Sitting of 17 December 2001

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

    Drugs Strategy
    Mr. Andrew Love: What plans he has to focus the drugs strategy on harm minimisation. [21143]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Government will be increasing the focus on harm minimisation within the drugs strategy. As part of the review of the strategy, we are looking at what more we can do to minimise the harm that drugs do to individuals and their families, to communities and to society in general. In addition to the recently published action plan on drug-related deaths, we have set up a group of key
    2
    experts to tackle the treatment of crack cocaine addiction and, with the Department of Health, we are looking to produce new guidance for heroin prescribing.
    Mr. Love: My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the drug action team and the crime and disorder partnership in Enfield, using £250,000 provided under the communities against drugs initiative. Apart from tackling criminality, that money is being used for education and early intervention to try to reduce the use and misuse of drugs. But if we are to be successful in tackling drug misuse, surely we must concentrate on the harder drugs, which are currently blighting the lives of 250,000 of our younger people at a cost of over £1 billion to the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We continue to try to get the message across, so that we are credible with young people when we tell them what drugs will do the most harm. Our response must be proportionate in order to do that. We need police resources to be aimed specifically at the majority of areas that are causing the greatest problems. My hon. Friend is right: the link between class A drugs and acquisitive crime is clear and indisputable.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: While I welcome the Home Secretary's recent move to reclassify cannabis, will that still not mean that people who wish to consume this stuff can only get it from illegal sources because it remains illegal, but that the police will not be able to crack down effectively on the trade? Is this a sustainable position?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's position on the matter is clearly known to the House, as is that of the right hon. Gentleman, who, effectively, advocates the legalisation of cannabis. That is not the policy of the Government. We are trying to encourage the police to aim their resources where they are most needed. The police ought to be looking in far more detail at the work done with regard to class A drugs,

    3
    which is where most criminality occurs in terms of the acquisitive crime to pay for them. It is not the intention of the Government to legalise cannabis.
    Paul Flynn: The statement is welcome, but does it mean that we have moved away from the failed policies of harsh prohibition that we, Sweden and the United States have followed for a long time and that we have joined in the policies of harm minimisation—described in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)—which have been so successful in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Portugal? Is this a change in policy? Will it be reflected in the evidence that the Home Office gives to the Council of Europe's report on drug abuse that will be considered in January?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend studies the problem not only in this country but abroad, and he will know that there is a convergence in drugs policy across many countries. There is no decriminalisation of drugs in Holland. There are differences of emphasis. We are looking actively at renewing our focus on harm minimisation within the drugs policy and strategy in order to be as effective as we can. If my hon. Friend looks properly at what is happening in other countries, he will see that many of the trends are in the same direction as the one which we are looking to follow in the UK.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Under-Secretary be clear? Is he saying that harm minimisation should be an equal goal in the strategy, as has been argued by many of those who have come before the Select Committee—most recently Mike Trace, who was the deputy drugs tsar? Given the unacceptable number of deaths from heroin overdoses and heroin impurities, should not harm minimisation be as important as the other goals in the drugs strategy?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right. Much work has been done on harm minimisation over a period of time. The Government introduced needle exchanges in the UK in the early 1980s, but a lot more can be done. That is why we have put the emphasis on that area, and that is why the Home Secretary listed it when he gave his evidence to the Select Committee as one of the issues that he wanted examined.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Injecting drug users use an average of only one syringe a day, which forces them to reuse and share their syringes. Are there any plans to review syringe exchange schemes to cut down the spread of infectious diseases, such as the hepatitis C virus?
    Mr. Ainsworth: As I said, we are reviewing the whole strategy, and together with the Department of Health, we are looking at the availability of needle exchanges to make certain that we are doing the maximum that can and should be done in that area.

    Police (Administration)
    Mr. John Baron: What plans he has to reduce the administrative work load of police officers. [21144]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Recent research commissioned by the Home Office showed that up to 43 per cent of police officers" time was spent in the police station. "Policing a New Century" outlined our proposals to provide support staff with the necessary powers to undertake certain roles that do not need to be carried out by a police officer. The Home Secretary has established a taskforce, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to co-ordinate the steps necessary significantly to reduce the unnecessary burdens on police officers' time. It will report in the spring.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. The findings of that study will result from the great burden of paperwork, including 58 performance criteria, the best value regime and a raft of arrest paperwork. Given that detection rates are at their lowest ever, when will the Minister allow the police to do the job that they want, which is to fight crime, not push paper?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman throws back at us some of the issues that we have exposed in order to make progress on that issue, which we are doing in the police reform White Paper. He is right that we are looking to streamline the number of targets to which the police are subject through best value and other regimes, but other issues include the amount of time spent in a police station on arrest. Some of that work can be done by other people, and is being done by other people in some police forces. Those are some of the issues that we intend to address, so that police constables can spend more of their time doing the work that they are highly qualified to do and that the British public expect them to do.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend pass on the congratulations of many hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his pungent remarks a couple of weeks ago about delays caused by the legal profession? The administrative work load on police officers and the administrative work done by housing officers, police officers and councillors in pursuing antisocial behaviour orders—in my city of Nottingham and elsewhere—cost massive amounts of money. The case gets to court and then some smart alec lawyer finds a way to get the little brat—which would be the parliamentary expression—off and out into the community again. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the joined up thinking continues so that the time of council officers and councillors is used productively?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am not sure that I would dare refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as pungent, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend meant his remarks to be pungent. However, efforts are being made better to align court time with police time, so that police officers do not waste their time unnecessarily waiting for court cases. We need better co-ordination and communication to avoid that happening.
    Mr. James Paice: Is it not a sad indication of the state of police morale that they should consider working to rule? The police cannot strike, so will the Home Secretary and the Minister agree that the flexibility that we all know is necessary must be

    5
    achieved by agreement? To achieve that, what will the Government do? It is a question not of setting people to do different jobs, but of getting rid of paperwork. What forms will the Government abolish? What reports will they stop calling for? What will be the Government's side of the bargain in reaching the agreement needed if the police reforms that the Home Secretary wants are to be achieved?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Government published "Diary of a Police Officer", and we seek to halve the number of best value indicators as part of our efforts to cut bureaucracy. Such things underlie the whole agenda of the White Paper. We are in the middle of negotiations that could affect terms and conditions for the police, and the hon. Gentleman should not be surprised if the press comments on that. While we are handling such important issues, the British public will consider both how the Government handle matters and how the Opposition respond. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond reasonably and sensibly instead of playing games on the back of an important issue.

    Sex Offenders
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What recent measures he has taken to improve public protection from sex offenders. [21145]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): The protection of the public, and of children in particular, is of the highest priority to the Government. The matter is at the forefront of our mind following the conviction last week of Roy Whiting for the murder of Sarah Payne. I want to convey our deep sympathy to the Payne family.
    We have implemented a range of measures to increase public protection. Nationally, we have strengthened the law covering offenders, and locally we require the police, probation and other agencies to set up multi-agency public protection panels. In a sentencing review and in our strategy for dangerous offenders, we shall go further to bring in longer sentences and extended supervision, monitoring and treatment.
    Dr. Starkey: Effective measures to protect the public are extremely important in this difficult area. I have held extensive discussions with the multi-agency sex offender team in Milton Keynes, and was extremely impressed by the way in which the police, the probation service and social services worked to ensure proper protection of the public.
    That work, however, is extremely labour intensive. Huge efforts are made to ensure that the public are protected, particularly from high-risk sex offenders. Is the Home Office reviewing the cost of providing that support? Is it considering whether those costs should be reflected in cash allocations to police forces that happen to deal with a large number of sex offenders?
    Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest and remarks about how the multi-agency public protection panels are beginning to work in this, their first year. She will know that the allocation of resources within a police service area—there have been significant additional resources—is a matter for the chief officer.
    6
    We expect chief officers to regard protection of children from sex offenders as a central part of normal policing. We are monitoring development of the multi-agency panels, including cost implications and training needs. We shall build the findings of our evaluation into our future plans.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the best interests of the Payne family, who are constituents of mine, will be better served by effective law than by law suddenly devised because of newspaper campaigns? Does she agree that really effective law would put sex offenders in prison on indeterminate sentences so that they were neither released prematurely into the community on legal technicalities, nor released unless they had accepted treatment and could be verified as safe. That is the only way to give parents a proper understanding of the risks in their communities and to let them allow their children to play in open spaces.
    Beverley Hughes: Yes, we have already brought in a number of measures, including the post-release supervision of sexual and violent offenders and more treatment programmes—both in the community and in prison. We have introduced sex offender orders and restraint orders that the courts can use.
    In July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a review of sentencing, a number of whose recommendations we are closely considering—including much longer sentences for violent and sexual offenders; requiring courts, in certain circumstances, to give a life sentence; possibly providing for tagging and further extended supervision; and so on. That is very much the direction in which we think we need to go, in the context of our wider policy—and detailed strategy—as to how we manage dangerous, severely personality disordered and sexual offenders.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Government for the actions that they have taken so far, but may we consider adequate training for local authority members and officers in understanding the difference between sex offenders and paedophiles, so that they can assist their communities when there is a suspicion that a paedophile is active in the area?
    Beverley Hughes: All agencies—local authorities, sports clubs—take seriously the need to train their employees and volunteers not only to be able to recognise possible sexual abuse when it is occurring, but also to enable children to disclose the problem more effectively to adults when something untoward may be happening to them. At present, there is much uncertainty in relation to sex offenders and paedophiles, as my hon. Friend outlines.
    Cases such as that of Sarah Payne, in which children are abducted by strangers, are horrific, and as a parent I do not want to diminish that horror. However, we need to remember that the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse of children are committed by people who know them: 80 per cent. of the offences are committed in the home either of the offender or of the victim. To deal effectively with sexual abuse, we have to deal with a wide range of offenders.

    7
    Stranger paedophiles commit only a small minority of the cases of sexual abuse against children, I am glad to say—although even a small number is too many.
    Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister very much for her replies so far. From the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere there is huge support for the view expressed by the Payne family's MP, our colleague the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), that sentences should be indeterminate, with the court retaining the right to decide at any stage whether it is safe to leave the offender in the community, or what conditions are needed to ensure that the offender is unable to reoffend.
    Will the Minister confirm that it is not Government policy that previous convictions, should be disclosed to juries—a move bound to prejudice the right to a fair trial; and that it is absolutely not Government policy to endorse the naming and shaming programme reawakened yesterday by one of the Sunday papers? Will she confirm that the police services and Ministers will be careful not to be conned by newspapers into appearing to endorse naming and shaming, when in fact—I hope—all they were endorsing was the proper search for people who had broken conditions and were out in the community without our knowing where they are? Those are entirely different things, confused, no doubt on purpose, by a Sunday paper yesterday—no doubt to increase circulation.
    Beverley Hughes: On the disclosure of previous convictions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made it clear that we are considering that in our review of those matters. There are arguments for and against. Clearly, cases such as this raise the issue again and put it into the public domain. We are still considering our response.
    On public access to information about sex offenders who may be living in the community, Ministers have recently made the position clear. We are starting by trying to evaluate what would be most effective in the interests of child protection. That has to be our focus. We are clear that it is not in the interests of child protection to make people's names and addresses widely accessible in a community.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said recently, however, that we understand the concerns of the community on this issue and that it needs some locus to express its concern. So he is considering enabling properly trained members of the community to take a seat on the multi-agency public protection panel in recognition of that concern. We are considering at the moment how best we can take that forward.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that—let us be straight—Sarah's law is not the way to go, appalling and sad though the incident was? The fears and genuine concerns of parents must, however, be addressed as a matter of urgency. Most people in this country feel that a very substantial tariff is now required and that convicted paedophiles should not be let out automatically.
    I agree with my hon. Friend's reply a moment ago that most sexual attacks are made by people who are known and, indeed, that they occur in the home; but I have heard that said so many times, without support being given to
    8
    enable people who fear that such things are happening domestically to report them effectively. To my knowledge, there are no clear guidelines—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Beverley Hughes: I do not need to repeat what I said about the so-called Sarah's law. We are starting from the point of view of protecting children and we are clear that widespread availability of names and addresses is not the way forward. I agree with my hon. Friend; Ministers are looking closely at how we can ensure that sex offenders are not automatically released from prison unless their risk assessment clarifies that, on balance, it is safe to release them.
    I do not share my hon. Friend's view that there are no clear guidelines or robust and proper processes for parents and others to initiate investigation when cases of sexual abuse are suspected. I am sure that there is more that we can do in that regard, but I am glad to say that the system in this country has improved dramatically over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm in addressing this exceptionally serious matter that the Government intend to ensure that the protection of innocent children remains at the heart of their policy? Will she further confirm that they wish to take no steps that could in any way encourage vigilantism in this area?
    Beverley Hughes: I have already made that clear several times this afternoon. As I have said, we have begun the process of putting together a package of measures, including proper sentencing, proper extended supervision, the potential use of tagging, and treatment for offenders for whom that is effective. Establishing the multi-agency public protection panels has been a big step forward. That is still evolving and developing, but I am clear that those measures are together the best way in which to protect children.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What evidence he has collated on changes in the crime rate in England in the last four years. [21146]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The most recent British crime survey, published on 25 October, showed the largest ever reduction in crime in one year, totalling a 22 per cent. reduction since 1997. We intend to extend the sample surveyed to 40,000 in order to be able to narrow the figures down to command unit level, so that we can make a proper comparison of like with like.
    I should like to make the point that economic and social policies, including a reduction in unemployment, have contributed to the fall, but so has the work of the police service. Thirty-four of the 43 force areas have seen a reduction in recorded crime as well as that in the BCS statistics. The message needs to go out to Glen Smyth and others in the Metropolitan police federation that we deeply care about what the police are doing; we want

    9
    more of them on the beat in the community; and we want police on our streets, policing and securing them, not demonstrating on them.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging statistics, which show that we have indeed been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. They are especially welcome after the rising crime experienced for so many years under the previous regime. However, people still fear crime to an alarming and perhaps unjustified extent. Will he suggest ways in which we might assuage the fears of people whose fear of crime is unjustified?
    Mr. Blunkett: There was, of course, a doubling of crime in those years, so while acknowledging all the provisos and the need to avoid complacency, I believe that welcome progress is being made. The BCS also shows changes in reassurance levels and a decrease in fear of crime to the levels of 20 years ago, which is most encouraging. Some of the crime reduction measures that my hon. Friend has been advocating based on experience in the St. Leonards district of his constituency, which include getting more people on the beat in small shopping centres and using closed circuit television cameras, ensure that people not only feel safer but are safer under a Labour Government.
    Norman Baker: I welcome the Home Secretary's drawing attention to low clear-up rates in some areas and his sensible suggestions of how to deal with them, but I remain concerned about reliance on performance indicators. By placing too much emphasis on indicators, might we not encourage police forces to drive up clear-up rates by no longer devoting manpower and attention to the most serious crimes, which currently have a high clear-up rate, and concentrating instead on clearing up lots of minor crimes, which is far easier?
    Mr. Blunkett: Sampling and according credit for the whole of the reduction rather than focusing on individual performance targets is important. I do not disagree that we have to be able to accord credit for things that are difficult to record, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and disorder, rather than simply measuring and giving credit for things that are easily monitored. We must get that serious issue right and ensure that the police are able to respond to the particular needs of their community.

    Ball-bearing Guns
    Mr. David Atkinson: If he will introduce legislation to control the (a) availability and (b) use of ball-bearing guns. [21148]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Any ball-bearing gun that is capable of inflicting a lethal injury is already regarded in law as an air-gun and is subject to the same range of controls. However, most are less powerful than air-guns and cannot be regarded as firearms, so it would not be proportionate to extend the firearms regime to them. We recognise, however, that it is often young people who use ball-bearing guns in an irresponsible and dangerous
    10
    manner. As part of our determination to tackle antisocial behaviour by some young people, we are looking for ways to tackle that problem.
    Mr. Atkinson: As the Minister acknowledges, the targeting of members of the public by users of BB guns is now a growing menace in many communities. Such weapons can wound, take out an eye, or psychologically traumatise the victim, especially if they are young. Why then did the Government Whip object on Friday 23 November to my private Member's Bill, which would have brought the use of BB guns within the law? Will the right hon. Gentleman meet me to discuss how my Bill can progress through the House?
    Mr. Denham: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issues, but as I said earlier, we are not convinced that simply extending firearms legislation to BB guns is proportionate or right. There are two issues: one is increasing availability, the other is tackling problems of misuse and irresponsible use. The problem is essentially created by young people. We are determined to tackle the whole range of antisocial behaviour by young people, including issues relating to BB guns and air-guns.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Has not the time come to take another look at the regulation of air weapons, with a view to raising the age limit at which they can be used? They are the cause of a great deal of low-level mayhem in our constituencies. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that only the other day, for example, a young girl in Gateshead lost an eye after coming under sniper fire from an out-of-control, under-age youth with an air weapon.
    Mr. Denham: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the nuisance caused by those weapons. We are looking to advice from the Firearms Consultative Committee on what further measures need to be taken. We must examine ways of tackling those who are abusing and misusing the weapons, as well as concentrating on the issues of supply and regulation.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister talks about supply and regulation, but surely air-guns are available to virtually anyone who wants them. That is the problem with the regulations. Does he agree that we need to revisit the law in general on this subject, and, I suggest, raise age limits considerably, so that young people who are minded to create mayhem cannot obtain air-guns or ball-bearing guns, for example? We could increase age limits, and older people might be more sensible when using those weapons, if they had to use them.
    Mr. Denham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that merely concentrating on supply and sale does not tackle the problem of misuse, which we must also consider. As we take forward our measures on antisocial behaviour, we recognise the concern on both sides of the House about the growing problem of those weapons, and we are determined to make inroads into that problem.

    Asylum System
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What plans he has to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum system. [21149]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): Measures to increase the efficiency of the asylum system were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 29 October. Further details will be published in the forthcoming White Paper.
    Mr. Khabra: As the Member of Parliament whose constituency has the largest increase in case work in the country, I have noticed that the Home Office can take between four and six months to make a simple response. What steps will it take to reduce waiting times?
    Angela Eagle: I have to agree with my hon. Friend that our current performance is not good enough. We are working hard to improve it, but I would be the first to say that we still have a long way to go. The immigration and nationality directorate has a strategy for putting more resources into this area and ensuring that we can provide a better service. I hope to return to the House in a few months with our targets met. This is a difficult issue at present, and we recognise that we are not doing as well as we should.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that there are almost 100,000 asylum seekers either waiting for the initial decision to be made on their case or waiting for their appeal to be heard? Will she also confirm that whereas the Home Secretary originally hoped that this year 30,000 failed asylum seekers would be removed from the country, the number now is likely to be only 10,000? Can she give the House any indication when the minimum number of 30,000 will be reached?
    Angela Eagle: The current backlog of outstanding asylum applications stands at 43,000. There was a 155 per cent. increase in the number of first-year decisions last year, and a 13 per cent. increase in removals. I can confirm that we are on course to reach the 30,000 figure by the financial year 2002–03
    The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that people cannot simply be sent back. We have to get papers for them and arrange their passage back to the country of origin. That is not simple. However, as I have said, we have increased the number of removals by 13 per cent., and because we are now bringing the new detention estate into being, we have three new sites that provide a further 1,500 detention places. That will enable us to ensure that we get removals working more effectively.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any strategy that she has for increasing the resources for asylum seekers" applications will not have an adverse effect on the section dealing with student visa renewals, which are now taking 12 weeks instead of the advertised three weeks? This is having an adverse effect on some of my constituents, who, having bought
    12
    their air tickets, will not be able to get home in time for Christmas because their passports are locked up in the Home Office.
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We are concerned about those delays, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken immediate action to put in more resources to ensure that we can avoid the inconvenience and disruption that she spoke about.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Lady go to Holland—[Interruption.]—but only for a short time? Will she look at the extremely efficient and effective way in which the Dutch handle such matters, which turns asylum seekers round quickly? Will she also make sure that the immigration people, who do a good job under difficult conditions, are reinforced when pressures build up? At the moment, Air Zimbabwe flights are a source of great anxiety to them. When pinch points occur, will the hon. Lady ensure that they are reinforced?
    Angela Eagle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have visited Holland; in the European Union, we all have to learn from one another what works and what is effective. The Dutch do a good job, but not always as good as they claim. The difficulties with asylum and immigration claims are not simple, or they would have been solved a long time ago. As always, I am willing to learn from other countries what works.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about pinch points: people traffickers finding new ways in, or the situation in a particular country may lead to a particular problem or worry. I can assure him that the immigration service is geared up and quickly applies extra resources when those pinch points occur. One example is the work that we have been doing with the Czech authorities in Prague. We always bear the problem in mind and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, monitor patterns of arrival.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I welcome the proposed improvements to our asylum system and the retention of the dispersal system, which has eased things greatly in Dover and the rest of Kent. However, is the Minister aware of the high number of unaccompanied minors resident in Kent? Is she aware, for instance, that we look after, care for and protect more unaccompanied minors than any other county—and five times more than any London borough? Will she consider those matters, sit down with my local authority and find practical ways of sharing the responsibility across the country?
    Angela Eagle: We are working closely with the Local Government Association to see what can be done about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Authorities such as Kent have borne a great burden in the past, but they can now send those children to other authorities. For example, I have come across cases in which Kent has paid for accommodation for children in and around Manchester. Work is therefore already going on, but we need to get a grip on the way in which local authorities that are dealing with the interim scheme, rather than dispersal, are handling the number of children in their charge. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with the LGA to see what can be done to bring about more co-ordination.

    Young Offender Institutions
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: What action he is taking to improve conditions in young offender institutions. [21150]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): With the creation of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales in April 2000, we are already beginning to transform conditions for young people under 18 in young offender institutions. There is also a manifesto commitment to build on the Government's youth justice reforms to improve conditions for 18 to 20-year-olds in custody. That group is already benefiting from money from the last spending review, including money for drugs treatment and offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the Prison Service has allocated a further £15 million over the next three years to improve standards in young offender institutions.
    Dr. Murrison: Sir David Ramsbotham will no doubt feel that his newspaper article today is vindicated by the complacency of the Minister's response. How many prisoners and young offenders are in overcrowded accommodation? Does the hon. Lady agree that the prison health service is a desperately failing service, and that the only way to secure decent rehabilitation is through decency in custody?
    Beverley Hughes: I do not have the figures for the proportion of young offenders being kept two to a cell designed for one, but I will write and let the hon. Gentleman have them. As for the prison health service, I know that he is new to the House, so he may not have been so aware of conditions in young offender institutions and prisons generally before he became a Member of Parliament. As a result of 18 years of Tory neglect of the Prison Service, it will take some time to improve conditions. Health provision in 1997 was dire, but we have begin to transform that. There is a new partnership between the Prison Service and the health service, and significant new money has gone into improving health care, particularly mental health care. We have a strategy for tackling the high number of suicides and cases of self-harm that took place 1997, and I am pleased to say that the number is coming down year on year. Unlike the Tory Governments of the past, the Government are implementing a commitment to decency in prison.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lack of basic skills is often a contributory cause of the social exclusion that leads to offending, and that improving skills is important in helping young people to return to a positive role in society? Will she undertake to ensure that education continues to be given a high priority for young people in young offender institutions?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Recent studies by the Youth Justice Board and Her Majesty's inspector of prisons revealed details that confirmed what we already knew impressionistically: more than a third of young offenders have a reading age of seven or lower, half are functioning below the numeracy level of a seven-year-old, and the majority were not in school before
    14
    they came into custody. We are beginning to put that right, with a new partnership with the Department for Education and Skills and a variety of educational programmes and training, to make sure that when young offenders have to be in custody, they begin to address some of the failure to achieve educationally that was a characteristic of their lives before they came into prison.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Let me remind the Minister that after nearly five years of a Labour Government, 19-year-old boys at the Feltham young offender institute are still getting less than three hours a day of purposeful activity, and are still spending 16 hours a day locked up in their cells. The Minister herself has described that as unacceptable, the head of the Prison Service has said that it is regrettable, and I think that it is utterly shameful. Is not the former chief inspector of prisons right to say that there is no direction in the Prison Service? Does the Minister accept that such uncivilised treatment of young offenders does nothing to help them become useful members of society on their release?
    Beverley Hughes: The difference between the Governments whom the hon. Gentleman supported and the present Government is that we are doing something about the situation in Feltham. His own record does not bear much scrutiny, either. Because of his day job, so to speak, he knew for many years about the situation at Feltham and other young offender institutions, and he said and did nothing about it. Furthermore, his facts are wrong. As a result of additional resources and an action plan to improve the situation at Feltham, time out of cell in Feltham B—that is, for the 18-to-20-year-olds—is up to six and three quarter hours a day on weekdays, with purposeful activity averaging more than 20 hours a week. A new regime was implemented on 2 July to take that forward. I am not saying that Feltham is as we want it to be, but it has progressed a lot further than it ever would have done under a Tory Government.

    Traffic Wardens
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: If he will extend the role of traffic wardens to include all road and car matters; and if he will make a statement. [21151]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): The White Paper "Policing a New Century" set out our proposals for creating community support officers who could be given road traffic powers. We will consider how police traffic wardens might most appropriately be integrated into those proposals and what additional functions they might assume in the light of responses to the White Paper. Any necessary new powers will be set out in the Police Bill.
    Mr. Wyatt: The Minister will know that in Swale we have a form of joint provision, as Kent constabulary and Swale borough council are jointly running a sort of front desk for local community policing. If he is looking for somewhere for a pilot scheme, could it be introduced in Swale? The rest of the country could then follow.
    Mr. Denham: We shall certainly be looking for progressive and far-sighted police forces and local authorities to propose initiatives that will help us to

    15
    implement the White Paper. Although final decisions have not yet been taken, it is fairly clear that a substantial number of the duties that currently tie up the time of full-time trained police officers—they include, for example, stopping the traffic so that traffic surveys can take place—could be competently done by a properly managed person with the right responsibilities. That is the sort of thing that we would be very willing to discuss with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I welcome any initiative that will increase the number of police on our streets, but does the Minister accept that traffic wardens are no substitute for properly trained police constables? Will he undertake to consider the situation in outer London boroughs such as Havering, where we have rising crime, fewer police and a yob culture? Does he not believe that we need more police to deal with that?
    Mr. Denham: That is why I am confident that in the early part of next year, we will have record numbers of police officers in England and Wales. We are on target to have 130,000 police officers in England and Wales by April 2003, so there is absolutely no doubt that the Government are committed to delivering more police officers, and are doing so throughout the country. It is also the case, however, that some jobs that currently tie up the time of professional, fully trained police officers could be done by community support officers, traffic wardens and others. We must have more police officers, but we must also make the best possible use of their time.

    Extradition
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent discussions he has had with other Departments about the review of the extradition System. [21152]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): The interdepartmental working group that was set up to review extradition law met recently to consider the responses to the consultation on "The Law on Extradition—A Review", which were published on 24 October. The Government intend to introduce legislation to modernise and simplify our extradition laws in this parliamentary Session.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the House of Lords European Union Committee has withheld approval of the proposed EU arrest warrant because it seriously fears that British citizens will not get a fair trial under its provisions, why was the Prime Minister in such a tearing hurry to sign up to the warrant on Friday, although only a fraction of the 32 crimes listed under it have anything whatever to do with terrorism?
    Mr. Bradley: My understanding is that the House of Lords did not take the view that the hon. Gentleman describes, and that it was on the basis of a technicality that it did not proceed with the scrutiny. As he will know, the European arrest warrant was not adopted at Laeken, and the matter will be further considered through the European Parliament.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that there are considerable
    16
    reservations about the implications of the European arrest warrant, which seems to include a list that would make people liable for the "crimes" of abortion, homosexuality—and criticising European institutions.[Laughter.] I hope that my hon. Friends will find that as funny when the warrant is put into operation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received today a letter from his ministerial colleague saying that some of the information given to the Committee last week was inaccurate, because a retrial will not be guaranteed? If that is the case, can we please have an undertaking that Britain will not accept this very dangerous measure?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is wrong: the proposals do not include euthanasia and abortion. I hope that when we introduce the Bill, she will consider it carefully.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Can we be clear? Do the Government intend to introduce the European arrest warrant in English law through the forthcoming Bill on extradition? If so, are they committed to ensuring that it will never be used to arrest someone for something that is not a crime in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bradley: The situation is very clear. We shall wait until the European arrest warrant has been agreed, and then we intend to introduce legislation to effect it. When we do that, the hon. Gentleman will have adequate opportunity to consider the detail.
    Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that answer, which could be paraphrased as "No". Let me ask a second question. Are the Government committed to ensuring that the European arrest warrant is never used to arrest someone in this country to face trial in another country where there would be a presumption of guilt?
    Mr. Bradley: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's questions, but I stress that we need to wait until the details of the Bill are published. He will then be able to consider it fully, and I am sure that he will.

    Drug-related Crime
    10. Mr. David Chaytor: What recent advice he has given to chief constables in respect of reducing drug-related crime. [21153]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Chief constables are responsible for determining what action should be taken to reduce drug-related crime in their areas, taking account of the nature of the problem and other local circumstances. The Home Office issued advice on measures to reduce drug-related crime through a circular on the communities against drugs programme sent to chief officers in August 2001. Advice was also issued in October on the piloting and evaluation of the drug-testing provisions that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced. General guidance on tackling drug-related crime is also available in the communities against drugs toolkit on the Home Office crime reduction website.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does the guidance specifically refer to prioritising either drug dealers or drug users? Is there a

    17
    tension for local police commanders between the need to attack the root cause of the problem by tackling drug dealers, and the need to improve their crime reduction figures? It is easier to meet crime reduction targets by dealing with drug users.
    Mr. Ainsworth: As my hon. Friend knows from my previous answer, we have repeatedly tried to ensure that priority is given to tackling class A drugs. We expect the police and the chief constables to pay the highest regard to the more serious crimes of trafficking and possession with intent to supply, rather than simply possession. Action must be proportionate. Class A drugs should be at the top of the list, and trafficking in any illegal drug is obviously far more serious than possession.

    Active Community Unit
    Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's active community unit. [21154]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The Government want active, confident and self-reliant communities that are in control of their lives and well-being. To achieve that, we need to revitalise communities and build social cohesion so that everybody has a sense of belonging and
    18
    that their views matter. The active community unit, in co-operation and partnership with Whitehall and the voluntary and community sector, drives that work forward.
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and for attending the parliamentary youth hearings that I chaired in the House last month. I draw her attention to the views of those young people, many of whose programmes are funded by the active community unit. They said that they wanted to be involved directly in the decision making of voluntary sector, local government and central Government programmes. Does my hon. Friend agree that involving young people directly in planning and providing those services means that they will be better able to meet young people's needs? Will she promote that principle throughout Government?
    Angela Eagle: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The remarkable thing about the hearings that I attended the other day was how committed, focused and talented the young people involved were. The difference that they were making to their communities was also remarkable. Too often we see young people as a problem, but they are our future, and we need to engage them not only in the political process but in the process of building, changing and strengthening their communities. We all gain when they realise that society is made better by their own involvement.

European Council (Laeken)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council which took place in Belgium on 14 and 15 December.
The fight against terrorism remains uppermost in the minds of all the members of the European Union. There remains unanimous support for the military action which has been taken in Afghanistan and a determination to continue our efforts to root out the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The recent video of bin Laden demonstrates his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt whatever. It brought home the sheer evil of bin Laden and his followers, and their sick pleasure in the murders that they have committed. I do not think that anyone can now dispute that ridding the world of the al-Qaeda terrorist network is a job that is in the interests of us all.
The European Council welcomed the Bonn agreement between the Afghan groups. It gave strong support for the deployment of an international security assistance force authorised by the United Nations Security Council, as called for by the Afghan parties in the Bonn agreement. The details of such a force must await the outcome of the meetings in Kabul between an international military team led by Major General McColl and the interim authorities in Afghanistan. But I can tell the House that Britain is willing, in principle, to lead such a force, which is likely to comprise troops from various countries, European and others.
Friday's meeting of potential troop-contributing nations was attended by a number of EU countries as well as Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. The British contingent is likely to be up to 1,000 to 1,500, though I stress that that has not yet been decided. We expect the resolution to be passed by the United Nations Security Council later this week. The United States has given its full help and support for the security force, and we would hope to have lead elements in place shortly.
The force was a critical part of the agreement reached in Bonn on 5 December for the establishment of a provisional Government in Afghanistan. There has been a brilliant victory over the Taliban, who have ceased to be the Afghan Government, and that, of course, is a welcome liberation, but we know that that is only the start of enabling Afghanistan to cease being a failed state and to become a responsible partner in the region. The situation in Afghanistan remains fragile; the new political process remains in its infancy. There is, therefore, an urgent need to ensure that, as the war is being won, we play our part in securing the peace.
The European Council also took stock of European security and defence policy. We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations over the full range of the so-called Petersberg tasks.
The European Council met amid continuing and appalling violence in the middle east. In our view, and that of all our partners, the only basis for durable peace in the middle east is full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security, together with the establishment
20
of a viable Palestinian state. The members of the European Council will continue to do all that they can individually and through the good offices of the Secretary-General, Javier Solana, to whom I pay tribute, to help create the circumstances in which the violence can be halted and the dialogue resumed.
The European Council's other main purpose was to prepare for discussion on the future of Europe. It now looks increasingly likely that 10 new countries will join the European Union in 2004, and we welcome that. Their accession will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe—ours as well as theirs. It is obvious, however, that the European Union cannot, with 25 and more members, work in the same way, with precisely the same constitution, as it has with 15. Decision making will need to be streamlined, and EU laws will need increasingly to take the form of framework legislation, with the details of implementation left to the member states.
It is already the task of the European Council to give strategic direction to the European Union as a whole. But carrying that strategic direction into practice will mean looking again at the size and role of the Commission, reviewing the workings of the existing presidency of the Union, which at present changes hands every six months, and managing the business of the various specialist councils in a more coherent way. That is why, at Nice a year ago, when we opened the way for enlargement, we also agreed that there had to be another intergovernmental conference in 2004, and why we are now going to set up a convention to prepare for that conference by detailed examination of all those issues.
The basic agenda for the conference was of course agreed at Nice. The sort of questions that will need to be asked are set out in the declaration of Heads of Government issued at Laeken at the weekend. That declaration, which I welcome, acknowledges not only the contribution that the European Union has made to peace, stability and prosperity in all our countries, but the extent to which it has to deliver results to the citizens of Europe on jobs, the single market, the fight against crime, a safe environment and so on.
The British view, widely shared, is that while it is right to co-operate ever more closely with our partners, democratic accountability is fundamentally and ultimately rooted in the member state. As the declaration says, what European citizens expect is
"more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life".
The Laeken declaration, and the convention, give us the opportunity to take a serious look at the division of competencies between the Union and the member states. For the first time in the Union's history, we shall be looking at the prospect of restoring some tasks to the member states. We now also have the chance to open up the European institutions to greater public scrutiny, and the role that we want to see our Parliament play in policing that process is now explicitly recognised.
The convention, which has now been established, will be chaired by the former French President, Mr. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who, when President of France, played an instrumental role in bringing the European Council into being. The convention will work for a year. Each national Parliament will have two representatives as members of the convention. The regions will be represented as

21
observers and there will be ample opportunities for views from all sections of public opinion to be fed into the proceedings.
Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who the parliamentary representatives will be. The convention will present options to Heads of Government who will determine whether those options should lead to changes in the treaty. Those ultimate treaty changes will be made by unanimous agreement of the Governments concerned.
In the aftermath of 11 September, the European Council welcomed the agreement that has been reached on a European arrest warrant. We also agreed to give fresh impetus to delivering our objectives on asylum and illegal immigration. That will mean return agreements with third countries and a new agreement on handling asylum seekers, including common standards on asylum procedures and reception. We have agreed to improve co-operation on our external border controls.
Those are all areas where we need common action within Europe, and the strength of a united European approach in dealing with the rest of the world. I hope that we shall see agreements concluded in the coming year on all those points.
Once again at this Council, Britain played its full part constructively and achieved the outcome it desired. Europe faces huge challenges ahead, as it enlarges to 25 and, over time, to more than 30 countries covering territory from the Atlantic to the Black sea, with 500 million citizens in the EU. Those challenges are clear: over the completion of the single market with a single currency; over economic reform; over making European security and foreign policy work; over giving Europe the institutional framework to allow it to function effectively.
Those debates matter to Europe, but they also matter fundamentally to Britain. The days of isolationism are gone, rightly. Our role now is to be a leading partner in shaping the Europe of the future, not following reluctantly the shape moulded by others. We are playing that role now. We will continue to do so.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Laeken summit and his words on the proposed United Nations peacekeeping force. If I may, I shall address the issues around peacekeeping first, as they perhaps have the most immediate significance for our troops.
The Prime Minister is right to talk about the success of the coalition against the Taliban. Events are still going on and clearly it is too early to say that the coalition has been fully successful, but so far it has been a dramatic success. Throughout, I believe rightly, we have supported the objectives laid out by the Prime Minister and by the President, and we remain committed to those objectives.
Our United States partners are cautious about deploying their troops in a peacekeeping role, as they think that that may be inconsistent with much of what they are doing in search and destroy on the ground in southern Afghanistan. The Prime Minister knows that I have deep misgivings about British deployment on a peacekeeping mission such as he described. My misgivings are based particularly on the reality that we already have troops on the ground with the Americans carrying out search and destroy against remaining elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. What concerns me and, I think, the House is that elements of
22
the Pushtun are still unhappy about the settlement, and that members of the Taliban will find an opportunity to pick a target in the peacekeeping process to get their own back.
We have a number of questions for the Prime Minister arising from those deep concerns. Will he confirm the words of his official spokesman this morning that the initial deployment of a stabilisation force could be in Kabul before Saturday? Will he confirm to the House that any hurried deployment will overlap with British forces" involvement in search and destroy missions, as I have described?
Will the Prime Minister tell the House that military support—logistical support, airlifts and air cover—that peacekeepers will receive from the United States will be substantial? There are reports that a precondition for deployment was that the force will be under overall US command. Has that now been finalised and agreed?
What conditions will be met before our troops are deployed? What particular exit strategy has been decided on? Is there a time limit for their deployment, or is that to be open-ended and the subject of future discussions about when it will end?
As so many people in Afghanistan have weapons—pretty heavy-calibre weapons at that—what assessment has been made of the equipment necessary to protect the force? It may not be right to leave troops with the minimum equipment or light equipment, such as flak jackets and personal weapons. Heavy back-up support, even at the level of artillery, may be required.
Those serious questions need to be answered; otherwise the deep misgivings that Conservative Members and many others have about the deployment will remain. Our misgivings need to be assuaged, so that we can understand more fully that our troops are not being put into situations that they will be completely unable to control.
I shall now turn to the Laeken summit, about which the Prime Minister said:
"I believe increasingly that argument is moving in our favour."
If only it were. Unfortunately for him, we can read the declaration that he signed up to. Nation states coming together for specific purposes can solve problems, but the declaration did not seem to reflect any of that. The response to 11 September was not about transnational institutions, but about the ability of free nation states to deal with specific problems. Laeken should have reflected that, and my concern is that it did not.
I shall quote from the declaration:
"Over the last ten years, construction of a political union has begun".
Furthermore, the document asks,
"How can the authority and efficiency of the European Commission be enhanced?"
Is that really what the nations and the people of Europe have been crying out for: enhanced significance and power for the Commission and deeper political union? The declaration goes on to speak of the deepening and enhancing of European foreign policy. Does the Prime Minister believe, as I do, that the argument for a deeper foreign policy falls apart when we see how he and the United States were able to deal with the problems following 11 September in giving a lead to others who otherwise would perhaps not have been anything like as supportive? Should not that freedom continue rather than be sunk into a super-European concept?

