government have provided a real-terms increase in funding levels for social services departments via the SSA and special grants, the average increase over the next three years will be 3.5 per cent as opposed to the 5.9 per cent increase for the NHS.
Moreover, the data from the NHS Performance Assessment Framework returns show that the costs of providing home care, day care and residential care are rising more quickly than SSAs. In the current financial year, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there will be expenditure of £1 billion by social services over and above government provision. That is a staggering figure. It is particularly astonishing when one considers that for most of the last decade, since the passage of the NHS and Community Care Act, services have been focused on those with the highest level of need and eligibility criteria have been ever more tightly drawn. Perhaps that policy is not working.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw eloquently explained how local authorities cannot sustain that level of expenditure. We know from everything we read that when cuts have to be made, services for older people are always first in line, well ahead of anything else—even within social services. The consequences to local authorities of not funding children's services, for example, are so much more severe. Your Lordships will know that the race is on to implement the NSF for older people. The people in social services departments in health authorities are waiting for NSFs for other client groups to hit them. Most social services departments are also waiting for the findings of the Victoria Climbié investigation to put the re-emphasis on children's services.
It is important to stress that pressures on local authorities come not only from the extent to which SSAs are being outstripped by rising costs. When new resources are made available, they are increasingly via special short-term programmes. I shall not go into the plethora of the different funding sources, but one of the most precious resources in any social care agency is time. The amount of time spent chasing resources, in meetings and on developing partnerships is rising dramatically. It is not clear that that always manifests itself in better client care.

1373
The Government's greatest input into the residential and nursing care sector has been intermediate care money. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of the Treasury, say "whatever the figure As". Throughout the passage of the NHS and Community Care Act, many noble Lords asked about intermediate care funding. We were never given a clear answer. There is an additional figure of £300 million. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will agree on that one. The figure is concentrated on the 50 local authorities with the most severe bed-blocking problems. It is not money to be spent across the country.
From the outset there has been uncertainty about intermediate care. Now, several months on, it is right to ask how the system is working. What mechanisms are in place to track the use of intermediate care moneys? What mechanisms are in place to check whether such moneys have been diverted to acute services? If such moneys have been diverted to acute care, what remedies do social care agencies have as they seek to reach the targets set by departments? What mechanisms are in place to evaluate whether a maximum of six weeks rehabilitation effectively meets older people's care needs and whether such short-term placements can be sustained by nursing homes?
Those may be the inquiries of a social care anorak, but I believe that the transparency of that funding is essential, especially now as pooled budgets and Section 31 partnerships become more widespread. To put it another way, if social services turn up at the table in a care trust with £1 billion of debt, who will meet that deficit? I suspect that the answer is users and carers.
Turning specifically to the issue of care homes, it is clear from all the figures quoted this evening, especially from Laing and Buisson, that there is a huge problem. About 16,000 care home beds were lost during 2000 and 8,000 private residential nursing homes were closed. The figures for the year before are similar.
Care home occupancy rates have increased by 3 per cent. In April 2001, nursing home occupancy averaged 91.3 per cent. Despite those increased occupancy rates, margins remain under pressure. We have talked about the way in which local authority baselines do not cover essential items such as staff salary increases. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, staff training is one of the key points on which we need to focus. During our discussions on the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was brought in to give us all a going over one night. He talked eloquently about the disgrace of some of the places that he went to visit during his time as a member of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly. He is right that the fabric of the building does not determine the quality of the care, but the standard of the staff does. The Government should not compromise on standards, but if, in the dire situation that has been described tonight, only one thing can be saved, it ought to be the training of staff. Can the Minister tell us whether specific resources will be made available over the next three years to address that?
1374
In April this year, well before some people came along to think about it, Laing and Buisson forecast turbulence in the care market as a result of the Government's policy on the payment of nursing costs. Age Concern, which is my organization, has begun to register the increases to personal care costs as a result of healthcare fees being paid by the Government. Given that that was not the intention of the Government's policy, how is the department going to monitor and remedy that situation?
There is widespread evidence from many organisations, including the Alzheimer's Disease Society, that self-funded private patients and their relatives are increasingly being asked to pay top-up fees, regardless of whether they should. The Government have made it clear in their guidance under CRAG (LAC 2001/29) that in most situations, if the cost of a placement is above that normally paid by the local authority, it should not be for relatives to pick up the difference. How are the Government planning to make sure that their guidance is observed?
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the care home crisis is that touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Bradshaw. I may be about to upset those noble Lords present from Kent, but I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, should have all the fun. I shall talk from the perspective of someone who works in London. The rate of care home closures in the South East is 4.6 per cent. That is significantly above average.
However, there is another factor that is never covered in any of the research or briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others have talked about the distress and the higher mortality rates of older people who are moved when homes close. In some areas of the country, including some London boroughs, there are either no homes at all or no homes that are willing or able to take people at local authority rates. I was talking recently to an older person who lives in an inner London borough. He said, "You know, I've got friends who have had to go into a home. But the thing is there aren't no homes here. They've all been put in places like Bournemouth. They don't know anybody there because they lived here all their life. We can't afford to go and visit them, it's too expensive. You can't just drop in for a game of dominoes. You know, they're just wasting away down there".
It is a well known fact that involvement in social activities is as important to life expectancy as is healthy living. People with strong social networks live longer. That is a key point in rehabilitation. I question whether intermediate care can be successful if it takes place miles away from a person's social network. I have not been able to uncover any research into the effects of extra-authority placements. I wonder whether any research has been done. If not, will the Minister look at that issue?
The rate of new registrations is slowing down. They are not happening in high-cost areas, because people cannot afford to open. We know that the older population is becoming increasingly diverse. That

1375
means that the different types of unmet need will increase. For example, there are unlikely to be care homes catering especially for black and minority ethnic elderly people or for those from different cultural and religious minorities. That is a problem, because we know that high quality, added value care is provided when institutions are attached to such communities.
I suspect that the Minister will make much of the Government's efforts to support people in their own homes. The figures from the social policy ageing information network suggest that the number of people supported in their own homes has been declining. Moreover, when the new domiciliary care regulations and the regulation of day care begin to bite, I suspect that the number of providers in those sectors will go down. That will increase demand in the residential sector.
Over the past two years it has seemed that every month the NHS faces more regulations but receives increased resources, while the social care sector just faces ever more regulations. That policy will rebound. If the question of demand is to be tackled, the Government need to go back and look at low-tech solutions that help people to maintain their independence in their own home. The frequent cry from older people is, "I really would like a home help". Only one or two local authorities provide home helps, yet those low-tech services are among the most important in delaying admission to hospital or to social care.
Finally, current comments about pension provision in the longer term make it seem alarmingly likely that many of us will reach our old age without sufficient private resources with which to pay for high-quality care. Perhaps, on the strength of today's gloomy debate, there will not be any high-quality care for us to pay for. In considering the economics of this turbulent sector, at least for the medium term the Government have to provide more funding for social care.
7.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew deserves our thanks for having tabled a Motion of central importance and for having introduced it with his customary clarity and wisdom. Having listened to him, I wondered what more needed to be said. The answer is probably very little, especially in the wake of so many well-informed contributions from around the House. Nevertheless, in summing up the debate from these Benches, I have no hesitation in saying that my noble and learned friend has touched a decidedly raw nerve.
While there is always a danger of making too free a use of emotive terms, I believe that throughout the country, but particularly in certain parts of it, we are facing what can properly be described as a crisis in the provision of social care for elderly people. That crisis has been looming gradually but visibly for the past couple of years or so.
1376
In that time, the Minister and I have enjoyed a number of exchanges on the issues confronting care homes, not least during the passage, last year, of the Care Standards Act 2000. I may be wrong, but, during those debates, I do not think that either he or his Department really accepted the gravity of the concerns that care home owners were collectively voicing. That situation may be changing; I hope so. Therefore, in concentrating the Minister's mind, as my noble friends and I hope to do today, I shall begin by picking up one or two key points.
There is compelling evidence not only from individual local authorities but from independent bodies such as Laing and Buisson, which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that capacity in the residential care sector has been declining significantly for some time. Laing and Buisson has put the decline at just under 50,000 places since 1996, which represents a decrease of just under 9 per cent. One cannot generalise about that type of figure because the impact of the decline differs depending on where one is located in the country. In some parts, such as the North West, there are undoubtedly surplus beds; however, there are no surplus beds in the home counties, Cheshire, the West Midlands, North Yorkshire and many other areas. Last year alone, 4.5 per cent of care home places in the South East of England were lost. So in being sanguine about the extent of bed losses in a national context, as the Government have tended to be, it behoves them also to listen to what they are being told by individual regions.
The pressures being felt by care home owners in individual regions are different in their intensity and their effect. Wage and cost pressures and staff recruitment difficulties vary considerably in different parts of the country. However, almost all those who are now experiencing severe financial problems will agree on one thing: the main cause of these problems is that local authorities are continuing to pay fee increases below the rate of inflation, thus leaving care homes with an income shortfall. Currently, two thirds of care home places are funded by local authorities. It is important, however, that that national statistic should not mask the detailed picture. Homes that can rely for most of their income on residents who can afford to pay the fees from their private means will not be greatly affected. Other homes catering principally for those of lesser means will be affected seriously. Those are the homes that are now having to take the painful decision of whether they can afford to stay open.
My own county of Buckinghamshire provides one example of many. The county council is currently paying 20.6 per cent above the standard spending assessment to social services. That effectively means that other budgets are having to be severely trimmed back to ensure that elderly people can receive the care that they need. In the past three years, Buckinghamshire has added £34.5 million to government funds to pay for care services. Despite that, and despite the prospect of a budget overspend this year, the Buckinghamshire Association of Care Homes, which represents 200 care home owners, says