23
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's words, the document discusses dismissively the importance of national Parliaments. It says:
"The national parliaments also contribute towards the legitimacy of the European project."
I thought they were the legitimacy of anything in Europe, rather than just contributing to it. Again, for those at Laeken the European project came first. They go on to say that they
"want to see Europe more involved in foreign affairs, security and defence".
Yet again, deeper and deeper integration.
These decisions, I think, characterise a shift towards greater central authority; but there are three particular areas in which the Prime Minister agreed to things that the British people would not have wanted had they been at the table. First, he agreed to an EU-wide arrest warrant. That has done away with the principle of habeas corpus in regard to no fewer than 32 crimes, including crimes unrecognised in British law such as the ill-defined "EU crime"—a real thought police crime which will no doubt be drummed up in the future by someone in Brussels. Then there is falsification of means of payment, and, of particular concern, xenophobia. What exactly does that mean? [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh at xenophobia, but our concerns are generous. After all, what would have happened if crimes such as xenophobia and racism had existed over the past few weeks? The Prime Minister's poor Home Secretary himself might even now be languishing in a prison in Brussels. It is very unjust.
Secondly, the Prime Minister cannot believe that he has moved the argument into a federal Europe rather than away from it in signing up to what is becoming a European constitution. "Towards a European constitution" are the words; it is not a case of whether there should be a European constitution, or whether it is relevant. The Prime Minister agreed to that in the declaration.
I remember the Prime Minister saying in Warsaw last year—yes, last year: things move on—
"in practice I suspect that, given the sheer diversity and complexity of the EU, its constitution, like the British constitution, will continue to be found in a number of different treaties, laws and precedents".
Well, the Prime Minister seems to have caved in over that. He seems to have thrown that one away in the course of his agreement at the weekend.
Not only has the Prime Minister signed up to a constitution; he has allowed the charter of fundamental rights to be made part of it. This is the charter that he and his colleagues assured us would have no more legal weight than the Beano. Is it really the charter that he is now allowing to go into the constitution?
Thirdly, there is the creation of the European security and defence policy, better known as the Euro army. If anything is more meaningless than that, it is the fact that at this time, after 11 September—given the lack of any significant EU response to those troubles, in many senses—the Prime Minister has gone ahead and agreed to further and deeper powers and control over defence at a European level. That will add absolutely nothing to the process of defending us against the evils that exist around the world, and will add everything to the lessening of our ability to do so by weakening NATO. What a time to agree to that! What a pointless exercise.
24
We witnessed an unedifying spectacle at the end. The only time the leaders gathered around the table became really exercised and excited was when it came to carving up the agencies that would go to their various countries. There were rows about what they would get—whether they would get enough—and disagreements over whether Parma ham looked better than Swedish women. That was what exercised the whole institution. How ridiculous! [Interruption.] It is all here. For the first time we have broken the code of secrecy applying to such debates, and can see what each leader was horse trading for. They were all rowing about ridiculous issues such as whether their countries should get 19 people or 1,000.
One issue that was never addressed was Ireland's veto over the Nice treaty. We still cannot go ahead with the treaty, because Ireland has rejected it. No doubt the Government will acquiesce in a drive to bully it into ensuring that it gets the vote right the second time, as ever.
As the Prime Minister said, the future of Europe does matter: it matters immensely. The Prime Minister has agreed to the establishment of a convention that is supposed to involve a balance of agreement about where we are going on Europe. Will he now say whom he intends to put on that body, from the national Parliament? We have already heard that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) will be part of the praesidium, as they call it; and I read today that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) might be on it. There seems to be no end of attempts to find a job for the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. Two weeks ago, he was going to be Mayor of London; now he will be on the praesidium in Europe. Is the Prime Minister prepared to open up the debate by offering such a post to somebody from the Conservative party, who would have a different view? [Interruption.] I challenge the Prime Minister: he says that he wants a decentralised Europe, so is he prepared to appoint to the praesidium somebody from the Conservative party who has a different view of the direction that we should take? If not, we know very well that he has no intention of seeing any change.
The Laeken Council was about a greater move towards a European state. I am reminded of the words of Humpty Dumpty.
"When I use a word,"
he said,
"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less … The question is … which is to be master—that's all."
Over the weekend, we learned that the Prime Minister acquiesced, once and for all, in making the master of this process Europe, not the nation state.
The Prime Minister: May I deal first with the issues arising from the deployment of British troops as part of the peacekeeping force in Kabul? Although the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks are perfectly reasonable—they are the obvious questions that we are in the course of answering—I very much hope that the Conservatives will support the deployment of British troops in the peacekeeping force, provided that those questions can be properly answered.
We have been looking at undertaking the mission at the direct request not only of the United Nations but of the United States. Of course, we have to make sure that our troops go to Kabul under proper conditions; that is

25
precisely what we are doing now. However, it would be very unfortunate if we walked away from the situation, having achieved so much, and given that the peacekeeping or security force in Kabul is vital in allowing the provisional Government to exist, to prosper and to start putting Afghanistan back on its feet. If the international community walks away from Afghanistan now, it will make exactly the same mistake that the west made 10 or 12 years ago, when it left Afghanistan to become, as it did, a failed state.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's points, the United States has made it clear that it will offer full logistical support, including air cover support. A specific time limit has not yet been decided, but people are talking of several months, so British forces would not be in the country on a long-term basis; they would simply get the security force going. That force will, of course, have all the equipment that it needs to do its job properly.
There was talk this morning about when we can put people into place. That depends on the agreements being tied down, but lead elements may be in place by 22 December, when the provisional Government begin their work. Of course, there is no question of the full force being in place by 22 December; it will take far longer to put that together. I hope that, once those questions are answered, the right hon. Gentleman will give the mission his support, because it is important and because we as a nation are best placed to give that leadership, which is why we have been asked to do so.
I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's questions about Europe in turn, if I may. He claims that the very talk of political union in Europe is beyond the pale. I have to point out to him that virtually every European treaty over the past two decades has talked about ever-closer union in Europe. He seems to think that there is something objectionable about even asking whether the Commission's power should be enhanced. That is one of several questions that will, of course, be raised during this debate. Another asks whether the European Council's power will be enhanced.
Mr. Duncan Smith: How?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks how. That is one of the very issues to be debated in the course of the work on the convention.
In what I thought was a curious point, the right hon. Gentleman said that national Parliaments were somehow to be downgraded or that the claim that they merely contribute to European politics downgraded them. The fact is that, for the first time, Europe is looking actively at involving national Parliaments in the decision-making process, which is extremely important.
I find the Conservatives" opposition to the European arrest warrant absolutely extraordinary. For a start, the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman are included in about 30 elements that will be defined specifically when we come to debate the matter in the House. Basically, however, this country has everything to gain from the European arrest warrant. At the moment, we are seeking people abroad for serious crimes such as drug trafficking, organised crime and serious sexual offences. We have an objective need to get these people extradited quickly. At the moment, it takes, on average, roughly 10 months to extradite them. Some have had extradition warrants
26
outstanding against them for several years. It is therefore vital for proper law enforcement here that we make sure that those people can be extradited properly.
I do not understand the distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman was making. I think it a little unlikely that, in respect of xenophobia, he or anyone else is going to be extradited to any European country, no matter what he says. For a start, they probably would not want him.
It is absolutely extraordinary that the Conservatives should say that they are against the very concept of a European constitution when we already have in European treaties things that are set out concerning the relationships between members states of the Union. Surely it is entirely sensible to try to codify those and bring them into a proper and disciplined method that is simpler and easier to understand, allowing us for the first time to look at the competencies between the EU and the member states.
The right hon. Gentleman then went into his normal position on the European security and defence policy. He seemed to think that, somehow, agreeing to this would mean that our freedom to act as we have done after 11 September would be curtailed. That is the usual Conservative nonsense. There is absolutely nothing whatever in the European security and defence policy that would prevent us from acting in precisely the same way as we acted after 11 September.
Mr. Michael Ancram: What does it mean?
The Prime Minister: I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary, it means this: it means that Europe should have the capability, if each individual country desires it to be so, to take part in peacekeeping operations—as we are doing now in Macedonia, in a way that is preventing civil war in that place and in the wider Balkans. Quite why the Conservative party should be against that, I do not know, but it is part of their usual European business.
I do not know whether the saddest thing about the end of what the right hon. Gentleman said was what he said or the support that he got from his Back Benches for saying it. I say to the Conservative party that, at some point, it will have to come back to its senses on Europe.
Let me give a classic example of what this country's diplomacy would be returned to were the Conservative party, in its present state, in government. There was a meeting of Conservative party leaders on Thursday night, which the right hon. Gentleman attended. One of the other Conservative leaders at the European summit described the meeting with the right hon. Gentleman—the first they had had—as "curious". He said that the right hon. Gentleman turned up for the first time with an eight-page letter—not written in green ink, at least—making a series of demands upon the European Conservative group. The right hon. Gentleman asked that those demands be accepted. They told him no. He asked to be able to raise them again in six months. They said that he could raise them as many times as he wanted. The right hon. Gentleman then left the meeting.
If we went back to that method of proceeding, this country would be where we found it in May 1997—isolated, marginalised and without any proper influence at all. On the issues concerning the future of Europe—economic reform, the single market, the institutional future of Europe, how we create the right security and

27
foreign policy for Europe in the future—Europe needs Britain to be engaged and Britain needs to have influence in Europe.
If we went back to those days, it might satisfy some of the extremists in the Conservative party whose main motivation in politics now seems to be anti-Europeanism. But it would be a disaster for the proper interests of this country. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that his party will hopefully at some point come back to a realistic and sensible position on Europe. Until it does, frankly the Conservative party is barely qualified as an Opposition, never mind a Government.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In welcoming the Prime Minister's statement and the outcome of the summit, I wish to point initially to the fact that too many of the European Union's detractors over the years have been able to make their cases precisely because it has not had an adequately defined constitutional settlement for the member states. The work that will now be undertaken on that matter is therefore to be welcomed. We will end up with a document that sets out what the EU should be doing and what it should not get involved in. Any sensible, candid friend of Europe—in this party, we are certainly that—would give a broad measure of welcome to such a development.
The need for such a development is underpinned by what the Prime Minister said about the process of enlargement. Those of us who were Members of Parliament a decade or so ago and remember that Monday afternoon after the weekend the Berlin wall came down—and the huge sense of political liberation that accompanied it—will remember that all the talk was of enlargement, but a decade later, the over-ossified structures have not yet enabled so many of the aspirant states to join. Something that will assist progress in that matter is to be welcomed.
As the Prime Minister acknowledged, that progress must also be accompanied by changes in our internal procedures here. Last week, the Leader of the House published modernisation proposals for the House to discuss. I commend to the Prime Minister an idea that does not appear in those proposals but on which we as a Parliament should reflect, and that is the need for more effective scrutiny on the Floor of the House of the monumental amount of legislation from Europe, which many of us have felt has never been adequately scrutinised. Is that something that the Prime Minister wishes to consider?
It is surely welcome that more priority will be given to openness. It is a sobering thought that the Council of Ministers is one of only three legislatures in the entire world to legislate in private, the other two being Cuba and North Korea. That is not something that Europe should seek to emulate much longer.
On Afghanistan, I wish to question the Prime Minister a little more about the extent of the mandate and, in particular, the nature of the rules of engagement for any British troops. How robust will the latter be? For example, will our troops be able only to defend themselves, or will they be proactive and able to intervene if a violation of human rights occurs? If our troops are committed to peacekeeping services in Afghanistan, does that rule out any future British involvement in, say, Iraq if the Americans decide to take that route?
28
Could the Prime Minister modify his over-caution on the euro by giving the House a clearer idea of any possible time scale vis-à-vis a referendum? Does he agree that in opening up the institutions of Europe, and the European Council in particular, we should apply what we applied to ourselves some years ago, and allow those proceedings to be seen in public?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to say anything on the single currency other than what I have said many times before. The tests have to be met, and that is the position.
The UN mandate will be on a chapter 7 basis. The rules of engagement still have to be finalised, and they will need careful consideration to ensure that our troops are properly protected at all times. The Modernisation Committee will consider any proposals that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to submit on the scrutiny of European legislation. On the issue of enlargement and the simplification of the treaties, if the EU expanded from 15 to 25 or, in the end, to 30, it would obviously be necessary to simplify and change the process of decision making, which is one reason why the Conservative party's position is so ridiculous. That has to happen; otherwise Europe would be unable to take the necessary decisions.
Europe is trying to codify in a constitution exactly what the basic competencies of member states and the European Union are precisely because we need the right framework to develop in future.
As ever, the Conservative party asks completely the wrong question. The issue is not whether we have a constitution—we already have one through the treaty of Rome and other treaties. The issue is what should go into a constitution. That is where our main effort should be made. Rather than saying that we want nothing to do with the process simply because it is discussing the constitution, we should be focusing attention on how we manage to ensure that the constitution is drawn up in exactly the way that we want. We want a European Union of co-operating member states, not a federal superstate. The language of the Laeken declaration makes it clear that we are not going down the path towards a federal superstate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Rather than listening to the Liberal Democrats squawking about the euro, the Prime Minister should remember that if it is a good idea to allow nation states to have more power, there is no point in having a single currency covering 25 different currencies. It will not be a good idea to rush into the euro. Even if he succeeds in deciding that we enter, at the right time, and after a referendum of the people, that decision would have a damaging effect at any forthcoming general election. Many Labour Members will gladly travel down that road, but I think that it is very dangerous indeed.
The Prime Minister: There are two positions on the euro—indeed, there are more than two positions, but there are certainly the two positions that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are doing the right thing by saying that it is, in principle, sensible for Britain to join a successful single currency, but that, in practice, the economic tests must be met. The euro will be a reality in the European Union in a very short time when the notes and coins physically come into being. It would be foolish to take the position of the Conservative party and say that we

29
should have nothing to do with the euro, that we should not even prepare for it and that never will Britain join. That foolish position might gain support in certain quarters, but it is not in the interests of the country.
Mr.Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister has come a long way since he stood on a manifesto in 1983 that offered to take us out of the European Union. That said, he is absolutely right that if we are in Europe, it must work effectively. Does he agree that when the Commission acts to uphold free trade in the single market, it acts in the British national interest? Does he agree that it therefore needs to be made more authoritative and that we need to know how it is controlled?
Does the Prime Minister also agree that the European Court of Justice, in enforcing decisions made by Ministers, is acting in the British national interest? Does he further agree that the Petersberg tasks in defence, which were agreed by Conservatives, are vital to Europe's interest and that it is therefore essential that Europe has a role in proceeding with them as part of a wider NATO commitment. On all those things, will the Prime Minister continue to raise his voice in Europe? We are in Europe, and we shall be run by Europe only if we do not use our influence in the sort of discussion that will culminate in the intergovernmental conference of 2004.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Labour party has travelled a certain distance on Europe since 1983. I regret to say that his party has travelled a certain distance too, but in the opposite direction. [Interruption.] Well, look where it got us is all I can say to that.
On Court decisions and so on, the hon. Gentleman is right. It would not be possible for us to enforce our will on issues relating to the single market without the Commission and the Court acting in our national interest. The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the European common defence policy was started under the previous Government. That was a classic example of a debate that, when we came to office, was proceeding without much British influence. Britain has since successfully shaped that policy to include two very important safeguards. First, it applies where NATO as a whole does not wish to be engaged.
Mr. Ancram: That is not true.
The Prime Minister: Secondly, there is not a standing army.
Mr. William Cash: Not true.
The Prime Minister: They keep saying that it is not true, but I can absolutely assure them that that is the precise position. The policy applies only where NATO as a whole does not want to be engaged. That is what the Council conclusions say.
Secondly, only in respect of each operation do we have to agree before our troops are used, so the policy is not a European standing army—it never has been and no one has ever wanted it to be. It is, however, for Europe to have the capability—where America, for example, does not want to be engaged—to undertake peacekeeping and
30
humanitarian tasks. We can see from what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s, for example, and from what happened recently in Macedonia how vital it is to have that additional string to our bow.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What action is the Prime Minister urging Europe to take to reduce the flow of financial and other support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad—terrorist organisations dedicated to ensuring that there is never peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of how support gets to terrorist groups—Palestinian or others—wherever they may be. During the past few weeks, the European Union has, of course, agreed further financial regulation provisions on issues such as money laundering, in order to ensure that we cut off the sources of funding for those groups. Part of the problem is that they have been extremely well financed during the past few years. We have to ensure that those sources of finance are dried up.
Sir Michael Spicer: As the Prime Minister has given way at Laeken on almost everything that matters, how can we trust what he says about "Corpus Juris"?
The Prime Minister: First, we have not given away what is in this country's interest. In the end, on all these issues, we have to ensure that we go in and argue our case. When the European Union enlarges to 25 members, it is inevitable that we shall have to change the method of proceeding. We will not be able to be in a situation where, for example—
Sir Michael Spicer: What about "Corpus Juris'?
The Prime Minister: I am coming to that in a moment. We shall not be in the situation where, for example, there is a rotating presidency every six months. We shall have to change the way in which we work. At present, the Council meetings are not properly—
Sir Michael Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman gave way.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: We are engaging in a debate. As for "Corpus Juris', again we have not given away anything. In respect of the debates in Europe, we have to make our views known.
I support the European arrest warrant. It allows us to get back from abroad criminals who have committed offences in this country and then fled abroad: literally scores of them are living in European countries. It takes us years to get them back and it is only today's Conservative party that could oppose such a thing.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the proposal for an intergovernmental conference responding to the enlargement of the European Union and the preparatory convention chaired by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing imply that the treaty of Nice is, in essence, an interim measure?
The Prime Minister: No, it does not imply that, because the treaty of Nice said in terms that there should

31
be an intergovernmental conference in 2004. It shows that there are two stages. First, certain changes were agreed at Nice in relation to, for example, the voting rights of the applicant countries. Then, there were a series of things that we agreed could not be decided at Nice but which needed a longer period of consideration, because the applicant countries will not come in immediately. That is the purpose of the intergovernmental conference. There are really two blocks of things. There are things such as voting rights and so on—the precise conditions under which applicant countries would come in. Secondly, there are the internal workings of the European Union itself—that is what the intergovernmental conference will consider.
Mr. John Wilkinson: How can the Prime Minister claim that the European Union has yet to deliver results? Is not it the case that most of British agriculture is almost bankrupt as a consequence of the common agricultural policy and that we pay some of the highest food prices in the world? Is not it the case that the British fishing industry has been decimated through the common fisheries policy? As for the commitment in Afghanistan, is not that posturing—an attempt to get into the victory chariot when most of the fighting is over? Are not British troops going to be there for an inordinately long time, for no clearly defined political purpose and at great risk to themselves?
The Prime Minister: As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the reason that the issue of a security force is raised in respect of Afghanistan is that it was part of the agreement for the political future of that country—concluded by all the parties in Bonn. It will be a real shame if the Conservative party now sets its face against supporting such a force.
Britain is talked of as the lead nation because it was specifically asked by both the United Nations and the United States to take on this role. The reason why it is important—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying that the United States does not support Britain's role in this matter, he is simply wrong, and he will have been told that when he was in Washington.
I agree that the European Union, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy need fundamental reform, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would find much support among, for example, the British farming community for unilateral withdrawal from the CAP. What we need are major changes to it. Again, we will get those changes only if we are inside Europe, arguing our case.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister mentioned preparations for the IGC in 2004 and the convention. Will he say more on what role the accession states will have in discussions leading up to the convention, as it may involve some treaty changes that will affect them?
The Prime Minister: They will be fully involved in the convention. They will have the right to be there and to make the points that they wish. That is a very important element. The accession, applicant countries have a deep
32
interest in the matter. The proposals made at Laeken for their involvement were broadly and widely welcomed by the applicant countries in the course of our meeting.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Although the emphasis on enlargement is indeed welcome, will the Prime Minister comment on the following concerns? First, if we are really to take all 10 applicant countries into the Union in two years" time, or just over that, will that not require for some, though not all, intensive and indeed expensive care and maintenance to ensure the stability of their economies? Secondly, will he ensure that there is no distraction from the task of making sure that the single market works effectively, of which we have had a conspicuous counter-example, which has been resolved in the European Court this week? It is essential that we keep on the pressure to consolidate the single market.
Thirdly—this is my real concern—the Prime Minister has spoken a number of times about decision making and said that it must be streamlined. Does he understand that there are concerns that we will not be faced with streamlining as much as steamrollering of essential national interests?
The Prime Minister: In relation to the 10 applicant countries, the hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that enlargement is a very big thing to happen in the European Union. There are, however, phasing arrangements for many of the most critical aspects, and I think that that will be of some assistance.
On the European Court and the completion of the single market, it is vital that the Court has the powers that it has and that, where its decisions go against particular countries, they are enforced by the Commission—as, for example, they will be in respect of France and the ban on British beef.
As for, as it were, streamlining versus steamrollering, what is clear is that there are two different views on how Europe should develop. One view is that, in effect, it should develop into a situation in which the Commission has very much more power and the European Parliament is the fount of democracy in the EU—a view shared by some countries. There is an equally strong view—I would say now predominantly rather stronger—that that is not the right way for Europe to go, and that, in fact democratic legitimacy is rooted in the member state.
That is a debate in Europe, and a very strongly fought one. My point is simply that the most important thing is that we end up ensuring that we are in Europe, fighting our corner, rather than retreating to the sidelines and saying that we are so scared of the debate taking place that we, Britain, do not believe that we can have any influence on it. In fact, we have been able on, for example, the issues of economic reform or European defence to secure many of our objectives precisely because we have been willing to be involved rather than marginalised. I am sure that in the end, as indeed the previous Conservative Government did with the single market, that is the right approach.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome enlargement in terms of the number of countries and the timetable. I hope that we will be in a position in three years" time to go some major way towards making Europe a safer place for future generations than it was for past

33
generations. The accession of Bulgaria will rely not only on the Bulgarian economy, but on the regeneration of the Balkan economy. Are improvements in that region likely in forthcoming years?
The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in that area. We commend the improvements and progress made in Bulgaria. He is right to say that regeneration in the Balkans will be important to the stability of Bulgaria, Romania and other countries in the region. What is interesting about all the Balkan countries is that the prospect of EU membership has become a major focus for democratic and economic progress. People sometimes ask what good has come out of Europe in the past 50 years. Peace and prosperity are two pretty good results; furthermore, many of the nations in the most troubled parts of the European continent are not anxious to stay out of the European Union, but are desperate to get in.
Angus Robertson: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that he will not allow the full direct representation of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliaments or Administrations as part of the UK delegation to the convention? Will he explain to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland why he thinks we are not good enough to attend in our own right, unlike the German Bundesländer?
The Prime Minister: Relations and representation will be precisely the same as for the German Länder, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Prime Minister to a narrow point relating to the appointment of parliamentarians to the convention? Does he agree that who is to represent Parliament is his business as a Member of Parliament, not as Prime Minister? Is not the question of who should represent us a matter for Parliament? Should not both the seats be for the House of Commons—the elected House—with the other place losing out? Will he give an assurance that the decision will be made by the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—and others, no doubt—have already been mentioned as possible candidates. We in this place should elect our representatives. The Prime Minister is represented at the convention as Government; we want our slice of the action to be directed by the House and not influenced by either Front Bench.
The Prime Minister: We shall certainly consult very closely on the proper arrangements.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I return the Prime Minister to the important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the danger of confusion of British troops" roles in carrying out two separate tasks in Afghanistan? Does he understand that there is great concern, not confined to those of us who have served with United Nations peacekeeping forces, about the potentially greatly enhanced danger of British troops being
34
engaged in peacekeeping operations in the same theatre as they are involved in offensive search-and-destroy operations?
The Prime Minister: Of course—it is precisely for that reason that we must tie down carefully the arrangements for Britain to participate in the peacekeeping mission in Kabul. The force is there, in effect, as a security assistance force for the new provisional Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements under which our forces participate will take full account of the issue he raises. However, to return to the point I made when answering the Leader of the Opposition, it would be unfortunate were we not to participate at all. The reason why we have not been giving all the details since the issue was raised some days ago is that those details are important and must be tightly bolted down before we give our consent to be the lead nation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are currently addressing precisely those issues.
Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many Europeans will be looking to him and to other European leaders to bring the same dedication and leadership to a new international initiative aimed at retrieving the peace process in the middle east as they have shown in the international fight against terrorism? Does he agree that while it is right to condemn unreservedly the terrorist attacks on Israel and to call on Yasser Arafat to dismantle Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad networks, European leaders should also be calling on Israel to stop short of destroying the Palestinian Authority altogether, because without a Palestinian Authority there can be no peace process at all?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that anything that weakens the ability of the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism is a retrograde step. However, it is important that we balance the calls that we make upon Israel with strong calls in respect of the Palestinian Authority, too. We cannot continue with a situation in which, literally week by week, there are appalling suicide bombings and terrorist outrages. We know in the House how we felt after the worst outrages of, first, the IRA and then things such as the Omagh bomb of three years ago: imagine if that were happening in this country literally every week or two weeks. People should have some understanding that that is the background against which Israel is acting.
It is important to get initial security steps in place and then return to a process. In the. end, it is only through the political process that any of these difficult issues will be resolved.
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Prime Minister agree that an elected President of the EU would be incompatible with the sort of vision that he has set out of co-operating, independent democratic states in the EU, or has the Chancellor persuaded him that it could be an exciting vacancy for a man of his talents?
The Prime Minister: I am not in favour of a directly elected President of the European Commission, but that is exactly the type of argument that will be fought out over the next two or three years. Some people will say that all the power should be put into the hands of the Commission

35
and the European Parliament; others, such as ourselves, will say that the Commission must retain its independent right of initiative, but that we must consider how we strengthen the workings of, for example, the European Council and make it more effective, and how we deal with the issue of a rotating six-monthly presidency—a procedure that cannot be maintained in an enlarged European Union.
It is important to get into those arguments, participate in them and attempt to succeed in them. The trouble is, as the right hon. Gentleman's leader found when he went to the leaders" meeting in Laeken, that if the Conservatives are completely isolated—[Interruption.] The idea that the other Conservative leaders in Europe agreed with the British Conservative party is laughable. Over the past few days we have had a good example of the diplomatic position of the Conservative party, which ends in basic humiliation and failure. Our diplomatic position has secured all the objectives that we sought.
Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of economic and monetary union will be brought home in the United Kingdom in two weeks" time by the circulation of euro notes and coins? People will be able to go into their local Dixons to buy a television set with euro notes and coins and to buy a pint in JD Wetherspoon on the same basis. That may not change the attitude of the owners, but perhaps the attitude of the people will be changed. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the European Central Bank misses the democratic accountability element? That is an important aspect if we are to bring the Union much closer to the people of the European Union.
The Prime Minister: It is important that the people understand that in a couple of weeks" time euro notes and coins will be in circulation; twelve of the 15 European Union member states will be using that currency. It is also important for British companies and British firms here, many of which will be trading in euros or using the euro in one form or another, even though Britain is outside the single currency zone. It is extremely important that we do not take the position of sticking our head in the sand and pretending that it will all go away. It is a reality, and in two weeks" time it will be an even greater reality.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Prime Minister say which specific European competencies he wishes to see repatriated to national Governments, and do they include agriculture?
The Prime Minister: No, I think that, over a period, we should analyse carefully all the various competencies. We should decide on those things where Europe may, for example, want to integrate more and those that it wants to repatriate to member states. I do not think that it would be sensible for us to tie our hands at this juncture.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I assure the Prime Minister that he has the support of all Labour Members for saying that he will not turn his back on the people of Afghanistan? He will be aware that the World Food Programme has estimated that as many as 3 million people may have been displaced because of the military
36
action and for other reasons, and that camp Maslakh may be housing nearly 800,000 people in desperate circumstances. Even worse, in the remote rural areas, it is now being reported that some people have already died as a result of cold or hunger. Did the Council discuss ways to get emergency aid in, and will the Secretary of State for International Development make a statement on the position before the Christmas recess?
The Prime Minister: I do not know the precise arrangements that the Secretary of State for International Development may be making, so I am afraid I cannot comment on that, although I will find out and let my hon. Friend know. She is right to say that humanitarian aid is extremely important. Of course, the only reason that we can get that aid through now is that the Taliban stranglehold on many parts of Afghanistan has been broken.
Finally, my hon. Friend is right; we will not turn our back on Afghanistan because it is right to remain engaged—we promised that we would do so—and if we do not, Afghanistan may return to the failed state in which we found it after 11 September. The truth of the matter is that it was a state existing basically on terrorism and drugs, which subjected its people to vile oppression and was a source of instability in its own region and wider. For us to remain engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan is not merely right—it is manifestly in our interest.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the summit written conclusions and the declaration are littered with references to the need to cut red tape and reduce labour market regulation but that, simultaneously, the European Union has signed up to the information and consultation directive, which will add red tape and extra labour market regulation? How can he and the European Union be taken seriously when the European Union continues to say one thing in those bits of paper while simultaneously doing something different?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the information and consultation directive, I do not accept that every single piece of European legislation is wrong. Indeed, it is not wrong in my view to make sure that people are properly consulted as a work force. In respect of the attitude of the European Union and how much it legislates and how much it does not, it is worth pointing out that that concern is raised in all member states. The European Union declaration makes it clear that that issue has to be on the agenda, but it is more than simply on the agenda in theory: the recent Mandelkern report was endorsed by European Union leaders and, if implemented, it will mean a much greater number of decisions at European Union level will be taken in principle but implemented in the way in which member states want.
I do not dispute the fact that there is an issue and a problem but, again, the body of opinion in Europe is moving towards an easier and lighter-touch process rather than the heavy-handed regulation that perhaps we had in the past. At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the conclusions and the declaration, but he will find that many of the statements in the Laeken declaration tie in with many of people's legitimate fears about the encroaching power of the European Union. I therefore hope that, in some senses, it is welcomed by Conservative Members.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many millions of people are

37
still rightly anxious about what they perceive as Brussels interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life and that many individuals, including some Opposition Members, rightly need reassurance about a European superstate not being on the agenda? Does he accept that one of the best ways of providing that is to state clearly and baldly in a European constitution that nation states have their rights, and clearly define those rights and the concept of subsidiarity in the constitution? Does he not agree that Opposition Members do not fear a superstate or intervention in nooks and crannies as much they fear clarity?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that they are just anti-Europe. It is as simple as that. The point that my hon. Friend makes is true. Part of the purpose of the declaration is to make sure that on issues of subsidiarity, we achieve clarity. That is important. The declaration, which was agreed by every one of the member states, states in clear language that they do not want a European superstate. A few years ago, voices would probably have been raised in protest against that.
I draw attention to the recent statements made in front of the French Parliament by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing on the same subject. There is a general view in Europe that as member states move together on certain matters, it is important that they decide not to go into other areas, and even to push back power in certain areas. That closer co-operation must be based on co-operation between member states, rather than on the obliteration of national identity.
The idea that a country such as France has lost its national identity is absurd. The countries of Europe are proud of their national identity. The idea that Poland, for example, which wants to come into the European Union, is not proud of Poland and Polish national identity is absurd. We—or rather, the Conservative party—must escape from that ideological straitjacket; otherwise we will be unable to protect the British national interest, which requires us to be engaged.
The British Conservative party is virtually alone of all Conservative parties in Europe in its views, so much so that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) must write to them pleading to be allowed a different set of rules from Conservative parties elsewhere in Europe. That is an indication of how far away the Conservative party is from a realistic view of how people are living and working in the Europe of today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the main business.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I intend to begin by setting out what the Bill does. I shall then explain the political context for the Bill and why it is necessary to introduce it at this time.
  The Bill extends the maximum length of the period during which legal immunity may be provided in implementing a decommissioning scheme. It does so by amending section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. Under that Act, the power to provide legal immunity expires on 27 February next year. Clause 1(2) initially extends the maximum period during which legal immunity may be provided until midnight on 26 February 2003. In other words, by today's proceedings the period will be extended by 12 months.
  Under the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State has the power by order further to extend the relevant period. Such an extension may not run for more than 12 months after the order is made, or five years after the 1997 Act was passed. Subsection (3) does not affect the former condition: each order would still be subject to a maximum duration of 12 months and require parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution. However, it substitutes 27 February 2007 for the five-year period.
  Subsection (4) provides for retrospective effect, if necessary. That means that anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, even if the Bill is not enacted by 26 February next, will, once the Bill is enacted, fall within the legal immunity provided for by the 1997 Act. In short, the Bill extends the existing arrangements for one further year, with the possibility of further extensions, subject always to the approval of this House.
  The background to today's proceedings will be well known to some of the participants who are present. Just over five years ago, when the now Lord Mayhew introduced the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill to the House, he observed that, in a democracy, politics and violence do not mix. I agree with that view and I assume that everyone else in the House agrees with it. We all know that in Northern Ireland, we are dealing with a peace, a process and a democracy that are all imperfect by those standards. That is perhaps an inevitable price of the transition from decades of conflict to a normal society. But no democracy can indefinitely tolerate the existence of private armies. No Government can allow people to advance their political objectives, however legitimate they may be in themselves, by the use or threat of violence.
  An integral part of the peace process has been to convince those who were previously wedded to violence, including those brought up in the traditions of physical