1377
that unless the county is prepared to pay a higher than usual increase in fee rates, its members will suffer very considerable losses or else go out of business. The funding gap, it says, amounts to about £50 per resident per week. In proportion to fees, that is a very large sum.
It is perhaps ironic that the Government are insisting that unit costs for social care in Buckinghamshire must be reduced. It is difficult to see, quite honestly, how that can happen in an area with a cost of living that is considerably higher than the average. Already we are seeing care homes being sold to developers because of the premium that land attracts especially in the south of the county. Why should care home owners struggle to make ends meet when, by cashing in on the value of their property, they can sit back and relax? As we all know, however, the ripples from such closures spread outwards. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew rightly pointed out, for every care home that ceases to trade, there is even more pressure on local hospitals where delayed discharges from acute beds are a constant and serious problem.
Not only is there a waiting list to go into hospital, there is a waiting list to get out of hospital as well. Already it is proving very difficult to find vacancies in care homes in some southern areas of the county. In the end, Buckinghamshire may be faced with little alternative but to impose a substantial increase—perhaps even a double-digit increase—in council tax. The Government may wish that to happen. If they do, it would be interesting to hear their reasons. The SSA received by Buckinghamshire is currently the second lowest of all the shire counties. The amount it receives per elderly person in residential care is £345. The contrast could not be more striking between Buckinghamshire and authorities in London, such as Islington, where the equivalent figure is £917. We have to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the relatively low level of funding paid by the Government to the south-eastern counties of England—far and away lower than other areas—is fair.
To those who may suppose that counties such as Buckinghamshire are a soft touch and that it may perhaps be too easy for an elderly person to receive local authority funding for a care placement, I have to say that nothing could be more wrong. Buckinghamshire has the strictest of rules on who qualifies for support. However, that fact is itself adding to the cost pressures on care homes. In times gone by, it was possible for a partially under-funded care home to cross-subsidise residents who needed a higher than average degree of looking after by having a mix of residents, some with minimal care needs, others with greater needs. Swings and roundabouts operated. Nowadays, that cross-subsidy is much more difficult to achieve. The harder it is for an elderly person to pass the local authority's local eligibility test, the more likely it is that those who do pass will have a greater degree of acuity, as it is termed, and so will be more costly to look after. As average levels of acuity rise, as they are doing, so the finances of care homes are progressively squeezed.
1378
A further consequence flows from the arrangements. Some care homes that remain in business will be tempted to compromise on their standards of care. Most will not contemplate doing so. However, in the recent report by the King's Fund—entitled "Future Imperfect?", which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—we see some important messages. That report emphasised the risks of ever greater cost containment by local authorities in terms of the slippage that in some areas has already occurred in care standards. Care and support workers tend to be inadequately trained and poorly paid. There are high levels of turnover. Staff are often as hard to recruit as they are to retain. Workers have less time to spend with the people whom they are meant to be looking after.
In such a climate, service users lack choice and control over the type of service that they want and need. Cultural and ethnic minorities are especially disadvantaged; how right the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was in all that she said on that matter. Unless as a society we consciously decide to value care workers more than we do, we shall be short-changing not only our elderly citizens, but anyone at all who uses the NHS for secondary care. I agreed very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said in his excellent speech. Without enough care and support workers, and without a thriving care home sector, our health care system as a whole will suffer.
That will take money. The King's Fund estimates that social services nationally are under-funded by about £700 million annually. If that figure is valid, as I believe it may well be, the question that follows from it is who will pay. That is a question that I put to the Minister during passage of the Care Standards Act 2000 when we debated the effect of the new national minimum standards on care homes. Those minimum standards are nearly upon us, but we still have not had an answer to the crucial question.
As my noble friend Lord Astor rightly said, we all agree that improvements in physical standards in care homes are desirable. But unless care home owners can see that the investment required to meet the standards will be reflected in the income they receive, many will not be in a position to continue in business. The trenchant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about being "fit for the future", were music to my ears. I said exactly the same thing during our debates on the Bill.
The costs arising from the forthcoming regulations will be significant. There is grave worry in the sector that for many providers those costs will be unaffordable. Already the care home system has had to absorb the cost of the minimum wage amounting to around £90 million in total, yet no specific recognition has been paid to that in revenue support grant.
There are over 200,000 elderly people supported by local authorities in nursing or residential homes in England and Wales. It is difficult to know how that figure will change over the next few years. But with the introduction of a single assessment process next year for all local authorities, and with the elderly

1379
population increasing in number, it is not unreasonable to imagine that demand for care home places could rise substantially. That prospect alone should be enough to concentrate the minds of Ministers on what needs to be done.
We have seen some welcome additional funding being injected into the system in recent weeks. But what really matters is how the system will cope in the longer term. Unless there is the necessary capacity in the care home sector, and unless that sector is in good heart in all areas of the country, then occasional ad hoc sums designed to reduce bed-blocking will count for little. That ultimately is the issue posed by my noble and learned friend's Motion. I hope that in his response today the Minister will give us cause to think that the Government understand the seriousness of the matters we have been debating and, in so doing, provide some basis of hope for the future.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on securing this debate. He is a new and formidable addition to the regular cast list of noble Lords who have happily debated these issues over the past three years. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that those debates have been "sandwiched" between more general debates about the National Health Service. It is extremely useful for us to have a concentrated and focused discussion on social care and the impact of the current situation on the care home sector.
I say at once that I am by no means complacent about the current pressures on the care home sector. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I agree that a strong, viable care home sector is a crucial requirement for the effective delivery of care services. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the "seamless thread" that needs to run between the NHS and social care. I agree with that. The NHS Plan depends crucially on our ability to deliver that approach to seamless care.
A number of concerns were raised in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised specific issues of funding. My noble friend Lord Lipsey talked about the need for a care sector which has long-term viability. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked of the need for a better local government-NHS interrelationship. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, talked of staffing requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, re-emphasised that point in relation to the training of staff and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about a crisis in the provision of social care for older people. I shall return to all those points.
As I said, I do not wish to underestimate those concerns. Nor do I underestimate the real problems that some individual homes are facing. But some of the difficulties arise from what might be described as a structural change in the care home market. Two factors are currently having an impact. The first is the
1380
movement of large multi-home companies into the market which is impacting on individual, single-owned care homes. The second is the desire on the part of almost everyone to allow people to remain in their own homes wherever possible. I suggest that those drivers are having as much of an impact on the care home sector as the other issues raised in the debate tonight.
We are taking a number of steps to try to bring stability to local markets and to reassure service providers. But stability is not about leaving things as they are; it is about managed change; it is about allowing people to remain in their own homes wherever possible. It is in that context that intermediate care is so important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in her sparkling contribution, seemed to be facing two ways. At one time she was suggesting that the panoply of controls and bids that had to be made by local government and the NHS were causing massive bureaucracy which was inhibiting local innovation. At the same time, she was suggesting that we should introduce such a panoply of controls to make sure that the money was being spent wisely in relation to intermediate care.
I am confident that the proposals that we have put in place for intermediate care will lead to the increased capacity we require. There is no doubt that preliminary results of a recent survey for the NHS in relation to intermediate care indicate that good progress is being made towards the targets. A number of examples of good practice were indicated.
In relation to the evaluation of intermediate care, we commissioned a national evaluation. The results will not be known for two to three years because it is a rigorous assessment. But we have evidence from local independently-conducted evaluations that properly co-ordinated and targeted intermediate care schemes have a significant impact on admissions and discharges. That too has lessons for the care home sector.
I turn to the issue of the number of places currently available in the sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that 50,000 care home places have been lost since 1997. The Laing and Buisson reports, from which those figures are drawn, show that the net loss of places in the UK was around 19,000. That is because of the new homes that have opened and others that have reregistered or extended their facilities. In saying that the position is not as bleak as painted, I do not underestimate the importance of this issue.
In essence, if one takes the year March 2000 to March 2001, recent figures published by my department show that the number of residential care and nursing home beds fell by just over 11,000. That represents 2 per cent of the total number of beds. In addition, the average national occupancy rate shows that 8 per cent of beds are unoccupied. That suggests that there is spare capacity in some places, though I accept, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, that the position is patchy. There are areas of the country where the occupancy rate is much higher and other parts where a good many vacancies exist.

1381
It is clearly important to understand where the sector is going in terms of the supply of residential and nursing care accommodation in England. I say to my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the Government have commissioned the Personal Social Services Research Unit to carry out a study of the supply of residential and nursing care accommodation in England. That study examines future requirements in the sector and is looking closely at the issue of profitability and closures. We expect it to produce a final report early in the new year. I shall ensure that a copy of the report is placed in the Library. It is an important report which will discuss a number of issues of concern that have been raised and will, of course, inform the future direction of policy. I accept the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; namely, that not only do we need a viable market but also one that is concerned about the future and about raising quality. I am hopeful that the report will greatly help us in securing that aim.
I return to the County of Kent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned a number of the problems faced by that large county in the South East. A significant number of care home beds in Kent are occupied by residents who receive funding from outer London boroughs as some London boroughs have not taken action to develop an adequate care home market in their own area. That creates particular problems for the county council which finds itself competing with some London boroughs for a limited supply of care home beds. I shall discuss in a minute the issue of bed blocking. In recognition of the problems that Kent faces we have ensured that it will be among those authorities which receive extra funding.
My colleague Jacqui Smith, the Minister responsible for social care, wrote to some Members of Parliament from Kent on 20th November acknowledging the particular problems faced by the council and setting out the action the Government are taking to address them. Her letter touched on a number of the initiatives which I shall describe. However, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has not seen that, I shall, of course, ensure that he receives a copy. I want him to understand that we are aware of some of the specific issues which he raised.
As regards the overall situation in Kent, my understanding is that the number of residential care and nursing homes dropped by eight between March 2000 and March 2001, although, interestingly, the actual number of residential care and nursing home beds throughout the county increased during that period. There was an increase in residential care home beds of just over 1,000 but a loss of nursing home beds of 183. I accept that, as in the country as a whole, there are variations within the county. Kent is a large county both in terms of population and geography. I accept that there are variations between different parts of the county.
It is also worth making the point that Kent's PSS SSA will increase by 5.3 per cent for the period 2002 to 2003, compared with a national average increase of
1382
5.4 per cent. The carers' grants increased by 21.2 per cent which was very much in line with the national increase. The children's services grant increased by 18.1 per cent, compared with a national increase of 12.5 per cent.
That brings me to the more general issue of social services funding. I do not think anyone could argue that historically—I rather hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might acknowledge this—funding for social services has not been pressurised. That was certainly the position the Government inherited. We have increased social services funding by 17.8 per cent in real terms since 1997 and we shall increase it by a further 3.9 per cent in real terms next year.
I understand that there are pressures on personal social services. As someone living in Birmingham who experienced a problem with bed blocking just some months ago, I understand those pressures. However, I believe that the Government have made significant moves to try to address some of those problems. The bed blocking fund is but one example of that. The £300 million to be allocated to social services over this year and the next to tackle the problem of bed blocking is aimed at stabilising the care home market as well as reducing delays in discharge from hospital. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the causes of delay and the size of the problem vary from place to place. That is why £47 million of this year's £100 million is being focused on the 55 councils that need more help. The rest of the money—£43.5 million—will be distributed to the other 100 councils on the basis of the standard spending assessment. Kent will receive £2.1 million of that fund. I hope that that will help relieve some of the immediate problems it faces.
As regards a number of the points that were made, I refer to the need for a proper relationship between personal social services authorities and care home providers. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we wish to see certainty in that relationship and agreement on capacity. All the work that we have done, for example, on winter planning shows the need for an holistic approach—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for—across the health and social care sector within which independent providers must play an integral part. It is because of that belief that we are very much committed to working in partnership with the independent sector to use capacity and resources to the best effect.
We have established a strategic commissioning group, chaired first by my right honourable friend Mr John Hutton, and now by Jacqui Smith, to give greater direction to the commissioning of care services for adults, in particular older people. The group recently published an agreement entitled, Building Capacity and Partnership in Care. The agreement sets out responsibilities and expectations for central government, local government, the NHS and independent providers. It focuses on councils and the independent sector entering into those much needed long-term agreements concerning placing people into care homes or giving them other forms of support. I believe that that agreement, the increase in resources and the work that has been done on viability.

1383
profitability and capacity in the care home sector provide the structural building blocks, as it were, to try to sort out some of the problems that noble Lords have mentioned tonight.
We have not talked much about the performance of local authorities generally, but, of course, that is an intrinsic part of the matters we discussed. I believe that the approach taken by the Social Services Inspectorate, the introduction of best value service reviews and our intention to have vigorous but none the less sensitive approaches to performance assessment and management will be the right way forward to get the kind of relationship that we obviously need between social services authorities and the care home sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made some important points about staff training. They were talking about the independent care home sector but their remarks could equally well have applied to those who are directly employed by social services departments. In all such debates over the past three years, I have increasingly emphasised the need for effective training and development programmes, and for them to be backed up with support from local authority social services committees. I strongly maintain that. I also maintain that that applies to the independent care home sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about how the independent sector could take advantage of current initiatives relating to training in the social care sector. There are several opportunities, the first of which is available through the training support programme grant. That is paid to local councils but it can be used for those in independent organisations. Funds are also available for the implementation of the training strategy and through the learning and skills councils and our access to European funding. I should be happy to write to the noble Baroness about that if she wants me to.
I turn to the Care Standards Act and the National Care Standards Commission. I thought that there was little more to say on that matter but perhaps we should discuss it. There is no running away from the fact that standards need to be improved in the sector. Survey work and the personal experience of many noble Lords make it clear that parts of the sector need drastic improvement. On that basis, I make no apology whatever for the Care Standards Act.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey raised the issue of room size. I accept that that implies that the outcome of care is more important than physical standards. However, I say to him—I am sorry to drag this up yet again—that the room-size issue can be tracked back to a 1973 building note that was issued by the Department of Health. It is right to ensure that physical standards are up to scratch.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, that is precisely the point. That is what was done in the 1970s. The point has been marvellously made that the matter is now about training, contestability of services, proper complaint
1384
mechanisms and the correct motivation of staff. Those are the issues that matter to people, not whether their room is three inches bigger or smaller. Those 1973 standards should be dead by now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if my noble friend had been a little patient, I should have come to that. My point was that the standards are not, as it were, plucked out of the air. They are based on thinking around this area that has been going on for many years. As I said, I also accept that while I want good physical standards, the outcome of care is crucial. The National Care Standards Commission has taken that point on board. I look forward to further debates on those issues.
The Government have shown, in their willingness to apply long lead-in times for compliance, a flexibility of approach that has been warmly welcomed. Ms Anne Parker, the chair of the commission, and Mr Ron Kerr, the director, are serious and sensible people who wish to take a serious and sensible approach.
I shall desist from debating free nursing care again, although I suspect that this is not the last time on which we shall debate that interesting issue. Like my noble friend, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was not here to debate that.
I, least of all, do not doubt that there is real pressure in the care home sector; there is no question about that. In discussions over the past few months with people in the NHS and social services departments about planning capacity for winter pressures and—as noble Lords often point out to me—all-year-round pressures, the situation in the care home sector often comes up as an issue. All of us are exercised about that issue.
Our approach involves an immediate injection of funds in relation to bed-blocking, to give greater stability; more resources that are more directly allocated to local authorities for personal social services spending; the partnership agreement, which is very much based on getting stability and good relations between local authorities and care home providers; and, finally, the work that is being undertaken to consider issues such as viability, profitability and capacity in the care-home sector. I hope that we will be able to publish our report very soon. Those are the essential ingredients for sorting out the problem. That cannot happen overnight, but we can give a message of hope to the sector.
The sector must recognise that it does not function in an unchanging world. The emphasis in future will not just be on residential places; it will also be on exciting, innovative packages in the community. I hope that the sector is prepared to advance schemes that will take advantage of that. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for allowing us to discuss these very important issues.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the Minister ended as he began—charmingly. We expect as much from him. As he said, the ingredients are in place; the trouble is that there are not enough of them.

1385
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It has been extremely instructive—as much to me as to the Government—and it was a worthwhile use of our time.
When I began drafting my speech a few days ago, I recognised that this was a sadly topical subject and a source of anxiety. Just how topical I had not realised until earlier today when I learned of a residential home in Kent—one of many maintained by the voluntary sector, if I may so express it—that is at serious risk of closure because of the pressures mentioned in this debate.
I should have mentioned the work of the voluntary sector earlier—I did not and that of the Kent Community Housing Trust in particular. Its work is valuable and it is no less liable to the pressures and their consequences than the other two sectors that I did mention.
Noble Lords confirmed that the crisis is not confined to Kent or even to the South East. In varying degrees, it is found throughout the country. I began my opening speech by expressing the hope that the Minister or the Government would take the crisis on board and meet the urgent need with no less urgent action.
The Minister told us of various proposals that are in the pipeline. I am afraid that I was not convinced that the urgency of the situation is being met with measures that will bring urgent palliatives.
Since we have a minute or two remaining I shall briefly recapitulate the anxieties of noble Lords. As a neophyte—the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, accurately used that description—I was rather relieved to find that my points were confirmed by people with much more experience on the ground. The noble Lord referred to the desperate expedients being resorted to by the independent sector in order to cope with current pressures. To be fair, that point was reiterated by the Minister. The noble Lord's words were well chosen. He said that the losses of beds in that sector were accelerating and he spoke of the frightening cost of new regulations. That was a theme throughout the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, confirmed the grave loss of beds and the consequences of bed-blocking in national health hospitals. He spoke about the difficulties of recruitment and retention in homes—a matter upon which I had not touched—and he cited the King's Fund. My noble friend Lord Astor spoke of the regional variations in funding and the adverse disparity that the South East, in particular, experiences.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke with authority, if I may say so, as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. He spoke of the drastic cost-cutting that was necessary in that authority and, I am sure, in others, in order to channel more money to areas of most need, including homes for the elderly and the frail. He said—I was glad that he had it confirmed by the Minister—that there is a need for long-term, bankable funding policies. I venture to say that it is not
1386
enough to have expedient, short-term policies but that what is needed is long-term planning that is bankable and can be relied upon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of costs rising faster than the SSAs. She confirmed my figure of £1 billion for the shortfall in funding overall. My noble friend Lord Howe spoke of the crisis in the provision of care. Apropos of bed-blocking, he coined what I considered to be the remarkable and very telling aphorism that not only is there a waiting list to get into hospital; there is now a waiting list to get out of hospital when one no longer needs hospital care but cannot be accommodated in the type of home that one needs.
I see why the long-term members of this club, to which I am a neophyte, so enjoy their encounters with the Minister. The noble Lord does it all with such tremendous charm. One begins to feel reassured towards the end because of the way in which he answers. But then one looks at the measures that are proposed and asks oneself the vulgar question, "Where is the beef?". There is not too much beef now or in the immediate short term. But that is what is needed. In the short term, more homes will go out of business. Whatever exciting new measures are proposed and cooked up—I do not wish to undervalue them—they will not do anything for the people who at present are trying to struggle with the problems on the ground.
At bottom, the problem is that Her Majesty's Government seek improvements in standards from homes—often homes that have improved greatly in recent times, although some need to do more—without providing the means of paying for them. That is the problem. It is, of course, admirable to legislate for a better deal for the frail and the vulnerable. But it is less admirable, to put it mildly, to neglect to provide the necessary means and to try to offload the resulting costs or the resulting failures on to local authorities which are in the straits described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Her Majesty's Government are not resiling from the principle that SSAs will provide for the kind of proportion of costs that we are used to. But the combination of too small SSA increases and expensive statutory upratings of standards, and so on, amounts to much the same thing but in a less open way. I do not believe that we should let this subject drop, and I shall be most surprised if we do. However, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gibraltar
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy towards Gibraltar; and what recent developments there have been.