  39
  force republicanism, that there is another, better way in which they can pursue their political goals. Many of those so involved learned years ago that they could not achieve their ends by violence alone. It has inevitably been a more difficult challenge to get them all to accept unequivocally that bombs and bullets have absolutely no contribution to make to the work of a truly democratic movement. Indeed, violence is a self-defeating exercise even by the standards of the objectives that some of these movements proclaim, because so long as the use or threat of violence continues, it must follow that violence and the necessary response of society to it are the biggest obstacle to achieving a normal, open and democratic society—the very objective that those using violence so often claim to be pursuing.
  It will therefore come as no surprise to anyone in the House that there is still a great deal to be done and more progress to be made, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what has been achieved. In recent years, the political landscape in Northern Ireland has changed beyond recognition. Huge strides have been made on the implementation of all aspects of the Belfast agreement and in improving the daily life of everyone in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have agreed with almost everything that the Secretary of State has said so far. However, his speech would have been marvellous four and a half years ago, when the Belfast agreement was secured. The agreement stated specifically that all paramilitary arms would have to be decommissioned within two years. However, after two years, plus another two years, plus six months, he is now saying that we will give the paramilitaries another year and perhaps another four years. What is going on?
  Dr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman was being absolutely honest with the House, he would have read out the words precisely before those to which he referred, which dealt with a commitment by all the parties to use all their influence to see that all arms were put beyond use within two years. We have clearly not achieved that deadline. Nor did we achieve the deadline of June last year, which was given subsequently, and it seems to me likely that we will not achieve that of 26 February next year. That suggests that deadlines in themselves do not always achieve the objectives that they are meant to achieve. I shall return to that point later.
  Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way on an important point. As he pointed out, the agreement set a target date of 26 May 2000 for the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. Early in May 2000, the Government, with the consent of the other parties, substituted a fresh target date of June 2001. That has now passed. Under what target date are the Government operating for the full implementation of the agreement? Have they abandoned its full implementation as a target?
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall deal with that exact point later in my speech. I shall comment on deadlines, target dates and the extension that I have already mentioned. Today's action
  40
  means that we shall debate the matter not at the end of five years, but one year after the extension for which the Bill provides.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Clearly, we are considering a difficult issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the one example of proper decommissioning by the IRA resulted from a deadline and massive international and national pressure? As he acknowledged, we must build on that if the peace process is to continue. Yet does not the Bill give the opposite signal—that decommissioning can be deferred indefinitely? It means reverting to quiescence, which, although one might hope that it would lead to decommissioning, has led to nothing in the past.
  Dr. Reid: Several factors led to the act of decommissioning, but I do not believe that the pressure of a 26 February deadline was one of them. Pressure came from several sources, which may have included 11 September, the persistent application of pressure by Governments here, in Ireland and in the United States, and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In my view, the most important factor, and the most important sanction on those engaged in the process, is the possibility of its failure. Such failure is almost beyond imagination for all of us who are involved in it, including those who have embarked on moving away from conflict to dialogue.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Let me take the Secretary of State back to an important point. He rightly cited the Belfast agreement as placing an obligation on the parties to decommission completely in two years. Does he accept that Sinn Fein-IRA was one party or does he buy into the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate organisations?
  Dr. Reid: No. Obviously Sinn Fein was a signatory to the Belfast agreement, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA was not. Sinn Fein therefore committed itself to using all its power and influence to achieve decommissioning.
  Mr. Davies: So the right hon. Gentleman accepts the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate organisations, which make decisions separately and can be regarded as separate for the purpose of the Belfast agreement?
  Dr. Reid: I do not accept that every member of Sinn Fein is a member of the IRA or that they are completely identical. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] With respect, that was the question. The hon. Gentleman appears to insist that the obvious relationship between them means that they must be identical in all ways. I do not accept that.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way yet again. He is at odds with the Prime Minister, who said at Balmoral on 14 May 1998:
  "we know that for example Sinn Fein and the IRA remain inextricably linked".
  Dr. Reid: The Labour party and the trade union movement are inextricably linked but they are not identical.
  David Burnside rose—
  Dr. Reid: There is nothing incompatible between my comments and those of the Prime Minister, and if—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) must not remain on his feet when the Secretary of State is responding to an earlier intervention. He must wait until the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with that.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is keen to catch my eye, but I assure him that I would not be discourteous enough to miss him, especially in the position that he has been in for the last minute or so.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that, of course, all of us recognise that there is an inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the IRA, but that is not what he asked me. He asked me whether they were identical organisations. Plainly, anyone who knows anything about the matter understands that they are not, any more than the trade union movement and the Labour party are absolutely the same. If he thinks that the only analysis can be complete identity or complete separation between the two organisations, he does not understand—indeed, he underestimates—the sophistication of the opponents that he is trying to deal with.
  David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a single leadership in Sinn Fein-IRA, which is personified at the top by Martin McGuinness being chief of staff of the army council of the Provisional IRA?
  Dr. Reid: I have no information that Mr. McGuinness is chief of staff of the army council of the IRA, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking me. His sources might be better than mine and, if so, I would be extremely obliged if he would make them available to the state security apparatus. We do not have that information. If he is asking whether the leadership of the republican movement is known to all of us, then I would say that it is. We can carry on with a discussion of how many republican angels can dance on the head of a pin, or we can address the subject in front of us. I suggest that the second option might be more productive for the whole House.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that, given that Sinn Fein and the IRA are clearly linked, the main point is to recognise the momentous symbolic importance of the first step that they took in the decommissioning process? We should discuss the Bill in that strategic context, rather than in the tactical context in which we have been discussing it for the last few minutes.
  Dr. Reid: I entirely agree. That is what I am trying to do. We must remind ourselves that, although there have been huge imperfections in the transition period, huge strides forward have also been made on all aspects of the Belfast agreement. These are not esoteric or academic
  42
  matters, because they are the very advances that make so much difference to the lives of millions of ordinary people in Northern Ireland and, to some extent, here in Britain as well.
  It is also worth reminding ourselves that since 1998, we have witnessed the establishment of the democratic institutions, not only in terms of the north-south dimension, but of the stronger British-Irish relationships. We have seen the principle of consent enshrined in the agreement, thereby putting Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom beyond doubt, and the removal of the Republic's territorial claim to Northern Ireland, which was previously enshrined in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.
  Those are gains that I believe all hon. Members would warmly welcome, as is the incorporation of human rights in all aspects of life by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Commission. We have also seen the advancement of equal opportunities for all in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background, by the implementation of the equality provisions and the establishment of the Equality Commission.
  In addition, since 1998, we have made a new start on policing and criminal justice, with the completion of significant reviews of policing and the criminal justice system. These are merely some of the major strides forward that have been made. None has been easy; all have required the participants to challenge their preconceptions. Those challenges have, however, been met and overcome in the course of this process, however difficult or impossible they seemed. Despite all the difficulties, the progress continues.
  It is natural in a debate of this nature that people will have in their minds some of the scenes that we have witnessed on television over the last six months. There is no reason why they should not do so; indeed, it is probably essential that we all bear them in mind. However, even in the last six months, some of those headlines have camouflaged significant steps forward in the peace process.
  There is formal cross-community support for policing for the first time in Northern Ireland's history. There is successful recruitment to the new police service, drawn from both traditions, and it is worth remarking on the cross-community support for the new police service badge, as shown by the Policing Board last week—another seemingly impossible challenge, which was met on the run by the new Policing Board. In deference to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I should say that he has a theory that the Policing Board was able to reach a conclusion so quickly on a cross-community basis because the designs that I gave to it were so awful as to drive everyone else into agreement. There has been further progress towards normalising security arrangements, and the criminal justice Bill and the draft implementation plan have been published.
  In that context, and perhaps most relevant of all to today's debate, following a four-year ceasefire and arms dumps being opened up to inspection, there has been an unprecedented act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. Whatever hon. Members, or, indeed, those who deny the significance of that, may think about the timing, let us recall that we were told that it would never happen, that it was impossible, that it was too huge a challenge even

  43
  to contemplate and that it was not worth waiting another six months for it. I believe that it clearly demonstrates the enormous progress made in such a relatively short time.
  Mr. Mark Francois rose—
  Dr. Reid: Before I take this intervention, I must say that I hope that that shorthand style of delivery on those issues on which we have made progress does not detract from the fact that each and every development that I listed has in itself been hugely significant.
  Mr. Francois: The Secretary of State described the act of decommissioning as truly significant. To allow the House of Commons to judge whether that is right, will he tell us, very simply, what the IRA gave up to be decommissioned? If he will not tell the democratically elected House of Commons what it was, will he describe his rationale for not doing so?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this fact, but the House of Commons decided how those matters would be dealt with when it decided that there would be an international commission under General de Chastelain. The House of Commons decided the schemes under which decommissioning would be carried out. The House of Commons placed General John de Chastelain's remit in statute, so the hon. Gentleman already has his answer.
  The manner in which the most delicate and difficult of all the challenges facing any society in the transition from decades—indeed, in some cases, centuries—of conflict through to the route of peace was precisely arranged by the House of Commons so that it would be dealt with by General de Chastelain. Finally, it was not my word that the act was significant but that of General de Chastelain, to whom Members entrusted the task of reporting, through the Governments, to the House.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe rose—
  Mr. Francois rose—
  Dr. Reid: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I am concerned about the tone of the previous intervention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it is not the intention of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) to undermine confidence in General de Chastelain and the commission, he should make that clear?
  Does my right hon. Friend further agree that that intervention departed from the position of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who told the House that it was vital that we have faith in an independent international body, and that of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who said:
  "I am not too fussed about the way in which the weapons and explosives are decommissioned … provided that General de Chastelain and his staff can police them at all times."—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 191.1
  44
  Is not that the central issue on which we should concentrate and is not it important for the hon. Member for Rayleigh to make it clear that he is not seeking to undermine General de Chastelain or to depart from the positions adopted by two respected right hon. Members?
  Dr. Reid: I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), but I am sure that he would not seek to undermine the status, role, remit or integrity of General de Chastelain. I understand the natural frustration at these circumstances, but I caution people that, having given General de Chastelain such a difficult role, having set the remit and statute by which he should carry it out and having agreed the scheme under which he would be able to verify it, we should not let our natural inquisition into the course of history in any way impute to the general a lack of integrity. It is General de Chastelain himself who referred to the event as significant.
  Mr. Francois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Reid: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, because I have taken quite a few interventions.
  Mr. Francois: The right hon. Gentleman said he would give way again.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that I would give way to him. I said that I was sure that he would make his view clear. I have no doubt that he will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot devote my whole speech to the hon. Gentleman's or other interventions. If I can make a little progress, I shall take further interventions.
  I believe that all the developments I referred to have been hugely significant in building trust, in building confidence, and in building a new Northern Ireland, where local, accountable politicians are working towards a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland supported by a modern and efficient system of justice and policing, capable of engendering the trust and confidence of all sides of the community. That has been underpinned by a robust rights and equality agenda, and reinforced by a steady, though slow, move away from the politics of the bomb and bullet towards an inclusive, democratic and peaceful pursuit of political ends.
  If people ask me whether the process is complete, perfect or even almost perfect, the answer is obviously no, but it is significantly different and in advance of anything that we previously experienced and that most people reasonably thought possible, given the history of Northern Ireland. The fact that we have not achieved everything should not lead us to believe that we have not gained anything. There has been huge and historic movement. However, despite these improvements and important developments, our efforts to bring an end to the conflict that has blighted Northern Ireland's past is not yet over by far.
  As I said earlier, the nightly scenes of violence on our television screens during recent months, the harassment of school children, the unwarranted violence of the Sinn Fein youth movement last week and the continuation of paramilitary punishment beatings all testify to the

  45
  ingrained nature of a culture of violence that persists, even in those areas where a commitment has been made to move to a democratic and peaceful resolution of our conflicts.
  Above all, there remain those elements, both dissident republican and rejectionist loyalist, who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the democratically expressed will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and who seek to impose their own will by nothing but force and violence. With their sectarian bombs and blind hatred, they are the true enemies of the people of Northern Ireland and will be opposed by all means by the people of Northern Ireland.
  In the face of all that, I am sure that the entire House will wish to take the opportunity to give grateful thanks especially to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to the Garda Siochana, for their excellent work and considerable recent successes against those organisations. I remind the House that in the past two years alone the efforts of the police service, formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and their colleagues in the Republic of Ireland and on the British mainland have thwarted numerous potentially deadly attacks. In just the past few months, they have intercepted bombs at Londonderry and Six Mile Cross, and only last month they intercepted a fully primed, 220 lb car bomb in County Armagh, probably en route to a police station, and arrested the driver. Any one of those bombs could have decimated innocent civilians as well as security personnel.
  The security forces are resolute in their pursuit of those people, and we will continue to do everything we can to support them in that.
  Such republican dissidents, and violent loyalist organisations, are becoming increasingly isolated. As is demonstrated by the developments I described earlier, the tide has turned irrevocably against them. Their only role now is as the most major impediment to the completion of progress towards an open, democratic and normal Northern Ireland. However, crucially, the IRA has carried out the significant and unprecedented act of decommissioning. Only a few years ago, such a thing would have been inconceivable.
  Not only is that act a measure of the transformation that has taken place in Northern Ireland; I believe that in itself it helped to further improve the political climate. It came at a crucial time, when the political institutions established under the Belfast agreement were facing their stiffest test. It has now been possible for those institutions to restabilise, and they are established on a firmer basis than ever before.
  In putting a quantity of arms and explosives beyond use, the IRA has sent the clearest possible signal, not only to the House but to the international community, that it is moving away from violence. That process must continue; but it goes without saying that it is time for the loyalists to follow suit. It is a source of huge regret to me that some of them are not even engaged in the process—that they remain wedded to their violent past and seem unable to take any steps towards a peaceful path, even short of decommissioning.
  In the face of IRA decommissioning, I cannot see what possible reason loyalists now have for retaining their weapons. They certainly need not do so for the protection of their communities, which is the rightful preserve of the police and the security forces. They used to argue that
  46
  they would decommission if the IRA made the first move. Well, the first move has been made: the crucial act has been carried out. It is now up to loyalist paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their support of peaceful and democratic ideals.
  We want to see loyalist decommissioning; we want to see further decommissioning by the IRA and, indeed, other republican organisations; and we want to see dissident groups outside the process brought to the point of realising that democratic dialogue is the only way forward, so that they too decommission their weapons. It goes without saying that until they do so, we will robustly counter their violent activities.
  Of course, we all recognise that if it is to be effectively sustained, the decommissioning process must be a voluntary process. Ultimately, the Government can resist violence—we can pursue robustly those who engage in violence—but we cannot force any paramilitary organisation to give up its weapons, and to dismantle or refrain from renewing its apparatus of terror. Where the will exists, however, the process has begun. We want to, and must, see it sustained.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way to me again, but I think we need not over-complicate what is actually a straightforward matter.
  It is perfectly proper to be able to tell everyone what has been given up, but as far as I am aware, having checked, no definite resolution of the House states that what has been surrendered will remain secret. If the Government argue that this was a significant act, they should put the information in the public domain and—in a free society—allow everyone, from all traditions, to judge just how significant it was. Is not the truth quite simply that what was given up was so minuscule that Ministers were embarrassed to admit it?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has made a completely unsubstantiated assertion for which neither he nor anyone else has any evidence. It is impossible to conduct any rational discussion on the basis of a series of unsubstantiated assertions from Members on both sides of the House. I make no such unsubstantiated assertion; I make an assertion based on the evidence provided by the person to whom this job was given by the House, who was witness to it, and who said that it was a significant event.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not agree that General de Chastelain should have been given the job, that he does not agree with General de Chastelain's judgment and that he does not agree with General de Chastelain's estimate, he is perfectly entitled to say so. People in the country and the House can then decide whether to believe General de Chastelain, who was given the job, who is acting within a remit and under statute and who witnessed the event, or the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have a propensity for making unsubstantiated assertions, pertaining to a remit that he has not been given and contrary to the remit of the House, about an event that he did not witness. I have no doubt on whose side the vast majority of people would come down. All I have said about the event is what General de Chastelain himself said about it.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is clear that the House is not to be told how substantial—or not—the surrender of arms was, but has the Secretary of State been told the extent of the arms that were surrendered?
  Dr. Reid: That is entirely a matter for General de Chastelain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that I have not been told, and I accept the word of General de Chastelain. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh does not want to accept his word, that is entirely up to him. The reason that the quantity was not made public has been explained by General de Chastelain himself, the person to whom the House entrusted the job.
  For the first time, the Irish Republican Army has been prepared to put weapons beyond use. If people in this House, or indeed other politicians, feel that that historic progress would have been better achieved by the intervention and judgment of partisan politicians, all I can say is that they are wired to the moon. They know nothing of history and are far removed from the reality of the problem with which we are dealing.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Reid: I will, provided that the House will accept that my speech will last a little longer.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and apologise for having missed the first few moments of his speech. Does he not understand the difficulty faced by Members on this side of the House? This week, we are being asked to make significant decisions about the future of decommissioning and the future of Parliament's relationship with Sinn Fein-IRA, but we are being asked to do so in a vacuum because we have no clear idea about whether what has happened is a single step or the first of many steps. Our concern is that we are being asked to move further and further on, but we have no clear indication of what comes next and nor, apparently, does the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Indeed, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I understand hon. Members" concern and frustration. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether this House, before it embarked on a monumental project, should have had a guarantee of success in any area, I can tell him that if that had been the case, none of us would have embarked on it. If, however, he is asking for a review of what has happened since we embarked on the process, I can tell him that I have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that. On decommissioning, the process has moved from a ceasefire, through weapons dump inspections, to a historic act of decommissioning, but that has happened alongside progress in many other areas.
  I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that there will be success on any given aspect of the Belfast agreement. I shall turn later to a number of other issues that have still to develop as part of the process. It is not within my power to promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be success on all those issues, whether we are talking about criminal justice, policing, the Assembly or decommissioning. All I can say is that, in the past two and a half years, we have achieved things that were beyond the imagination of anyone in the House when we set out on that journey.
  48
  Is it possible that the process will continue? Yes. Is it necessary that the process continues if the Belfast agreement is to hold together? Yes. Will we bring whatever pressure we can to bear on all aspects of the process? Yes. But can I guarantee that there is an inevitable route to success in all aspects? No, I cannot; nor can anyone else in this House. But it is a damn sight better to try and to succeed as far as we have done than never to have tried and to have languished where we were.
  One of the commentators in yesterday's press told those who thought that there was an alternative to the political process that there was one, which was not to have a political process. If we wanted to see where we might end up with that, the commentator said, one needed merely to look at the middle east.
  I cannot guarantee success, but obviously the greatest sanction on all of us will be if the process fails, because we will all have lost, including some of those who are engaged in the process of putting arms beyond use. If anyone in this House honestly believes that we can realistically say that all decommissioning can be finished by 26 February next year, let us know. If not, and if we are to continue the process, we must look to provide the legal framework as well as the democratic framework to make decommissioning a reality.
  In plain terms, we cannot ask those groups to hand in their weapons if, by so doing, they would be breaking the law. This is exactly what we would be asking if we did not renew the legislation to continue past February, which is when the legislative cover in the 1997 legislation to provide legal immunity for those decommissioning weapons expires; that is why I am bringing the Bill before the House today.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Clearly, there are grave reservations among Conservative Members about the potential for five more years of leeway, albeit with an annual review and vote, which we appreciate. The Secretary of State has rightly said that pressure must be put on paramilitaries, that there must be decommissioning quickly from the so-called loyalists who have not decommissioned and that the Provisional IRA should decommission further. Will he give a guarantee that if, in February of next year, there has been no further decommissioning, he will not bring forward the order for extension for a further year?
  Dr. Reid: Every Conservative speaker today seems to demand from me and seek to instil in me some foresight, whereby I have a crystal ball that can dictate the circumstances. Whether I bring the order forward in February would depend on the circumstances at the time. I do not think that anyone here would say that many of the aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including decommissioning, have progressed as quickly as we would have liked, but that does not diminish the fact that what has happened is of huge significance. I would have liked the stability of the Executive and the Assembly to be up and running and flowering more quickly than it has done. That is a regret. I would have liked decommissioning from the Provisional IRA to move more quickly than it did, and I would have liked decommissioning from some others who have not even started to decommission.
  However, I cannot predict to the right hon. Member for Bracknell either what is likely to happen six months" ahead or my automatic reaction to that. That will depend

  49
  on the circumstances and that is a sensible way to proceed. This issue will be brought to the House regularly because, even with tonight's Bill, the measure must be brought before the House, as the Bill would merely extend by 12 months, in the first instance, the legal immunity for decommissioning. It will then have to be discussed, debated and decided by this House again.
  We cannot allow the great potential that we have to make further progress to be simply thrown away because we have come across what is largely an arbitrary deadline. Given the considerable developments that I have outlined today, we have to be realistic and provide the legal framework to enable further progress to take place.
  I recognise that some say that we need to have deadlines and that without pressure the Provisionals will not move. To some extent, that addresses the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and that may reflect a difference of emphasis on that point. I do not know whether that is the case, but I shall be as honest as I can with the hon. Gentleman and the House. Some people will point to occasions in the past few years when we have achieved progress only by taking matters right to the wire. I understand that argument, although I have to say that the Provisionals are not the only people in Northern Ireland who regularly take matters to the wire.
  However, the Bill includes a provision for Parliament to approve any extension beyond a further year. Though it is not set up as a deadline in any way, there is, therefore, a point at which the matter will have to be discussed and approved again by the House. Notwithstanding that, the simple point is that we will not sustain the peace process merely through deadlines and public ultimatums. Hon. Members constantly point to deadlines that have been passed, and by definition the objective has not been achieved, even through the power that some hon. Members seem to assume lies in deadlines.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: The IRA argues that it is not bound by the agreement because it is not a signatory to the agreement. On this side of the House, it has been argued that the IRA is a signatory to the agreement because Sinn Fein-IRA are inextricably linked. Is not it clear from the debate that the Secretary of State is accepting the IRA's definition, not the definition put by hon. Members on this side of the House?
  Dr. Reid: No, I am accepting the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can assert that the IRA signed the Belfast agreement. He can assert that Santa Claus signed the Belfast agreement, but that does not make it true. It is, however, obviously the case that Sinn Fein's signature of the Belfast agreement gave rise to a reasonable expectation that since Sinn Fein had signed that agreement, there would be full decommissioning within the specified period, during which people would work towards a target. That is partly why there was such disappointment. I wish that that had happened at the specified time, and I also wish that it had happened by the end of the further extension in June.
  I wish that the Provisional IRA and all the loyalist groups will have decommissioned by next February, but I cannot wish away the fact that it is now extremely unlikely that that will be accomplished. Therefore, the choice before the House is whether to make it illegal, by
  50
  voting against the extension, for people to decommission after 26 February, when the legal immunity will end. Yes, it will take continual pressure, but it will also take patience and—obviously—it will take time.
  It will take time to complete every aspect of the Belfast agreement, including the changes that we have inaugurated in policing, and the full flowering and stability of the Assembly and the Executive. I hope that more powers can be passed to the Assembly and the Executive. It is only with time that we will see the normalisation of Northern Ireland society, and that will mean a reduction in the military presence to levels found in the rest of the UK. We need to continue to make steady progress on all of the issues covered by the Belfast agreement, but we cannot exclude decommissioning and the putting of arms beyond use from that. Decommissioning is an integral and essential part of the progress that has to be made. As ever, if we stop moving forward, we will not stand still but will start sliding back.
  It would not be helpful to dictate that there must be an absolute, and by definition arbitrary, end, to just one aspect of the agreement. To pretend that that would deliver the objective that we seek would be neither an honest nor a practical application of our experience. I am firmly convinced that that is not likely to be a sensible or effective way to proceed.
  I have already paid tribute to General John de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I extend to them my heartfelt thanks. Their integrity, diligence, skill and, above all, perseverance have been instrumental in bringing us this far. Whatever disappointment hon. Members may feel about how far we have come, they will, at least, have the dignity to accord due thanks to John de Chastelain for the significant distance that we have come.
  The commission's life is not time-bound. Its mandate comes from the Belfast agreement and the pursuit of the objective of decommissioning all arms can and must be continued. Many hon. Members will no doubt concentrate tonight on what has yet to be achieved. That is, perhaps, natural, and I understand their concerns and frustrations and the occasional anger that accompanies them.
  Legitimate debate remains to be held on the matter before us tonight, but it is worth recalling the nature of the project on which we have embarked. We are addressing a problem whose roots lie deep in decades—indeed, centuries—of conflict. We are addressing it through a process that seeks nothing less than the reversal of that history in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland. The Bill is central to that purpose, and I commend it to the House.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it provides for such an extended deadline for decommissioning which it does not believe will be conducive to the completion as soon as possible of the process which is already more than a year overdue."
  I move the amendment more in sorrow and anxiety than anything else. My anxiety has been considerably enhanced by what we have discovered this afternoon

  51
  about the Secretary of State's extraordinary gullibility in buying the Sinn Fein-IRA line that they are somehow separate organisations.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that they were separate organisations.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to agree with me when I put it to him that that was what he was saying. He then made the most inappropriate analogy with the trade union movement and the Labour party. Perhaps he would like to think about that again.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that they were separate organisations. I said that they were not identical organisations.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused and is taking refuge in jesuitical and retrospective reinterpretation of what he said. I am anxious that he should put the record straight if he wishes to do so.
  Dr. Reid: I must refer to semantics, because the hon. Gentleman seems not to realise the difference between two things that are entirely separate and two that are not identical. Something can be linked to something else, or can overlap with something else, without being identical to something else. If the hon. Gentleman studies a dictionary when he leaves the Chamber, it will all become clear to him.
  Mr. Davies: Let me put to the Secretary of State my conception of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA so that he may tell me whether he disagrees with it. They are two facades of the same organisation. The distinction is an entirely artificial one, contrived with typical and cynical ruthlessness to enable Sinn Fein-IRA, for it is one organisation, to advance its cause with, in its favoured phrase, the Armalite rifle in one hand and the ballot box in the other. It is absolutely terrifying to know that that strategy, duplicity and artificiality should have been so successful as to bamboozle the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: The recent exchanges raise an extraordinary question. If, because he is not so gullible, that is entirely what the hon. Gentleman believes, why in God's name did he support the Belfast agreement? Has he signed up to support an organisation that he believes is not committed to moving away from violence but continually committed to its use? That does not leave me embarrassed, but it leaves the hon. Gentleman in an extraordinary position.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to change the subject, but I shall certainly answer him very directly indeed. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the Belfast agreement. We recognise that one of the parties to it is—and must be—Sinn Fein-IRA, which is certainly a former terrorist organisation. I trust that the word "former" is appropriate. We wish it to cease to be a terrorist organisation. We wish it to give up its arms and
  52
  to pursue its objectives in future by democratic and peaceful means. That is precisely the effect of the Belfast agreement—or what its effect ought to be.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should follow Healey's first law of holes: when in a hole, stop digging. I do not believe that the Irish Republican Army is a former terrorist organisation—it is a terrorist organisation which is on ceasefire. It is a terrorist organisation which is moving away from that description. However, the hon. Gentleman is in an extraordinary position: he believes that the IRA is only former terrorists but that it is still committed to terror, and yet—with all those deep misgivings—he apparently supports the Belfast agreement. The hon. Gentleman should get his thoughts sorted out.
  Mr. Davies: I said—Hansard will bear me out, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listens carefully—that I hoped it was a former terrorist organisation. It certainly was a terrorist organisation and it certainly was a unified terrorist organisation, which operated with two arms to bamboozle the innocent—such as the right hon. Gentleman. In his negotiations, he no doubt believes it when Sinn Fein says, "Oh no, we are awfully sorry, although we'd like those concessions and we'll pocket them thank you very much, we cannot deliver the IRA". No doubt he falls for that line, and it is a fascinating but very, very depressing indication of what has gone wrong with the peace process over the past two or three years. If this debate achieves nothing else, it will have made clear that the Government have been operating under an extraordinarily facile and naive illusion in an extremely dangerous situation.
  That error of judgment completely eclipses another one that has arisen during the past few weeks and which I also regret, although it has nothing like the importance of the matter to which I have just drawn attention. That error of judgment was committed at a time when there has been some good news, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, in that there has been a first act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA—I repeat: Sinn Fein-IRA. There is also encouraging news, which has nothing to do with Sinn Fein-IRA, on other fronts; for example, other nationalist organisations—especially the Social Democratic and Labour party—the Catholic hierarchy and the Gaelic Athletic Association and so forth have all accepted the new police service. It is extremely good news, which I strongly welcome, that the Policing Board has been able to agree on a new cap badge for the new police service in Northern Ireland.
  It thus seems extraordinary that, instead of allowing that good news to sink in, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have set about deliberately eclipsing it by making a series of extraordinary proposals, one of which is included in the Bill, while another—even more pernicious and abhorrent—is to come before the House with a Government motion that I trust we shall be able to debate tomorrow.
  The situation is unfortunate and sad. It is a matter of considerable anxiety to everybody who cares about the future of the peace process—the future of peace in Northern Ireland and successful, devolved democratic government in Northern Ireland.
  I had not anticipated, nor indeed had I ever conceived, coming to the Dispatch Box to disagree with the terms of a decommissioning Bill. I had expected, as we had all

  53
  expected, that it would be necessary to extend the regime under which General de Chastelain operates for a few months beyond February, perhaps for a year. I thought that the exact timing might be a matter for consultation. There has been no consultation whatever—at least none with Her Majesty's Opposition. There may well have been consultation with much more sinister forces, including those that the right hon. Gentleman thinks are not part of a terrorist organisation. Perhaps he would like to let us know to what extent the deadlines in the Bill have been negotiated—or whether the motion that the Government are to move tomorrow has been the subject of discussions or negotiations with Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Dr. Reid: On the first one about decommissioning, none; on the second, discussions have been going on for over two years, including discussions with the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Davies: I can testify that there has been no discussion with my party on the timing of deadlines in the Bill. The deadlines were a bad surprise and a shock, and we had absolutely no reason to suppose that they would be in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing some of those things, including tomorrow's motion, with Sinn Fein-IRA, it will be interesting to know what, if anything, he has been able to get as a counterpart to some pretty extraordinary concessions.
  In the absence of clear answers and consultation beforehand, we must simply look at the Bill as it stands. It contains a fundamental error: it extends the deadline for decommissioning, for whatever reason, to five years from February. For some reason that I do not understand, instead of the Bill stating five years, a particular date in February 2007 is given, but the effect is exactly the same and the Bill's purpose is absolutely clear. I believe that to be a disastrous mistake, for two separate reasons. It will have bad consequences of two kinds. Unfortunately, they will reinforce each other and both contribute to damaging rather than supporting the peace process.
  The first mistake is that extending the regime for decommissioning for another five years sends the wrong signal to Sinn Fein-IRA, loyalist paramilitaries and others with arms in Northern Ireland. The signal is, "Relax. Take your time. You are not up against a deadline; there is no particular urgency." I am as aware as anybody that deadlines may not be met, but the idea that extending a deadline will speed up the process seems hardly credible. Not only does it seem hardly credible: the Secretary of State himself does not believe it. He has said this afternoon that Sinn Fein-IRA and other groups in Northern Ireland go down to the wire, taking at least the time that they are given under the deadline whether they meet it or not. It follows, therefore, that extending the deadline extends the time that they take. The right hon. Gentleman is not even willing to learn the lessons of his acknowledged experience. I find it extraordinary that he should come to the House with a Bill extending deadlines, and then tell us that that will have no effect on the time taken by those concerned to fulfil the commitments under those deadlines.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that what we are hearing is exactly what he said to Lord Mayhew in 1997? Did he tell him that a one-year period with the extension of up to five years was the
  54
  wrong deadline? Did he disagree in this House? Is there a record of that in Hansard? Does he think that any of the loyalist groups, including those which are not even currently engaged in the process, could decommission within a few months? What deadline did he think in 1997 was appropriate? How long does he now think it would take loyalist groups to decommission?
  Mr. Davies: Unless the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for the past five years, I can only imagine that he has deliberately come to the House to produce manifest absurdities. In 1997, we did not have the Belfast agreement. We did not have the beginnings of a mechanism to produce decommissioning. Since then, in case he has not noticed, we have had the Belfast agreement. In case he has forgotten, that agreement provided a deadline of two years, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Nothing happened under that deadline; it was extended for a year, but still nothing happened. Eventually, some progress was made after 11 September.
  In producing a regime under which decommissioning might take place—if initial agreement between the parties is secured and if the international commission and the other organisations required can be set up—to start off with a five-year period may well be reasonable, but once four or five years have elapsed, deadlines have been missed, people have failed to live up to the commitments they made, and the law-abiding and peace-loving people of Northern Ireland have been disappointed, to go back to square one and start again with another five years seems less absurd than irresponsible.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is trying to waste time by pretending that he does not know what has happened in the past five years, so I shall not give way to him again this afternoon, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
  Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Given that the Good Friday agreement did not exist when the Conservative Government decided to create an amnesty, does he not agree that that required a greater act of faith on the part of Parliament than this Bill, which we are discussing in the context of the Good Friday agreement?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, that is true. That took place right at the beginning of the peace process launched by the Conservative Government and it required a considerable act of faith. I take the hon. Gentleman's remark to be a compliment to my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Mayhew, who I am sure will be pleased to have the approbation and recognition of the Liberal party and its official spokesman for once.
  Mr. Goodman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the most remarkable feature of the debate has been the Secretary of State's statement that under the terms of

  55
  the Belfast agreement the IRA is riot obliged to decommission—a position exactly the same as that of the IRA?
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry to have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State's statement is enormously significant—and enormously depressing.
  Dr. John Reid: I am sorry to keep intervening, but Opposition Front Benchers appear to be genetically incapable of either hearing or understanding words. I made no such statement—that the IRA were not so obliged. I said that they had not signed the Belfast agreement, and that is a statement of fact, not of opinion.
  Mr. Davies: Fortunately we in the House have the institution of Hansard, so we need not spend any more time on that issue. I sincerely hope that when I read my Hansard tomorrow morning I will find that the Secretary of State is as fully aware as other reasonable and experienced people in Northern Ireland of the fact that the distinction between Sinn Fein and IRA is a complete fraud, and that when he speaks to any representatives of either organisation he is probably speaking to individuals who hold positions in both organisations and represent them both.
  Mr. Robathan: May I take my hon. Friend back to deadlines for decommissioning? Is it not true that when an organisation determines to give up its weapons, that can be done relatively quickly? In Macedonia recently, there was a 30-day limit, and I recall that 20 years ago in Zimbabwe—an enormous country with fighters out in the bush—there was a two-month limit. If an organisation is determined to give up its weapons, surely it does not need a rolling five-year programme?
  Mr. Davies: I totally agree. It is ironic than on a day when we have discussed sending 1,000 British troops to Afghanistan to participate in a peace process—the decommissioning of what remains of the Taliban and the establishment of peace in that country—that is supposed to be completed in a matter of months, we are extending by a further five years the deadline for getting rid of terrorist arms in our own country, and doing so apparently thoughtlessly and on the basis of an extraordinarily sanguine acceptance of Sinn Fein-IRA propaganda about its operations and structure.
  The Secretary of State would be extraordinarily naive to think that offering an extending deadline is likely to get the action he requires sooner. He made an absurdity of that notion when he said that everyone in Northern Ireland tends to go to the wire, but it would be absurd in almost any context. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to buy a house, and he thought that he might get it for £100,000 and the most that he was prepared or able to pay was £150,000. Does he think that he would be more likely to get a bargain, or more likely to get any deal at all, if he signalled to the vendor that if pressed he would go to £500,000? That is precisely what he has done by offering five years. It is thoroughly reckless.
  It is deplorable for another reason. I said that there were two reasons, and the second is a matter of even greater concern than the first. The right hon. Gentleman has sent
  56
  the wrong signal to those who have to decommission—Sinn Fein-IRA, the loyalists and other paramilitaries. He has also sent the wrong signal to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who are peace loving and law abiding and desperately keen to get the gun and Semtex out of politics in Northern Ireland. They are now being told that after all the sacrifices, all the delays, all the disappointments of recent years and all the enormous concessions to paramilitaries, they must wait a lot longer. They must wait for another five years. That is the time they were told in the first place would be required for the framework to get the process started and completed.
  It is an extremely depressing signal to send to the people of Northern Ireland. It can only undermine people's confidence and their hopes in the peace process producing the dividends for which they all hope. The signal will inevitably have a particularly devastating effect on morale in the Unionist community. That concerns me very much.
  The Secretary of State may recall that when I responded to his statement on 24 October I said that we should take into account
  "the concerns and feelings of all the people of Northern Ireland in both communities."—[,Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 304.]
  A few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech about Northern Ireland not becoming a "cold house" for Unionists. I welcome his use of that phrase. I welcome also what appeared to be the spirit behind it. Although the right hon. Gentleman managed to say a few words in the right direction, however, it is easy to say a few words. After the tragedies of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland, we can hardly expect words to be sufficient to influence anybody very much.
  Apart from that easy declaration, what have the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors done? There has been an endless stream of concessions. There have been the release of prisoners and the abolition of the RUC—extremely difficult concessions for Unionist sentiment to accept. We have said and I have said that we must accept those moves, reluctantly of course. There is no question but that they stick in the gullet, but they are a necessary part of the process.
  It is important that the Belfast agreement is implemented. I have done my best to counsel patience and forbearance. What has happened? The Government have gone endlessly further. As if the release of prisoners and the implementation of the Government's obligations under the Belfast agreement were not enough, they went to Weston Park and made a new raft of concessions that were not required under the Belfast agreement. In recent weeks, they seem to have gone almost berserk with the concessions that they are offering.
  We have before us the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which includes a proposal to remove the royal coat of arms from new courthouses in Northern Ireland and to abolish the loyal oath for judges. Those concessions are deeply offensive to Unionists. They are deeply worrying to anybody who takes seriously the idea, as at least we all do on the Opposition Benches, that we are part of one kingdom in this country.
  The matter has not stopped there. At Northern Ireland questions on 5 December, I put to the Secretary of State the article that had been written by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I will