1387
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start by declaring two interests as a member of the All-Party Group for Gibraltar and as a member of the All-Party Group for Spain. As many of your Lordships know, my interests in Gibraltar arose during my days as a Member of the European Parliament, when I was one of 12 all-party MEPs asked to look after the interests of Gibraltar. It is my hope today that, in replying, the Minister will be able to give a clear statement about the present situation and about the Government's intentions both for the immediate future and the long term. I hope that that will go some way to allay "the anxiety and anger" felt by the people of Gibraltar, to quote the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, when he addressed the meeting of the all-party group recently.
Perhaps before embarking on a scrutiny of current policies, it would be helpful in setting the scene if I were to start with a brief historic outline. The modern story of Gibraltar begins with the Moors, who drove out the Visigoths at the beginning of the eighth century and remained in occupation of the Rock for 751 years until 1462. The Spanish then controlled Gibraltar for 242 years until 1704, when it was seized by a joint Anglo-Dutch military force during the war of Spanish Succession. The peace treaty which settled that war was signed in Utrecht in 1713. The treaty ceded Gibraltar to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, and the territory has remained under uninterrupted British control ever since.
To come back a little closer to the present, I believe that we all recognise that the people of Gibraltar were tremendous allies during two world wars and that the Rock has been of great strategic significance. We also all know that Franco closed the frontier. That isolated Gibraltar and, when democracy returned to Spain in the mid-1970s, the frontier was reopened. Unfortunately, it was reopened rather grudgingly, and the present unsatisfactory situation remains. The border controls cause daily irritation for those in transit between Spain and Gibraltar. I had always hoped that the European Union would provide an umbrella to resolve the problem. Gibraltar joined the EU in 1973 when we did and then Spain joined in 1985. I thought, "Oh, good. Everything will be resolved now". Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Therefore, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have been holding talks with their opposite numbers in Spain. There has been much comment in both the British and the Spanish press about that. I suspect that one of the current problems is that Gibraltarians probably read the Spanish as well as the British press, and that puts a distinctly different gloss on what is going on.
There have been Questions and debates on this issue in both Houses—there was even one yesterday in your Lordships' House—and I suspect that Ministers may be becoming weary of responding to it. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee held hearings at which the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, was interviewed, as well as the Minister for Europe, the right honourable Peter Hain. I understand that the report of those hearings is due out tomorrow.
1388
I believe that all the furore has come about because the Foreign Secretary, in all good faith, seeks to resolve the irritations to which I have referred and which continue to exist. Many of them are petty and many are said to interfere with our good relations with Spain. He has courteously met with members of the all-party group, as indeed has the Minister for Europe—even this afternoon. But still the alarm and despondence continue in Gibraltar.
Therefore, perhaps the question that should be asked is: why hold talks now? Perhaps those talks give rise to unease. Attempts to resolve the situation have been made by previous governments. I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is joining in to explain some of the progress that was made in his day. In my view, this is definitely not a party political issue. I believe that there is nothing more sinister about the meetings than the fact that the Secretary of State represents a new broom and he wants to get these irritating issues out of the way. Perhaps it is also significant that Spain is due to hold the presidency of the European Union from January of next year. Perhaps that, too, has created pressure to get something done. In the words of the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, we must also recognise that no government have been more disposed to dialogue with Spain than the present one in Gibraltar. Indeed, early in his administration he went to Madrid and held meetings with the then Spanish Foreign Minister.
Perhaps I may take a long-term look at the solutions. There is, first, the continuation of the status quo which, from statements made in another place, Her Majesty's Government appear to support. It has been clearly said that it is "no" to a handover of sovereignty to Spain and "no" to independence, which is the preferred choice of some Gibraltarians. Secondly, there is the preference of the Spanish Government; that is, that Gibraltar should become an autonomia of Spain and have a status similar to that of Catalonia and the other 17 autononilas, but with even more rights, freedoms and independence. That is not agreeable to the people of Gibraltar. A third solution has been suggested in the past, which is to scrap the Treaty of Utrecht, which is out of date and unobserved in many of its provisions. I call that solution the "Andorra solution". It means independent status under some sort of joint patronage. That could be our Queen and the King of Spain, or the Prince of Wales and the Principe de Asturias, perhaps. That seems to me to be another possible solution. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on such possibilities.
In the short term, there are other issues to be resolved, such as the talks. They have not been attended by the Chief Minister, who wishes to have meetings held only if it is back to the "two flags, three voices" procedure. If the Spanish Government are as well disposed as we are led to believe, why will they not agree to that? There is the issue of voting rights in the European Union elections. I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Europe that legislation is being prepared in order to have Gibraltarians represented in the elections in 2004, the next elections to the European Parliament. Lord Bethell, who

1389
worked hard on this issue, will be delighted to hear that. I should be interested to know the timetable for that legislation, if the noble Baroness is able to give that to the House.
There is also much reference to the damage to our relations with Spain. I was hard put to discover any concrete examples of how our good relations with Spain have been affected as a result of our support of the British citizens of Gibraltar. I emphasise that this is not an isolated issue, although Gibraltar is unique, both in terms of the strategic role that it has played in the past and because it is part of the European Union. Any decision made about the future of Gibraltar will have repercussions in other overseas territories, which may have neighbouring powers all too ready and willing to take over management of those affairs which the territories are not deemed capable of managing for themselves. It is not only the people of Gibraltar but the British citizens in all the overseas territories who are following this saga with close interest.
It is in the nature of the debate and the constraints of procedure that I shall not have the right to reply. I should like to anticipate a couple of questions which might arise and comments which are often asserted by Spanish people to whom I have spoken. The first; is, "You have given back Hong Kong to China. Why can't you do the same for Gibraltar?" We know that Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity, and for Hong Kong we had a time limit. Secondly, there is the issue of smuggling. Apart from the lack of evidence, if we are being meticulous about rules and regulations, what about the Spanish fishermen? Even now, an all-party maritime group has been considering that issue.
In conclusion, I hope that the debate will send out a clear signal to the people of Gibraltar that their friends understand their anxieties and stand ready to give their support when needed. I am grateful to all those who are to speak and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I understand the Government's wish to resolve the continuing impasse with Spain over the Gibraltar question. Obviously, it is desirable that Spain's attitude to Gibraltar should be better. There seems no sensible reason why Spain should continue to provoke hostility. Nor, in my view, is there a sensible reason for Spain to rest its case on Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, the pre-industrial revolution treaty, which came at a time when the concept of democracy was merely a minor notion and the rights of men were flagrantly ignored.
I recall the pleasure I felt, as did many others, at the end of the long Franco years when Spain joined the democratic community in Europe. I was present when Spain took its seat in the Council of Europe, when it subscribed to the Convention on Human Rights and the principles of democracy and when it then followed that membership and accession by eagerly supporting the recognition and establishment of the sovereignty of a large number of states. The expansion of the Council of Europe and the end of the Cold War demanded the
1390
recognition of sovereignty of states which had not even been thought of in the middle of the 19th century. I found particularly interesting the eager enthusiasm with which Spain most emphatically supported the recognition by and membership of the Council of Europe of states such as Andorra, with a population of 65,000, San Marino with a population of 26,000, and Liechtenstein with a population of 32,000, a state not formed until six years after the Treaty of Utrecht.
At the same time—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking about its history—the state of Spain did not really exist until Granada and Navarra had been absorbed into Spain by 1512. That means that Gibraltar was part of Spain for well over 100 years less than its involvement with Britain. Yet we have a situation in which the hostility continues. Spain appears to have made no attempt to win the hearts and minds of Gibraltar. Its hostility over the years has been remarkable.
I recall, about a decade ago, being at an RAF station and being given an opportunity to fly an aircraft simulator. I was invited to try to land a Nimrod in Gibraltar. I can remember the comforting words of the squadron leader standing behind me who said, "Peter, on this occasion you can fly through the Rock". I would certainly have done so in real life to avoid Spanish airspace. The fact remains that Spain has been remarkably foolish. It has shown hostility when wisdom would have generated a great deal more political benefit.
At the same time, Spain may well imagine that if it maintains its present political approach, it can win. However, I believe that people are becoming a little irritated by Spain. For example, over the past few years, by the singularly vigorous use of its diplomatic service, Spain has secured a disproportionate number of important political positions in the free world. I refer to the Council of Europe, WEU, OSCE, NATO, and the European second pillar. That is a disproportionate number of positions, given Spain's population of 32 million. It has ignored a number of—for example—European Union steel policies. I recall a steel works in my then constituency which was doing very well. Spain could not possibly compete with it until the Spanish Government gave huge public support in utter defiance of EU policy.
I recall—I have mentioned this in the House previously but I shall touch on it again because it is relevant—how the Spanish were among the leading voices calling for the establishment of the European second pillar. France was equal in its enthusiasm. However, when we became slightly anxious about the excessive zeal that Spain was displaying in that regard, its Ministers invited the Defence Committee to go to Madrid to discuss the matter. When we arrived we were told that the meeting had been cancelled. We were put onto an aircraft and flown to the historic shipyard of Ferrol to be given a demonstration of Spain's contribution to European security. We were shown an aircraft carrier which was near completion. The British members then discovered that the aircraft carrier was intended for the Royal Thailand Navy to

1391
serve as flagship and royal yacht for the King of Thailand. It was not a contribution to the EU security policy which Spain was so avidly supporting.
I do not want to criticise Spain. I have friends in Spain. I want to see a sensible relationship between Spain and this country. I also want to see decency to the people of Gibraltar. I trust that the Government will seek to persuade Spain to change its approach and to win hearts and minds. If it does it will very rapidly reverse the situation which it should have taken more seriously when just 44 people in Gibraltar voted for a link with Spain in a recent referendum.
I emphasise to my noble friend that it would be highly desirable for Britain, and perhaps the international community, to urge Spain, along with Britain, to submit this case to the International Court of Justice in the hope that it can come to a conclusion which will solve the impasse and allow Spain and Gibraltar and Gibraltarians to live happily together. That will enable British and Spanish relationships to be as good as they should be.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, in order to echo his closing words. The objective which we all seek is good relations between our country and Spain, and a prosperous, peaceful and hopeful future for the people of Gibraltar. Despite my legal background, I would not immediately look towards a court resolution of the problem. But that is a different matter.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating this very important debate. She rightly drew attention to the historic importance of Gibraltar in the history of this country and to the loyalty of its people through many adverse circumstances. She also rightly drew attention to the possibly valuable role of our joint membership of the European Union. She speaks with authority on this subject because of her distinguished service as a Member of the European Parliament in the halcyon days when Merseyside was represented in that institution by a Conservative MEP. We all look forward to the return of that prospect, although not perhaps to its representation by my noble friend.
I do not want to compete with Queen Mary and say that Gibraltar is engraved on my heart. Certainly, it occupies a very important position in my recollection of my six years at the Foreign Office. It is probably the biggest disappointment of my time there. I thought that we had left it on track for a solution along the right lines. That has not happened. The Brussels agreement, which lead to the opening of the frontier was also designed to lead, and did lead, to the accession of Spain to the European Union and indeed to NATO. I attended in Madrid as well as at Lisbon to sign the Treaty of Accession for Spain to the European Union. Senor Fernando Moran negotiated that agreement with me and set the Brussels process under way. We would not attach any importance to the name, any more than our predecessors, the noble
1392
Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Owen, would attach importance to the Lisbon process which was also derailed.
I think I am right in saying that the then Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, was present at all the key negotiations leading to the Brussels agreement. I do not think—but I cannot be sure—that he took a direct part in triangular discussion, but he certainly met the Spanish delegation, and we all recognised that his voice was one to which we must listen.
It is quite clear that the voice of the people of Gibraltar must be of decisive importance as we look for a solution. Some people question the legitimacy of even seeking a solution to this issue. Some people write and speak as though the search for improvement in this position is in some way, ex hypothesi, disloyal—disloyal to the people of Gibraltar and disloyal to the British interests. I reject that absolutely. If one is to reject that rationally and to understand the unwisdom of condemning that as disloyalty, it is necessary to understand the present position. The fact is that the present position is doing harm to every party concerned. It is doing harm to Spain itself. It has a historic grievance, and one can understand that. For Spain to have a small corner of territory outside its own country but very close as an area of persistent economic, social and political concern must in itself be undesirable.
Gibraltar has a similar set of problems to confront. These have already been mentioned by my noble friend. There is a limit to its prospect of political progress; there are recurrent economic and social shocks; the frontier closes and opens; and there is no present arrangement for its representation in the European Union. To all our partners in the European Union there are recurrent failures to achieve agreement because of the persistence of this obstacle. The United Kingdom suffers disadvantage because of the other things that could go wrong. All those disadvantages to our European partners affect us. We have a potential running sore in our relationship with Spain, despite all the other areas where we have good relations. We share with the people of Gibraltar—people for whom we have an inescapable sense of responsibility—their sense of frustration at the persistence of this grievance.
In terms of British selfish interest, which some Spanish commentators say is the reason for our position, we have virtually no selfish interests in the perpetuation of the present situation of conflict. The days of the coaling station and of a naval dockyard for repair services have passed. The Gibraltar dockyard became like those in our own country which had to face economic pressures and therefore ceased to play the part they used to play.
Far and away the greatest British interest in the situation is in a resolution of this dispute on terms acceptable to the other parties. The continuance of the dispute is against everyone's interests.
The background starts in the Treaty of Utrecht, in the sense that our title and the Spanish claim to the reversion of sovereignty are rooted in that. The word

1393
"always" looms out of that treaty as one factor. It is a word that prudent politicians today would never use, I fancy. On the other hand, before the preamble to the constitution of Gibraltar in 1969, it is set out that we would "never" make the change of sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people. So one has a "never" confronting an "always". If one is to find a solution, it is essential that both sides—I say "both sides" because it is really only Gibraltar and Spain that are contending with each other—in seeking to find a solution, are willing to make changes to their positions.
As has already been said by both the previous speakers, if a solution in the long-term is to be found, Spain must surely acknowledge the need to secure the consent of the people of Gibraltar. It must surely regulate its conduct and attitude in relation to these matters with a view to achieving that outcome. In effect, it must win their trust—to be able to win a referendum in the last resort—if it is to find a final solution to the problem. It must abandon any ideas that harassment or obstruction can win any advantage at all.
The frontier that I thought was open at the time of the Brussels agreement has been recurrently shut. It is a permanent irritant in this situation. Disputes over licences, passports and telephone numbers can all be resolved with good will.
But Gibraltar must be ready to move as well. First, above all, it must surely abandon the opposition that some express to joint use and development of the airport. Nothing would do more good to the economic development of southern Spain and Gibraltar than to implement the agreement—which, again, I thought that I had reached with Senor Fernandez Ordonez way hack. Unhappily, implementation of that agreement was blocked by the reluctance of the Gibraltar legislature to see it through. That remains the position today, although many voices in Gibraltar, not least the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce, now see the necessity for it.
The fact that the legislature could block that in that way is a real demonstration of the need for consent in the whole process. Mr Peter Caruana has recognised the other component. Some time ago, he said:
"You cannot expect to engage Madrid in a process of dialogue in which they are not free even to raise the matter that is of most interest to them—and that is of sovereignty".
In my judgment, it should ultimately be possible to reach an agreement whereby, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, sovereignty might be shared in one of a variety of ways between the United Kingdom and Spain—but not, please, by means of a lease, which would merely recreate a Hong Kong-type situation and postpone the problem for the future. The Andorran solution is certainly a possibility.
Discussion of that aspect will be made possible only on the basis of growing wider trust and confidence between the peoples of Spain and Gibraltar. Progress of that kind requires, above all, the willingness of the parties concerned—Gibraltar as well as Spain—to meet and talk to each other. They must find ways in
1394
which they can work together by effectively securing joint use of the airport and by cessation of harassment of any kind. Spain must be willing to view the people of Gibraltar as it should if it is to reach its objective and if the people of Gibraltar are to be reassured in the way that I should like.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I should like to begin by declaring an interest. For some 25 years, I was an official—latterly, the general secretary—of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which became the Institution of Professionals. Managers and Specialists, a trade union organising on Gibraltar for about 65 to 70 years. As my noble friend the Minister is well aware, my union had a series of major difficulties in Gibraltar. The closure of the dockyard has been mentioned. There were naval base issues. We still have more than 800 members on the Rock—I say we; I have no formal relationship with the union any more, I am retired. But, needless to say, the people that I have known for a quarter of a century have been anxious to let me know their views and concerns. They have written to me and I have received more e-mails than usual because of their concern.
I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for setting out some of the history and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, whose great experience in the matter brings us up to date. A point on which there is total agreement is that we need a solution that is acceptable to all. The problem in Gibraltar is people's great anxiety that, to put it crudely, they will be sold out. Everybody in Gibraltar would agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord that the British have no selfish interest in retaining Gibraltar. However, many of them would turn that on its head and say that the British want to get rid of the problem.
That judgment may be unjust. I have already told my former colleagues and the members of the union—now named Prospect—in Gibraltar that I have every faith in the integrity of the Ministers concerned. Two issues concern my former colleagues: one is the role of the Chief Minister in any such talks; the second is the back-stop that the issue of sovereignty will, in the final analysis, be put to a referendum. At the union's request, I am visiting Gibraltar next week, and I should be grateful if I could take assurances from my noble friend the Minister. I should also like to pose her a couple of questions that have been posed to me.
First, on the question of the role of the Chief Minister, if there are to be confidence-building talks leading to a solution that everyone can accept, my former colleagues believe it essential that the Chief Minister be involved in trilateral talks with the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, and they are aware of the precedent set by the previous Chief Minister but one, Sir Joshua Hassan. There is no division between the political parties in Gibraltar on that issue.
During my many years dealing with Gibraltar, I had some lively battles with Mr Joe Bassano, the previous Chief Minister, the current Chief Minister, the

1395
Ministry of Defence and other establishments. I learnt that we had for many years been anxious to ensure that those on Gibraltar recognised their allegiance to the United Kingdom. Some of my union's members were born in the United Kingdom, but many are for many generations Gibraltarian. They have always looked to the United Kingdom for further education and technical training—I believe that the Chief Minister was at one stage trained in the United Kingdom, as were most prominent Gibraltarians. They accept that there should be a solution acceptable to all, but are uneasy about the limited role given to the Chief Minister and the fact that whatever input Gibraltar has, in the final analysis, any decision will be made between the two Governments without their involvement.
That may not be the end of the story, if they can rely upon a referendum. The question is: what does the referendum represent? Will it be solely on the issue of sovereignty? Is there a difference between legal sovereignty and the sovereignty of not being interfered with in the running of one's business by another government or party? I should be grateful for some reassurance on that from my noble friend the Minister. From my e-mails and telephone conversations. I know that those are the Gibraltarians' considerable anxieties.
If anything, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her eloquent and moderate presentation, may have slightly understated some of the difficulties. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath that, when democracy returned to that country, the Spanish Government would have better pursued their interests had they been more accommodating.
Gibraltarians sometimes have to spend two and a half hours getting across the border at the caprice of a policeman who decides when it opens and when it shuts and that the bonnet and the boot must be opened, while the next car may be waved through because he feels that he likes the person or knows them. That is not irritation; that is harassment. That has taken its toll on the confidence of Gibraltarians to believe that talks in which they are not fully included will lead to solutions acceptable to all. If we are to make progress—I accept much of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—building confidence and carrying Gibraltarians with us from the beginning of the process to the end is the only way. I look forward to some reassurance on those points from my noble friend the Minister.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, an encouraging aspect of the present situation is that, for the first time—if the reports from the meetings of Senor Piqué and Mr Straw in Barcelona are correct—the Government seem to look on Gibraltar as a problem to be solved and not, to put it perhaps too strongly, a redoubt to be defended. I hope that we might now be able to start from scratch without too much attention to old commitments such as the Treaty of Utrecht—or even the 1969 Gibraltar constitution.
1396
Of course, they have legal significance and will continue to have such. They are period pieces—rather good antiques in some respects—but, in the case of the Treaty of Utrecht, not entirely creditable. The treaty obliged Britain to keep Jews and Moors off the Rock. That was not done—as a matter of fact, the dominant politician in Gibraltar during much of the second part of the 20th century. Sir Joshua Hassan, a delightful individual, was, I think, both.
The Treaty of Utrecht gave Britain the right to import 4,800 slaves into the Spanish empire. That is not something on which we now seem to rely for our commercial interest in Latin America. The treaty gave no firm basis for the occupation of the neutral ground on which we built the airport in 1938. Of course, the Gibraltar constitution is less of an antique. Nevertheless, it was written at a time very different from the present. General Franco was still in power. Spain had not entered the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, nor the European Union. Your Lordships may say that that is unimportant, but the fact is that the North Atlantic Treaty obliges Britain to defend all Spanish territory. We are obliged to defend La Linea and Algeciras, just as much as Spain is obliged to defend Dover Castle and the Isle of Wight.
Therefore, I believe that we ought to consider the situation from scratch. We ought also to consider the interests and preoccupations of all three parties concerned. Furthermore, let us not forget the important remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in which he pointed out that the present situation causes damage to all three parties concerned.
Let us first consider the British position. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, pointed our most eloquently, for generations Gibraltar played a large part in British strategic thinking. No such defence preoccupation exists today, not even as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out, a coaling station or naval dockyard. Britain has a responsibility to ensure that any change should he carried out justly and fairly. We have not always done that in our past abandonment of political positions outside this country, but we must try and do so in this case.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, it is also important to appreciate the fact that we need and want good relations with Spain. Spain is a natural ally of this country within the European Union. It is an important trading partner and several hundred thousand British people live there permanently.
Moreover, we should not forget the interests of Spain because they exist. There is not just the residual right under the Treaty of Utrecht if Britain should consider divesting herself of responsibility for Gibraltar. Obviously, Spain must have a strategic interest in the future of the Rock. She could not accept, for example—I do not suggest that it is a possibility—a terrorist government in Gibraltar or one which, like General Noriega's government in Panama, was concerned primarily to sell drugs. Even a demagogic government, such as Mr Mintoff had in Malta, would cause a good deal of difficulty in Spain.