  57
  put to the Secretary of State his right hon. Friend's predictions, or assertions. The article stated that the Government were proposing
  "an amnesty for former terrorists on the run".
  That is in the Weston park agreement, but it had no basis of approval from the house. The article refers to
  "the dismanting of British security facilities … further inquiries into past British security 'misdeeds'".
  As I said then, there was no suggestion of any inquiries into other people's misdeeds or artocitites.
  The article also refers to "further changes"—I underline "further" again—
  '"to the new police service, the successor to the RUC, on top of those reforms already agreed to make the police acceptable to nationalists and Republicans.'"
  In response, the Secretary of State did not deny that at all; he did not deny any suggestions that new concessions were to be made. I greatly regret the fact that he came close to being disingenuous by saying that the measures were not new; he said that I was wrong to say that they were. I emphasised "further inquiries", "further changes" and the pharse
  "on top of those reforms".—[Official Report, 5, December 2001; vol.376, c.318]
  If "further" and "on top of" do not mean incremental—something added to what is already there—and if that is not fairly described by the word "new", with which the Secretary of State took issue the other day, he will have to spend his retirement revising the Oxford English dictionary.
  Dr. John Reid: Having had problems with semantics, the hon. Gentleman now has problems with his chronology. There were no new promises made after or around the time of the publication of that article; there was nothing that was not entirely in the public domain, including the inquiries. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read the Weston Park communiqué, which does not exclusively comprise inquiries demanded by republicans. In fact, it consists of three inquiries long demanded by those of a loyalist and Unionist persuasion, as well as three demanded by those of a republican or nationalist persuasion. There was nothing new at the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was writing; there was nothing that was not fully in the public domain. To say that my remarking on that made me almost disingenuous is a bit unfair, to say the least.
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being unfair to him; I have simply quoted for him—twice now—the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. If his right hon. Friend was wrong, it would have been simpler to say so; perhaps the Secretary of State does not want to quarrel with him because, as we know, he is such a powerful personage in his party and has the ear of the Prime Minister. That may well be the explanation.
  We must get back to the position that I put to the Secretary of State before, which he does not seem to want to acknowledge. He acknowledged it once with two or three words but, as far as I know, he has never acknowledged it with any deed. The Unionist community in Northern Ireland understandably feels that the process is a one-way street; everything that the Secretary of State
  58
  has done, every statement that he has made, all the concessions to which I have just referred, all of Weston Park, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill which is now before the House and, worst and most obnoxious of all, the motion that the Government will introduce tomorrow, only reinforce and re-emphasise the impression that the process is a one-way street without end. The Unionist community believes that the Government have embarked on a limitless and uncontrolled process of making concessions to republicans.
  The Government now acknowledge that there is some kind of distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA, so they make concessions to Sinn Fein, but the IRA does not deliver on the other side. If that situation should not worry everybody, not merely Unionists, in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, everybody in the United Kingdom—I do not know what should.
  If the Secretary of State does not already know—he certainly acts as if he does not—I must tell him that one cannot build successful peace in Northern Ireland, establish successful devolved institutions and democracy and normalise that part of the United Kingdom without the support of the Unionist majority. He seems to believe that the Unionist majority can be taken for granted and will end up accepting just about anything he comes up with. The course on which he has embarked is extremely dangerous and that is reflected in the Bill. Once again, there is an open-ended approach to the IRA or Sinn Fein-IRA delivering its side of the agreement; more and more concrete concessions are made at the expense of Unionist concerns and sentiment, as well as justified Unionist pride.
  The strategy of making concessions without any quid pro quo was flawed from the start. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government's decision to let out all the prisoners within two years of the Belfast agreement being made without the IRA decommissioning a single weapon or giving up a single ounce of Semtex was a colossal mistake. That was recognised at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who wisely and sensibly tabled amendments to the census legislation for Northern Ireland that would have established that linkage. Those amendments were resisted by the Government but, had we established the linkage, we would have an instrument of leverage on Sinn Fein-IRA; all those instruments of leverage were thrown away by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors.
  It is hardly surprising that two years passed without decommissioning. Why should people decommission when there was no particular reason why they should? In fact, the Government deprived the Sinn Fein-IRA leadership of any arguments to use among its membership. It could not say that it had to decommission to get its prisoners out because they had been let out anyway. The strategy was extremely naive and incompetent, and it damaged the peace process. A third year passed, but still there was no decommissioning. The Government panicked, went to Weston Park in desperation and made a whole lot of new gratuitous concessions, which were not required at all in the Belfast agreement, to somehow appease Sinn Fein-IRA and hope that nevertheless they would come up with some decommissioning. Even then, they did not do so. Two weeks after the talks at Weston Park, the IRA went back on the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning that it negotiated with General de

  59
  Chastelain at the time of Weston Park, and publicly withdrew it. That was a real blow in the eye for the Government and, much more important, for the peace process.
  As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged earlier—I do not know whether he always remembers what he says 10 minutes after he has said it—but he certainly accepted that the situation changed only after the autumn, with the exposure of the IRA's involvement with FARC in Colombia and particularly after the events of 11 September, to which he rightly referred in this context. The position changed as there were new international pressures on Sinn Fein-IRA, particularly from the United States, which were unanswerable. I agree that another major factor was the threat that the whole process was about to break down, but that was nothing to do with what the Government did; it was entirely to do with what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann did with what I have previously referred to in public as the three Trimble sanctions—first, withdraw Sinn Fein members from meetings of all-Irish bodies, secondly, withdraw Ulster Unionist Ministers, then resign himself. Pressures brought to bear elsewhere by political parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government, no doubt, and particularly the United States brought about decommissioning.
  Nobody could have anticipated—the Government certainly did not—that the international context would be transformed tragically and appallingly by the events of 11 September and that that would have a critical and decisive knock-on effect on the situation in Northern Ireland. The Government must not allow themselves to continue down their previous path. If they want to continue with unilateral concessions, the House must not allow them to do so. Tonight, we have the opportunity to prevent them from acting in that way by changing the Bill, sending it back and getting the Government to return with a much more limited deadline, which will impose greater discipline on the whole process. I hope that the House will take that opportunity.
  I shall draw conclusions both from the way in which the Government handled the process which I have just detailed and their extraordinary illusions about Sinn-Fein, which have been startlingly and dramatically revealed in our debate, which will go down as an historic debate for that reason alone. We need a fundamental rethink of the position in Northern Ireland; we must consider the right approach and strategy that the British Government should adopt to maximise the chances of a succesful peace process and successful decommissioning. There are two aspects to that. First, it must be made clear what the deal and price will be ultimately to achieve complete and full decommissioning, which will be defined by General de Chastelain saying that the process that he has been supervising has been completed.
  How do we get there? How do we bring in all the other parties as well as Sinn Fein-IRA, including the loyalist paramilitaries, to which the right hon. Gentleman was right to refer? We all know that Sinn Fein-IRA thinks that its opposite number is not the loyalist paramilitaries, but the British Government. It likes to think it is dealing with the Government on an equal basis. The right hon. Gentleman's illusions about dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA will greatly have comforted it in that belief.
  60
  In an exchange at the Dispatch Box on 24 October, I suggested the negotiation of
  "a programmed process leading to full decommissioning"—[Official Report,24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 305.]—
  a balanced process, a global package—so that it is clear to all concerned what needs to be done by whom by when, and what the price will be. If General de Chastelain can negotiate such a process, that would be ideal. If he feels that that goes beyond his remit, the Government—in conjunction with the Irish Government, no doubt—should take the initiative.
  That is important for at least two reasons. One is that only on that basis will it be clear how far the concessions go and what we will have to pay for decommissioning, and it will be clear what must be done by when. There will be some rigour and discipline in the process. Secondly, only by such an open, transparent deal will it be possible to restore confidence in Northern Ireland that we are not engaged merely in a process of endless appeasement of terrorists or former terrorists—commonly known as, and often called in Northern Ireland, a sell-out. By definition, a sell-out will not have the support of the great majority of law-abiding people.
  The Bill provides us with the chance to introduce a tighter, more disciplined and more transparent process. I hope that the House will take that opportunity. If we do not, we are left with the prospect that, if decommissioning happens at all, it will happen because others have made the moves that the British Government ought to have made. We will not know how many moves need to be made or how long it will take until we get arms out of politics in Northern Ireland.
  I can well believe that Sinn Fein-IRA may be under pressure from other sources. It is generally expected in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein-IRA will need to make at least a cosmetic further act of decommissioning before the Irish elections in May, in order to maximise its respectability and chances of picking up seats in Ireland. I do not know whether that is true, but if so, it in no way absolves the British Government from doing everything possible to facilitate the process and make decommissioning more likely, rather than slowing down the process or leaving it to an indefinite future.
  Above all, the British Government must make a new effort to ensure that they carry with them all the communities in Northern Ireland. They must explain to the Unionist community, as well as to the nationalist and the republican communities, what needs to be done, why it must be done, how the concessions that need to be made are limited and what their purpose is. That aspect of the peace process has been dangerously neglected by the Government.
  I am not in the business of criticising the Government without making positive and, I hope, helpful suggestions. The issue of changing symbols will arise in connection with other Bills in the near future. Let the Secretary of State think about the matter before then. If he considers it necessary to change symbols in order to create the feeling that they are part of the new constitution in Northern Ireland among communities that up till now have felt disadvantaged, let the right hon. Gentleman bring in new symbols, but let him not destroy old ones. Let him add. Let him show the same respect for the Unionist tradition as he is showing in order to

  61
  accommodate or appease other traditions. That is the way forward. We need greater balance, rigour, discipline and fairness in the process.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: When I came to the Chamber this afternoon, I assumed that we would hear genuine concerns and anxieties being expressed by some of our friends from Northern Ireland. I expected that that would be difficult and that ground that had already been covered would have to be covered again. I understand that for people who have worked hard for peace, the length of time that the process takes is disturbing, and it is difficult for them to keep others on board.
  Anyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will realise that the focus of the debate lies elsewhere. We are back to the old question of deadlines and the position that the only decommissioning that should concern us is decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. That is extremely regrettable.
  Mr. Davies: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman misquote me so soon after my remarks. I made it clear that it was extremely important that all the organisations with arms in Northern Ireland should be part of the decommissioning process. On several occasions I referred specifically to the loyalist paramilitaries.
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting the record straight. I must have slept through that part of his speech. Were I judging it on quantity, I would recognise the number of references that he made to one group in particular.
  Back in July 1999, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said of the decommissioning scheme:
  "It does not refer to timetables… there is no explicit reference in the decommissioning scheme to a timetable."
  He went on to say that the decommissioning scheme states:
  ""The Commission may make such arrangements as it considers appropriate to facilitate the decommissioning of arms.""
  He continued:
  "I repeat:
  "such arrangements at it considers appropriate to facilitate"
  decommissioning."—[Official Report, 13 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 189.]
  I welcomed that statement by the right hon. Gentleman, as the issue of timetables has bedevilled the process.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, I came to the conclusion that the Opposition amendment is not a reasoned amendment. It does not seek to alter the process. It does not recognise that we are dealing with an amnesty. It is an attempt to renege on the agreement. It represents the end of bipartisanship. I am shocked and horrified by the comments of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is no longer in his place.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said—I listened carefully to this part of his speech—that nothing had happened in the first two years of decommissioning. I recall that on 18 September the LVF decommissioned a
  62
  small quantity of weapons, which General de Chastelain described as a significant event. To my recollection, no one queried those remarks.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The LVF gesture was made in the full glare of publicity—in front of the television cameras. In the case of the latest so-called gesture of decommissioning, no one has seen it and no one knows what it amounts to, not even the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister.
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a record of decommissioning and it is verified. Unless the hon. Gentleman is joining others in saying that he does not trust General de Chastelain and his commission, he should accept that there is a record of the IRA decommissioning and it has been verified. Most hon. Members were prepared to accept the procedure when the commission was established. There have been two significant acts of decommissioning. The first occurred in 1998 and was a very early and welcome gesture. I entirely agree with those who suggest that we waited far too long for the second such act; none the less, a second important act of decommissioning has occurred.
  We must make a simple choice before we consider the Bill any further. We must decide whether the House will continue to place faith in General de Chastelain. If hon. Members are saying that they are not prepared to do so, the whole process will come to an end, as that is the basis on which agreement was struck and on which they said they would have confidence in the process. Now that General de Chastelain has announced that a second act of decommissioning has occurred, that basis has been challenged.
  Chris Grayling: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the issue of concern is not General de Chastelain, but the continuous process in which the Government have made concessions during the past two to three years without any response from Sinn Fein-IRA? We have seen the process of releasing prisoners, the creation of the new institutions and the reform of policing, and we are now dealing with the issue of accommodation in the House of Commons for Members who have not taken their seats. There has been concession after concession, but we have had only one item in return, and we are being asked to take it on trust that that is sufficient. Does not he understand that the concerns arise from the continued process of give but very little take?
  Mr. McCabe: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way.
  As I understand it, we are dealing with the question of extending an amnesty for those who are prepared to decommission weapons on the loyalist and republican sides. That is what we should be considering now. I accept his concerns, which are genuine, but not his analysis of events since the Good Friday agreement was signed. It seems to me that General de Chastelain" s remit has not expired. As I understand it, his remit is established by treaty, so nobody should be querying his right to continue in his current role. However, we are entitled to ask what will happen when we hit the 27 February deadline. If people to whom an amnesty applies are poised and ready to decommission weapons, are we prepared to turn our backs by not agreeing to take another step to allow them

  63
  to do so? I cannot believe that any reasonable human being in this place who wants to see peace and decommissioning in Northern Ireland would come to that conclusion, which is utterly wrong.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise that decommissioning must be one of the crucial elements of the peace process. I was in South Africa with other members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs a couple of years ago. We witnessed first hand some of the problems that had occurred in that country despite the peace process there, because of the failure successfully to decommission weapons. If the entire peace process in Northern Ireland is to succeed, successful decommissioning must be a part of it. I do not take the view that we should put unnecessary obstacles in its way. Whatever people feel should have happened in the first two years, tentative moves have been made. They are insufficient, more is required and it is to be hoped that we can persuade those involved to deliver more, but tentative moves have been made—one on each side—which show that the process can work, given the right encouragement.
  Unfortunately, we must recognise that the UDA, a specified organisation, is not currently prepared to engage in the process. How on earth we could expect it to decommission before 27 February or within three months of that date—I think that that is the preferred time scale of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford—I do not know. I think that that is utterly absurd. We know that the UVF and the LVF are currently engaged in discussions with General de Chastelain, although I do not think that there is much information about exactly what stage the negotiations have reached. It is possible that they are considering the time scale for further acts of decommissioning, but the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sweep that possibility aside unless such an act takes place within his three-month time scale. That position is frighteningly absurd and I think that we are entitled to expect better from Her Majesty's official Opposition.
  On decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, I want to make this simple point: we know that it has taken the first vital step and we hope that a succession of steps will follow. I share that view with my colleagues from Northern Ireland. I dearly want such progress to happen soon and I hope that we might even see more of it before 27 February. I also want total decommissioning, which can happen only if we retain faith in the process. That is why I am shocked and disturbed to be told that the official Opposition spokesman wants to rewrite the de Chastelain brief. He is not content to accept what his predecessors and this whole House were happy to accept: that the onus is on General de Chastelain and the commission to say that they are happy and satisfied, that they have a record and that they were able to verify the process. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford does not want that. He wants a new set of conditions and timetables, the result of which would be to undermine General de Chastelain at the very stage when we have seen what he describes as the first significant act. I cannot for the life of me work out how any reasonable individual would come to that conclusion.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He said that he did not understand how any reasonable individual could come to the
  64
  conclusion that he described, but surely the evidence of the past three years shows that every time Sinn Fein-IRA sees an opportunity to string the process out or grab an extra concession, it does so. The message of a five-year time frame is that decommissioning is anything but urgent. I put it to him that it is urgent and that we need a tighter time frame and tighter guidelines in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA to try to encourage it to come to a resolution.
  Mr. McCabe: The evidence of the past few years is that we have been engaged in a stop-go process with regard to the whole Good Friday agreement. Sometimes we have had the Executive and the Assembly, sometimes there have been deadlines and sometimes we have moved away from them. However, despite all those difficulties, we have seen two significant acts of decommissioning. We should now be doing everything we can to encourage further such acts. There is nothing wrong with the proposals in the Bill, which contains no provision saying that a further five years are necessary. It states that a further 12 months are necessary and that, beyond that time, the Secretary of State can extend the time scale by 12-month periods, if necessary, for up to five years.
  Given where we were when Lord Mayhew made the original proposals, it is clear that we have moved forward. An agreement is in place and various acts are occurring, many of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Any reasonable individual would regard them as progress. Not enough progress has been made, there is anxiety about the future and concerns have been expressed about how quickly we move forward; none the less, progress has been made that was inconceivable 10 years ago.
  At the very point when we could be in a position to generate further and, I hope, much more rapid progress, the official Opposition claim that they want to defeat the Bill that would allow an extension for the minimum period required to complete the job. That is not bipartisanship, and the Opposition's actions are not those of people who believe in the peace process or have decommissioning at the top of their agenda. For that reason, they are wrong. We should therefore reject the amendment and get on with removing the bombs and guns from Northern Ireland.
  6.20 pm
  Lembit Öpik: We need to discuss the Bill in the context of what all parties, including the former Conservative Government, have created. To some extent, the process is an act of faith, but we can also examine the evidence when we determine the Bill's merit.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) presented a fluent and logically argued case for the Conservative party. He made two core points. First, he said that the Bill weakened the bargaining hand of the Government to speed decommissioning. Secondly, he claimed that the Bill extends to five years the minimum period that the people of Northern Ireland have to wait for significant decommissioning. Those points lie at the heart of whether we support the Bill.
  It is a contradiction for the Conservatives to argue that the Bill weakens the Government's bargaining ability. As the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 came into force on 22 February 1997, during John Major's

  65
  Administration, before Conservative Members lost their hold on the Government Benches. Clearly, if the Bill weakens the Government's hand, the 1997 Act must have weakened that of the previous Government, especially as we did not even have the structure of the Good Friday agreement for pursuing lasting peace and normalisation in the Province.
  If the hon. Gentleman's logic holds true, it was a worse mistake for Conservatives to argue in favour of the amnesty in 1997.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is missing an important distinction. Because of the Belfast agreement, no decommissioning now means leaving in government the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA with an army at his beck and call that is totally armed.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will attempt to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to expand on that. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford implied the same. It is a legitimate position, but to take it, one must argue primarily from principle rather than from judging the best way forward to normalisation in Northern Ireland. It may be such a controlling principle for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the gentleman to whom he referred is in power in Northern Ireland that any softening of the position on decommissioning is unacceptable. That is not where I stand.
  In my view, the fundamental principle is finding the best way forward to normalising life in the Province. The evidence of 1997 suggests that the argument for repeating the gesture in 2001 for another five years is compelling. It is up to hon. Members to decide whether to adopt the position of the hon. Member for Belfast, East—I believe that it is a position of principle—or that of the Liberal Democrats. An amnesty was set previously, and we believe that nothing suggests that we should go back on it.
  The earlier amnesty was established in a political vacuum when there was no process. The Bill re-establishes the amnesty after the Good Friday agreement has provided an imperfect but nevertheless tangible structure for us to compare the performance of the organisations involved in decommissioning. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford condemns the timetable, he must condemn what happened under Lord Mayhew in 1997 even more. I did not hear him make such a condemnation. He implied that I had praised Lord Mayhew and the former Conservative Government for their actions. He is right.
  I have previously praised John Major for his visionary and courageous decisions when he was effectively forced to deal with terrorists who were bombing our security forces. I also praise Lord Mayhew, who made a courageous decision that could have backfired, but was one of the necessary if insufficient conditions for the subsequent success of the Good Friday agreement and the ceasefire.
  Chris Grayling: Surely the difference between 1997 and today is that actions in 1997 were a genuine attempt to open a door to the process. Today, an agreement is in place, the British Government and the Irish Government have made concessions, but Sinn Fein-IRA has not yet
  66
  fulfilled the decommissioning terms in the Belfast agreement. Extending the time for five years does not apply the thumbscrews to make it deliver.
  Lembit Öpik: That is a good link to my second point. The hon. Gentleman asked the right question. Is there a difference in 2001? Could we achieve a stronger position by not renewing the amnesty? Tonight's debate is not about creating pressure to ensure that the paramilitaries decommission, but about whether we want to close a door on them. It is about whether we want to provide a gateway through which they can decommission.
  In 1997, the amnesty was a necessary but insufficient condition to achieve decommissioning. In the same way, the Bill is a necessary but insufficient condition. It makes it legally possible for paramilitary organisations to decommission, but I do not believe that that is an incentive to doing it. However, I sure as hell am convinced that if we make it illegal and create the possibility of prosecuting for decommissioning, it will be harder to find mechanisms to provide the political pressure for it.
  As the hon. Gentleman suggested, some hon. Members may believe that the debate is about applying positive pressure by making it illegal to decommission. On the other hand, some of us believe that the Bill keeps a door open so that we can move on through dialogue and other means to find pressure points that will cause the IRA and others to decommission. I suspect that the Secretary of State was also arguing that.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford claimed that the measure would extend the process by another five years. Again, I take a different view. Paramilitary organisations have been bombing, killing, maiming and destroying property for decades. I do not believe that they will be persuaded to decommission by 26 February 2002 simply because we tell them that we will prosecute them if they do not. That is not real-life politics. Such people do not worry about not owning gun licences, but they probably worry about the political implications of making it difficult for linked organisations such as Sinn Fein to achieve the sort of concessions for their communities for which they allegedly got involved in the troubles. I therefore take issue with the hon. Gentleman, not because he did not argue cogently but because my premise is different. I believe that the Bill is a gateway measure rather than a pressure.
  The evidence suggests that the Liberal Democrats and the Government are correct. As I said earlier, I genuinely believe that the roots of the successes lie in the former Conservative Administration's decisions. There is all the more pressure now, therefore, for the current Conservative Opposition not to impugn one of the few great triumphs for which they can justly take credit. A few individuals such as the former Prime Minister and Lord Mayhew are worthy of special mention in that context.
  Let us be honest, the driver behind the first limited act of decommissioning in October was not the amnesty. The key driver was probably 11 September, in that the IRA—and perhaps Sinn Fein as well—could foresee its funding from the United States drying up, as well as an unquantifiable military response being made against it in the post-11 September environment. In addition, the IRA scored a tremendous political own goal in Colombia, where it was found to be carrying out activities wholly in

  67
  contravention of the alliance against terrorism that was being established across the world. The drivers were, therefore, external to Northern Ireland.
  I suspect that it would have been somewhat more difficult for the IRA—and those Sinn Fein politicians who, I am pretty sure, have sway over it—to meet its goals and to achieve the first act of decommissioning if the de Chastelain process had not been in place. Let us not pretend that that process could continue after 26 February if the Bill were not passed. There would be no structure within which to achieve a logical de Chastelain-type procedure to manage decommissioning if we did not pass the Bill. I have not heard what alternative proposals the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford would put forward if he were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and did not allow the Bill to go through.
  I have some questions for the Minister on the mechanics of the Bill, and I hope that she will be able to answer them in her summation. I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that we need clarification on certain questions, one of which concerns the degree of contact between the IRA and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning since October. After the IRA's symbolic gesture, everything seems to have gone rather quiet. It has always been recognised that decommissioning is a process, but it is not a one-incident process. Pressure must be brought to bear on the IRA to do more than simply make a gesture to cover its own financial backside one day when it was clearly under the hammer to do so. We need to know what has happened since October. That was an important step, but is the Minister aware of any further steps that we can expect from the paramilitaries? Secondly, to what extent has the IRA met de Chastelain since October? Have there been any bilateral meetings, and has any pressure been brought to bear by Ministers to achieve that?
  Thirdly, to what extent have loyalist paramilitaries been in contact with the IICD? The incidence of loyalist attacks is increasing, and steps must be taken to reduce them. As hon. Members, including Unionist and Conservative Members, have rightly pointed out, there is an underlying level of violence in Northern Ireland that -is unknown on the mainland of the United Kingdom. For many people in Northern Ireland, the peace is not a peace. They are still living under paramilitary regimes that are far from our concept of peace. Will the Minister enlighten us as to whether we can expect a statement from the loyalist paramilitaries as well? We cannot expect a real dialogue on decommissioning by the loyalists while such violence is continuing, but the aim must be to achieve a total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. Strategically speaking, we have to recognise, while focusing primarily on the IRA for obvious reasons, that there is a pressure elsewhere too.
  I would like to make a suggestion as to how we should generate the kind of pressure that could create genuine decommissioning. Clearly, the Bill is part of that process, in that it will leave the door open for that pressure to be applied. Secondly, it is necessary now to start moving in the direction that we all hoped that we could, and to make it clear to the paramilitaries that they will maximise the benefit to their communities and achieve the goals that they have been bombing and shooting for only through their political representatives.
  68
  As the hon. Member for Belfast, East rightly pointed out, there are some very senior members of the republican movement who have, at the very least, formerly served time on account of being actively involved in a paramilitary operation and who now enjoy a great deal more power than they could ever have dreamed possible when they were operating in a paramilitary environment. So long as the success of the Stormont Assembly in giving power on a genuinely bipartisan basis is sustained, and so long as the Stormont Assembly really means something to the people of Northern Ireland, we can be confident that it is the right vehicle to show those paramilitaries who are serious about their communities that they should move forward in that way.
  There has to be balance in these matters. Unionists and loyalists can rightly be nervous about what they perceive to be an endless series of concessions to the republican and nationalist communities. I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said about that. Whatever my personal views on the degree of balance, perception is everything. The current perception is that the Unionists have given too much, and that the republicans have given too little back. Does the Minister agree with the concern that I am raising now, which has already been raised by Conservative Members? Is there anything strategic that the Government can do to ensure that both sides feel fairly treated?
  It is also necessary to remember that there is public pressure in Northern Ireland to eliminate the maiming and killing. As we have said so many times before, the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland oppose violence. They have got used to peace, although it has been more successfully achieved in some areas than in others. Will the Minister tell us how we can harness the increasing intolerance of violence among the large sections of the public who have benefited from the peace, to make it clear to the paramilitaries—and those politicians involved with them—that violence will no longer be tolerated and, more to the point, that if the violence restarted, there would be a tremendous political price to be paid, which would have a direct consequence on the communities allegedly being protected by the paramilitaries?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a political price to be paid. The reality is that the main parties in this House would not have to pay that political price, because they do not stand for election in Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that, despite his placid idea that people are against violence, there is now more criminal and terrorist violence in ordinary everyday life in Northern Ireland? The shops on the Lisburn road are attacked day after day, but the police and security forces cannot deal with it. The clear-up rate for crime has been lower over this last year than ever before. Is it not time for him to come down from cloud cuckoo land and deal with reality?
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's point is exactly the one to which I hope that the Minister will respond. He expresses a genuine and sincerely felt concern that things are getting worse in the Unionist communities in an area of Belfast that I know something about, having lived there myself, although not for some time. Regardless of the perceptions of those of us who think that things are getting better, we have to build confidence in the

  69
  communities in which people think that things are getting worse. He says that I am living in cloud cuckoo land. I accept that I am an optimist—and, as a Liberal Democrat, perhaps even an idealist—but I do not have time to fantasise to that extent. I dare to think that the points that I am making are practical enough to warrant a significant response from the Minister, and the Unionist community, in particular, deserves a response to the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is possible to put forward a case, on the basis of principle, that we should not extend the amnesty for decommissioning—there has been at least one speech to that effect—but that is not the argument that I heard from Conservative Members tonight. In the interests of consistency, therefore, I suggest that it would be wise for Her Majesty's official Opposition to do in 2001 what they did in far less favourable circumstances in 1997. In the absence of anyone in this or any previous debate in the last few years coming up with a better alternative to decommissioning than the content of the Good Friday agreement, I suggest that voting the Bill down would simply close a door without providing an alternative to the Good Friday agreement and the de Chastelain procedures. The Conservatives were right to introduce a very similar proposal to this in 1997. The Liberal Democrats think that it would be right for them, and for us, to support the same proposal, for very much the same reasons, in 2001.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I agree with a great deal of what was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), especially in connection with the need to respond to Unionist concerns without throwing the Bill out. That would not respond to those concerns. However, the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State, was quite amazing. He huffed and he puffed a great deal, although I may have misinterpreted him, because his style rather obscured the content. For about three quarters of his speech, I thought that he had jettisoned any last remnant of bipartisanship and moved into the No camp and alliance with the Democratic Unionist party, although it became obvious that he is not in that position.
  The hon. Gentleman supports the reasoned amendment, which means that he wants the Government to attach a different timetable to the Bill. Although the arguments for amendment can be made on the Floor of the House, they can also be made in Committee, so all the strident opposition turns out to be almost nothing—a minor position that ties him in with some views that the Conservative party held in the past—and Unionists of different persuasions should not be misled by all the noise that he made in producing that particular view.
  The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that water has flowed under the bridge as certain measures have proceeded. My strong opinion is that the Government should not have been involved in the prisoner release programme in the way that they were without digging in and using that involvement as an avenue to gain movement on decommissioning by loyalist and republican paramilitary groups. Unfortunately, that was not done and we have to consider that reality of the current situation.
  70
  More water has flowed under the bridge, because a certain number of arms have been put beyond use by the IRA. Of all organisations, the Provisional IRA, because of circumstances round about it and pressures from different areas, has jettisoned one of its distorted principles, to which many of its members said they would always adhere. That change needs to be taken into account.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the prisoner release scheme. He is aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 provides for prisoners to be returned to prison should they default on the terms of their release licence. Does he agree that the Government should consider extending that provision to cover paramilitary organisations that breach their ceasefire or whose ceasefire has been declared null and void and that the Government ought to consider a measure to return to prison all prisoners associated with such an organisation should it fail fully to reinstate its ceasefire and decommission its illegal weapons?
  Mr. Barnes: Perhaps there should be greater surveillance of the activities in which released prisoners become involved. They may not strictly re-enter fully fledged paramilitary activities, but introducing measures on association with organised gangsterism and other stuff that goes on in Northern Ireland should be considered seriously. I am in favour of being tough in connection with the rules that have already been determined.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable record of trying to find a new dialogue in Northern Ireland, but does he not think that his position and his criticisms of the Conservative party are essentially a triumph of hope over experience? The experience following the Belfast agreement is of giving way, giving way, giving way—on prisoner releases, as he says—yet we have received nothing. What is his determination of when all weapons must be decommissioned by organisations such as the IRA and loyalists who are currently, allegedly, on ceasefire? Is it 2007, 2010 or 2020?
  Mr. Barnes: It is not correct that there has been no progress in pushing back the position of Sinn Fein and its links with the IRA. Many measures have been introduced and we have just discussed one on the Floor of the House: the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill is directed almost entirely against Sinn Fein's manipulative activity at the ballot box and we in the House should be proud of its introduction and development.
  Perhaps it needed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to produce a report and press for the measure, and pressures had to be placed on the Government to respond, but the Bill has been introduced. It is clear that Sinn Fein was benefiting most from electoral fraud. We took that on board and some of us are keen for the Bill to function properly, so we shall look to see whether it is strong enough to push back the Sinn Fein position, as far as it manipulates in the political game. I have no illusions about the techniques and tactics that it will be involved in.
  An interesting exchange took place between the Secretary of State and his shadow on the matter of Sinn Fein and the IRA. My right hon. Friend argued that, although those organisations are not identical, that does not rule out the argument that they are inextricably linked.

  71
  He used the interesting example of the link between the Labour party and the trade unions. That analogy can be carried so far, and it has relevance to the situation involving the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein. Provisional Sinn Fein came out of the Provisional IRA; it is the political wing of the organisation that was established in order to act.
  The analogy falls down in respect of the Labour party, because the trade unions were not the only organisations involved in its development. Political manipulators, organisers and activists such as Keir Hardie in the Independent Labour party also had a considerable say. When Labour came out of the trade union movement, it changed, although many of us would say that there is now a problem with how far the trade unions are involved.
  Interestingly, the Labour party altered, and if the Sinn Fein party comes out of the Provisional IRA, we may be at the start of a process of change, which means that, in time, those close links and what is seen as identity will begin to disappear. It is likely that the Provisional IRA and those left in it will move to Mafia-type activity and manipulation of their own and away from the political game. We must hope that, as a result of being more and more involved in the political process, Sinn Fein will detach itself from those activities.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not the whole point of the Belfast agreement that Sinn Fein can deliver the Provisional IRA. The worst thing that could happen would be for Sinn Fein to become divorced from the Provisional IRA and for a split to occur? Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are one and the same, but on the hon. Gentleman's assumption, a split would leave the Provisional IRA as an armed terrorist group able to go back to violence.
  Mr. Barnes: I was not necessarily envisaging such a split. I drew an analogy with the Labour party and the trade unions. Just as the trade unions have become somewhat distanced from the Labour party, I hope that the Provisional IRA will become distanced from Sinn Fein. There may be a formal break. There was a formal break between the official IRA and the body that was known as the workers" party. Those who represented the democratic left in the Republic of Ireland had a battle inside the workers" party, which they failed to win and had to establish a separate organisation. Heaven knows what the future holds for the activity and organisation of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA.
  Why did the Provisional IRA put a certain number of arms beyond use? Unfortunately, it was not the pressure of deadlines. Pressure was put on the IRA by the Leader of the Ulster Unionists because of his party's position, which was an important part of the network of pressure that was brought to bear. However, the essential element was the pressure from the United States, especially that in connection with the Colombian incidents, although the events of 11 September increased the pressure.
  What does that tell us about Sinn Fein-IRA? It will act as an organisation to maximise its political advantage or minimise its disadvantage according to the circumstances. That is not the position that the Provisional IRA has traditionally adopted. Sinn Fein-IRA stood to lose heavily
  72
  in elections in the Republic of Ireland, where it was hoping to hold the balance of power in the future, and it was being pushed back in the republican community in Northern Ireland, so it was willing to consider minimising its disadvantages. Therefore, it was responding to those pressures.
  More pressure may be put on Sinn Fein-IRA from America as a result of Gerry Adams's visit to Cuba. I do not usually criticise Castro, but he seems to have made a fundamental blunder in inviting Gerry Adams to Cuba and to celebrate provisions dealing with the problem of the people who died in the Maze. That political responsiveness and interest in gaining political seats is of considerable importance, and alters Sinn Fein's position on the situation in the island of Ireland and our response to it.
  I have no illusions about Sinn Fein and the IRA. I want to undermine their political stance. We should all try to engage with the electorate and people of Northern Ireland to ensure that Sinn Fein is not able to make progress. I regret the fact that the Labour party refuses to organise in Northern Ireland. It is the one place in the world where a person is not allowed to be a member of the Labour party, which is not only an injustice, but is politically naive. We should be there arguing these alternative positions.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sinn Fein took 51 per cent. of the so-called Catholic-nationalist community—I do not like using that term—at recent elections, and overtook the SDLP because of the amount of concessions from Her Majesty's Government towards republicanism and not towards unionism?
  Mr. Barnes: I was concerned about the concessions that were made, as I showed with the point I made about prisoner releases. However, I do not want to keep going over yesterday's arguments. We must move from our current position. Much advantage has come out of the agreement and the progress that has been made under it. If I had had control of or great influence over the situation, I would have operated it differently and would have brought different values to the fore, and I think we might have been in a stronger position. I did not have such control, and the role that the present Government and the previous Conservative Government have played has been honourable. We must now move on.
  We must stress to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland that the IRA and Sinn Fein have shifted their position. They have more or less given up the military struggle—their paramilitary activities. Unacceptable activity still takes place, and the loyalist and republican paramilitary groups have much control over their communities. They want to retain that control. We should enable people in exile to return and ensure that the paramilitaries back off. Such matters should be brought forward on behalf of the Unionist community so that the Government can respond. That is the other side of the coin. I do not entirely accept the argument that there should not be a balance of concessions to both sides. It has always been a matter of trying to get people involved.
  There has been a dramatic change in Sinn Fein-IRA's principled attitudes. They were distorted principles, but it adhered to them. It would not involve itself in the institutions of the Republic or of Northern Ireland, because it was a divided Ireland. Now, not only is it keen

  73
  to manoeuvre to win whatever seats it can in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, but it is on the Executive. That poses problems because of the nature of its links, and it is trying to get rid of its past connections. It would take its seats in the United Kingdom Parliament if it were not for the problem of the Oath. That is a dramatic change from any position it has held in the past, but it means recognising the body that it believes has divided Ireland into two. It sees the possibility of advancing politically by engaging in the De Valera technique.
  Those who were associated with paramilitary activity at one stage and lost out should switch to the ballot box. When they do so, they will take a constituency with them—a constituency that never wanted them to engage in such activity, but will support them now because they have proved that they are the stronger, as it were, republicans through the very activity that they engaged in before.
  That is the avenue that those people are going down, the avenue that they should be encouraged to go down, and the avenue in which we should defeat them politically by saying that there are alternatives that will give people in Northern Ireland a better life. I am thinking of Labour's provision for pensions and welfare generally—for instance, its attempts to improve health services. Such matters should form part of day-to-day discussion of politics in Northern Ireland, and it would help if we engaged in the tussle.
  Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend knows, more than 100 Labour Members agree with his last point. How quickly does he think we could give all United Kingdom citizens the right to be members of the Labour party?
  Mr. Barnes: That involves an internal battle in the Labour party. It is not a question of constitutional positions, unless some feel that human rights are infringed when people are not allowed a say and an involvement in a body that forms the Government of the country, but must sit and watch on television a Labour party conference that will affect their lives. The sooner my comrades do something about that, the better.
  Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those Labour supporters could register their protest by joining the Northern Ireland branch of the Liberal Democrats?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think we are straying rather wide of the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk of joining the allies of the Liberal Democrats, we are moving very far from the politics that need to develop in Northern Ireland.
  I said earlier that certain moves had been made to tackle Sinn Fein and its links with the IRA, and referred to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill. I think that discussion of the basic building block of a democratic system—the right to a vote—is tremendously important. I know that democracy cannot be secured merely through votes; there must be the proper pressure groups and other organisations, there must be some freedom of expression, and there must be an end to pressures that have existed for too long in Northern Ireland communities. I think, however, that we are beginning to move in that direction.
  74
  What I have said does not mean that I will agree entirely with everything in the Bill if it is given a Committee stage, but the general principles strike me as necessary at this stage. I am not sure what the objections in the amendment are meant to be about, apart from an attempt to establish some political link with various members of Unionist communities and to carry them along—and to sound as though something very different is being said from what is actually being said.
  We could have a much more sensible and open debate today about what, in Committee, could be added to the Bill to deal with problems that still exist in Northern Ireland, such as the increasing Unionist disillusionment with the whole process. We must be very aware of the need to do that, but we can do it without damning the Bill.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who, as always, made a serious speech-although I fear that his keenness on the trade union movement and its relationship with the Labour party led him to stretch an analogy a bit too far, in a way that was not entirely helpful.
  The Bill relates to arms decommissioning, and in that context we must first welcome a first act of such decommissioning by the IRA. [Interruption.] It is important. Those whom I hear offstage to the left should bear in mind, when trying to cast doubt, that they are undermining their own case. They want to see the transition of organisations away from paramilitarism; they want to see an end to terrorism; they must want to see decommissioning. Therefore, they should not try to undermine the progress that has been made.
  I have no doubt that the decommissioning did occur, and I have no doubt that it was significant. Indeed, I suspect that it was more than just significant: I think it was substantial, and that that should be welcomed. The act of decommissioning was carried out by the IRA, and after a beginning of decommissioning by the IRA—a beginning that we hope will lead to a continuation; indeed, must lead to a continuation—it is appropriate to make a couple of points. First, we hope the decommissioning will indeed continue. Secondly, it returns the focus to loyalists.
  Until the IRA's act of decommissioning, loyalist paramilitaries hid behind the IRA—engaging in discussions with the international commission, agreeing the modalities of decommissioning in general terms, but not actually doing anything, and saying that they would not do anything unless republicans did. Now republicans have acted, and consequently I think loyalists need to think very seriously. I hope they will think very seriously not just about their relationship with the agreement and the political process in Northern Ireland, but about their relationship with society in Northern Ireland as a whole.
  Over the last year or so, we have observed with great sadness the lack of coherence in certain elements of the loyalist community, and the continued and increasing violence perpetrated by some of them. There have, however, been a few hopeful signs in recent weeks and months. The fact that some loyalists helped to resolve the difficulties in north Belfast with regard to Holy Cross is welcome, and they should be congratulated. There are other signs of an effort to bring about coherence and

  75
  serious thought in loyalism, which should also be welcomed. I think the Secretary of State could do a bit more to encourage the process.
  Nevertheless, there is a difficulty involving loyalists, which others have mentioned today. A certain leverage can be exerted in the case of republicans. Sinn Fein participates in the Administration, and is therefore vulnerable to political pressure. Loyalist paramilitaries are not vulnerable in the same way because they are not part of the Administration; indeed, a whole segment is not represented in the Assembly. The only pressures that can be exerted are pressures of a different kind, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). If the Secretary of State were to look more closely at the prisoner release scheme and the legislation, he would find that they contain means whereby he could exert pressure, so I hope that he will consider that.
  The Bill can be regarded as a technical measure to facilitate decommissioning, because if decommissioning is to occur, there must be a legislative framework for it and a provision whereby the Commission can, when it is appropriate, grant amnesties for those engaged in decommissioning. However, I can understand some of the frustration of Labour Members because it is clear that, despite its being a technical measure, the Bill's consideration this evening has become a point of controversy, leading to the tabling of a reasoned amendment. I have signed that amendment and will support it, along with my colleagues, in the Division Lobby.
  The reason for that controversy over what would otherwise be a technical measure is simple. When the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act was passed in 1997, providing a five-year period in which renewable intervals could be set for amnesties, it was not controversial. The Act itself does not contain any element of timetabling, any deadlines or any target dates. Those came separately, from the agreement. We had hoped that they would come from the original report by Senator Mitchell and his colleagues way back in January 1996, but it was not until we had the agreement in 1998 that we had a framework that gave targets.
  As I said in an intervention, those targets were in the agreement itself, which set a deadline of 22 May 2000, which was extended to June 2001. Now, there is no target, and that is where the Secretary of State is making a serious mistake. That is why we have to register our position through tabling and voting on the reasoned amendment. We need targets.
  The Bill would not have been controversial if the Secretary of State had done what I thought the Government were going to do a few months ago. They should have responded positively to the ideas expressed by Mr. Mark Durkan, now the leader of the SDLP, when he said, after the first act of decommissioning, that it was necessary to get together the parties that support the agreement so that they could recommit to the decommissioning process to General de Chastelain. Inevitably, a fresh target would have had to form part of that recommitment. That target, like the original one in the agreement, would have been endorsed by all the parties, which is important because it would have been better than a target that does not really exist. The best
  76
  that the Secretary of State could say in response to my intervention was that the target is implicit in the date that has been set, which is 27 February 2003. That is where the mistake has been made.
  The Secretary of State made comments with which I profoundly disagree. Unfortunately, they are almost an accepted part of the normal discourse on this matter. He said that deadlines do not work and that there should be no pressure. That is absolute rubbish. No other word can be used to describe it. Of course pressure works. Of course deadlines are important. Targets may not always be met, but if we do not set them, we do not have the opportunity to say to certain parties, "You are in default." It will not now be so easy to tell republicans that they are in default, and being able to say that is the beginning of being able to apply pressure to them. That is the Government's mistake.
  Over the past three years, there has been movement by republicans on decommissioning. They started off, in April 1998, denying that they were under any obligation from the agreement. They were wrong, but worse was the error made by those who supported republicans in their error.[Laughter.]We hear them laughing, but the agreement placed a clear obligation on republicans and we moved them, by stages, to a point at which they accepted that obligation. At the first Hillsborough meetings, Sinn Fein accepted that an obligation stemmed from the agreement. In May 2000, the IRA accepted that obligation. It was on the basis of their acceptance of it and their promise to fulfil it that the Government, with the consent of the parties, shifted the timetable.
  Those moves were achieved only as the result of pressure. We got the IRA's promise to decommission only after devolution was suspended in February 2000. That produced movement. The IRA were dilatory in carrying out its promise, thus confirming our suspicion that, given time, it would spin things out and Mr. Adams would waste that time. That is precisely what he did. It was necessary then for me to take action. Are the Government going to hide behind me again? Are they going to leave it to other people to start to take action?
  The Government need to think about this very carefully. It is primarily their responsibility to achieve decommissioning. It should not be up to us to carry that burden, to a large extent without support from others. Tonight the Government are shirking their responsibility. They should have faced up to it, and could have done so by taking the opportunity offered by Mr. Durkan to bring the parties to agreement on the way in which the process would continue.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great attention and in great agreement. Does he agree that if the Government abdicate their proper duty to take the lead in pressing for decommissioning and applying pressure using whatever instruments are available, rather than simply throwing them away as has too often been the case up to now, pressure will need to be applied by himself or the new institutions in Belfast, which will guarantee a series of political crises that could destabilise those institutions every time a new act of decommissioning is needed? Surely, that would be a fatal recipe for achieving the peace, stability and decommissioning that we all need.
  Mr. Trimble: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. If the Government reflect on the matter,

  77
  they will realise what a bad thing it is for the development of the political process to have these recurrent crises. Those are not good for the development of the Administration or of confidence in it. One has to ask why the Government are sitting back and adopting the approach that they will do nothing until a crisis occurs. A responsible Government should be acting in advance, particularly as the development of such a crisis is clearly predictable and should be anticipated by them. It is not responsible government, nor is it desirable, to bring about a situation in which such a threat to the political process in Northern Ireland is inevitable.
  I find the Government's attitude disappointing. They know that people in Northern Ireland compare the supine attitude that the Government have adopted to events there with the hyperactivity that we see on other fronts, and they are not encouraged by it. If the Government wanted to increase confidence and a sense of community in Northern Ireland, they would address the disparity between their domestic policies and their international policies. The continued gap between those approaches deepens the crisis of confidence in Northern Ireland, and a sensible Administration would not allow that to develop.
  Our experience in dealing with republicans reinforces the need for clarity and firmness. We are dealing with an organisation that does not operate on the normal principles that we understand; it does not reciprocate; it never displays any generosity; it acts only when it has to; and if given an opportunity to wriggle out of anything, it will do so. There is a clear need for firm lines. That need is based on pragmatism, but it should not just be based on that. There are principles here that have to be vindicated. In terms of the level of confidence within the community in Northern Ireland, the Government must show that there is no moral vacuum in their approach to the issue, that they understand the basic principles and that they will be firm on them. Those basic principles come back to the underlying point of the Good Friday agreement; that it is there to support peace and democracy and to support the democratic process.
  The comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on electoral fraud were significant and I hope that the Government listened and will act. We must support the democratic process, but the objective at the end of the day is to produce a normal society in Northern Ireland that operates by normal, peaceful and democratic methods. That necessarily means an end to paramilitarism; we should be clear about that. Weapons decommissioning is part of the process, but that process must continue with the dissolution or the transformation of the paramilitary organisations into something that is entirely peaceful and democratic.
  We may find that some elements, individuals or even organisations are not prepared to make that progress and wish to continue racketeering. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire knows, the Official IRA started a ceasefire in 1972 but, 25 years later, we discovered there were still elements of it in parts of Newry and West Belfast, simply in order to maintain rackets in which they had been engaged over the years. There will be a need to deal with racketeering, and the Government have come across a good example of how that can be done in recent weeks. I hope that the response is positive.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has pointed out, there is a need to tackle the criminal activity that has developed; again,
  78
  probably largely from former paramilitaries who are now lining their own pockets. All those things need to be done to produce the situation that we want, but we will not be able to move paramilitary organisations down this path unless a firm framework is put in place and it is made clear to them that they need to move that way. Essential to that is the setting of some form of target date. The Government have failed to do that, and for that reason I am afraid that this measure, which would otherwise have been a technical one, has to be opposed.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate, which represents the latest incremental step in what has been a long progress towards normalisation in Northern Ireland. I am aware that many hon. Members here tonight have a detailed knowledge of the subject at hand, particularly those Members with constituencies in Northern Ireland. However, they, too, will be aware that many of us with constituencies outside Northern Ireland have constituents with a great deal of interest in the subject. My constituency is no different.
  That makes the comment of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—that the Labour Government have nothing to lose in Northern Ireland—seem a bit cheap, given that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spent several minutes saying how large the responsibilities were of the Labour Government in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I did not miss the point. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government had nothing to lose in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: In an intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I said that there was no political price to be paid by the parties in this House because they did not stand in Northern Ireland. I was talking about parties, and not the Government.
  Mr. Joyce: I appreciate that, but the Labour Government have a great deal of responsibility in Northern Ireland and therefore a great deal to lose in terms of the interpretation of constituents, including my own, of what happens in Northern Ireland.
  The technical purpose of the Bill is to extend the Northern Ireland arms decommissioning process and associated amnesty, initially for a year, in order to maintain the momentum of the decommissioning process. It is essentially a technical Bill.
  Of course, on one level it is disappointing that this measure is required at all. We might think that, in an ideal world, the violence, and the arms that have represented the means for maintaining it, would have disappeared from Ireland by now, but that would be a false construct since in an ideal world the violence would not have started in the first place. We should temper our disappointment with the knowledge that, for most people, not only is Northern Ireland a far more hospitable place to live today than it was 10, 15 or, indeed, five years ago, but that, in the more immediate sense, there has been some real progress recently in the decommissioning process.
  It might not always be the wisest thing for a politician to apply the term "optimism", as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) did in relation to Northern Ireland. I would not go that far, but there is room for a real sense of progress when we reflect on the historic

  79
  act of decommissioning, witnessed by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and reported on 23 October of this year.
  That single act of decommissioning may or may not have been modest in terms of volume—it certainly satisfied the commission—but its significance lay in the fact that it represented an acceptance by people formerly of violent intent that their methods had to change for good. I would not wish to say today that these individuals do not desire the same political ends as they ever did, but the important thing is that their recent action serves as powerful evidence that they recognise they can pursue their objectives only through peaceful and democratic means. That is why it would be a wholesale failure of peaceful governance if the decommissioning momentum—achieved, most notably, in recent months—were not maintained by means of the legislation under debate this evening.
  Of course there will be other objections to the extension of the decommissioning process. One objection is that, in negotiations of any kind, it is sometimes useful to be able to put those on the other side of the table under some form of time pressure, or constrain them to given time horizons. That is the essence of the amendment tabled by the Opposition today and supported by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  But surely it is clear that, in the circumstances that pertain today, even if all paramilitaries agreed tomorrow to decommission, it would not be possible by February 2002. That is not a practical proposition, and it should lead us to the not unreasonable conclusion that what is important is that things are steadily moving forward, rather than to attempt to present artificial and unhelpful time frames.
  Indeed, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann agreed with the broad principle that artificial time frames are unhelpful in 1999 when he said
  "It would be beneficial if people looked carefully at the decommissioning scheme. It does not refer to timetables. Timetables have been mentioned, but there is no explicit reference in the decommissioning scheme to a timetable."—[Official Report, 13 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 189.]
  Another objection sometimes made is that the act of decommissioning witnessed by General de Chastelain and his colleagues was somehow bogus—a very weak objection indeed. Like all of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I take the integrity of the members of the commission as axiomatic and I would suggest that people who wish to doubt it prove by their very approach the wisdom of removing from the political arena the physical process of verification itself.
  A wider objection is to argue—as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has done before today—that the IRA has control rather than peace in mind, and would simply return to violence if the Good Friday agreement as a whole did not provide acceptable outcomes. That objection seems to miss the point that, in a democracy, people and groups can have whatever objectives they want, provided the means by which they pursue them are peaceful and lawful.
  The objection also ignores the way in which the world has changed, even since the events of 11 September, so as to make a return to the bullet and the bomb
  80
  unacceptable to all but a tiny splinter of people who will, in due course, be mopped up by sound policing in the Province and elsewhere.
  Our concern this evening should rest with progress in the short to medium term. This debate is not so much about the ultimate constitutional structure that is to pertain in Northern Ireland, but rather with the processes that ensure that, however the people of Northern Ireland choose to order their affairs, guns and explosives have no part in the public, or indeed private, discourse. The recent history of Northern Ireland has sometimes been characterised by the rejection of arguments based on process on the grounds that they could lead to political solutions not in accordance with the views of one group or another. However, in the 21st century, and post-11 September, that is not a view that even many former paramilitaries find sustainable.
  Indeed, 11 September, when a similar number of people died in one day as have died in Northern Ireland in 30 years, is likely, through its apocalyptic scale and effect, to have helped to force the hand of the Provisional IRA by closing off the remnants of support for terrorism in any form that may have existed outside Britain or Ireland. It is true that that argument allows for the fact that without the violence in New York some in Northern Ireland—other than the splinter groups I mentioned earlier—may still have considered violence to be a feasible option. It is also fair to say that Ministers must make fine judgments regarding who among the several groupings in Northern Ireland with a history of violence is to be specified and who is not. At the end of the day, the finer points of detail surely have to yield to common sense. The bare fact is that there has been progress, and there is good evidence to suggest that it will continue. It is therefore now time for loyalist paramilitary groups to enter the decommissioning process, too.
  Specification is not a one-way street and the decommissioning process is therefore a most fundamental part of the process of ensuring that competing visions of Northern Ireland's future are reconciled in democratic, rather than lawless, fashion. It is essential that all sides are able to press their cases, and it is fairly clear that if loyalist groups are to come on board, there is no real possibility—as hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know full well—of the process being completed before February. That is why the Bill is so important in helping to ensure a peaceful future for the people who live in Northern Ireland. It is pity that some hon. Members cannot see that and prefer to put up mindless opposition for its own sake.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) will forgive me if I do not pursue the points that he made, although I listened to his speech with interest. I strongly agreed with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he said that decommissioning was essentially the responsibility of Government. It is an issue on which the Government to date have been defective. I was also intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the IRA's decommissioning event was substantial. The rest of us are unaware of any evidence that supports that view. If I may say so somewhat lightheartedly, we look forward to him sharing that evidence with us.

  81
  It has been predictable for three or so years that one day this Bill or something like it would come before the House. It was only a matter of time before the Government reflected in legislation their lamentable failure to deliver meaningful decommissioning. Further, nowhere is the saga of our surrender to domestic terrorism more clearly illustrated than in successive Governments" handling of the issue of decommissioning. I say successive Governments, because I am mindful of the retreat on that point that was made between 1993 and 1997. The unpalatable truth is that what started as a peace process long ago degenerated into a process of appeasement. The Bill is largely the consequence of capitulation to the threat of terrorist violence and fear of renewed terrorist violence.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because it was earlier argued that the Conservative party is going back on 1997 in the reasoned amendment. Does he agree that when one realises a mistake has been made, the best thing to do is to rectify it?
  Mr. Hunter: I strongly agree, but I have also been intrigued by the frequent references to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, because I remember clearly its passage through the House and the arguments in the Chamber and behind the scenes. That Act was aspirational. It prepared the way, controversially, for the recommendations of the Mitchell committee and it came at a time when the Conservative party was still uncertain how strongly to insist on decommissioning as a precondition for entry to the talks. So the climate was very different from today.
  The Bill will lengthen the timetable for decommissioning and, therefore, represents the Government's failure to deliver an integral part of the Belfast agreement. It is an expression of that failure, the reasons for which significantly lie in the agreement itself. During the past three or so years, my hon. Friends and I have lamented the absence of linkage. We lamented the absence of linkage between early release and decommissioning and between places on the Executive and decommissioning. If only that linkage had existed, the situation today could have been very different.
  There was no linkage, and far from decommissioning being completed by February 2001, another five years will be allowed in which it may take place. That will bring the entire decommissioning process even further into disrepute and it will make fraudulent nonsense of Sinn Fein's position at the heart of Government in the Province.
  A simple principle is at stake and we lose sight of it at our peril. It cannot be morally right to sustain a system of democracy in which one side reserves the right to use force if its will does not prevail. How can a power-sharing Executive possibly work when parties are asked to share power with political opponents who have kept open the option of recourse to violence?
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is no longer in his place, because I listened to his speech with interest. He got close to saying that decommissioning is like the icing on the cake, or an added attraction. That is not true. It is a core imperative for the maintenance of democratic society.
  82
  A long time ago, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said:
  "You cannot negotiate with people who have guns on the table, under the table or outside the door."
  If one cannot negotiate with such people, one most certainly cannot share power with them. The requirement that terrorists must decommission their weapons embodies a basic democratic principle, and that principle has been diluted by the Government's failure to achieve meaningful decommissioning and is diluted further by the protracted timetable that the Bill provides.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, if the Bill had provided for a reasonable and limited extension of decommissioning of, say, one year, we might have been prepared to support it, but five years is totally irresponsible. A state that agrees to give executive power to people who are members of an armed body is undermining the rule of law on which its stability rests. That principle seemed to be understood by British and Irish Governments at the beginning of the process. So great, however, has been the desire to appease domestic terrorism that they have regressively diluted that principle.
  Let us consider the past few years. We were told that decommissioning would be resolved by May 2000. That did not happen, and a new deadline was set for June 2001. It did not happen then, and the deadline was extended to February 2002. The Bill gives a new date—February 2003—and makes further extension available. The point is that if we extend the deadline, we shall extend the time until decommissioning becomes reality. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.
  I remember that, shortly after the agreement was signed, the Prime Minister wrote to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to say that decommissioning should start straight away. A few weeks later came the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges to the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis of what proved to be worthless pledges, the majority of voters in the Province backed the agreement. They were essentially conned.
  So it has gone on—fudge after fudge after fudge. There came the joint communiqué in April 1999, which the IRA's Brian Keenan described as an Easter bunny. There followed the Prime Minister's initiative and his article in The Times in June 1999, then "The Way Forward" document in July. The Mitchell review of the process followed, and then the IRA's so-called seismic change of thinking. So it has gone on.
  The objective has been to secure Unionist acceptance of Sinn Fein's participation in Government without decommissioning. The Government have largely succeeded in that. I find it wholly unacceptable that they should now seek more time for decommissioning when they have squandered so much and shown themselves incapable of delivering the goods. The Bill should be rejected.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Some weeks ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to say that he understood something of the alienation in the Unionist community. He seemed to understand—given the results of recent elections, he could hardly have done otherwise—that the Unionist community did not support his agreement. He referred to the cold house that seemed to exist for Unionists in Northern Ireland.

  83
  The Secretary of State has done himself no favours in his performance today. He demonstrated clearly that he was prepared almost to be a spin doctor for Sinn Fein-IRA and to put the best possible gloss on Sinn Fein-IRA activity. He could have said that Sinn Fein-IRA is full of despicable people who have failed us time and again. He could have said that they had made us promises and pledges, and then broken them. He could have said that they were still going on with their violence, but that the Government feel that we should give them a final chance. We could have disagreed with that judgment, but at least it would have been clear that he did not think that anything in the behaviour of Sinn Fein-IRA was worthy of commendation.
  As it was, however, the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the worst that he could say of Sinn Fein-IRA was that there had been massive imperfections in the way in which it had operated within the so-called peace process. By and large, he referred to the great significance of what Sinn Fein-IRA has done.
  Before I turn to what Sinn Fein-IRA has done, let me leave one fact with the House. Any Member who has not been following events in Northern Ireland may be unaware of it. The Provisional IRA has more weapons and explosives in its stockpiles and armouries today than it had when it declared its ceasefire: so much for decommissioning.
  The security forces will make it clear to those who inquire that the IRA has continued to bring weaponry into the country. Indeed, it was caught bringing weapons in via Florida when its network was uncovered by chance by a scanning machine in Great Britain. The IRA has continued to bring in weaponry while talking of the great need for decommissioning, its great desire to see that happen and its preparedness to be part of such a process. Rather than reducing its number of weapons, it has, during the so-called peace process, increased the weapons at its disposal.
  It is essential to consider the backcloth against which our debate takes place. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the Provisional IRA and others have given a number of commitments over the past few years. The Government's position before 1994 was that there had to be complete decommissioning of weaponry before Sinn Fein-IRA could be part of any talks process. That position was weakened during the period of the three Washington principles. Lord Mayhew, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, changed the position so that if Sinn Fein-IRA started on the road to decommissioning, Sinn Fein could be part of the talks process.
  The position was weakened further when the Government brought in Senator Mitchell to consider decommissioning. His report said that some people wanted decommissioning to happen before talks could take place, but the IRA did not want to decommission until after the talks were over. Perhaps we should do something in the middle, he said, and he judged that decommissioning should occur during the talks process. Of course, it did not. After the talks took place, we had the Belfast agreement, and all that it gave was a commitment on the part of all participants to use best endeavours to bring about decommissioning by May 2000.
  84
  When that date came, another change was made. It was decided that June 2001 would be the appropriate hour. In June 2001, the Government stretched the deadline until February 2002. The measure before the House tonight will take us right through to 2007.
  We are told that there is great reason for hope today because there has been a decommissioning event. We are told that that event was of some significance, not because anyone knows what was decommissioned, but because General de Chastelain thought that it was significant. If his judgment is to be used, we should consider just what General Chastelain has said. His statement talked about our having witnessed an event that "we regard as significant".
  In the desire to know and to test what the general considers significant, my colleagues and I went to see him. We asked if the commission considered the amount of weaponry to be significant, or whether the fact that anything at all had occurred was significant. He replied that the fact that an event took place was, to him, significant. He said that he had seen written on the gable ends of walls in republican areas, "Not a bullet; not an ounce". In that context, what had happened was significant, he said.
  I asked whether the general regarded his meeting with us that day as significant. He said that yes, it was. That might give the House some idea of how easily he is persuaded that any event is of significance. I then asked him whether, if the IRA had decommissioned one gun—just one—he would have considered that to be significant. He said, "Yes, I would." It would thus have been significant if the general had seen only one weapon put beyond use. We are asked by some hon. Members to take as evidence of the Provisional IRA's bona fides—its willingness to see total decommissioning—the fact that in some unspecified place an unspecified event took place, whereby an unspecified amount of weapons of an unspecified classification was put beyond use in an unspecified way, with no suggestion that there would be a further act to put weapons beyond use.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of the "Not one bullet, not one ounce of Semtex" slogan, one might accept that meaning of "significance". However, is it not more significant that people talk about seeing decommissioning although they did not see it, and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic demands further steps from the British side so that demilitarisation—knocking down the watch towers and so on—is visible? Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  Mr. Robinson: I could not agree more. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that we saw that act of decommissioning, but we saw nothing at all. The only people who saw it were a bunch of IRA men and three people from the international decommissioning body, who left the site of the so-called act of decommissioning, while the IRA men stayed behind with whatever weaponry was there.
  Mr. McCabe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House, but when he says that the general said that he would regard the decommissioning of

  85
  one gun as significant, is it not the case that the general's report stated that a quantity of guns, arms and explosives were decommissioned?
  Mr. Robinson: It would not be correct to say that. The report said that arms, ammunition and explosives were included—no quantities were given. My reference to the statement that one gun was significant was intended to show Members how easily the general is persuaded that something minor is of significance—something that might also be considered minor by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
  In a legal context, we are often told by respected members of the judiciary—people whom we have learned to trust—that for justice to be done, it has to be seen to be done, yet we tell a bunch of gangsters, "Oh well, we don't need to see it." Why should we need to see weapons destroyed? If the whole idea of decommissioning is to build up confidence within the Unionist community, to let it know that the IRA has changed its ways for ever and that it has left its horrible past behind, it is essential that people see decommissioning take place.
  However, all we have is that unspecified event—and no timetable. We specifically asked the general whether he had any indication as to when another act of decommissioning might take place and he said, "No, there is no timetable for further decommissioning." Indeed, the Bill is testimony to that fact. If there had been a timetable for decommissioning, the Bill could have fitted into it, but the Secretary of State, on a wing and a prayer—if he either flies or prays—tells us that we shall let the process go on for another five years and then see what happens.
  The shadow Secretary of State turned the arguments of the Secretary of State back on to him in a way that was evident to everyone. If the Secretary of State says that it is in the nature of deadlines that people in Northern Ireland—the Provisional IRA and others—will take things to the wire, that must also apply to the Bill. If he shows them that five years are available, we can be dead sure that, when that five years come around, either the Provisional IRA will be looking for more concessions to meet the demands placed on it, or the Secretary of State or his successor will have to come to the Dispatch Box once again to extend the period.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State has the difficult task of convincing people in Northern Ireland and throughout this kingdom that the Provisional IRA deserves that further chance. The reality is that the Provisional IRA has not been acting solely as democrats since the signing of the Belfast agreement. The House needs to know something about what a ceasefire means to the Provisional IRA. During that period, the Provisional IRA murdered 12 people—the last of them only last week. The Provisional IRA shot 150 people. They carried out so—called punishment beatings on 250 people during that ceasefire period.
  As I pointed out earlier, the Provisional IRA has been running guns in from Florida. It has been involved in its usual gangsterism throughout the Province, including major robberies when millions of pounds worth of goods were stolen. As everybody knows, it has been engaged with the FARC in Colombia, attempting to improve its terror machine. As recently as this weekend, we heard that it was leaving manuals so that FARC could learn the deadly business of terrorism at the feet of the masters—the Provisional IRA.
  86
  That is the record of the Provisional IRA—still engaged in terrorism. Who are these people? They include, as chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, the Minister of Education. Let us think about that for a moment: the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, as chief of staff, sits down in the army council of the Provisional IRA and sanctions the murders that take place. That is the reality. That is what he did last week when a person was killed in south Armagh at the hands of the Provisional IRA, when the IRA was sent off to Colombia and when the guns were being run from Florida. While that same Mr. McGuinness was talking to the general and, indeed, Senator Mitchell, about decommissioning, he was sanctioning the bringing in of weaponry from Florida.
  That is the organisation with which we shall be rubbing shoulders in the corridors if the Government have their way during the next few weeks. Three of its four Members of Parliament are members of the army council of the IRA: the head of its southern command, Pat Doherty; Gerry Adams, former chief of staff of the IRA; and its present chief of staff, Martin McGuinness. Those are the people we are dealing with—people with high positions in the Government of Northern Ireland.
  That is the difference from the position adopted by the Conservatives in 1997. They took that position when the Provisional IRA did not run Departments in Northern Ireland—but now it does. The Secretary of State urges us to allow the IRA to continue its ministerial role in Northern Ireland without handing over its weaponry for five years, because everyone knows that for the IRA that deadline has become a period of relaxation.
  It is essential to consider a further factor. The measure takes us beyond the last possible date for the next Assembly election in 2003. In theory at least, that means that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister—whichever of those positions is held by Sinn Fein after that election—will have the power, under Government-sponsored legislation, to appoint High Court judges. At the same time, they will be in command of an armed terrorist organisation. That certainly should give people some cause for concern.
  The Bill shows that the Government are not really serious about imposing deadlines on decommissioning. They have relaxed, taken a laid-back approach and shown that they have no bottom line when it comes to dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA. The Bill removes the pressure from the IRA and shows that it has until 2007 to bury the issue. The Government have made it fairly clear—this Bill is evidence—that they have not agreed with the Provisional IRA a timetable for decommissioning, which proves that the event that took place was nothing more than a stunt and a con. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's statement that the event was in some way historic.
  The Bill is evidence of weak government. There is nothing that requires the scheme to run for five years. The legislation could say one year just as easily as five; it could say two or 10. The Secretary of State chose five years so that he can stretch out the process and allow the IRA even more time in government.
  It ill becomes the purported Northern Ireland First Minister to indicate to the House that, as far as he is concerned, the burden of ensuring decommissioning rests on his shoulders. The purported First Minister would not have done anything if it had not been for the reality of

  87
  facing the electorate. As he faced the consequences of the concessions that he made to secure decommissioning, he was forced to take some action by way of putting the matter to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I agree with the comments of hon. Members across the Floor that by far the most relevant issue to the IRA's event—whatever it may have been—was it being caught out in Colombia, and the fact that it was losing support in the United States, losing its funding and losing the gentrification that its leadership had been given over the previous months. The bottom line is of course that, since then, the events of 11 September have shown clearly that there is a view in civilised democracies across the world that those who engage in violence to advance political causes are persona non grata and that to a much greater extent it is hard for Sinn Fein-IRA to peddle its argument across the world.
  The Government, by this Bill, have become complicit in Sinn Fein-IRA's charade. If the Secretary of State had meant what he said and shown that he felt that the Unionists were in a cold house, he would have approached the Dispatch Box very differently today. Indeed, I recall it being said—I think by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), although it may have been the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—in reply to the Secretary of State, that words simply would not be enough to do that. If, as I believe, that is right on that point, is it not also right on decommissioning?
  To a community of people who were born under the threat and actuality of IRA violence and witnessed its activities over many decades, words simply are not enough. The general's few lines in a press statement will not convince them. Opinion polls have shown that the majority of Unionists are not convinced that the event is one of some significance, so decommissioning needs to be seen to be believed.
  Nothing that the Secretary of State has said will have convinced by one iota any Unionist in Northern Ireland that he is right in giving the IRA a further period of time. It would be far better if it did what the Prime Minister indicated should be done. If it does not meet its obligations on decommissioning, we shall have to make proposals to ensure either that it does so or that its representatives are put out of Government until it does so.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I come to this debate in disappointment as much as anything else, as it is a very sad day. Those of us who want a lasting and just peace in Northern Ireland—I hope that includes everyone present—will agree that there must be concessions and some pragmatic ways of making progress, because to get an agreement one must be pragmatic. Unfortunately, experience of the past three to four years teaches us that the pragmatism is all on one side and that a long history of appeasement began with the Belfast agreement.
  I was in the Chamber when the original Bill was passed in February 1997. It implemented a framework to allow an amnesty for people handing in weapons in the future. It did not say that people could have an amnesty. That was nearly five years ago, and as some Labour Members have said, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since
  88
  then. Sadly, we have since seen nothing, apart from an event that General de Chastelain believed was significant. I do not think that that is really what anybody expected when the Belfast agreement was trumpeted as such good news in April 1998.
  I say with sadness, not with anger, that this Bill is another step down the road of appeasement. I remind newer Members of the Mitchell principles and what Senator Mitchell said in 1996 for John Major's Government. He produced six principles and said in the second that to be involved in all-party talks, participants had to agree to
  "the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
  Talks occurred in 1997–98, but I do not think that all participants did so agree. That was a pity, but of course we were being pragmatic and as a result went one step down the road.
  Then we had the Belfast agreement. It is now getting on for four years old and some hon. Members may not have read it. I remind Members present that it says on page 20:
  "All participants … confirm their intention … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsements in referendums North and South".
  Mr. Stephen Pound: On a recent television programme on Ulster Television, the hon. Gentleman stated that he did not support the Good Friday agreement and said that that view was shared by many members of the Conservative party. Will he take this opportunity to clarify once and for all whether he is with his party or without his party?
  Mr. Robathan: There must be some mistake; I do not remember doing any interview in the past year or so with Ulster Television. I have done one in the past, but I think that that was before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of the House. I will clearly state that the Belfast agreement was entirely reasonable. I did not agree with everything in it. There are disagreements in all parties, but that is why there is a coming together to form a consensus. My point has always been—I do not think that I said it on Ulster Television—that all parts of the agreement had to be implemented. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Marjorie Mowlam, said that we cannot "cherry-pick" the agreement and that "all parts" must be implemented.
  The two years ran out in May or June 2000—some time ago. The two years came and the two years went. There was then another year of extension, and then another six months. There is still 10 weeks left to decommission all loyalist as well as IRA weapons. Apparently, the IRA has made the decision to decommission. How long does it take to tell everybody? There are all sorts of ways to let people know—telephone, e-mail, even snail mail. How long does it take to tell the fighters in the field—or whatever those ghastly terrorists call themselves—to hand in their weapons? Surely not longer than 10 weeks. As I said previously, it took only two months in Rhodesia, as it then was, in 1980, and 30 days in Macedonia. It does not take very long to organise the handing in, the destruction or the decommissioning of weapons.
  Mr. Pound: I do not want to trespass on the House's patience, but is the hon. Gentleman really positing Rhodesia-Zimbabwe as a model of a peaceful, pacifist democratic state?
  Mr. Robathan: No—I would not insult the hon. Gentleman's intelligence by pretending anything of the sort. My point is that the handing in of terrorist weapons in 1980 under the Lancaster House agreement was given a total of two months—it might even have been less, and the process certainly took less than two months. That was a far more difficult situation, with fighters out in the bush, not a country that has e-mail, television and other means of communication.
  The hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy, so let me help by quoting from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In February 1996, before the Mitchell principles were published, in reference to the IRA attack on the tallest building in London—he was very firm on that, as he was on the attack on New York's twin towers—the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
  "On this matter, we shall stand foursquare together in the cause of peace."
  He added:
  "Decommissioning weapons was one way. In our judgment it is, and remains, the obvious way."
  Two years later, on 22 April 1998, in reference to the Belfast agreement, he said:
  "We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … Meanwhile it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the Assembly while they continue to be engaged in or threaten terrorism".
  We know that McGuinness, Adams and the IRA are still engaged in intimidation, in threatening terrorism and possibly—as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) says—in carrying out acts of terrorism. The IRA has continued to commit terrorist acts while McGuinness sits as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that everyone agrees with the Prime Minister on how that is a travesty of democracy.
  It is important that we all understand what it is we are to vote on. Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) pointed out that when he interviewed Martin McGuinness in 1974, McGuinness told him that
  "he had had a dozen Catholic informers killed."—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1–17.]
  I do not recall Mr. McGuiness ever being put on trial for that. He remains a member of the Provisional Army Council of the IRA—if the Minister has any intelligence that says otherwise, perhaps she will tell us about it. We all know that he is deeply involved, as is Adams, yet the Secretary of State says that we must give those people more time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made an excellent point about whether the Secretary of State was again trying to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA, as he appeared to be doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sinn Fein had no power over the IRA, yet on 22 October—seven or eight weeks ago—Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness both made statements indicating that they had asked the IRA to begin the decommissioning process and, amazingly enough, General de Chastelain put out a statement on 23 October
  90
  saying that the IRA had decommissioned some weapons. Is the juxtaposition of the two events mere coincidence, or is it conceivable that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have significant influence on—or might even be the same people as—the IRA?
  The Government are being disingenuous in the extreme, they are being economic with the actualite, they are guilty of dissembling. I shall not name individuals, because I would be ruled out of order. We are fighting a laudable war against terrorism in Afghanistan—a war that most hon. Members present support—yet we will not fight a war against the terrorists who have killed British citizens on British soil on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. We will not fight a war against those who attacked the tallest buildings in London, but we will against those who attacked the tallest buildings in New York. I am not arguing that we should fight such a war; I am saying that we must be honest with ourselves.
  In the Terrorism Act 2000, at the top of the list of proscribed organisations we see "the Irish Republican Army". In March last year, when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) whether that meant the Real IRA, the Provisional IRA or Continuity IRA, the then Home Secretary said that it meant all the Irish Republican Army: Provisional, Continuity, Real, Official if that still exists—the lot. That Act specifically states in section 11:
  "A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation."
  We know that Martin McGuinness is a member of the Provisional Army Council—the Secretary of State is free to intervene to tell me otherwise. The Act further states in section 12:
  "A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is …to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation"—
  or—
  "if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation".
  I seem to recall Gerry Adams visiting America once or twice to collect money. There seems no doubt that those people should be prosecuted under the Government's own Act, yet they are not.
  I am willing to accept that the Real IRA and Continuity IRA are splinter groups—different from the IRA. However, the truth is that the explosives used in Omagh had been in Provisional IRA stockpiles. Anyone with knowledge of Northern Ireland knows that in the organisations in which Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are involved much is known about where those explosives came from, and that they might be able to help. They could show good faith, as we are doing by giving them an extra five years, by letting us know who committed that outrage and providing some evidence, instead of shedding crocodile tears. They could help us to nail the bombers who murdered those 20-odd people in Omagh.
  We have seen little good faith from the IRA since the Belfast agreement, except for the fact that, although they have not stopped killing people, they have, very decently, killed fewer people than they killed before. They have not stopped intimidation beatings, nor have they ceased organising. We all want peace, but the Government—motivated by the good intentions with which the road to

  91
  hell is paved—have acted shamefully. They have, as a Government, been dishonest and dishonourable. Ministers should hang their heads in shame over their appeasement on decommissioning.
  The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:
  "as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal; an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
  None of that has happened. We should be honest about that. Although the end may desirable, we should remember that only rarely is an end justified by dishonest means.
  Unbelievably, in their appeasement, the Government intend to allow public funding for IRA propaganda by allowing four Sinn Fein MPs to take the generous—over-generous, in my opinion—office allowances. The money will be public funding for propaganda on behalf of an organisation that commits murder—an organisation that has in the recent past murdered Members of Parliament, as every one of us remembers.
  It will allow terrorists with access to illegal weapons to walk the corridors around us all. Surely that can give no one any pleasure, and should worry everybody. I know the Sinn Fein office in the Falls road. I used to walk past it with a rifle quite often. I was well protected by several other people. It was known then, and now, that that office acts as a nerve centre or control centre for intimidation and beating. People could be found who have been beaten and knee-capped. They are taken there first to be told—
  David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman has referred to one Sinn Fein office in west Belfast. Is he aware that there are now 18 such offices in west Belfast? Does he agree that the Government's decision to allow fundraising and to make Sinn Fein an exception from the other political parties in the House has allowed the financing of one of the strongest organisations in western Europe?
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am out of date. I did not know that there are 18 offices. That surely makes my case. Fundraising is still allowed in America and, more terrifyingly, British taxpayers' money will be funding the offices of a terrorist organisation. Surely that should worry us all. It is disgraceful, shameful and dishonest. All Ministers should recall from their days at school, if they learned any history, that we do not buy peace by paying danegeld, and that is what we are doing tonight.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the debate, but I had a previous engagement elsewhere in the House. I think that the entire House respects the views of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on these matters, especially given that he served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland, although I think that by overstating his case he has undermined it somewhat.
  I turn to the underlying analysis of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He quoted the statements that were made by my right hon. Friend the
  92
  Secretary of State a few weeks ago that for Unionists, Northern Ireland had become a "cold house". There is much truth in that. Many of the examples that the hon. Gentleman quoted are evidence that it has, indeed, become a "cold house".
  I accept that people such as Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Mitchell Mcloughlin and many others have made the psychological adjustment from terrorism to politics, but the activities of the IRA have not necessarily always followed that course. That is all the more regrettable because I believe that, certainly in the case of Martin McGuinness, and almost certainly in the case of Gerry Adams, they have the authority within republicanism to deliver what was meant to be delivered in terms of decommissioning in the Good Friday Agreement.
  It is a matter of regret that, for whatever reason, they have not been able to use, or have chosen not to use, that authority to exercise the leadership that is undoubtedly theirs within republicanism—especially in terms of the IRA, with which they are intimately connected—to deliver everything that was promised. There is an interesting contrast between the way in which they behave on decommissioning specifically and the leadership that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has exercised as the leader of his party.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has often been some way ahead of his party in this context. He has been willing to accept difficult situations. He has also been willing, often with a great deal of reluctance and a great deal of concern, almost to take a leap in the dark. He has been willing to accept stepped progress as it moved forward. That has often been difficult for him within his party, and it has certainly been difficult for him in acting as a spokesman for Unionism within Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, he has done that in a party structure that is far more democratic than the structures of republicanism, and in a climate of public opinion that has often been doubtful, afraid and worried. He has kept the process together. So far as he was capable of delivering all of the things that he was meant to under the Good Friday agreement, and so far as he has been able to provide leadership as First Minister, he did so and has done so.
  That record stands in marked contrast to the leadership of republicanism. As I have said, I accept that it has made the psychological shift from terrorism to politics. However, it seems not to be able to make the organisational shift that all of us believe is necessary.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a good speech that was based on a long involvement in politics in Northern Ireland and on an intimate knowledge of all of the events that we are discussing, but he was not able to provide an answer to the "What if?" question: for example, what if we did not extend tonight the legal framework within which decommissioning can take place? What would happen next?
  There is much criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about some of the activities that have allegedly been carried out by the IRA since the time of the Good Friday agreement. Specific allegations have been made about certain incidents of violence, which have been well recorded and well documented. The hon.