1397
Perhaps we should remember that Spain was most understanding in relation to the recent crisis deriving from the damage to the submarine "Fearless". Perhaps she was more helpful to this country than was the Gibraltarian government, but it reminded us that those waters are of Spanish interest. A nuclear submarine sinks in the Bay of Algeciras and that is a main consideration for any Spanish government.
Childish though it may seem—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, touched on the matter—the fight of the Rock often seems to Spaniards a reminder of past humiliation. No doubt that should not be so but we can imagine that if by any chance a Spanish admiral had seized Dover Castle in 1704 rather than Admiral Rooke seizing Gibraltar we would understand the situation in much the same way.
Then there are the interests of the Gibraltarians. Fernando Moran, who was Foreign Minister of Spain in the mid-1980s, made a point in a recent article in the newspaper, El País, that Spanish politicians often acted as though those interests did not exist, but of course they do. Gibraltarians want to remain British and of course they want to retain the property they have now. They want to retain their strong economic position, including their place as an offshore financial centre.
Many Gibraltarians want to travel in Spain, do business and have holidays more easily than is now possible. Gibraltarians want more telephone lines from Spain but one day they could want protection even from the Spanish navy; for example, against illegal immigration from Morocco. Who knows what the future of North Africa is? The situation could constitute a serious concern for any Spanish government.
Returning to Gibraltarians, at some time in the future one of the cities near Gibraltar such as San Roque or even Algeciras might develop a university to which Gibraltarians might want to go. I hope that that might be done. Above all, Gibraltarians must require and desire certainty about the future.
I make no apology for believing that the best solution is one that has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe; for a so-called Andorra solution. That would mean that Gibraltar would have an autonomous government, much as it does today but perhaps slightly differently formed. The King of Spain and the Queen of England would be the joint sovereigns. As in the similarly successful bicephalous state of Andorra, the President of France—he used to be the King of France —and the Bishop of Seo and Urgel are the sovereign powers.
Andorra has been a success since 1278 and I believe that that solution should be seriously considered. Of course it is eccentric and might seem odd to the tidy-minded constitutionalists but nevertheless often the eccentric is the desirable answer. I do not dare to suggest that a bishop should be involved, but I believe that we should recognise that the realities of geography and modern strategy, as well as tradition, suggest that the two-flag solution might be one to which we should give serious attention.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising to speak in the debate I declare an interest in the matter. I am a member of the Gibraltarian group. In examining the issue, much has been said about Spain. Spain could help itself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, appears to forget that the difficulties which exist are being caused by Spain. As was said by my noble friends, if Spain wants to woo the people of Gibraltar it is going about it in a very strange way.
In every hour of every day of every year there are traffic difficulties at the border crossing. One is held up for at least one and a half hours every day. There is no air or sea travel to Spain. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the defence of certain towns in Spain. I realise that no UK military flight can pass over Spain, despite the fact that we are both in NATO.
I believe that that is a ridiculous situation. Spain will not sign the "Open Skies" agreement because it objects to the involvement of Gibraltar. All that is caused by Spain, not Britain or Gibraltar. Furthermore, Spain has been forced into making telephone concessions because Gibraltar has a right to them. It was decided by the international court.
And why does Spain object to Gibraltarians participating in European elections? It may want to win over the Gibraltarians but it is indulging in silly behaviour such as preventing Gibraltar from participating in international sporting events and sending top judges. Such behaviour is unnecessary, unacceptable and unjustified. If Spain wants to woo over Gibraltar, it is going about it in a most strange way.
However, Spain is the country which is benefiting from all those restrictions. I believe that the talks should go ahead and I hope that agreement can he reached. However, the people of Gibraltar are on edge because they believe that they are in danger of being sold out and will be unable to have a say in their future destiny.
Gibraltar has a viable economy. Irritating as the restrictions are, even if no concessions arc made Gibraltar will still thrive. I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, has some influence with his Spanish friends and that he will bring those matters to their attention and ask them, "Why are you doing it?".
Let us look at what Gibraltar has achieved recently. Only a few years ago, some 70 per cent of the Gibraltarian economy depended on the dockyard. The dockyard is now a thriving tourist centre and the Rock has become a major financial centre. The Gibraltarian people have proved themselves extremely resourceful and they should be praised for what they have achieved.
The problems over Gibraltar have more to do with relations between Britain and Spain rather than with the future of the Rock itself. As I have said, Gibraltar can continue to be viable and to prosper even if no change takes place and the status quo remains. Again, much has been made of the proposal that the Chief Minister should attend the negotiations. Surely,

1399
however, ultimately the agreement should not be made between Britain and Spain, but rather between the three parties. On that basis, the Chief Minister should take part.
I should like to put one or two questions to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I know that she always gives excellent replies to our queries, but I appreciate that she may be able to respond directly to some questions, but that to others she may not be able to do so. When my honourable friend the Minister for Europe or my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary refer to the position of Gibraltar, they have made it clear that the Gibraltarians will be consulted if their sovereignty is at stake. But Gibraltar cannot be given away; that right is written large.
My noble friend Lord Brett has already put the question, but I too should like to know the meaning of a new term that has cropped up recently. It was used by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when answering Questions in another place. Suddenly he started to refer to "legal sovereignty". We want to know what that term means because it is the kind of point that upsets the people of Gibraltar. Does it mean that an agreement will be sought that may fall short of sovereignty, and that the people of Gibraltar will not be consulted? That is the underlying fear of many Gibraltarians. I would be pleased if, when my noble friend comes to respond to the debate, she would answer the question. The answer will reassure the people of Gibraltar.
Spain always refers to the problem of smuggling. Anyone looking at the situation could not fail to ask why anyone would want to smuggle goods into Gibraltar and then have to cross the frontier. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Europe, when responding to a question put to him at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28th November last, had to admit that there was no evidence of smuggling. As those allegations are not backed by any evidence, I refer to what was said in response to the Select Committee's report of July 2001. We said that if Spain was making false allegations we would raise the matter and that a press statement would be issued. Does the Minister admit that the Spanish Government will provide no evidence? When did we raise the matter? If we did so, where was that done? Was a press statement issued as a result?
A further issue is that Gibraltar would like to be self-determining. Again, Gibraltarians are quite happy to say that they do not think that that would depend on the Treaty of Utrecht and that they are prepared to go to the International Court of Justice. Gibraltar has more to lose than either Spain or Britain. Why do we not investigate whether the Gibraltarians could have self determination? I also join other noble Lords in asking whether we could have details of how Gibraltarians will be enfranchised in time for the European elections in 2004? How will that be brought about? The people of Gibraltar would welcome news about what work has already been done on that matter.
1400
Finally, in the response to the Select Committee's report in July 2001, the Government said that they were continually monitoring border delays and that they would take every opportunity to raise the matter with the Spanish Government. I know that my noble friend will not be able to give a response tonight, but will she write to me and place a copy of that letter in the Library? Since 1997 when have the Government raised the question of delays at the border, with whom has the question been raised and how often has it been raised? If we could have the answers to some of those questions, some of the fears of the people of Gibraltar could be put aside. They fear that an agreement will be reached which will fall short of interference with sovereignty, but one which would have a marked effect on the development of the Rock. Having said that, I wish the talks well.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for the opportunity to debate so important a subject as the fate of the people of Gibraltar. We all know that in 1969 the British government of the day, a Labour government, said in the preamble to Gibraltar's new constitution that,
"Gibraltar is a part of Her Majesty's dominion and will remain so unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and that furthermore HM Government have made clear that it will never hand over the people of Gibraltar to another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
It stated further that Gibraltar would henceforth be known as the City of Gibraltar, and no longer as a colony. Furthermore, it stated that Her Majesty's Government,
"will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
The international status of Gibraltar would not be affected by the constitutional proposals and the people of Gibraltar, in common with the people of the UK and its other dependent territories, would continue to enjoy their existing status as British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
When Spain, in retaliation, introduced a number of measures of harassment, including closing the border and ordering Spanish workers to leave the Rock, the government of the day responded with admirable firmness. The then Foreign Secretary stated that,
"The declared policy of Her Majesty's Government is to support Gibraltar and we will continue to sustain its people … The Spanish government decision cannot in any way lessen—indeed, it must strengthen—our determination to do everything that may be required of us to enable the Gibraltarians to resist Spanish pressure and to maintain their economy".
Autre temps, autre moeurs. Today, Spain is no longer a fascist dictatorship. Spain will have the next presidency of the European Union. Without important concessions to Spain, the EU's ambitious plans to establish control of the single European sky and, in effect, to supersede Euro-control are being obstructed. Her Majesty's Government want to be loved by Spain, which is often a useful ally, and they

1401
do not want to be responsible for holding up the single European sky project, some of which, although by no means all, could have useful effects.
There has been another change. In the changed world of defence, the Rock is no longer an essential, although remaining, I would have said, a valuable, part of our defence strategy. The Navy no longer needs the dockyards. Not least the European Union is gunning for offshore financial centres. These include the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, the latter having resourcefully become such a centre in response to the need to change its entire economy and find a new way to survive economically.
Her Majesty's Government therefore have several reasons, in the EU context, to wish to please Spain at any cost. There is just one awkward and inescapable fact in the way. We told the Gibraltarians, in their new constitution in 1969, that we would never hand over the people of Gibraltar to another state against their freely expressed and democratic wishes. Indeed, the UN Charter forbids us to do so. It lays on us a solemn and binding obligation, in the British Government's own words, to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of the non self-governing territories for which they are responsible.
I have little doubt that the Minister will set out the wonderful advantages that would accrue to Gibraltar if it came under the rule of Spain, and she will say regretfully what a difficult life the people are going to have if it does not. It is doubly unfortunate that while Spain's colony, Ceuta, and the French dependencies all have a vote and thus a voice in the EU, we have not so far secured that for Gibraltar even though, because of her British association, Gibraltar actually entered the EU when we did, some years before Spain.
The Secretary of State recently, in the context of Gibraltar, was reported as saying that we need to rethink our attitudes to concepts like independence and sovereignty. He said that by sharing sovereignty, the people may end up with more, not less, independence of action; more, not less, internal self-government; and more, not less, control over their lives. He added that we cannot afford to ignore the lesson that nations are stronger when working together than they could be alone.
Two independent entities working together may indeed be more powerful, but I cannot see how Gibraltarians could possibly feel more in control of their lives if they have shared sovereignty with another country whose interests are so different from their own. There is no way we can expect them to prefer to yield control over their own lives. Would we do so? Of course not—so why should they?
There is no honourable, legal or constitutional way—unless the Minister can tell us otherwise—in which we can go back on our agreement and hand Gibraltar over against the wishes of its people. If our intention is to secure our object and that of Spain by virtually blackmailing Gibraltar by withdrawing the support it was honourably given in 1969, it will still not be possible to hand over Gibraltar—and, sadly, this Government could never again have the effrontery to claim that they operate an ethical foreign policy.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is a sensitive issue but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, it is not party political. It is rather like the Cyprus issue—which I am sure we will also he debating in the next year—one which has all kinds of echoes in the domestic politics of this country.
The situation has changed a great deal since 1969, and, indeed, since 1985. Spain is thoroughly democratic and a member of the European Union; British/Spanish links are far closer than they were; there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, remarked, a very large British population in southern Spain. I am not sure that I am entirely happy with that. The last time I drove east from Gibraltar towards Malaga, the area seemed to be becoming very much like the strip between Bournemouth and Poole—filled with golf courses for retired, well-to-do British businessman. There is a large Spanish population in the United Kingdom and, with the recruitment of Spanish nurses, that population is about to increase.
Gibraltar is benefiting much less from British defence spending than it was, and so it is more dependent on tourism and on having become an offshore financial centre. The Gibraltar economy is fragile. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who said that Gibraltar could be prosperous even if there were no change in the status quo. If Gibraltar's prosperity is to depend more on being a tax haven, that is real vulnerability, and one has to be prepared for that.
I am puzzled by the remarks about recent delays on the frontier. It took me about 35 seconds the last time I crossed it.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the figures I gave were not my figures. The figures of the British Government and of the Gibraltar Government show that crossing takes a minimum of one and a half hours. From my experience and that of others, I can only say that the noble Lord was very lucky indeed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I was obviously very lucky. I was merely going to say that the time it took me was mainly spent soaking my feet in the disinfectant provided because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
The present position is not sustainable; it is not in the interests of Gibraltarians in the long run; and it is not in the interests of Andalucia. One has to talk about Spain in regional terms at this point. Part of the mistake of the Spanish Foreign Ministry—it has been the Spanish Foreign Ministry above all which has held firm on this point—has been due to the Castilians in Madrid who are strongly committed to the unity of Spain. Therefore it is highly appropriate that British/Spanish talks on Gibraltar should take place in Barcelona, where the Catalans have a slightly different perspective.

1403
We should all welcome close relations between Britain and Spain because we have a wide range of shared interests. We should be searching for an agreed solution. The Andorran solution involving some form of shared sovereignty, which has been suggested by several noble Lords, looks to be the way forward.
We have to be careful to avoid allowing governments to get stuck on the question of legal sovereignty. The question of what exactly sovereignty now means is one which governments, such as the Turkish government at the moment, find very easy to debate passionately—but, of course, sovereignty has always eased a way between advanced industrial democracies. Shared sovereignty should be possible and mutually acceptable. That would allow for the development of the airport; for regional enterprise and regional employment; and for shared health services, education and telecommunications. As a number of noble Lords said, that would provide a more secure future basis for Gibraltarian prosperity than further development of its tax haven status.
We must recognise that part of the Spanish sensitivity is that Gibraltar is on the external frontier of the European Union. While we recognise that the smuggling issues which were there in Gibraltar many years ago have been effectively cleaned up, there is bound to be much concern about the security of the Straits of Gibraltar because a very large number of people are already being smuggled across those straits to southern Spain. This is an issue about which the Spanish Government are rightly concerned.
Anomalies such as Gibraltar should be manageable within the European Union—there are a number of other anomalies— but they have to be justifiable. Gibraltar's position in the EU and the question of voting rights must clearly go with Gibraltar's acceptance of EU obligations. There is a contradiction between the Gibraltarian Government asking to be treated in the same way as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as a home dependency, when the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man go to great lengths to insist that they are not in the European Union and that their low tax status—I was assured by the chief executive of Jersey—is guaranteed by an agreement with the Duke of Normandy of 1204. If that agreement is still valid—as I was assured it was only a year ago—then 1713 is a relatively recent agreement.
We need to be cautious about allowing important British dependencies to cherry pick on their EU obligations while exploiting tax loopholes, on-line gambling, offshore financial centres and so on. This is not just about Gibraltar; it is also important for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
I support the Government's moves towards a settlement. I do not see it as appeasement, as the Daily Telegraph appears to charge at least once a week. I ask and urge the Spanish Government to hold back its Castilian nationalist hard-liners and to listen more to those in Bilbao and Barcelona who have a much better sense of Spain as a country which itself shares sovereignty. I ask the Gibraltar Government not to dig
1404
themselves deeper into a hole from which it might be impossible to reach a settlement which would be in the best long-term interests of Gibraltarians.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for bringing this important subject before the House. We on these Benches welcome the Government's announcement that the Gibraltar electorate should be able to vote in European parliamentary elections. We look forward to playing our part constructively in the legislative process to enable that to happen. I also hope that the Minister will give the House some information today about a timetable.
This is a worrying time for the people of Gibraltar, a concern shared by a number of speakers from all quarters of the House. There is a genuine fear among Gibraltarians that they will be presented with a "done deal" affecting their sovereignty which they will be under enormous political and financial pressure to accept. This is particularly the case as the Spanish Foreign Minister has been quoted in the Spanish media as saying that taking over the sovereignty of Gibraltar is No. 2 on the ministry's priority list, immediately following the fighting of international terrorism.
Can the Minister confirm that the two governments are not working to a hidden and pre-agreed agenda? Will she confirm the point made by noble friend that the preamble to the Gibraltar legislation of 1969 still stands?
The Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart in Barcelona on 20th November. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, we seek good relations with Spain. Both countries have much to gain from working constructively together.
Although we welcome the Spanish decision to more than triple the number of telephone numbers for Gibraltar to 100,000 and its proposals to improve healthcare facilities in Spain for Gibraltar, we share the concerns of the citizens of Gibraltar. We believe that Gibraltarians have a right to veto any proposed change in their status and if they want to remain under British sovereignty, they should.
We on these Benches remain wedded to the principle that the future sovereignty should not be changed without the freely and democratically expressed wish of the people of Gibraltar. They are British and are living in sovereign British territory, as they have for 300 years. Mere consultation with them is, we believe, not enough. We feel that they should be involved, as equal partners, in the reaching of any agreements which might form part of a package. I share the aspiration of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that the Gibraltar Government will adopt a flexible approach. But bouncing them, stitching them up—or even selling them out—is absolutely unacceptable. It would be an insult to people who have fought with us and for us and who bear allegiance to the British Crown.