  93
  Member for Belfast, East alluded to the continued so-called punishment beatings. The word "justice" is used, which I find bizarre.
  Mr. Pound: Community justice.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes. Community-administered justice is a bizarre way of defining justice.
  There have been occasions on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to consider extremely carefully whether to specify organisations in relation to which some of the activities that were taking place were close to the line. I know that that was true of my right hon. Friend's two most recent predecessors. There were times when the determination as to whether the IRA could continue to be regarded as being on ceasefire was on a knife edge. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was right to point out that those incidents are of great concern.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who played a constructive role in Northern Ireland during his time in office. He chided me for not answering the question, "What if?". The House has already decided that question in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, when it determined that there would be a consequence if parties associated with violence did not commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The answer to the question, "What if?" is that they are put out of government.
  Mr. Howarth: I acknowledged that that was the case just before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I made the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the two Secretaries of State preceding him came close to acting on that basis. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has specified one of the loyalist organisations and, as far as I am aware, that still stands.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that that power is available. I was not chiding him; he knows that, although I do not agree with him, I respect the view that he and his colleagues share as a view within the Unionist community that needs to be discussed. If I had to choose between different political grounds of Unionism, I would go with that espoused by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann every time, because his approach is more constructive and, in the long term, more likely to bring about peace. However, it is important that we are aware of the different views within Unionism and, indeed, the wider community in Northern Ireland.
  I come back to the question, "What if?". What if my right hon. Friend or one of his predecessors had excluded Sinn Fein from the process? They made a careful study of the facts available at the time before determining not to do so; it was not an easy decision to make. Had they excluded Sinn Fein, it is possible that the peace process in which we are involved, imperfect as it is—and I entirely accept that—would have been derailed, and the consequences of that are too horrendous to imagine.
  I would not have wanted to do what we are doing tonight 12 months ago or at the time of the Good Friday agreement; I do not think that any of us would. I am not absolutely certain that, by approving the Bill tonight, as we are being asked to do, we shall ensure that everything is delivered in the specified time, but I hope that that is
  94
  so. The fact that I can still hope that it will deliver is sufficient reason for me to support the process. I honestly believe that it would be dangerous to take any course of action that results in someone saying, "Too late. We are not accepting decommissioning unless you decide to do it voluntarily—and then we will consider what action we shall take in recognition." All those things are uncomfortable and difficult; nobody pretends otherwise.
  I do not wish to chide any hon. Member from any quarter of the House, and I am making this statement because I believe it to be true: frankly, there is not another way available to us. I shall therefore vote for Second Reading without any difficulty, not because I have infinite trust that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or anybody else will now walk a rose-strewn path to a better tomorrow—they may choose at some point not to do so, although I do not think that they will—but because I do not think that there is a viable alternative.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased or perhaps surprised to learn that I respect him also. However, if he believes that decommissioning is important—it is in the Belfast agreement—when should it take place? There has to be a deadline, the purpose of which is to achieve an objective by a certain time.
  Mr. Howarth: One reaches a point in one's career where praise from any quarter is welcome; I like and admire the hon. Gentleman, and his praise is well taken. He asked me when the deadline for decommissioning should be. I am somewhat detached from all the discussions that are taking place, although I have seen a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing on the subject in the past, so for me to specify a time would not be helpful. The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is not a satisfactory one, but it is the best that I can give: decommissioning should happen as soon as possible. There cannot be a balanced political system in Northern Ireland while one of the major political partners in that system is still intimately involved with an organisation that has a large quantity of arms available to it. If I were a member of the Executive or the Assembly in Northern Ireland, I would still look with suspicion at Sinn Fein because of that connection and the continued existence of those arms.
  Imperfect though it is, and unable though I am to give a realistic deadline, the proposal before us is better than any conceivable alternative that I or any other hon. Member could offer.
  8.35pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware from the briefings that he received when he entered office that decommissioning has been a major item on the Northern Ireland political agenda for a number of years. I was involved in the negotiations that culminated in the Belfast agreement; decommissioning was discussed at length in those negotiations.
  The Mitchell commission, which had the task of considering the decommissioning issue, drew up proposals for decommissioning to take place alongside those negotiations. As each party entered the negotiations, it committed itself to what became known as the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. It is worth recalling that one of the principles to which all the

  95
  parties—including the Progressive Unionist party, linked to the UVF; the Ulster Democratic party, linked to the UDA; and Sinn Fein, linked to the Provisional IRA—committed themselves was the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. That commitment existed even before the agreement was concluded.
  The agreement itself reiterates the commitment, albeit in language that I felt did not go far enough towards ensuring that decommissioning was not only a commitment made by parties and thus, in a sense, an aspiration, but that there were clear obligations on the parties linked to other aspects of the agreement.
  The agreement has two essential characteristics, one of which deals with the constitutional and institutional arrangements for Northern Ireland. Within those arrangements, political compromises have been made between Unionism and nationalism. The other feature is the confidence-building measures, which were designed to run alongside the implementation of the institutional and constitutional arrangements. They were intended to give people confidence that we were making the transition from 30 years of violence to a new era of peace based on democracy and political stability.
  The difficulty for Unionists, which the Secretary of State recognised, at least verbally, in his recent speech in Liverpool, is that the confidence-building measures specifically designed to build confidence in the community, particularly among Unionists, that those who had engaged in violence in the past had moved to democracy, have not been fulfilled to the extent that Unionist confidence has been built. The Secretary of State spoke about the "cold house effect", and it is true that, in respect of many of the proposals flowing from the agreement, Unionists have felt the breeze of change, which they considered unbalanced. In particular, their sense of British identity has been eroded in a way that has made them feel extremely uncomfortable.
  Nevertheless, Unionists want the Assembly to provide good, stable government for Northern Ireland. Among Unionists right across the board, there is support for the Assembly. There is also support for the principle that parties should work together to achieve the objective of good government, but when we entered the negotiations it was clearly understood that parties that participated in the new institutions should commit themselves exclusively to peaceful and democratic means. It is clear that in respect of the republican movement, such a commitment has not yet been fulfilled to the extent that I, as a Unionist, feel comfortable with the idea that republicans are in the Government of the part of the United Kingdom in which I reside and which I represent.
  I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the difficulty for many in Northern Ireland of having Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education, when that individual is still linked to an illegal terrorist organisation, as a member of that organisation and part of its leadership. That presents enormous difficulties for ordinary, decent people who want a better future and stability and peace for their children. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State not only recognises but genuinely understands the discomfort that Unionists feel.
  96
  That brings us to the nub of the issue. The Secretary of State will have heard the comments of the Conservative spokesman and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. We do not oppose in principle an amnesty for those who decommission their illegal weapons or extension of that amnesty, but we are against creating circumstances in which there is no deadline and no target date for the completion of the process of decommissioning, and in which the amnesty period is potentially extended until 2007. That sends completely the wrong signals to the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, as it suggests that they have bought themselves more time through their procrastination and delay, and also to the Unionist community, to which it says that the decommissioning process is becoming open ended, will never be completed and will continue to be a shadow that is cast over the political process. That does not engender stability and confidence.
  We have recently seen some positive steps. The agreement of the Policing Board on a new police badge was significant. My preference would have been to retain the existing badge. I have argued in this House that it represented fairly both traditions in Northern Ireland with the harp, the crown and the shamrock. However, I believe that the new badge is a sincere attempt by representatives of both traditions to reach agreement on something that was controversial and shows what happens when democratic political representatives from different traditions come together to try to resolve a problem.
  There was, however, a missing dimension in that decision: Sinn Fein-IRA. It is worth recalling that Sinn Fein-IRA has so far refused to support the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and to participate in the Policing Board. Thus, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are participating in the government of that part of the United Kingdom but refusing to support its police service. Surely, that is an absurdity in any democratic scenario. It demonstrates that Sinn Fein has not yet made the transition from a past in which it was engaged in violence—and, indeed, a present in which it is continuing to engage in unacceptable levels of violence—to a commitment to exclusively peaceful means.
  Decommissioning is not only an end in itself, although the removal of the gun from our politics is important, but a means of building confidence in the political process in Northern Ireland. It was a confidence-building measure in the agreement, but the problem with such a measure is that if it is not delivered, it has the opposite effect and undermines confidence. That is precisely what has happened within Unionism. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will understand that there is a wide degree of scepticism among Unionists, whether they support the agreement or are sceptical about it, about the speed with which the decommissioning process is being implemented. That is why, on this side of the House tonight, there are some hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland who strongly support the agreement and some who strongly oppose it, but all of them will be supporting the Conservatives' reasoned amendment. We are dissatisfied with the Government's extension of the amnesty, potentially to 2007, when they have not clearly established a deadline or a target date for completing decommissioning.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the Government's responsibility for decommissioning. In the past, we have had to bear

  97
  responsibility for applying pressure to the republican movement to decommission. We will not shirk that responsibility in future. If necessary, we will take action to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement and loyalist paramilitaries to decommission.
  I do not agree with the Secretary of State that pressure does not work: it does and it has. I do not agree that deadlines do not work: they have worked in the past and they can work in future. If necessary, we will apply pressure through the political process and democratic methods on the republican movement and on loyalists to decommission.
  We want loyalists to decommission. As Unionists from a Unionist tradition, we have always unequivocally opposed the violence of so-called loyalist paramilitaries. We want them to end the violence and decommission their weapons. The Secretary of State can apply pressure to those groups through the prisoner release scheme, under which individual prisoners are released on licence. If they breach it, they forfeit the right to freedom and have to return to prison.
  The Secretary of State and his predecessor have so far twice returned people to jail. In view of continuing loyalist violence, surely there is a case for the Secretary of State to review the matter and make it clear that if the violence continues and organisations fail to decommission, he will return the released prisoners to prison. That will put pressure on the groups to end violence and enter meaningfully into the decommissioning process.
  If we turn a blind eye to the violence, we breach the agreement and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which clearly linked the ceasefires to the release of prisoners, albeit imperfectly.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that deadlines sometimes work. What mechanism would make the deadline that we are considering work? The Bill is an enabling measure, which does not create pressure. If it is passed, we can provide meaningful deadlines and staging posts for decommissioning.
  Mr. Donaldson: Several mechanisms might be used to bring pressure to bear. I have mentioned the prisoner release scheme; another possible mechanism is excluding from office those who have failed to fulfil specific decommissioning obligations. The Government could apply some pressure points if they have the will.
  If the Secretary of State is trying to build confidence in the Unionist community and deal with the cold house effect, he is going the wrong way about it. Every time we make suggestions or proposals, they are rebuffed. Every time we make suggestions about how the Government should handle decommissioning, they are not backed. The Secretary of State expects the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to show leadership, make concessions and stick his neck out, yet he is not prepared to give us the means to apply the pressure on the republican movement and on loyalists to honour their commitments under the agreement. If he is not prepared to do it, we must do it, but that should not be the way. The Government are responsible for ensuring that decommissioning works.
  My difficulty with the Bill is that it sends out the wrong signal to the paramilitary organisations. It says to the UDA and the UVF, "You've got until 2007 to do something." It says to the IRA, "Don't worry, boys—
  98
  2007." That is the signal. It may not be the Government's intention, but that is how it will be read by the paramilitaries on the streets, and that is how it is being read by the communities in Northern Ireland, which see decommissioning becoming an open-ended process. That is not a recipe for creating political stability in Northern Ireland.
  If the Secretary of State wants to address the confidence issue with regard to Unionists, he should understand that they want him to be more resolute in dealing with decommissioning. They want him to send out stronger signals to paramilitaries that their violence and their procrastination on decommissioning will not be tolerated, and that if they fail to deliver an end to the violence, and the decommissioning of their illegal weapons, there will be political consequences.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the process of concession—others have called it appeasement. Whatever it is, the reality is that on the ground among Unionists, it has sapped any confidence that they had, and the Government need to address that issue. They are not addressing it to the extent to which Unionists can feel that there is now a balanced approach.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I concur with everything that he said. It is very sad—disappointing is too weak a word—and I am appalled at the fact that nearly four years after the Good Friday agreement, the IRA-Sinn Fein and other paramilitary organisations continue to hold the threat of a return to violence. I sincerely believe that we must stop being weak, and show resolution. We must show that we intend to treat people who act, or threaten to act, with violence as the criminals and gangsters that they are. We need a much stronger approach from the Government, but we are clearly not getting it.
  The hon. Member Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) spoke about the momentum of decommissioning, as if the amount of weaponry decommissioned in October represented a momentum. I do not believe for a moment that we would be in this position today had it not been for the atrocities of 11 September. The IRA-Sinn Fein clearly knew that, for political reasons, they had to do something. They had to present an image of wanting to decommission so that we would believe them to be sincere. I do not believe that they are.
  We need to show that we mean what we say, and that weakness is not the way to defeat terrorism, or to encourage those who hold weapons to decommission them. I speak in this debate with a heavy heart for the future of Northern Ireland, because I fear that the Bill will set a precedent that will send a dangerous signal to those who bear arms there. The British Government appear to be too weak to stand up to those people, and too afraid to call their bluff. There has been a great deal of talk in recent years about historic moments. The Prime Minister spoke of "the hand of history" on his shoulder at the signing of the Good Friday agreement, yet the true markers of historic significance do not come with such agreements, but with the effect and success of their implementation.
  There is no doubt that the peace process has moved forward since the mid-1990s. There is now an open dialogue among parties that would not even have

  99
  acknowledged one another as having a vaguely relevant case 10 years ago. Indeed, since the Belfast agreement was signed, most sides have kept to their part of the bargain and significant changes have occurred. I can think of three: Northern Ireland has certainly gained devolved government, terrorists have certainly been released early from prison and, shamefully, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been abolished.
  What is not certain is the status of decommissioning, which remains dubious at best, as limited decommissioning has occurred only under duress and following extreme political pressure. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when such decommissioning takes place—that in October, for example—it is further rewarded through the dismantling of British military structures such as the observation tower at Sturgan mountain in south Armagh, an observation tower at Camlough mountain and many others.
  I appreciate that good will needs to be shown, but the decommissioning episodes by Sinn Fein-IRA in October, supposedly part of a reciprocal deal, were delivered late, given the sacrifices made by the Unionist community and the Governments of Britain and the Republic of Ireland. There is a limit to how far good will and trust between groups with no fundamental reason to trust each other can go. We must not forget that ceasefires have been broken before and that hopes have been shattered.
  I shall never forget the disappointment and anger that I felt in 1996 when the IRA broke its ceasefire and planted a bomb in docklands, killing two people and injuring many more. Indeed, that very day, I was at South Quay station an hour before the bomb went off. I shall remember it for the rest of my life. There was so much hope for peace in Northern Ireland, and, most significantly, the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties were starting to believe that real progress was being made—a bit like now, as the position today is similar.
  There is hope for the future, but so long as full decommissioning is continually delayed and the message goes back to those who hold weapons that the Government will keep moving the deadlines, we cannot know what might happen as a result and we shall betray those who acted in good faith, believing that decommissioning would happen.
  Lembit Öpik: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that the Conservative Government were correct to introduce the original amnesty in 1997?
  Mr. Rosindell: I shall not comment on what Conservative Governments did; I have never been part of a Conservative Government. I shall speak about what this Government are doing today. Over many years, there has been not so much a peace process, but a process that seems to appease those who act violently. The situation must not be left open ended. The time has come to deal with it and show paramilitaries on both sides that the Government will not be forced into continual compromise, and that they will stand firm.
  I knew two Members of the House who were killed by the IRA—a former Member for Eastbourne and a former Member for Enfield, Southgate, who was killed in the
  100
  Grand hotel in 1984. I was there that evening. Such events leave a scar, and we cannot go on compromising with these people. At some point, we must make it clear that the vast majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland are the people whom we shall defend. Compromising with the men of violence will not result in true peace in Northern Ireland.
  Groups on all sides of the debate in Northern Ireland are determined and passionate about what they believe in, and violence has been used for decades as a way of articulating those beliefs. The consequence of that has been the deaths of thousands—3,321 according to the latest statistics published by the Northern Ireland Police Service. The violence and intimidation continues. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Bureau estimates that, following terrorist threats, more than 1,000 people have been forced to move to the mainland since the Good Friday agreement was signed, with a further 2,519 families having to be rehoused since 1998.
  It has also been reported that the ceasefire years have seen some of the most intense and sustained vigilante campaigns of the entire troubles. That does not necessarily mean that there will be a return to the widespread terror and violence of the past, nor is it likely that the better known groupings will recommence their campaigns of violence. However, the threat from the dissident groups remains high. It would be extremely naive to ignore those threats, and to allow the weapons used as central to them to remain in use or ready to be used.
  It is particularly bizarre that, when there is so much action against terrorism and so many precautions being set, the Government should introduce a Bill that potentially gives those capable of more terrorist atrocities a further five years, when they have already had nearly five years to hand over their weapons. I do not believe that any Member of the House would have argued in favour of giving international terrorist groups such a long time to remove from bank accounts moneys raised for terror campaigns. It was right that extra moves were made to freeze such assets immediately. Little international credence would have been given to the suggestion of giving the Taliban seven years to hand over Osama bin Laden before military action was to commence. Immediate action was taken to deal with that serious threat.
  I appreciate that decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland is a matter of delicate political negotiation. I understand that some give and take is necessary to build up some semblance of trust. However, I urge Members to recognise that there is a clear threat. So long as those weapons exist, there is no guarantee that they will not be used. So long as others, such as the Unionist community, make sacrifices and receive nothing in return, whatever trust has been established will soon fade.
  Indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly has already been suspended three times due to lack of progress on decommissioning. That signals that faith in the agreement has already sunk. If we permit the Bill to extend the lack of progress, how many more times will the Assembly have to be suspended? How many more times will Northern Ireland Ministers have to resign simply to force a tiny show of decommissioning? How long will we have to extend the deadlines beyond 2007, if full decommissioning has still not occurred.

  101
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) argued that the Government have tied their hands behind their back by permitting the early release of terrorists without any reciprocation. The Bill destroys any remaining sense of urgency.
  The Bill is soft on terrorism at a time when, in every other respect, the civilised world is being hard on terrorism. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the Bill, and send a message to the holders of arms in Northern Ireland that we will not tolerate this threat any longer, and that we will not keep on extending deadlines year in, year out until the whole agreement has been utterly undermined. The agreement can work only when all parties stick to their side of the bargain. If we do not send out that message, we shall be permitting the scenario to continue indefinitely, and setting a precedent that the British Government will always back down.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Before I begin what will be a fairly brief speech, in view of the time, let me apologise for having had to pop out for about 20 minutes. Although I was here for the beginning of the debate, I had to stand in for Father Christmas earlier. If there are any small bits of white fluff clinging to my head, they are what remain of my hair rather than the beard—but I must not extend this suspension of disbelief too far.
  Let me say this to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I doubt sincerely whether the cause of Northern Ireland is best served by speeches such as theirs—the Manichean descriptions that we have been hearing. I observed some Northern Ireland Members almost wincing when the lines were trotted out yet again.
  It is very easy in this life, and in this place, to play the plastic Palmerston and hurl the bombast on the Floor of the Chamber. It is very easy to come up with marvellous expressions of undiluted negativism. I have slightly more respect for the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby, who has worn the Queen's uniform and knows a bit about the realities of life on the streets of Northern Ireland; but too many of us seem over-keen to establish what we think it should be, rather than what it can be.
  History, as we know, is written by the winners. History is not a matter of black and white. It is not a matter of people beyond redemption. It is not a matter of someone remaining as they are for ever. I understand the pain and distress that are felt when those who in the past have either espoused the cause of violence directly or been associated with it become part of a democratic process—I can imagine what has been described tonight as revulsion—but we have been here before.
  Politics is a business for grown-ups. We all know that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist. Menachem Begin—a close associate of a former Conservative Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher—was a member of the Stern gang back in the 1940s, and a member of Irgun, the organisation that slaughtered British army sergeants in Jerusalem and was responsible for the massacre at the King David hotel; but when that group made peace, did anyone in this place say "We will never treat with Menachem Begin, because he has been a member of the group that directly murdered our soldiers in what was then the Palestine mandate"? No, we did not say that.
  I am not trying to make comparisons between Palestine and Northern Ireland. The late Golda Meir was asked precisely that question: whether an analogy could be
  102
  drawn between the two states. She said, "The problem is that in Israel and Palestine there are two sides who are both in the right, whereas in Northern Ireland there are two sides who are both in the wrong." I do not happen to agree with that analysis. I think that there is a future in the north of Ireland, which lies before the eyes of those of us who visit the Province regularly.
  Let me say some thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Almost against my expectations, I have come to feel considerable respect for Northern Ireland politicians over the years. I have not had a great deal to do with loyalism and Unionism in the past—that is no secret—but I have worked with those politicians. I have sat in Committee Rooms with, and talked to, Members such as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), whose home was blown up around his ears less than 30 years ago.
  We are talking about something very serious—far too serious for bitter, nonsensical talk of appeasement from the safety of London seats. When the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who I suspect was not educated by Jesuits, talks of his meeting with General de Chastelain and applies Occam's razor to "If we said it was this, would you say it was that?", I begin to doubt whether he is not too close to the situation to be truly objective.
  It is presumptuous of me, from the safety of my London constituency, to claim objectivity in this matter, and I would not even begin to do so, but I can see why decommissioning is not the be-all and end-all of the process. It is the process that matters. If every single piece of ordnance in the entire Province were destroyed tomorrow, would peace suddenly arrive on the wings of a dove with the dawn? Would there be no rearming? Would nobody bring in arms from Libya? I do not think so.
  What makes the verifiable act of decommissioning so incredibly significant—to use General de Chastelain's word—is simply the fact that it happened. For years, I have begged republicans and nationalists to give up that one bullet or that one ounce of Semtex, and they told me that I could not even begin to understand what would happen in the republican community if they did so. They talked about the pikes in the thatch, about 1690 and about the fact that the IRA was called "I Ran Away" after 1968. They said that if they started to hand in their weapons, the cohesion among the republicans who are signed up to the peace process would be destroyed and we would see a hundred so-called Real IRAs and a hundred groups of murderous, inward and backward-looking people. Yet somehow republicans have gone beyond that stage and committed themselves to a verifiable act of decommissioning. I do not think that we in this House should underestimate for a moment the immense significance of that act. We have to pay tribute to it.
  Hon. Members have said that this is all part of a charade, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about the decommissioning of the two sites as a stunt. If this is a charade or a stunt, what is it for? The Irish Republican Army had an virtually limitless supply of finance and so-called volunteers. It has been described tonight as the most successful organisation of its type in western Europe. We are told that 11 September changed all that, and people are no longer able to occupy themselves in that way.
  If that is the case, why has not ETA started decommissioning? Why is there not a peace process in the Basque country? Decommissioning is not about

  103
  11 September; it is not about the nonsense in Turkey or the farce in Colombia. It is part of a much longer process. Anyone who spends time studying the evolution of republican political thought in Ireland will see that decommissioning is part of a movement away from violence and towards engagement in a political process. That is the result not of a suspension of disbelief but of very careful analysis.
  Why on earth would the IRA want to take part in the decommissioning process if it was not serious? Anyone in the Chamber who has had anything to do with the process knows that a member of Sinn Fein who stands up at a meeting anywhere in the United Kingdom now will be attacked by someone in the hall saying that Sinn Fein are the appeasers who have sold out, who have betrayed the glorious history and who are turning their backs on the terrible beauty of 1916 and all that sad, bitter, old music that we have known for so many years. Decommissioning has not been easy for republicans; it has been desperately, desperately hard.
  I am not, for a moment, trying to make a case for the IRA. If there is one thing that has made me deeply respect those Northern Irish Members to whom I have spoken, it is the fact that they have never failed utterly to condemn ruthless gangster murders, even when they are committed by people in their community against people in that community. I take second place to no Member of the House in recording my respect and admiration for those Northern Irish Members who have had the courage to utter that condemnation.
  I will not seek to defend the IRA or Sinn Fein, but to those Members who have tried to convince us that the process should be derailed, because Armalites have not been fed into angle grinders or smelters, I say that the de Chastelain commission, in which the House has expressed its confidence, has witnessed those acts and that has to be good enough. If we want to make a judgment on that, we should look at the impact within the republican communities. It is a sad fact that I have addressed myself to the speeches made by Northern Ireland Members in particular, but we are debating a Conservative amendment to the Bill. The fact that the Conservatives have come to the House tonight with no alternative, no plan B and no great vision for the future of the political process—nothing but bitter negativism—is a terrifying indictment of their political immaturity on the issue.
  Politicians in Northern Ireland have the right to say what they think; they have earned it. We know that they represent their communities and that they must speak according to their own beliefs. The Conservative party appears to be playing the old trick of party politics on an issue that should be above it. The amendment says nothing; I am sorry, it says one thing. It says no. That is it. I feel sad. I also feel a certain amount of contempt for Her Majesty's official Opposition, who chose to try to derail a process that is not perfect but is the only game in town and the only possible avenue in which any hope exists or in which any chance is identifiable. Yet tonight they say simply no.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak and I will conclude by saying that I hope that we will pass the Bill tonight and reject the amendment. If I have caused any offence to any Northern Ireland Members, I bitterly regret that.
  104
  As someone who comes from an entirely different community, I have come to hold you in considerable respect. As long as there are people like yourselves—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to use the proper parliamentary language.
  Mr. Pound: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise unreservedly to the House. As long as there are politicians of the calibre that we have elected to the House, I see hope for the future of Northern Ireland.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and I admire his sincerity and conviction. He referred to having left the Chamber momentarily to act as Father Christmas. That must mean that there are two Members tonight who have acted as Father Christmas; the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber and the Secretary of State, in terms of what he has offered to IRA-Sinn Fein, inside it. Let us make no mistake about it: that is exactly how the Bill is seen in Northern Ireland and how it will be taken by the republican constituency. They are delighted at the fact that once again the deadline for decommissioning will be extended, if the House so votes tonight. Once again, it is going to be fudged and put back, as many hon. Members have predicted. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said to the Secretary of State at Question Time that it would not cause a ripple of surprise in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, that is not to diminish the outrage that is felt among ordinary grass-roots Unionists in Northern Ireland at the way in which concession after concession has been given to the republican movement; and on the issue of the decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms, they have been pandered to and appeased.
  Reference has been made to the 1997 Act and to the fact that this Bill is an extension of that Act. When the Act was introduced, it was not introduced in a vacuum, as some have said. It was introduced in the wake of the Mitchell report. The Mitchell commission was set up to look at how progress could be made through talks, and at the barrier that was said to exist for republicans because of their refusal to decommission. The Mitchell commission made a proposal for a twin-track approach, with political discussions and, at the same time, the decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms for those who took part in the talks. That is why the 1997 Act was introduced by the then Conservative Government. It was on foot with the Mitchell review.
  What actually happened? Despite the clear outline given by Senator Mitchell, and the Government's acceptance of the need for political talks to run in parallel with decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons by those engaged in the talks, what happened was that, once the talks started and IRA-Sinn Fein was admitted, just six weeks after the atrocious murder of two RUC officers on the streets of Lurgan, that issue was put to one side. It was forgotten, and no decommissioning took place.
  Then we had the agreement. Nowhere in the agreement does it say explicitly that there was a deadline for decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms, but we were told by those who signed up to the agreement and by the

  105
  proponents of the agreement that the deadline was 22 May 2000. Of course, we saw that deadline moved to June 2001. The then junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), made it clear that the target date was June 2001. That has passed and now the deadline of February 2002 is also to be extended to a date that means that the Government hope that decommissioning will simply disappear as a political issue. That is the purpose of the Bill and it is why so many people in Northern Ireland are so angry about it in the context of all the other concessions that have been allowed to the republican movement. On the one issue on which something was demanded of it, the deadline will be put back to 2007. As has rightly been pointed out, the original IRA and other terrorist organisations will take whatever time is available to perform whatever responsibilities they have.
  The Secretary of State came to the House not long ago and quoted the editorial in the Belfast News Letter against hon. Members, and he urged us to take account of what it said. That newspaper is not generally supportive of those of us who have taken a sceptical view of the agreement—far from it—so I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of that paper's editorial on 12 December, which said:
  "The Secretary of State is again making the mistake of allowing paramilitary organisations to duck their responsibilities."
  That is what the Bill will achieve.
  We have had discussion of the wonderful progress that has been made, but many people in Northern Ireland would scratch their heads in amazement at some of the descriptions we have heard from hon. Members, especially Labour Members, about the progress that is supposed to have been made. The Belfast Telegraph publishes opinion polls—which it does not generally use to bolster up my side of the argument—and it published one in the aftermath of the gesture carried out by the IRA, which showed that only 51 per cent. of all respondents, Unionist and nationalists, Catholics and Protestants, believed that an act of decommissioning was in fact carried out. It said that 52 per cent. of Protestants who were asked whether they believed General John de Chastelain when he said that a significant act of decommissioning had been carried out by the IRA said no. I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said on 28 June 1999:
  "recognisable, quantifiable decommissioning before any Executive is established remains the only way in which democrats can safely see that the war is indeed over."
  I wish that the right hon. Gentleman still took that position, and that he had stuck to it before allowing IRA-Sinn Fein into government.
  The gesture that we have seen from the IRA is just that. It is not linked to a timetable or a process. We were told that it had to be part of a timetable leading to the complete and verifiable destruction or decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons.
  There have been gestures before. People have urged us to consider the historic significance of the IRA's acts, but another event, already referred to today, involved the Loyalist Volunteer Force. There was an act of decommissioning. The LVF ceasefire has been declared over since then because that gesture turned out to be meaningless. Why was it meaningless? Because it was not part of a process linked to a timetable for the complete and utter destruction of all weapons. It was a gesture, a stunt.
  106
  Ministers have been unable to tell us today that they know even what the IRA's gesture amounted to. The IRA, as General de Chastelain confirmed to us, made it clear that it wants no one apart from the commission—not the Government, not even the Prime Minister—to know what the event was, how many weapons were involved, where it took place or anything else. On that basis, we are supposed to keep Martin McGuinness, the IRA chief of staff, and Gerry Adams and other such people in the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Let us consider the so-called historic and significant event in the light of what happened following the LVF gesture. The LVF ceasefire has been declared bogus. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise how strongly people on the Unionist side in Northern Ireland feel. I accept what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said about recognising where Members from Northern Ireland come from on these issues, but I wish people would take more time to speak to Unionists in Northern Ireland and realise the depth of anxiety and anger that exists at the process of concessions that is under way.
  We have seen the Royal Ulster Constabulary shabbily treated and discarded. The Minister can shake her head, but the RUC has been shabbily treated and discarded. That is the view of the vast majority of the Unionists of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Minister herself said that the RUC had been laid to rest.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the fact that people in our Government refuse to support the new Police Service for Northern Ireland. Not only do they not support it; they are on record as saying that they want its recruits to be treated in the same way that recruits to the RUC were treated. We know exactly how they were treated—they were murdered and intimidated, and their families were murdered and intimidated.
  There is a cold house for Unionists, as the Secretary of State said in his speech in Liverpool. Instead of offering measures to remedy that, he comes before us with a measure that will put back the deadline for decommissioning. Tomorrow, along with his colleague the Leader of the House, he will come here with a motion to allow IRA-Sinn Fein into the precincts of this House, a special privilege not granted to other Members who refuse to take the oath. The Secretary of State needs to start acting on his words. The vast majority of Unionists, whether or not they supported the agreement, have lost faith both in the agreement and in the Government's capacity even to acknowledge the fears of the Unionist community.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The debate has shown that the measure is anything but technical—the suggestion made by one or two Labour Members. It has shown the importance of timetables and process. The measure is central to the process that we all want to achieve.
  Following the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), it is appropriate to reflect that his constituents experience anything but normal life under the peace process. They have no experience of political normality—unlike the majority of our constituents. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us of the twin-track process that Mitchell set up. He was also right to remind

  107
  us that the Government are allowing paramilitaries to duck their responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government's treatment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  I shall deal with the Secretary of State's speech towards the end of my contribution, but I shall refer first to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who said that timetables have bedevilled the process. In that case, what was the Prime Minister doing when he insisted on a timetable for the Belfast agreement and said that it had to be finished by Good Friday—hence its name? The Prime Minister gave graphic descriptions of how he put his back to the door and said that no one was to leave until there was an agreement.
  What about the first act of IRA decommissioning? The decision of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to remove Ulster Unionist Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive led, four days later, to the first act of IRA decommissioning. For the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green to say that another five-year period, as proposed by the measure, is the minimum needed to achieve the objectives flies in the face of experience not only in Ireland but throughout the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out how long it took in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to complete a decommissioning process in circumstances that were much more challenging and wholly different from those we face in Northern Ireland. In Afghanistan, the decommissioning of al-Qaeda and the Taliban—admittedly an involuntary process—was achieved in only three months.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate for the Opposition, on his cogent arguments. I regret that I shall be unable to respond to the hon. Gentleman entirely in kind. His criticism was that our current position is inconsistent with that of the Conservative legislation in 1997. However, he must understand that in 1997 the Government were setting up a mechanism to test the genuineness of terrorists' intentions to give up violence.
  The inevitable concessions to bring together all sides that are linked to the Belfast agreement had not been made. The Conservative Government brought in the 1997 Act to implement the Washington principles, as enunciated by Lord Mayhew, and then to give effect to the Mitchell principles that followed. The situation was wholly different. It began the process that led to the Belfast agreement in 1998. In 1997, the then Government and the then Parliament were opening up that process.
  In a typically independent and refreshing contribution, based on years of commitment and experience, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that the measure proposed merely a minor amendment to the 1997 Act. However, it goes much further than that. We are talking about the signals that the measure sends out. It is not merely a minor amendment, although I have no doubt that we shall return to that issue in Committee if our reasoned amendment is not carried this evening.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford on the appalling failure of the Government to deal with prisoner releases and the complete lack of
  108
  connection between those releases and decommissioning. I know that some of my Republican friends will have enjoyed the links that he made between Presidents Castro and Clinton in their terms of welcome for Gerry Adams—I of course refer to my Republican friends in the United States.
  The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in his unrelenting message that Sinn Fein must be opposed. He was concerned over the constant concessions made to Sinn Fein as the party of violence, of the bullet in conjunction with the ballot box. It has pursued that strategy with success, and now with electoral success in Northern Ireland at the expense of the constitutional politicians of the SDLP. He is right to say that that is significantly to be regretted.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) intrigued the House in reporting that IRA decommissioning had been substantial. I am sure that we all look forward to further substantiation of and evidence for that remark. The Secretary of State is not, it seems, in a position to deliver it.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was, however, absolutely right—he added his name to the reasoned amendment that we tabled—that it is the Government's responsibility to achieve decommissioning. The Government should not be hiding behind him any more. It is the Government who must deliver and not expect the right hon. Gentleman as First Minister to do the difficult work for them.
  The contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) must be respected. He served in Northern Ireland, but his memory seems to have been overtaken by his latter experience in the Army following his earlier experience alongside colleagues in the Black Watch. I wonder how many of his former Black Watch colleagues, knowing what has happened to morale in the Northern Ireland Police Service, have his confidence that in the end the Real IRA and loyalist paramilitaries who remain at violence will be mopped up by sound policing process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), whose long experience and personal commitment to the issue is peerless in this place, has shown courage in consistently putting forward his views in the face of the threats that he has opposed. That makes it appropriate for him to comment on what he called the retreat and appeasement between 1993 and 1997. I do not share his conclusion, as it was right for the then Government to pave the way for the Belfast agreement in 1998. It was right for the Ulster Unionist party to sign the Belfast agreement and right for the Conservative party to support the agreement in the campaign that followed to achieve a yes vote in the referendum. All the work done by Lord Mayhew and his predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland led to that process, which remains the best available for achieving a lasting peace.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) brought to the debate his usual uncomfortable clarity. He rightly disinterred the meaning of the word "significance" in his discussions with General de Chastelain, to confirm what most of us expected that de Chastelain was saying—that he considered not the amount but the event as significant. That is true; we must acknowledge that the event of decommissioning itself was of psychological rather than practical importance.

  109
  The point from which we cannot escape, however, is the record of the Provisional IRA since the Belfast agreement, to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. It is a damning indictment of that organisation.
  The Secretary of State says that we cannot tolerate private armies indefinitely. Inescapable logic leads from that remark to the conclusion that at some point we must cease to tolerate them, but the signal that the Bill sends is that we will tolerate private armies indefinitely, because it mirrors precisely the legislation that laid down the timetable five years ago. The message is that in five years' time, we shall be back here again, debating a precisely similar piece of legislation, with nothing substantial having happened in terms of decommissioning.
  We had an extraordinary diversion in the form of the Secretary of State's definition of Sinn Fein-IRA and his assertion that they are not the same organisation—that they enjoy the same relationship as the trade unions and the Labour party. Is John Monks the director of the Labour party in some sense, or is the Prime Minister the director of the trade unions? I must have missed something.
  Dr. John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is incapable of following a logical argument. I did not say that Sinn Fein and the IRA enjoyed the same relationship as the trade unions and the Labour party. I said that it is possible to be interlinked but not the same, and I gave as an example of that phenomenon the Labour party and the trade unions.
  Mr. Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is dancing on the head of a pin. Who does he think Gerry Adams was talking to when in October this year he said:
  "Martin McGuiness and I have also held discussions with the IRA and we have put to the IRA leadership the view that if it could make a ground-breaking move on the arms issue that this could save the peace process from collapse and transform the situation"?
  As we all know, he was talking to The Mirror. If the Secretary of State believes that the distinction he makes is credible, we are playing Alice in Wonderland politics—politics through the looking-glass.
  The Secretary of State referred to dissident republicans and rejectionist loyalists, saying that they were the true enemies of Northern Ireland, opposed by all the people of Northern Ireland, but his remarks did not persuade me that the Bill is aimed at them. Five years ago, when the timetable was discussed in Standing Committee, Ulster Unionist party Members tabled an amendment in support of their argument that five years was too long. The position of the then Government was that a shorter timetable would be far more appropriate for the Provisional IRA, because there was supposed to be a prospect that that organisation, through Sinn Fein—the other side of the coin—would become involved in the process. In resisting that amendment, Sir John Wheeler, then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, made it clear that
  The maximum duration of five years depends on an annual renewal within that period. It rests on the premise that—as members of the Committee know—there are small groups whose much smaller stocks of weapons and explosives need to be taken out of circulation. That may take time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 December 1996; c. 23.]
  However, the Government have not suggested that the five-year timetable set down in the current Bill is designed to address those smaller groups. Instead, it is aimed at the
  110
  Provisional IRA—the main holder of weapons in Northern Ireland. That is why we should resist the Bill as it stands being given a Second Reading.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) challenged the Secretary of State to say that, if no decommissioning takes place within a year, he will not propose another extension in February 2003. The Secretary of State simply replied that he could not predict the future. The problem is that we are dealing in signals. General de Chastelain said that the decommissioning that took place was significant as a signal of IRA decommissioning, and it was accepted and welcomed by the Opposition as a signal. The signal that the Bill sends is the wrong one. It ignores the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland. It is a signal of pressure being taken off the Provisional IRA.
  The Bill is another concession in an endless series to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government's concessions have not been to constitutional politicians. Instead, they have always been to those who are illegally holding arms. To introduce another five-year Bill in precisely the same terms as previous legislation, which was introduced in an entirely different situation before the ceasefire and before the Belfast agreement, is a message that the process will be endless. There will never be closure.
  It is time for the Government to seek to achieve a return to normality. It is time for them to show some commitment to achieving normality and not to hide behind the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. That is what our reasoned amendment seeks to achieve, and that is what I hope the House will support.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It mellowed into an interesting discourse on the moral dilemmas facing us, as a Parliament and as a Government, as we grapple with progress in moving from armed conflict and terrorism to a fully democratic and peaceful Northern Ireland.
  The Bill simply provides a legal framework to allow decommissioning to happen; no more and no less. It mirrors closely the Bill that was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1997, which was supported by the then Opposition. It extends legal immunity from prosecution for one year only. Any further extension requires the approval of the House.
  Contrary to what may have been understood if someone had wandered into the debate, the framework that the Bill provides will assist in the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, both loyalist and republican. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there is little between us, I think. He criticised the Bill's timing and the period in respect of which it is designed to provide legal immunity. Timing could always be better, especially with hindsight, and, as I said, the legal framework will last for one year only. I am sure that we will debate that issue further when we come to consider the Bill in Committee after we return from the Christmas recess.
  I hope that we are all agreed that we want to achieve decommissioning. The original Bill was introduced in 1997, five years ago. The political context has been transformed since then. No one could have predicted then where we would be today, five years later. Would we have

  111
  a process in place that still warranted the provision of a legal indemnity for the decommissioning of weapons? The five-year life span of the original Bill reflects that uncertainty.
  If I may pay tribute to him, in a powerful and incisive speech, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) touched upon the courage and vision of the then Conservative Prime Minister, John Major. The hopes and aspirations of the Conservative Government in bringing forward a Bill five years ago have been vindicated by the progress that has been made subsequently.
  The point made by the hon. Gentleman is the more powerful because when the Conservatives took their measure forward, the Provisional IRA was not even on ceasefire. Its ceasefire had ended in February 1996 and was not restored until the summer of 1997. The hope and aspirations fully justified the extension of the principle that the Conservative Government introduced and that we supported. We have made huge strides over the past five years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined many of those at the beginning of his powerful speech, when he laid out the strong reasons why we are bringing the Bill forward now.
  I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that Conservative Members do not have a monopoly on distaste. I understand and share the view that is held by many people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that the early release of those convicted of terrorist offences was profoundly distasteful. However, without prisoner releases we would have had no agreement; we considered that that was a prize worth taking risks for.
  I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends who participated in our debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), and welcomed his contribution, which was based on his extensive knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland and, as was acknowledged, the constructive role that he played there.
  I shall deal with points made by other Members in our debate. I heard a lot about concessions to the IRA. We are not in the business of making concessions. Our concern at all times has been to create a society in Northern Ireland in which both sections of the community can feel a sense of belonging and in which all political aspirations are recognised. That is why we now have devolution, which gives real power to Northern Ireland politicians; the principle of consent, which establishes Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom; and the removal of the Republic of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: Since no concessions have been made and none are planned, does the Minister expect the Government of the Irish Republic and Fianna Fail to be consistent with the British Government in keeping Sinn Fein out of a coalition Government if, after their election in May next year, Sinn Fein does not give up the private army within the state, which is unconstitutional under the Irish Republic's constitution?
  Jane Kennedy: That is a matter for the Government in the Republic. I shall just finish the list of positive things that have happened that cannot possibly be described as
  112
  concessions to Sinn Fein or the IRA. We have a new police service with cross-community support—[Interruption.] Absolutely not; that is not a concession to Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It does the hon. Gentlemen no good to shout at the Minister. I will stop them doing that.
  Jane Kennedy: Equality for all and individual human rights are being promoted. How those fundamental aspects of the Belfast agreement can be conveniently overlooked or presented as somehow pro-republican is beyond me. They are good things in their own right that clearly demonstrate our commitment to promoting peace, stability and democracy for all.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady said that the Government are not in the business of making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Does she think that prematurely releasing terrorist prisoners, murderers, convicted murderers and multiple murderers is not a concession, or does she think that that is a perfectly normal and sensible thing to do on its own merit? Does she think that the motion that the Government are introducing tomorrow is a concession or is it something perfectly normal that should be accepted on its own merits?
  Jane Kennedy: I have already said that the early release of prisoners was distasteful.
  Mr. Davies: It was a concession.
  Jane Kennedy: No, it was not, because it applied equally to republican and loyalist prisoners, so the point made by the Opposition cannot possibly hold.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: No, I shall just finish my point about concessions.
  The Bill is said to count as one of the so-called concessions to Sinn Fein. That is a misunderstanding of its significance, because it will provide a legal framework for decommissioning by all paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican. This is not about Sinn Fein but about continuing to fulfil our duty to support the Belfast agreement and, in particular, the decommissioning process. If the Bill is not enacted we will, in effect, let the paramilitary organisations off the hook. Surely, it is right to keep working towards our ultimate goal by giving those groups every opportunity to decommission and allowing them no excuse for failing to do so. I shall try to come to the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, but shall give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  Mr. Robathan: Those groups have had nearly four years since the Belfast agreement—or will have had by February—in which to decommission. How much longer does she intend to give them? Could she specify whether it will be one year, five years or 10 years?
  Jane Kennedy: The framework that we are establishing today will allow one year before we have to consider the matter again in the House.

  113
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) outlined the range of pressures that are brought to bear on paramilitary organisations. I agree with him that the most effective pressure that can be brought to bear is international opinion. We can be instrumental in bringing that about by ensuring that there is no impediment to decommissioning and no excuse for further prevarication.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Jane Kennedy: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I said that I would not give way again, and there are several points to which I should respond before the end of the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested that if the Government set target dates and deadlines, there would be fewer crises than if his party had to do so. I do not find that line of argument persuasive. The difficulty is that deadlines and public threats are unlikely to achieve the objective that we all share: securing full decommissioning. Yes, we need pressure, public and private, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall not sustain the peace process merely through deadlines and public ultimatums. Perhaps life would be easier if we could do so, but the process is not like that.
  On the significance of the act of decommissioning, many hon. Members dismissed what happened a couple of months ago. We should not dismiss that act of decommissioning so lightly. The IRA constitution expressly prohibits the destruction or surrender of any weapons, so the general is right to describe any decommissioning as significant. In recognition of the need to further the peace process, the IRA has set aside one of the cornerstones of its existence. No one should be in any doubt about the significance of that.
  The commission told us in its report that it witnessed the event. Members of the commission are relying not on the words of others, but on their own eyes. The commission regards the act as significant—a judgment that I am confident that it would not reach lightly—and the judgment is shared by the Chief Constable.
  The commission confirms that the material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives. It says that those have been put completely beyond use and dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme under the legislation previously approved by Parliament. That scheme is satisfied only if arms are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable. Whatever the method, the arms can never be used again by anybody.
  As we draw to the conclusion of the debate, it is worth pondering the fact that in the Belfast News Letter the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford stated that the debate would mark a turning point in his approach to supporting the Government. I had looked forward to hearing him outline his alternative vision for the future of Northern Ireland, but all we have heard from the Opposition tonight is negativism, shameful opportunism and posturing. It seems that one can always rely on the Conservatives to fall to the occasion, but even now I am surprised how low they can go.
  I know that some things seem unpalatable, but we are not at the pick 'n' mix counter at Woolworths, where we choose only our favourites when it comes to making the
  114
  peace process work in Northern Ireland. No objective observer expects decommissioning to be finished by February next year. The Opposition conceded as much tonight. After tonight's debate, it is clear that something has been verifiably and completely put beyond use: the critical faculties of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  How does the hon. Gentleman expect decommissioning to continue after February without the legal provisions that would allow it to take place? Does he think that those holding illegal arms would be more or less likely to decommission if they lay themselves open to prosecution in doing so? When the Conservatives went to the pick 'n' mix to get their policy, I fear that they passed over the Quality Street and went straight for the Curly Wurly. We propose to extend for an extra 12 months the period during which guns can be put beyond use within a legal framework—that is all. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 342.

  Division No. 115]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bacon, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Gibb, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Goodman, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Gray, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grayling, Chris

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Cameron, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hoban, Mark

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Horam, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Conway, Derek

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Loughton, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  115

  Mercer, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Prisk, Mark

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilkinson, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Selous, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Spink, Bob

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allan, Richard

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Brennan, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burnett, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burnham, Andy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Cairns, David

  David, Wayne

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  116

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Joyce, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lamb, Norman

  Farrelly, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Luke, Iain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lyons, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gidley, Sandra

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McWalter, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWilliam, John

  Havard, Dai

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heath, David

  Mann, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marris, Rob

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  117

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Price, Adam

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Todd, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Touhig, Don

  Pugh, Dr John

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rendel, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watson, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Webb, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Willis, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winnick, David

  Simon, Siôn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Rachel

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third Reading),and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ARMS DECOMMISSIONING (AMENDMENT) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill: —
  Committal
  1.The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Programming of proceedings
  2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.
  Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading

  3—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.

  (2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on that day or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

  (3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 148.

  Division No. 116]

  [10.15pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Challen, Colin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Breed, Colin

  Crausby, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Covtry S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burden, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burnham, Andy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Cairns, David

  David, Wayne

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Davidson, Ian

  119

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dowd, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Efford, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lamb, Norman

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Luke, Iain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lyons, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gidley, Sandra

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heath, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  120

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Price, Adam

  Todd, Mark

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Pugh, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tynan, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Webb, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike

  Simon, Siôn

  Woodward, Shaun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Southworth, Helen

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Jim Fitzpatrick.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnside, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cameron, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  121

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mercer, Patrick

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Francois, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gibb, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Selous, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spink, Bob

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Hendry, Charles

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hermon, Lady

  Swire, Hugo

  Hoban, Mark

  Syms, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whittingdale, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David,

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mr. Laurence Robertson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Employment Rights
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
10.31 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: Since 1997, the Government have adopted an approach to employment rights which recognises that individuals work best when they are properly rewarded for their work and able to achieve an effective balance between work, family and leisure. The introduction of the minimum wage, the right to a minimum of four weeks' paid holiday, improvements in maternity pay and leave, new regulations on part-time work and the implementation of the EU working time directive have, without doubt, significantly improved the quality of life of workers in this country. Millions have benefited from those policies. More than 1.5 million workers, around 7 per cent. of the work force, are better off because of the minimum wage, while more than 3 million people have benefited from the right to four weeks' paid holiday.
There is, however, strong evidence from trade unions and citizens advice bureaux that a large number of workers, many of them low paid, are still not receiving all the employment rights to which legislation brought in by successive Governments entitles them. Every year, citizens advice bureaux throughout the country deal with more than 650,000 cases of employment-related problems. Many of the cases that CABs handle concern contractual disputes between employer and employee or issues connected with redundancy or dismissal.
A great many cases, however, concern employers' failure to grant their employees' full employment rights. Many of those workers are in low-paid, low-skilled service sector jobs, are non-unionised and have been denied a full written contract by their employers. They are therefore in an extremely weak position to challenge their employer about their rights as employees. Routine abuses include the denial of the right to four weeks' paid holiday, the denial of statutory sick pay and the denial of full maternity or paternity rights, such as the right to maternity leave and pay and the right to time off for antenatal care.
Some employees have been pressured by their employer into opting out of the 48-hour limit on the working week, while others have been pressured into giving up their right to Government tax credits, such as the working families tax credit, because of the supposed extra administration involved for companies. Some employees have even had their hours cut below 16 a week to ensure that they do not qualify for tax credits or other benefits.
It is clear that many companies that fail to meet their statutory obligations to their staff are doing so deliberately, claiming, for example, that part-timers do not qualify for rest breaks, holiday pay or statutory maternity pay, or that the working time directive does not apply to every company. It is equally clear, however, that not every company that is falling short is doing so deliberately. Many companies are simply not aware of their full responsibilities as employers.
Some 95 per cent. of UK companies, a far higher percentage than in most European countries, are small operators that employ fewer than 10 people. As their budgets are tight, many companies of that size do not

123
employ a personnel specialist. Consequently, most of them have no employee with an in-depth knowledge of employment law or human resources management. Although they want to do the best for their employees, they simply lack the requisite funds and knowledge to ensure, first, that they are up to date with legislation and, secondly, that they are able to implement it.
The problem that we face is that the mechanisms of enforcement that currently exist, such as the employment tribunals, are expensive to access and rely on the employee bringing a complaint against his or her company. As many employees are either unaware of their entitlements or unwilling to jeopardise their position in the company by making a complaint, only a small number of cases of employers evading their responsibilities are ever heard by tribunals.
The insignificance of most awards made to successful plaintiffs by tribunals—the median award in 2000–01 was only£2,700—acts as a further disincentive to employees with a grievance. A few thousand pounds and the satisfaction of proving the culpability of one's employer is a poor substitute for a broken career and long-term loss of earnings. The tragedy is that most of the people who are missing out on their proper entitlements are working long hours in low-paid positions and are precisely the sort of employee whose quality of life would be improved enormously by even a small increase in their hourly wage or a few days extra spent with their family.
Clearly, we need a more transparent, accessible and proactive system that is less reliant on individual employees bringing their case forward for consideration. Furthermore, we need a system capable of improving the lot of every employee in the company, rather than a system that is able to give redress only to the individual employee who chooses to bring his or her case before a tribunal. There are precedents. The minimum wage enforcement agency, recently set up by the Inland Revenue, is precisely the kind of practical enforcement agency that we need.
My suggestion—it has also been proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—is that we create a body that I suggest we call the national employment rights office, or NERO. This would ensure that employers were aware of their responsibilities to their staff and, hopefully, we would find far fewer problems. NERO is a particularly apt name because those employers who routinely fiddle the system, abuse the law and exploit their staff will end up getting their fingers burned.
As a first step, NERO should devote itself to ensuring that employees are given written statements of their terms and conditions and itemised pay slips, and that they are paid holiday and statutory sick pay and receive maternity and paternity rights. NERO should also commit itself to tackling inequality between full-time and part-time workers, to ensuring that the working time directive is observed and to ensure that employees receive the tax credits to which they are entitled.
The main role of the office would not be to penalise employers for non-compliance—although it would need to be equipped with the appropriate powers of enforcement—but to advise and guide employers and employees as to their responsibilities and rights. For the
124
thousands of small companies who want to ensure that they are meeting all their obligations to their staff, a service such as this, funded by the state, would provide the means for them to do so.
Under the system, employers would be able to approach the service for cost-free information about employment law without the risk of incurring a penalty for past non-compliance. They would also be able to receive practical assistance, again cost-free, from trained support officers about how to comply with the law and advice on current best practice. When an employer was failing to meet its statutory duties, or where a firm did not have the necessary policies or procedures in place to allow it to meet its obligations, the agency would step in and provide the firm with advice on how to meet its requirements and a clear structured programme to follow.
There could be considerable productivity benefits for small and medium-sized employers. Properly funded, the service could instigate the replacement of many entrenched and inefficient management attitudes and workplace practices that are holding back growth in small and medium-sized businesses. After all, it is not in the interests of anyone—least of all the employer—to have tired, overworked, badly paid and demotivated workers, incapable and unwilling to do anything for their company beyond that stipulated by their contracts.
Employers would also benefit from the creation of a more level playing field. Responsible employers would no longer be undercut by less-scrupulous employers who can offer a cheaper product by neglecting their responsibilities towards their staff. NERO could also raise public awareness of the basic statutory employment provisions and encourage companies to take advantage of its services by issuing certificates of compliance, or even star ratings for the best employers. Potential employees would then be able to get some idea of the employment track record of a company before making the decision to join them. If employers are able to seek references from a potential employee, why should not a potential employee have access to an independent assessment of a company's suitability as an employer?
If we can get an idea of the relative quality of a school or college—or, indeed, a hospital—by looking at a league table, or if we can judge a restaurant or a hotel by how many stars it has, why should not the same be true for employers? It seems strange that while a hotel guest has a reasonable idea of the calibre of the hotel from the number of stars it has before deciding to stay there, a chef looking for a job at the same hotel has no idea what sort of employer the hotel is before deciding to work there.
There are some awards in place which recognise excellence in an employer, such as the investor in people standard, which acknowledges a company's commitment to supporting the professional development of its staff. But there is no single, universally recognised standard of excellence as an employer which encompasses everything from compliance with legislation on maternity rights to the calibre of training and professional development on offer. In a competitive labour market, an independently administered ratings scheme would provide a powerful incentive for employers to ensure that they complied with the latest employment legislation. Not only would a high rating prove beneficial to a company in terms of recruitment, but potential clients would be able to see that a company was meeting its obligations as an employer.

125
The creation of a national employment rights office would help to ensure that each and every employee was decently paid, had control over the number of hours that he or she worked and was not discriminated against or exploited in the workplace. After all, improving the quality of work experience of the working population of this country is a goal every bit as important as the goal of full employment. If we were to ask people of working age in the UK what it is that they most want from a job, the chances are that a friendly and decent working environment would be high on their list.
It stands to reason that employees who are well rewarded and respected by their employers are likely to be happier, healthier and more capable of making a full contribution to their communities and the companies that they work for than those employees who are treated with scant respect and decency by their employers. As Karl Marx, whose analysis of the sociology of work is still highly relevant today, said:
"What then constitutes the alienation of labour? First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e. it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy; does not develop his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind."
Establishing an effective mechanism for enforcing employment rights would provide a means for tackling what Marx described as the alienation of the worker from the work they do.
With effective enforcement we would create a healthier working environment and enable employees both to engage with their work and to strike a better and more productive relationship with their employers. It is therefore high time that quality of work issues were placed at the heart of the political debate in this country. As Fidel Castro said recently, in a speech to the Cuban Young Pioneers at Jose Antonio Echeverria social club in Havana:
"En un país justo, no existe el egoísmo & o & explótacion."
which translates as "In a just country, there is no selfishness or exploitation."
Mr. Bob Laxton: Follow that!
10.43 pm
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing this debate and I am grateful to him for raising this important issue. I am not sure whether I can follow that and quote so eloquently from Marx and Castro, although if time allows I might have a go at the theory of surplus value. Perhaps it would be better if I addressed the major points of my hon. Friend's speech.
This Government took office in 1997 with a determination to improve employment rights for working people. Indeed, we had a determination to introduce basic, civilised minimum standards in this country in the workplace practically for the first time. In the past four years, we have introduced many important measures that have created a substantially better working environment for many employees. The measures in the current Employment Bill—which I urge my hon. Friend to read, because it addresses some of the issues that he raised—will continue to take that good work forward. However,
126
while we must recognise that most employers happily comply with those measures because they recognise the link between good employment relations and success in the marketplace, we also have to accept that that is not always the case and that some workers are not receiving all the employment rights to which they are entitled.
The key question is how best to address that problem. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has identified two principal difficulties with the present system. The first is that some employees are not aware of their rights, and that some employers deliberately or through ignorance do not apply those basic minimum standards. Our approach to that is to try to help to build constructive employment relationships, and thus ensure that workers and employers alike are aware of their rights and responsibilities. Advice on employment rights is provided by a range of bodies, including ACAS, which has seen a step change under Rita Donaghy's chairmanship and a new chief executive. It is now committed to increasing the number of seminars that it conducts with businesses to help them to understand the complexities of employment rights.
Apart from ACAS, the Department of Trade and Industry, equality commissions, the Trades Union Congress, voluntary sector bodies such as the low pay units, and advice agencies such as citizens advice bureaux raise awareness as far as possible through publicity campaigns to improve understanding of specific employment rights. An ever-increasing amount of information is also available on the internet, including the Tiger website, which the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has helped us to develop. That will continue to expand to cover a broader spectrum of employment issues.
Much guidance material is available from both the DTI and ACAS, which also runs conferences, seminars and employer workshops to raise awareness of statutory duties and rights. The Small Business Service provides employers, especially in small firms, with a single entry point for guidance on regulations on employment legislation from across Government. The Government and the bodies that I have mentioned are always reviewing the available guidance and advice to see how it can be improved and better publicised. It is clear that a wealth of guidance material is already available to employees and employers.
My hon. Friend argued that employment tribunals are expensive to access and that few employees think that the risks involved in taking an employer to a tribunal are worth the perceived benefits of winning a case. It is precisely such problems that the dispute resolution measures in the Employment Bill are designed to tackle. We are ensuring that all workplaces must have grievance procedures. The proposed steps are simple and easy to use. They will ensure that a dispute is tackled where it arises, in the workplace. Employers will have to take the process seriously, or they could find that any award made against them is increased by up to 50 per cent.
We are ensuring that all employees are issued with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment that lays down those procedural steps. At present, there is a requirement to do that, but companies employing fewer than 20 employees have no obligation to include disciplinary and grievance procedures. In any case, there

127
is a problem with compliance. Mitigation awards of between 10 and 50 per cent. will apply in that respect. Everyone in the workplace will know where they stand and how best to approach a dispute. The use of such procedures should mean that far fewer disputes have to be taken to tribunal for resolution.
My hon. Friend mentioned the awards made by tribunals. Just under 50 per cent. of awards are for unfair dismissal, which is not relevant to this debate. It is true that the median award is not high, but we are not trying to create a compensation culture in employment tribunals, and awards are designed to compensate for actual losses. Tribunal chairmen assess the level of an award as they deem fair, taking into account the circumstances of the person against whom the award is made.
In addition to the measures in the Employment Bill, we have set up a partnership fund to promote understanding between employers and employees in the workplace. That is an important non-legislative measure aimed at improving work relations. The Government and business have invested £10.3 million in it.
My hon. Friend suggests that the answer to the difficulties that he raised would lie in creating a new body, to be known as the national employment rights office. That would act as an independent assessor of whether employers were meeting their legal obligations to their staff. I am aware that others, including the Institute for Public Policy Research and NACAB, have made the same suggestion.
I remain to be convinced that the formation of a single, over-arching body would be the best way forward. In many respects, it would duplicate work that is already being done. It is not clear to me that the creation of NERO would necessarily improve the volume and quality of information available about employment rights. It is entirely possible for us to improve that within the present system, and we are always looking to do so. Nor would NERO improve the way that employment tribunals work. Employment disputes often lead to complicated and intricate cases and would not naturally lend themselves to resolution through an investigative agency. Tribunals are structured as they are because the expertise of lay members combined with the legal knowledge of the chairman is required to reach a solution.
It is also not entirely clear how the new body would fulfil its role. How could NERO be seen by employers and employees as an independent adviser and conciliator on the one hand while also acting as the body responsible
128
for enforcing employment rights? ACAS, for example, does vital work in both its advisory and conciliatory roles while maintaining its independence and integrity. It is difficult to imagine how NERO could continue as an independent body if it were to take on the dual role suggested by my hon. Friend.
The creation of a single body does not of itself resolve any of the difficulties in the present system. Indeed, it is even possible that, if not carefully handled, the body could create additional difficulties: effort and resources could be drawn into the creation of a new bureaucracy, rather than being used for the operation and improvement of the existing system.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, we made an exception in relation to the minimum wage: because of a service agreement between the DTI and the Inland Revenue, Inland Revenue officers are dedicated to enforcing the minimum wage and to taking cases through employment tribunals. That is fundamental because the matter relates to people's pay and because we introduced a minimum wage for the first time in 1999, whereas such arrangements are well established in other countries.
The Inland Revenue does an excellent job on our behalf, but other employment rights—such as weighing up part-time and full-time work in relation to the directive on part-time workers—are more subjective. To create a body to enforce all employment rights across the board would demand substantial resources, and I am not convinced that it would deliver a better result.
That is not to say that the Government are irrevocably opposed to the idea of NERO. Incidentally, there seems to be awareness of our minimum standards. Last week, it was reported that Madonna said that every worker on her new house knows that they are entitled to four weeks' paid holiday, to the minimum wage and so on. I do not know whether she intended that as an accolade for the Government, but we shall accept it as such.
We are not irrevocably opposed to my hon. Friend's idea. Although I am not convinced that it offers significant advantages at present, I should be happy to reconsider it at a later date. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We do not intend to set up basic minimum civilised standards only to have them ignored by a minority—thankfully—of unscrupulous employers. We shall look at the proposal again, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o' clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishop of Exeter
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have provided support to the Bishop of Exeter in connection with his role as Chairman of the South West Regional Convention; and if he will make a statement. [23627]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners support the Bishop of Exeter in paying for his office and working costs as Bishop of the diocese. The Bishop's costs in connection with his role as Chairman of the South West Regional Convention have been reimbursed by a non-Church organisation.

  Commission of the Bishops' Conference
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, which European Community-funded bodies receive funding from the Church Commissioners, with particular reference to the Commission of the Bishops' Conference of the European Community. [22878]

  Mr. Bell
  None. The Church Commissioners' primary responsibility is to manage their assets for the financial support of the Church of England's serving and retired ministry.

  The Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community is a Roman Catholic body, wholly funded by that Church. It holds regular dialogue with partner ecumenical organisations, which include Anglican representatives, but there is no direct financial or structural link.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, who first briefed the media of the contents of the recent letter to the Chairman of the Commission from the Parliamentary Commissioner. [21980]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Speaker's Secretary was approached by the media from 3 December seeking confirmation of reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had written to the Speaker informing him that she did not wish to apply for reappointment. On 4 December he confirmed to the media that these reports were correct. He made it clear that the text of the letter would not be released.
  2W
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when members of the Commission or the Chairman's office was informed of the Parliamentary Commissioner's intention to make her letter available in full to the media if part of its contents were communicated to the media. [21981]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Members of the House of Commons Commission were not aware that the letter would be released, nor did the Speaker's Office understand that this course of action would be followed.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will establish an inquiry into reports of briefing against the Standards Commissioner. [22723]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission will consider the reply of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to Mr. Speaker's letter of 5 December when it is received, and will then consider what action is appropriate.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission was first informed of reports of campaigns against the Standards Commissioner; when a member of the Commission first raised reports of a campaign for discussion by the Commission; when the Commission was informed of(a) the contents, (b) the partial and (c) the total release of the contents of the Standards Commissioner's letter to the Speaker dated 28 November; and what action on the reports of a campaign against her was taken before the Speaker's statement of Wednesday 5 December. [22724]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said in her letter of 28 November to Mr. Speaker that pressure had been applied to her. The letter was copied to members of the Commission shortly after it was received, and was considered by the Commission at its meeting on 5 December. I and, I understand, other Commissioners were made aware by journalists of the release of the letter during the evening of 4 December. At its meeting on 5 December the Commission was informed that the Speaker's Office had the previous day in response to specific inquiries confirmed reports that the Parliamentary Commissioner had decided not to seek reappointment but had indicated to the media that the text of the letter would not be released. Following the Commission's consideration of the letter, Mr. Speaker wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner to ask her to provide details.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid that her Department is giving to Kenya; and what projects are benefiting from that aid. [22970]

  Clare Short
  In financial year 2001–02 my Department will disburse £30 million in Kenya on poverty-reducing programmes principally on health; education; enterprise
  3W
  development and livelihoods; governance and public sector reform; and drought relief. The largest projects are as follows:

  In health we fund: an HIV/AIDS prevention and care programme including by educating teachers and children about HIV/AIDS; malaria prevention including social marketing of insecticide treated malaria bednets; efforts to decentralise health care; and family planning and safe motherhood programmes. In education we give matching funds to a new Government budget for primary school textbooks and equipment.

  In enterprise and livelihoods we help Kenya to improve its business environment; work with the finance sector and NGOs to give poor Kenyans access to credit; help smallholder farmers and pastoralists with marketing, animal health improvements, and the supply of pedal powered water pumps for irrigation.

  In governance we fund the provision of civic education; are helping Kenya to develop its Poverty Reduction Strategy; fund anti-corruption activities; are helping with development of a new government financial management system and public service pay policy; support Parliament's key institutions; and through programmes in Nairobi's and Mombasa's urban slums, are helping to reform local government. Programmes in conflict prevention, drought relief and environmental governance will also reduce the threat to livelihoods.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance the UK is giving to Sudan. [22976]

  Clare Short
  This calendar year DFID has pledged over £6.3 million for humanitarian work in Sudan.

  This includes contributions to both of the 2001 Appeals for Sudan made by the International Committee of the Red Cross and World Food Programme (£2 million and £1 million respectively); other responses, funded through non-governmental organisations (NGOs)—such as Save the Children, Medecins sans Frontieres, Action Contre la Faim, Care, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and Oxfam—have involved emergency therapeutic feeding (for children) in North Darfur; emergency medical intervention (for children) in western Darfur; water projects in North Darfur and South Kordofan; flood relief; Kala Azar treatment in Gedaref State and Upper Nile; TB treatment in Upper Nile; alleviation of malnutrition in Bentiu; assisting women's rights development associations; and the returning of abducted women and children to their homes.

  We monitor the situation carefully and will make further responses as necessary.

  Somalia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance her Department has given to aid agencies working in Somalia in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if she will list the assistance according to type. [22689]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows.
  4W
  2000

  Agriculture:

  World Vision: agricultural rehabilitation work in Middle Juba (£198,230).

  Minority Rights Group: pastoralist communities in seven countries including Somalia (£154,1411).

  Health:

  World Vision: primary health care programme in Bay region (£198,582).

  Health Unlimited: Saxan Saxo Well Women Project, Somaliland (£250,0001).

  Primary Education:

  Save the Children: community based primary education project in Belet Weyn (£230,518).

  Nutrition:

  Action Contre la Faim: emergency nutritional intervention in Gedo (£168,722).

  General Emergency and Humanitarian:

  International Committee of the Red Cross: 2001 Appeal for Somalia (£1,000,000).

  Security and Co-ordination of Relief Work:

  United Nations: 2001 Consolidated appeal for Somalia-for UN security and co-ordination activities (£410,850).

  Health:

  World Vision: primary health care projects in Middle Juba (£328,785) and Bay Region (£266,163).

  Medecins sans Frontieres: health assistance projects in the Bakool Region (£207,000) and Middle Shabelle Region (£377,689).

  Gender/Peace:

  International Organisation for Migration: workshop to encourage Somali women's participation in the peace process (£88,969).

  Water and Sanitation:

  Norwegian Peoples' Aid: water rehabilitation in the Sool Region (£200,173).

  Education:

  Africa Educational Trust: developing community school partnerships in Somaliland (£123,8631).

  1 These projects were funded by the Civil Society Challenge Fund and the contribution covers three to five years operations. All other projects run for 12 months or less.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian situation in Somalia. [22685]

  Clare Short
  Last month DFID's field manager covering Somalia visited some of the most vulnerable parts of the south. The Somalia Desk also keeps in close contact with (and support) agencies working in the more at-risk areas, receiving regular reports from them.

  Our current assessment of the situation, derived from these sources, is that there are pockets of urgent need, particularly in the south of the country. These needs are primarily a consequence of the continuing conflict—though the background of poor rainfall has not helped (most notably in Gedo).

  Refugees (Former Yugoslavia)
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian problems in the refugee
  5W
  camps in Bosnia Herzegovina; if she will provide funding directly to the refugee camps; and if she will make a statement. [23196]

  Clare Short
  The UNHCR is responsible for monitoring the situation of refugees in Bosnia Herzegovina. We have not provided bilateral funds to support refugee camps. We provided £1.6 million for a refugee programme that ended earlier this year. We have also provided £582,000 to assist Serb refugees to return to Croatia, including from Bosnia Herzegovina.