1405
From a recent Written Answer in another place, I understand that the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is proposing to hold a further ministerial meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister early next year to discuss the future of Gibraltar. Is it still the Government's objective to resolve the future of the Rock by the end of next year?
Spain has refused to recognise Gibraltar-issued ID cards and passports as valid travel documents. The European Commission has accepted the Gibraltar ID card as a valid travel and residence document for the purposes of relevant EC directives. The purpose is clearly to frustrate further the free movement of persons at the border and to harass people, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said.
As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said in its report, the present system of border controls is "unacceptable" and wholly inappropriate between two parts of the European Union. What progress have the Government made with the Spanish authorities on ID cards, passports and other border control problems?
Gibraltar is still a military base, and is especially useful for intelligence gathering. Bearing in mind the Government's renewed emphasis on the rapid deployment of British forces in response to crises, and that north Africa and the near and Middle East are widely regarded as regions where such crises could occur, do the Government agree that Gibraltar and its facilities provide a useful and independent forward operating base? Service manpower has already been reduced to the minimum necessary to manage the remaining defence facilities in Gibraltar. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further defence cuts there in the short term?
9.4 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating the debate. The All-Party Gibraltar Group, of which she is vice-
chairman, does valuable work in bringing Gibraltar issues to the attention of Parliament. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
On 26th July this year, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Spanish counterpart, Sr Josep Pique, met in London under the terms of the Brussels communiqué of November 1984, thereby relaunching a dialogue on Gibraltar between the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom.
The Government's aim in re-starting the Brussels process is precisely as set out by the Conservative Government in 1984; namely, to overcome all differences between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. It is the Government's firm view that the present situation in which Gibraltar faces long and unpredictable border delays, telecommunications difficulties, restrictions on the use of the airport and a range of other problems are not in the interests of anyone, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, told the House so authoritatively.
1406
It is clearly not in Gibraltar's interest, nor is it in the interest of the United Kingdom, to see the citizens of a loyal overseas territory prevented from pulling their full weight in a European region full of opportunity. It is not in the European Union's interest for important EU business to be impeded by the Gibraltar dispute. Frankly, it is not in Spain's interest either to be at odds with a good European neighbour over this issue.
Her Majesty's Government see a strong. and very much a shared, interest between the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar in finding a lasting solution to this dispute, which has continued for close on 300 years. The present UK-Spain and Gibraltar-Spain relationship is very different from that which pertained in 1969, when Franco closed the border; or even that which pertained in 1984 when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, agreed the Brussels communiqué. I was enormously pleased that he decided to participate in the debate, particularly as I agreed with almost everything that he said.
I am sorry that matters did not turn out then as the noble and learned Lord had hoped. However, I hope that he will agree that our relationship with Spain has developed enormously in recent years. We are now close partners in the European Union, in NATO and in other international fora. Spain is now one of our most important trade and investment partners and is home to half a million Britons. Millions take their holidays there every year. Similar trends can also be seen in the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain: there is much more economic interdependence and, despite all the difficulties, many Gibraltarians visit Spain regularly; hundreds have houses across the border.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was right to ask the question: why are we doing this now? But there is a straightforward answer. We believe that, now, there is a real opportunity to resolve the historic tensions and to forge a new relationship between Gibraltar and Spain, to allow the people of Gibraltar to look forward with confidence to a better and more secure future. After the July meeting of the respective Foreign Secretaries, a further meeting was held in Barcelona on 20th November. The joint communiqué issued after that meeting has been placed in the Library of the House. In that communiqué the Ministers stated that the guiding principle of their discussion was,
"to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and a modern, sustainable status, consistent with our common membership of NATO and the EU".
Secondly, the Ministers declared that their shared objective was,
"a future where Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and the opportunity to reap the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region".
I believe that that demonstrates how far we have come since 1969.
A number of noble Lords, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her opening address, raised questions concerning discussions on sovereignty under the Brussels Process. Of course, discussions will cover sovereignty. Indeed, it is explicit in the Brussels communiqué, agreed by the Conservative Government

1407
in 1984, that the talks would include discussions on sovereignty. But the Barcelona communiqué made clear that no conclusions have yet been drawn on the nature or content of any proposals which might be put forward. Therefore, in answer to the noble Baroness's three options, it is up to the parties to discuss how the fraught issue of sovereignty might be taken forward. I make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. We cannot pretend that the Treaty of Utrecht simply does not exist. I shall return to that in a moment.
As I told the House in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Hoyle on 22nd November, the Government stand by the commitment contained in the preamble to the 1969 Constitution Order which states that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Consequently I reiterate to my noble friend Lord Brett and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that if agreement were reached with Spain which involved a transfer of sovereignty to Spain the wishes of the people of Gibraltar would be ascertained in a referendum.
It is important to be as explicit as possible on this point, particularly as my noble friend Lord Hoyle asked for specific assurances. Anything which affects the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar will be put to them in a referendum. I do not want to mince around with terms such as legal sovereignty, or how we define it. I say that anything which affects the sovereignty will be put to them. That point was made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe when he gave evidence to the FAC on 28th November.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and my noble friends Lord Brett and Lord Hoyle raised questions about the participation in the talks of the Chief Minister, Mr Caruana. As I told the House on 22nd November, the Spanish Government share our view that the Government of Gibraltar have a very important contribution to make to these discussions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, will make this point to his colleagues in Gibraltar. Gibraltar is guaranteed a separate and distinct voice alongside the Foreign Secretary within the British delegation. Spanish Ministers have assured us that the Chief Minister will be treated with the respect and dignity that his position deserves. So we very much hope that Mr Caruana will accept the invitation which has been extended to him to attend future meetings. His voice on behalf of the people of Gibraltar should be heard.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister assures us about the role of the Chief Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us that in 1984 Sir Joshua Hassan played a full part. Is the role proposed for the present Chief Minister of Gibraltar exactly the same as in 1984? We know that the Brussels communiqué led
1408
to discussions being resumed last year. Is it reasonable to believe that the role of Gibraltar's Chief Minister will be the same in 2001 as it was in 1984?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not familiar with the exact constitutional position of Mr Hassan at that point. There are two flags here but three voices. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. A distinctive voice is guaranteed to Gibraltar. Gibraltar does not have to remain silent when my right honourable friends are negotiating and talking in these fora. Gibraltar will have a distinctive voice of its own. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar will sit alongside the Foreign Secretary behind the British flag. I hope that that I am as clear as I can be about what is being offered.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend explain that? She says that he would sit behind the British Minister, but would he be party to the final agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Minister will sit alongside—not behind in a position of less dignity or importance, but behind the British flag. I cannot say whether or not he then has the right to resile from the agreement, but I understand that that is not what he seeks or what he wants to secure in taking part.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me to assure your Lordships that nothing would be hidden in these talks. Nothing will be hidden. If Mr Caruana were to participate in these discussions, he would know that nothing was being hidden. That is an important point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, was right that Her Majesty's Government believe that much is to be gained for the people of Gibraltar. We would not be making this suggestion if that was not our belief. We wish not only to end the obstacles that have plagued their everyday lives; we are thinking of the future when goods, people and services can flow freely in and out of Spain. Gibraltar can capitalise on the excellent start that it has made as a financial centre to become a major centre for financial services in the region. There is also the agreement to allow full development of the airport where matters are currently at an impasse.
Gibraltar already enjoys a substantial measure of autonomy and Her Majesty's Government would like the people of Gibraltar to exercise greater control over their daily lives. This has to be exercised in accordance with our other treaty obligations which, in Gibraltar's case, includes the Treaty of Utrecht. It is not good enough to say that we can sweep all that on one side because human rights issues that are grossly outmoded are involved. It is a treaty and the Government do not set treaties on one side when they go past their sell-by date. We have to acknowledge that treaty. Independence could be an option only if it was done with the agreement of the Spanish Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, my noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and many others asked about voting rights in the European Parliament. Let me make it clear that we are committed to extending the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar in time for the elections to the

1409
European Parliament in 2004. To that end, Her Majesty's Government have now decided to seek legislative time in order to introduce the domestic legislation for that purpose. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, did not expect me to be more precise than that. It will be done in time for the election. The decision to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar by enacting domestic legislation is a matter for the United Kingdom alone. In preparing to take that step, we have rightly been in contact with all the interested parties, including Spain.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was a little unfair in implying that the Gibraltarians were not implementing European Union legislation. Their record is generally very good and it has improved considerably since the mid-1990s. They transpose about 50 directives a year, which is not so different from the United Kingdom or, indeed, other countries in the EU.
My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath was right that after so many years of dispute, attitudes on both sides have hardened. For our policy to succeed, we need some new thinking—not only in the United Kingdom, not only on the Rock, but crucially, in Spain. It has to win the hearts and minds of the people of Gibraltar if the measure is to be a success. The noble and learned
1410
Lord, Lord Howe, was right that the time has come for Spain to show its new attitude through action. We have seen the important steps that it has taken over the increase in the number of telephone numbers available. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was right when he said that we now have to look to the Spanish Government to take more steps in normalising their relationship with Gibraltar.
I disagree again with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The border delays are bad. They are now what we consider unacceptable, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle made clear. The matter has been raised by the Prime Minister, Ministers on many occasions, by the Ambassador in Madrid and, most recently, by my right honourable friend Peter Hain on 10th December.
We also need to encourage the people of Gibraltar to have an open mind in the current talks. They need to look at the matter rationally and have an informed discussion about a future in which their Government can take a full and active part. In conclusion, I ask the House for support in what the Government believe to be a realistic policy, to take advantage of the real opportunity that now exists to forge the future, which we believe will be demonstrably better for all the parties involved, especially the people of Gibraltar.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Commission for Judicial Appointments
  Commission for Judicial Appointments
  Land Registry
  Land Registry
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Public Interest Immunity
  Public Interest Immunity
  Women and Public Services
  Women and Public Services
  Israel: Settlements
  Israel: Settlements
  Mr Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr Mordechai Vanunu
  European Arrest Warrant
  European Arrest Warrant
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Operators: Taxation
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Operators: Taxation
  United Kingdom Population Statistics
  United Kingdom Population Statistics
  Iraq: Weapons Programmes
  Iraq: Weapons Programmes
  Afghanistan: Civilian Casualties
  Afghanistan: Civilian Casualties
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Healthcare Workers: HIV Injections
  Healthcare Workers: HIV Injections
  DfEE: Annual Net Running Costs
  DfEE: Annual Net Running Costs
  Hospitals: Data Collection and Ethnicity
  Hospitals: Data Collection and Ethnicity
  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001
  Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001
  Stem Cell Research: Funding
  Stem Cell Research: Funding
  Foot and Mouth: Compensation
  Foot and Mouth: Compensation
  Livestock Markets
  Livestock Markets
  Refrigerators and Freezers: Disposal
  Refrigerators and Freezers: Disposal
  Salmon: Catches by Rod and Line
  Salmon: Catches by Rod and Line
  North Sea Drift Net Fishery
  North Sea Drift Net Fishery
  Foot and Mouth: Farm Cleansing and Disinfection Logs
  Foot and Mouth: Farm Cleansing and Disinfection Logs
  Traveline
  Traveline
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Safety Camera Project Board
  Safety Camera Project Board
  London Underground: Private Finance Initiative
  London Underground: Private Finance Initiative
  Planning: Green Paper
  Planning: Green Paper
  Planning Application
  Planning Application
  Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
  Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
  EU Transport Council: 7 December Meeting
  EU Transport Council: 7 December Meeting
  The Historic Environment
  The Historic Environment