  We have agreed with the authorities in Bosnia Herzegovina to support social and economic reform. Our commitments are described in the DFID country strategy paper for Bosnia Herzegovina, published in September 2000.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the(a) number and (b) value of deals completed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in each of the last five years, stating in each case the country concerned and grouped by the OECD developing countries and territories measurement of (i) least developed countries, (ii) low income countries, (iii) lower middle income countries and territories, (iv) upper middle income countries and territories and (v) high income countries and territories; and if she will make a statement. [21520]

  Clare Short
  I have asked the Finance Director of CDC to provide information about CDC investments in the last five years where this information is centrally available and is not commercially sensitive. He will reply direct and I will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on changes in the levels of humanitarian assistance to Serbia in the post-Milosevic era. [22692]

  Clare Short
  Following the resumption of democratic rule in Serbia in October 2000, the UK provided a £10 million immediate assistance package for Serbia. We also contributed £22 million towards the EC's euro 188 million humanitarian aid programme, and provided a further £8.4 million to help the Serbian authorities pay arrears in family welfare benefits.

  Over the last year, we have developed a programme of support for economic and social reforms, as set out in the DFID Country Strategy Paper for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Other donors have also developed longer-term, strategic assistance programmes. Such support for essential reforms is key in meeting the longer-term needs of the poor and vulnerable in Serbia.

  The EC Humanitarian Affairs Office (ECHO) is providing euro 47.8 million of humanitarian assistance for
  6W
  Serbia in 2001. DFID' s share of this is £5.7 million. Other donors, including the international relief agencies, are continuing to provide humanitarian assistance.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to support(a) internally displaced persons and (b) refugees within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the winter. [22691]

  Clare Short
  Humanitarian assistance from the international community, including assistance for internally displaced persons and refugees, is co-ordinated by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the European Commission Humanitarian Affairs Office (ECHO). The UK provides funds for these agencies, including 19.7 per cent. of the ECHO budget.

  We are not planning to provide bilateral assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons this winter. Our bilateral programme focuses on providing technical assistance for institution and capacity building, and for economic and social reform. We aim to address the longer-term needs of poor people in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by helping to restructure the economy, strengthen public administration and improve the delivery of social and health care services. This strategy is described in the DFID Country Strategy Paper for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to civil society organisations in Zimbabwe. [22690]

  Clare Short
  In Zimbabwe we are helping church and school communities to deliver supplementary feeding to children and vulnerable adults. We are also supporting civic organisations on democratic and legal rights awareness. We are helping to build the capacity of NGOs to respond to emergency needs. We also meet regularly with UK based NGOs to discuss development policy and effectiveness, and to give advice and support on operational concerns.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Fishing Communities
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by how much each regional development agency's budget was reduced to provide money for the Fishing Communities Regeneration Initiative. [18271]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend the then Minister for Regeneration announced this initiative on 4 April 2001 Official Report, column 182W. The Government had previously stated that funding for RDAs' would rise from £1.45 billion in 2001–02 to £1.7 billion in 2003–04. £5.5 million (0.35 per cent.) of the RDAs' indicative 2001–02 allocation was redistributed to help fishing communities in the final allocation announced on 9 March 2001. The contribution of each was as follows.
  7W

  RDA

  £ million

  ONE

  0.68

  NWDA

  1.18

  YF

  0.82

  EMDA

  0.35

  AWM

  0.55

  EEDA

  0.22

  SEEDA

  0.38

  SWRDA

  0.25

  LDA

  1.07

  Total

  5.50

  Regeneration
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of per capita Government public expenditure on regeneration in each of the regions of England in the present financial year. [18520]

  Ms Keeble
  The incidence of regeneration spending1 in the English regions for 2001–02, on a per capita basis, from the regeneration programmes for which DTLR is responsible, is estimated to be:

  English regions£

  £

  North East

  69

  North West

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  49

  East Midlands

  23

  West Midlands

  32

  East

  28

  South East

  11

  South West

  11

  London

  63

  1 Population figures based on 1995 data. Estimated expenditure is based on a combination of budgets and forecasts. Includes figures for DTLR's Land and Property Programme, Single Regeneration Budget, Housing Action Trusts, Estate Action, Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, New Deal for Communities and work undertaken by English Partnerships. Excludes £15 million from the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and Coalfields Enterprise Fund whose expenditure is distributed on the basis of different regional boundaries, cross-cutting projects by other Government Departments and any local authority expenditure contributing to regeneration. Also excludes European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) money. Total projected ERDF spend for 2001–02 on regeneration in the English regions is £248 million.

  2 The Eastern Region did not receive funding from English Partnerships for physical regeneration during 2001–02. This is because there are no coalfields; collapsing land; nor, at present, any Urban Regeneration Companies (these are English Partnerships' principal regeneration function).

  West Dorset Council (Freemasons)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action was taken by the Government Office for the South West following the Southern Eye documentary, 'Anything to Declare' about the activities of Freemasons on West Dorset Council; and if he will make a statement. [19763]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
  8W

  SSA Methodology
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish figures showing the effect of each of the changes in SSA methodology introduced in 1998 on(a) SSAs for each class of authority and (b) each local authority in England in each year since 1998–99 (i) for each year and (ii) cumulatively, in (A) percentage terms and (B) cash terms. [20378]

  Mr. Byers
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what will be the actual cap levels for formula rents for registered social landlords and council housing in Barnet in 2011. [20836]

  Ms Keeble
  The cap levels for formula rents for RSL and council housing will rise at RPI+1 per cent. a year from the current figures.

  Rents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact of formula rents on local authority housing revenue accounts; and if he will make a statement. [20852]

  Ms Keeble
  We estimate that the impact will vary from authority to authority depending on how local authorities determine the means by which they implement rent restructuring.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what time scale is set for the Local Government Commission to undertake a structural review of a local authority in England. [21632]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No structural reviews are currently taking place and so no prescribed time scales have been set.

  Train Staff
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what account he will take of train operators assuming a right to require staff to work their leave days unless specifically declaring their non-availability when renewing franchises. [21439]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Staffing matters, including working hours, are the responsibility of the train operating companies and are not prescribed in franchise agreements. There are no plans to change this.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21315]
  9W
  Dr. Whitehead
  New deal recruits take up existing vacancies so extra costs are limited to the subsidy, where appropriate, and any additional training and development which may be needed. The total number of new deal 18–24 staff currently in DTLR is 29. The Department receives a subsidy of £60 per week for six months, for each full-time new deal employee. In addition, a training allowance of £750 is provided. The cost per employee is £2,190. The total cost to public funds for the 29 new deal staff in DTLR will be £63,510.

  Local Government Association
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will outline the financial support given by his Department to the Local Government Association; and how this mechanism of funding operates. [20718]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Government do not provide financial support to the Local Government Association.

  National Association of Local Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will outline what(a) financial and (b) other support he gives to the National Association of Local Councils. [20719]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: The Government do not give financial or other support to the National Association of Local Councils.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment was conducted by his Department into the value of(a) assets and (b) separate groups within Railtrack Group plc prior to Railtrack plc being placed into administration; and if he will place copies of the documentation in the Library. [21045]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An assessment of the cash-flows that Railtrack's assets would generate is included in the evidence presented to the High Court on 7 October, copies of which have been placed in the House Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to provide funding to Railtrack from the roads budget as(a) loans and (b) other financial arrangement. [23364]

  Mr. Byers
  We are reviewing our expenditure plans, as we always intended to do, as part of the Review of the 10-Year Plan and work on Spending Review 2002.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve the arrangements by which train operating companies(a) purchase and (b) lease rolling stock from ROSCOs. [21049]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any specific proposals to change the arrangements for the purchase or leasing of rolling stock. However, the industry has experienced problems in getting new stock into service and the Strategic Rail Authority has therefore set up a10W
  cross-industry Working Group to develop the mechanics for ensuring rapid acceptance of reliable trains onto the network.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what arrangements are in place to assist train operating companies with the(a) purchase and (b) lease of new rolling stock in the latter years of their contracts as franchise operators. [21053]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are provisions within the Railways Act 1993 (s27(9) and s54) and the Transport Act 2000 (s211) which, for example, enable specific undertakings to be given in respect of new rolling stock where the length of the new lease is greater than the remaining length of the franchise and which allow the SRA to ensure that specified rolling stock leases are passed from one franchisee to another in the event of a change of control.

  Light Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of the allocated public funds for light rail under the 10 year transport funds has not been committed. [21850]

  Ms Keeble
  Our current estimate is that some £500 million of the £2.4 billion of public capital funding assumed in the 10 Year Plan for light rail is committed to schemes already approved. The precise amount will depend on the final funding arrangements to be agreed once the procurement processes for some of these schemes have been completed.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into the relative merits of on-line and junction motorway service areas. [22064]

  Mr. Byers
  It is for the private sector rather than my Department to bring forward proposals for new motorway service areas and whether a developer opts for an on-line or junction location will depend on the circumstances of the individual case. The Department, through the Highways Agency, will invariably comment on specific proposals but it has no general policy preference between the two types of site.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what basis he decided that the planning inquiry into motorway service areas on the M4 and M40 should be treated as six individual inquiries; and what implication this has for the budget of(a) his Department, and (b) the local authorities concerned. [22063]

  Mr. Byers
  The planning inquiry into motorway service areas on the M25, M4 and M40 is being treated as a single inquiry. No decision has been taken to treat it as six individual inquiries. It is normal practice for the local authority to provide the venue and for the Planning Inspectorate to supply the Inspector, each bearing its own costs. At the pre-inquiry meeting on 3 December the
  11W
  preference at the meeting was to hold the inquiry at a single location and the local authorities concerned will be liaising on this.

  Freight Factory Grants
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what freight factory grant money has been awarded to(a)the Port of Tyne and (b) DFDS since 1979. [21786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Port of Tyne has been awarded £977,350 through two freight facility grants, and the DFDS #x00A3;2,549,922 through three freight facility grants. These awards were for improving rail facilities to allow freight traffic handled at the ports to arrive and depart by rail rather than road.

  HMOs
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in England who operate a discretionary registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation under Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. [22451]

  Ms Keeble
  The local authorities operating such schemes are as listed:

  Allerdale

  Ashford

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnsley

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Basildon

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Blyth Valley

  Bolton

  Bolton

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Brighton and Hove

  Bromley

  Bromsgrove

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Castle Morpeth

  Cheltenham

  Cherwell

  Chester

  Chiltern

  Colchester

  Croydon

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Derby

  Dover

  Ealing

  East Hertfordshire

  12W

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Eastbourne

  Enfield

  Fenland

  Gateshead

  Gravesham

  Greenwich

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrogate

  Harrow

  Hastings

  Hereford

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kettering

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Kirklees

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  LB Brent

  Luton

  Mansfield

  Melton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Mid Devon

  Middlesborough

  Milton Keynes

  NE Lincolnshire

  Newark and Sherwood

  Newbury

  Newcastle

  Newcastle

  Newham

  North Hertfordshire

  North Lincolnshire

  North Norfolk

  North Somerset

  North Warwickshire

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  Petersborough

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Redditch

  Rochdale

  Rother

  Rotherham

  Rushcliffe

  Rushmoor

  Salford

  Scarborough

  Sefton

  13W

  Sheffield

  Shepway

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southwark

  St. Albans

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Stroud

  Sunderland

  Surrey Heath

  Sutton

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Thanet

  Tower Hamlets

  Watford

  Waveney

  West Oxfordshire

  Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wigan

  Wirral

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Worthing

  Wyre Forest

  York.

  Lincolnshire County Council
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the KPMG public interest report on Lincolnshire county council will be(a) issued to those named in the report and (b) published. [22218]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The publication of a public interest report into the affairs of a council is a matter entirely for that council's Auditor. I am unable to comment or offer any guide with regard to the publication of any report that may be in preparation.

  Bus Services (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of local bus services in the Buckingham constituency; and if he will list the bus routes cancelled since 1997. [22653]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities have the primary role in assessing whether bus service needs in their area are being met adequately by current provision. I understand that Buckinghamshire county council carried out an assessment of the bus service provision in Buckingham, by parish, when preparing their local transport plan, and that their view is that in general the bus services there have been gradually improving since 1997. No data are available on which bus services have been withdrawn in the Buckingham constituency since 1997.
  14W

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the changes were in the average real fare on London Underground in each year since 1990–91. [22719]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average increase across all Underground fares in relation to inflation was as follows:

  Average increase across all Underground fares in relation to inflation (as RPI)

  1990

  RPI + 3 per cent.

  1991

  RPI + 1 per cent.

  1992

  RPI + 4 per cent.

  1993

  RPI + 7 per cent.

  1994

  RPI + 4 per cent.

  1995

  RPI + 2 per cent.

  1996

  RPI + 2 per cent.

  1997

  RPI + 1 per cent.

  1998

  RPI + 1 per cent.

  1999

  RPI + 1 per cent.

  2000

  RPI + 1 per cent.

  2001

  RPI + 0 per cent.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total cost of advisory fees in respect of the London Underground PPP. [22702]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 296W.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list by local education authority in England, the amounts that he has(a) deducted for existing statutory responsibilities taken away and (b) added for new statutory responsibilities imposed in the provisional settlement for 2002–03. [22747]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There were two deductions for responsibilities transferred elsewhere: £1,356 million for school sixth forms to the Learning and Skills Council and £5 million for the National College for School Leadership. I have placed the figures for individual education authorities in the Libraries of the House, together with the revised Learning and Skills Council transfer amounts notified to authorities last week.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2000,Official Report, column 580W, in what way he has significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development in respect of the siting of mobile phone masts in PPG8. [22768]

  Ms Keeble
  On 22 August this year we introduced changes that significantly improved the planning procedures and guidance for telecommunications mast
  15W
  development. The changes, which included amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995:
  strengthened public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are the same as for planning applications;
  increased the time for a local planning authority to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
  underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college; and
  increased fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to assist victims of road crashes caused by drivers who are not insured; and if he will make a statement. [22713]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Motor Insurers' Bureau pays compensation from a guarantee fund to victims of uninsured and untraced drivers under long-standing agreements with Government. Motor insurers fund the Bureau pro rata to the amount of insurance they sell.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of uninsured drivers using the roads; and what plans he has to reduce this number. [22769]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is estimated that between 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. of motorists drive while uninsured, an offence for which 300,140 people were convicted and more than 28,000 were disqualified during 1999. The motor insurers' recently established Motor Insurance Database will lead to a significant reduction in uninsured driving as police are now able to query insurance details immediately from the roadside. Police inquiries to the database are running at 22,000 a day.

  Residential Gardens (Dumping)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to extend the scope of the planning acts to enable local authorities to deal with residential gardens which become dumping grounds for household and other rubbish; and if he will make a statement. [22714]

  Ms Keeble
  There are powers already available to local planning authorities under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to require landowners and occupiers to clear up sites adversely affecting amenity in their area. If nothing is done, authorities can carry out the work themselves and charge the owner the cost. These powers are in addition to those available to authorities under environmental protection legislation to tackle fly-tipping and litter.

  Cherished Number Plates
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money was collected by the sale of cherished number plates in the past five years. [22770]
  16W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The gross revenue raised over the past five years as at the end of 2000–01 was £314 million.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many businesses paid uniform business rates in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997; and what was the total amount paid. [22645]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is collected only at local authority level, so figures for the Buckingham constituency are not available. Information for the local authority covering the constituency (Aylesbury Vale district council) is given in the table:

  £

  Number of hereditaments1

  Non-domestic rates paid to Aylesbury Vale district council2

  1997–98

  4,092

  26,194,000

  1998–99

  4,137

  27,234,000

  1999–2000

  4,182

  27,717,000

  2000–01

  4,317

  30,981,000

  2001–02

  4,365

  31,928,000

  1 The number of hereditaments is taken from the National Non-Domestic Rates Provisional Contribution to the Pool Return and is based on the rating list in place on 31 December in the previous financial year. In addition to businesses, these include properties that are liable to non-domestic rates, such as schools and advertising hoardings.

  2 The figures given relate to non-domestic properties on the local rating list which, from 1 April 2000, includes those that were previously exempt crown properties. In addition, some other non-domestic properties in the area of Aylesbury Vale district council (eg gas and electricity supply networks) are on the central list and so pay non-domestic rates direct to central Government. Figures are taken from NNDR returns to the Department. Those for 2001–02 are estimates.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 382W, on the Millennium Dome, for what reason the Government are committed to retaining the Dome structure; by how much the value of the site is affected by the Dome structure; if the Government will sell the Dome structure separately; what the Government's estimate is of the value of the peninsular site (a) with and (b) without the Dome structure; and when the hon. Member for Cotswold will receive an answer to his question tabled on 29 November, ref. 19849. [22790]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Like many others, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Government are committed to the Dome staying in Greenwich. It is an important landmark on the London skyline, which has hastened the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula and has added to the quality and variety of world-famous structures that were already so prominent in the area. Delivering a successful future

  17W
  for the Dome will build on this, ensuring continued recognition worldwide and enabling the regeneration momentum that has been established to continue.

  A pre-sale valuation of the Dome site has been undertaken in the context of this process for securing a long term use for the Dome. Any valuations and Government appraisals of the financial value of the site are commercially confidential.

  The question, ref. 19849, from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton Brown) was answered on 5 December 2001, Official Report, column 382W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will (1) list each proposal to lease the Millennium Dome that has been received indicating(a) the date it was received, (b) the consideration it received, (c) the dates of the proposed lease and (d) the status of each bid; [22858]

  (2)make a statement on the process by which (a) bids for and (b) proposals to lease the Millennium Dome are considered; [22855]

  (3) list each bid received for the Millennium Dome, indicating (a) the date it was received, (b) the consideration it received and (c) the status of the bid. [22857]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Large numbers of proposals have been received by English Partnerships. These have varied greatly in terms of substance and detail, but full consideration is given to every proposal commensurate with its nature. To reveal details of any proposals would not be conducive to a successful conclusion of relevant discussions and would be against the public interest.

  The on-going market testing is exploring all avenues in relation to the long-term future use of the Dome, and on professional advice we are in discussion with a small number of serious contenders. All proposals for short-term uses are considered on their merits.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many expressions of interest have been received by(a) people and (b) undertakings interested in holding an event at the Millennium Dome over new year's eve. [22863]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The Ministry of Sound were the only organisation to directly express an interest and put forward a properly worked up proposal for new year's eve. This formed the basis for contractual discussions, resulting in the event that has been announced for new year's eve at the Dome.

  English Partnerships have negotiated a proper commercial return from the Ministry of Sound, including a basic hire charge of £75,000 plus a share of ticket revenue. In addition, Ministry of Sound is paying for all the costs of organising the event.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people have visited the Millennium Dome since 1 July, indicating the nature and purpose of each visit. [22856]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The number of visits to the Dome (including repeat and
  18W
  work-related visits) from 1 July 2001 to 11 December 2001, and the nature of those visits, is as follows:

  Number

  Short-term use inquiries

  404

  Decommissioning related

  4,743

  Potential purchaser inquiries

  55

  Civil servants

  13

  Court visit (Millennium Diamond case)

  47

  Other

  68

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) guests and (b) staff of English Partnerships have been invited to attend the Ministry of Sound's new year's eve party at the Millennium Dome. [22852]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: As is normal business practice in event management, Ministry of Sound has offered English Partnerships a maximum of 200 complimentary tickets to the new year's eve event. These tickets have nil face value and will be taken up by English Partnerships' staff (and their immediate families) and guests. The overall attendance at the event is expected to be 40,000 people.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to improve the accountability of(a) customer views and (b) customer satisfaction on the railways; and if he will make a statement. [23195]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All train operating companies are required to carry out regular Customer Satisfaction Surveys to monitor passengers' perception of the quality of service they offer. If satisfaction falls below benchmarks (based on the results of surveys carried out at the time of franchising) the companies can be required to produce an action plan to remedy the problem. The Strategic Rail Authority have initiated a new National Passenger Survey (NPS) which asks passengers nationwide the same questions about service quality. This enables the Authority to compare companies against one another. As with the existing Customer Satisfaction Surveys, benchmarks for the NPS will be set in new franchise agreements.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many out-of-town shopping centres have received planning consent since 1997. [22902]

  Ms Keeble
  Since 1997 only eight out-of-town centres have been given planning permission. Out-of-town centres have been defined by the definition used for the sustainable development indicator for the location of new retail floorspace. "Out-of-town" means outside town centres and includes sites in urban areas. Centre includes all purpose-built shopping developments and factory outlet centres over 50,000 sq ft gross lettable area.
  19W

  New Homes (Greater London)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new homes were built in Greater London between 2000 and 2001; and how many are(a) planned and (b) proposed between 2001 and 2003. [22948]

  Ms Keeble
  The number of new dwellings built in London in the financial year 2000–01 was 14,200. The number built in the following six months, to September 2001, was 6,300. Information on how many dwellings will be built by March 2003 is not available.

  Worcestershire SSA
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of Worcestershire's standard spending assessment for fire services; and if he will make a statement. [23219]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Worcestershire county council is a constituent local authority of the Hereford and Worcester fire authority. For 2002–03 the fire standard spending assessment for the constituent authorities will in total be, provisionally, £16.004 million. This represents an increase of 4.9 per cent. on the current year (for Worcestershire county council this represents an increase of 4.8 per cent). It compares with an average increase of 4 per cent. for fire authorities in England.

  Boundary Changes (Deprivation Funding)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of boundary changes on eligibility for deprivation related funds; and what was the outcome of that assessment. [23088]

  Ms Keeble
  We are aware that there is a high level of change in ward boundaries in England. We are intending to commission a project shortly that will explore, along with other issues, the extent of such change since the Indices of Deprivation 2000 were developed.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with other departments on the impact of boundary changes on eligibility for deprivation related funds. [23091]

  Ms Keeble
  The impact of the high level of changes in ward boundaries in England has been recognised. There is work under way, led by the Office for National Statistics, to minimise the amount of change. In the longer term the intention is to develop a new system of geography to support deprivation related data which will not be subject to such change. This will be based on Census Output Areas.

  Mobile Phones
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to deter motor vehicle drivers from using mobile phones while driving. [23081]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highway Code makes it clear that drivers should never use hand-held mobile phones while driving and that it is best not to use hands-free phones.20W
  The Government will continue to educate drivers about the dangers of using a mobile phone while driving. The Department produces a leaflet, "mobile phones and driving", which is used by road safety officers and the police in local campaigns. We are currently preparing a new publicity campaign for early next year.

  The police will continue to use existing powers to prosecute irresponsible drivers. This includes the offence of not having proper control of a vehicle, which is contrary to regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. If an accident should occur, drivers may be prosecuted for careless or even dangerous driving.

  Satellite Television Dishes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the planning restrictions on the siting of satellite television dishes on residential properties, including the date upon which it came in to force; and what plans he has to change the planning restrictions to take into account the change in design of satellite television dishes. [22851]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Class H of Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) allows for the installation of one satellite dish on a dwelling house without a requirement for planning permission subject to limitations on the size of the dish and the position of the dish on the building. In environmentally sensitive areas, such as Conservation Areas and National Parks, there are additional requirements relating to the position of the dish on the building and the height of the building. The permitted development right derives from the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) (No 2) Order 1985 which came into force on 1 March 1986.

  As indicated in our Broadband Strategy, published on 3 December 2001, we shall review planning regulations relating to satellite terminals to determine how current rules could be relaxed to facilitate broadband deployment, while continuing to minimise the environmental and visual impact of residential satellite terminals.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what reports the neighbourhood renewal unit is planning to publish on(a) social exclusion and older people and (b) the involvement of older people in neighbourhood renewal initiatives. [23292]

  Ms Keeble
  The neighbourhood renewal unit is not planning to publish any reports on social exclusion and older people in the near future. Engaging members of the local community to take decisions on solving local problems is a central aspect of neighbourhood renewal. This involves ensuring that groups which are often hard to reach are involved in and benefit from neighbourhood renewal activity. The neighbourhood renewal unit has developed a race strategy to ensure that this is the case in relation to black and minority ethnic communities. This strategy will be used as a pathfinder for other groups, including older people. Work on this will take into
  21W
  consideration the work of the Better Government for Older People programme which was launched in 1998 to improve public services for older people.

  South West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the South West regional assembly has provided support to the South West regional convention; and if he will make a statement. [23626]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The South West regional assembly has been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of the region. Its running costs are a matter for the assembly and its members. However, I understand that it has not provided any support for the South West constitutional convention.

  Planning
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he proposes to consult on procedures for involving Parliament in speeding up the processing of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. [23909]

  Mr. Byers
  In July I announced a package of measures to streamline the handling in the planning system of major infrastructure projects, such as new airports, runways, rail links and roads. The objective was to speed up the decision-making process so as to cut the delay, cost and uncertainty of the present process, while making sure that people continue to be properly involved and have the opportunity to make their views known.

  The package comprised:
  up-to-date statements of Government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy;
  an improved regional framework which will assist consideration of individual projects (e.g. through the revised arrangements for Regional Planning Guidance);
  new procedures to give Parliament the opportunity to approve projects in principle before consideration of the details at inquiry;
  improved inquiry procedures for major infrastructure projects;
  improved arrangements for compulsory purchase and compensation.

  We are today publishing a consultation paper setting out our detailed proposals for new parliamentary procedures. Copies are being laid before both Houses. The deadline for comment is 22 March 2002.

  It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider infrastructure projects of major importance to the country and to the economy. Parliament's involvement will add weight and accountability to the process without reducing the opportunities for people to have their say. Parliament's endorsement of the principle of, need for and location of a project will speed up the decision-making process by removing the necessity for the subsequent planning inquiry to look at these issues. We propose to underpin this with new powers for Planning Inspectors to focus discussion at the inquiry, which will just look at the details of implementing the project on the ground. The final decision on a project will rest with the Secretary of State.
  22W
  Our proposals give people a clear opportunity to make their views known before Parliament debates the issues. They provide a mechanism for people to make objections or other representations about a proposed project. Parliament would have copies of all of them and a summary. In addition, the parliamentary stage would be preceded by development of a statement of Government policy, on the content of which there would normally be prior public consultation, and people can express their views at a subsequent inquiry on the detailed aspects of the scheme.

  These opportunities for people to be involved at three key stages of the process would be over and above the consultations between developers and local people on proposed projects before an application for planning consent is submitted. We want local people to be involved as early as possible in shaping proposals affecting them and the areas in which they live.

  Introducing the new procedures would require primary legislation. This will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the planning Green Paper will propose that spatial development strategies no longer be decided at county council level. [22391]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to chapter 4 of our consultation paper entitled "Planning: delivering a fundamental change".

  Revenue Support Grant (West Sussex)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what weighting was given in the recent provisional revenue support grant figures for West Sussex county council to(a) pressures on social services for the elderly, (b) changes in transport costs for education and social services and (c) flood damage in West Sussex caused by last year's heavy rains; and if he will make a statement. [23653]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government looked at the pressures facing local government when setting the spending plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 in the Spending Review 2000. Those spending plans provide for good increases in grant to local authorities overall. Our proposals for the funding of local authority revenue expenditure next year provide real terms increases for education, social services and environmental, protective and cultural services. The proposals include the £300 million over the SR2000 plans which the Government have provided for this year and the next to assist councils in building care capacity.

  In allocating the overall level of funding between authorities, the SSA formulae recognise that pressures on social services are higher for some authorities than for others. For example, they take account of the size of the elderly population in each authority and other factors such as deprivation. General grant to West Sussex in 2002–03 under our proposals is £343 million which is an increase of £22.5 million or 7 per cent. on a like for like comparison. This is above the average for comparable authorities.
  23W
  The Government have also provided £26 million in emergency financial assistance through the Bellwin scheme to councils affected by flood damage as a result of last year's heavy rains. West Sussex county council received £6 million. Revenue expenditure by West Sussex on flood defence not covered through the Bellwin scheme is taken account of in the calculation of West Sussex's flood defence SSA.

  In addition, recognising the severity of last year's floods, the Environment Agency in Sussex has benefited from £1.1 million for emergency response and repair costs and £0.2 million for design and feasibility costs of river strategies. It will also receive a grant for the capital programme of £9.6 million in 2002–03.

  Remote-controlled Model Aircraft
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of remote-controlled model aircraft in areas used by the general public. [23402]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department offers to local authorities standard forms of byelaws to prohibit or regulate the use of power-driven model aircraft, including those controlled by radio-signal, in pleasure grounds and open spaces. Before making this type of byelaw, local authorities are advised to bring their proposals to the notice of the British Model Flying Association and of any local model aircraft clubs, and consider their views.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make an assessment of the need for special consideration where water from a site drains to a flood plain in the context of the PPG25 Guidance. [23538]

  Ms Keeble
  PPG25 already indicates that applications of such a size or nature relative to the receiving watercourse/drainage system that there could be a significant increase in surface water run-off from the area are likely to require particular consideration of flood risk issues. This applies whether a development is within the flood plain or is outside it but drains into the flood plain.

  PPG25 also advises that developers should carry out an assessment of the flood-risk and run-off implications of their proposals that is appropriate to the scale and nature of the development and the risks involved. In particular it advises that the run-off implications of development for all areas are controlled, where possible, through the use of sustainable drainage systems.

  RAF Staff College, Bracknell
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the calculation of his inspector in the report on the Bracknell Borough Local Plan regarding the limits on the number of dwellings in the development of the RAF staff college site in Bracknell. [23540]

  Ms Keeble
  I understand that the area referred to is included in the council's draft local plan, which has been assessed by an independent inspector after a public inquiry. It is a matter for the local council to take forward 24W
  the recommendations of the inspector. The Secretary of State also comments on draft plans and did so in this case, supporting the independent inspector's conclusions.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will limit the built area of the site at the RAF staff college site, Bracknell, to 25 hectares. [23536]

  Ms Keeble
  The details of any site are a matter for the local authority who have primary responsibility for the planning of their area. I also understand that there is an outstanding planning application for the site, so cannot comment on the details of this application.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Inspector's report on the Bracknell Borough Local Plan, relating to the impact on local roads of the construction of housing on the site of the RAF staff college. [23537]

  Ms Keeble
  The Inspector charged with examining the Draft Local Plan's proposals had the benefit of hearing views on the traffic impacts of this proposal and recognised the need for measures to address the issue, before making his recommendations. The Council will also be able to assess transport impacts as part of their consideration of any planning application.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many votes were cast by post during the 2000 Greater London Authority elections(a) in absolute terms, (b) as a percentage of all valid and non-valid votes cast and (c) as a percentage of the London electorate. [23367]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There is no central figure for the number of votes cast by post during the 2000 GLA elections.

  Fire Service (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will(a) introduce a spatial factor and (b) increase the total for fire service funding for Shropshire and The Wrekin. [22390]

  Dr. Whitehead
  As a combined fire authority, Shropshire and Wrekin Fire Authority draws its revenue funding from its constituent local authorities, namely Shropshire county council and Telford and Wrekin council. As part of the provisional local government finance settlement, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 167, the total fire standard spending assessment for those authorities would be increased from £9.267 million in the current year to £9.461 million in 2002–03.

  There are no plans to make changes to SSA formula methodology for 2002–03. However, the Government are committed to funding the fire service by a means of grant distribution that is fairer, more stable, and free from perverse incentives. It is therefore working up proposals in partnership with local government for reformed grant allocation formulae to be introduced in 2003–04. One of the options, which is being considered as part of this review, is the inclusion of a sparsity indicator in the fire

  25W
  funding formula. The Government are also willing to consider proposals for other spatial measures which might be included in the formula.

  Local Government (Electronic Delivery)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the allocations he intends to make available next year under the local government Online project. [23876]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have recently published the Local Government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" setting out our vision for a stronger local government and improved public services. E-government is essential to that vision and many councils are seizing this opportunity to transform the way they deliver services and engage their communities.

  To this end the Government have committed £350 million over three years to support putting local government online. So far, £25 million has been allocated to 24 pathfinder projects (with a further pathfinder being funded under the Invest to Save Budget) to develop new approaches which can be shared with the wider government community.

  We expect all councils to rise to this challenge, and deliver e-enabled services by 2005. To help them achieve this the Government intend, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to provide a capital grant of £200,000 each to 398 local authorities in 2002–03 to support proposals contained in their Implementing Electronic Government (IEG). Subject to demonstrating that they have made good progress, and have used the first tranche of money to good effect, we also intend them to receive a further £200,000 each in 2003–04. We will accordingly lay a Special Grant report before the House setting out this intention, in the near future.

  We have also made provision for financial support to facilitate partnerships both between local authorities, and between local authorities and other public bodies, as well as for further national projects available for use by all local authorities.

  We shall be writing to leading potential partnerships between councils and with other public services seeking further evidence of how their partnership will contribute to delivering joined up, e-enabled services.

  We have struck a balance between resources for individual councils to help them meet local priorities, support for partnerships, pathfinders and other national projects which provide the essential building blocks for every council to use.

  The draft national local government Online strategy to be published early in the new year will set out how we will continue to support pathfinders, and seek views on new national products which can help all councils move quickly and cost effectively toward the standards of e-enabled service offered by the best. We will announce detailed plans for the remainder of the funding in the new year alongside the publication of this strategy.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate she has made of the financial costs involved in 26W
  disposing of nuclear waste and decommissioning nuclear power stations over the last 20 years; and what future projections she has made for the next 10 years. [22295]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure by the Liabilities Management Authority is expected to be approximately £1 billion a year over the next 10–15 years. The other information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  e-tendering
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the target on e-tendering for Government business. [24095]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are currently piloting an internet-based electronic tendering service (OGC Tendertrust) with 10 Departments. This pilot will ensure that the whole of Government have access to a service that will assure the delivery, security and integrity of tenders across the internet and authenticate all parties to the transaction. This service uses digital certificates and smartcards and has received formal Government security accreditation. The evidence from the pilot shows that further work is needed to maintain the right level of security and encourage take up of the service. We will therefore revise our target of sending and receiving 100 per cent. of tenders electronically by December 2002.

  VAT
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce the experimental reduced VAT rate scheme for labour intensive services agreed in October 1999; and if he will make a statement. [23105]

  Mr. Boateng
  The experimental scheme agreed in 1999 gave member states the option to apply a reduced VAT rate to a limited range of labour intensive services during the calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002. The Isle of Man applies a reduced VAT rate of 5 per cent. under the scheme to renovation and repairs of domestic housing. The Chancellor has no plans for the UK to participate further.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has collated on which EU countries have elected to use the experimental reduced VAT rate scheme for labour intensive services. [23106]

  Mr. Boateng
  Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and the UK (on behalf of the Isle of Man only) apply the experimental reduced rate of VAT to certain labour intensive services.

  Tax Credits Bill
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions concerning(a) rates and (b) tapers were used in preparing the regulatory impact assessment for the Tax Credits Bill. [22985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The regulatory impact assessment assumes, for illustrative purposes only, that the current systems of support are replicated as closely as possible.
  27W

  Defence Expenditure
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the £100 million on defence expenditure he cited in his pre-Budget statement is the same money as the £107 million announced in the Ministry of Defence's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2001–02. [22949]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No. The increase in total DEL for the Ministry of Defence of £107.080 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 909W, arises from the winter Supplementary Estimate presented to the House on 29 November (Cm. 5303). On the resource side, it comprises primarily the take-up of DEL end-year flexibility and the consequences of Machinery of Government changes, while the minor increase in capital also arises from a Machinery of Government change.

  The sum of up to £100 million that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget report has not yet been included in Supplementary Estimates.

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much underspend there was in real terms in each year between May 1997 and April 2000 in the(a) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and (b) Home Office. [13205]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table sets out details of cash underspends at 1999–2000 prices for spending by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office. For 1999–2000 underspends are measured against final Departmental Expenditure Limits (introduced on 1 April 1999) and for 1997–98 against final cash limits within the Control Total.

  £0001

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions2

  800,690

  226,342

  80,195

  Home Office

  147,948

  22,999

  48,795

  1999–2000 prices

  2 Main DEL

  National Health Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to raise the level of one tax in order to pay for increased expenditure on the national health service. [22035]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 526W.

  International Tax Recoveries
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 374W, 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 360W, and 30 November 2001, Official Report, column 1217W, on international tax recoveries, how much of the £499 million recovered in tax by International Division from the taxpayers paying more than £100 million in the year ended 31 March 2000, was made up of
  28W
  (a) interest and (b) penalties; and what the totals paid by them were for each of these categories of payment in that year. [22124]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The £499 million included interest of £75 million. No penalty was levied.

  Taper Relief
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cost of taper relief for financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [22192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs of capital gains tax taper relief for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, which was published on 27 November 2001. Estimates for future years are highly dependent on assumed growth in asset values.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the cost of taper relief for financial years(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 between November 2000 and November 2001 tax ready reckoners; and if he will make a statement.

  Dawn Primarolo
  For 1999–2000, taper relief was only available in respect of disposals of business assets. For long held assets, the proportion chargeable was 85 per cent.

  For 2000–01, taper relief was also available for non-business assets. The proportion chargeable was 95 per cent. for long held non-business assets and 75 per cent. for long held business assets.

  For 2001–02, the proportion chargeable reduces to 50 per cent. for long held business assets and 90 per cent. for long held non-business assets.

  The change in cost of taper relief between years reflects the progressive maturity of these taper relief structures as well as such factors as asset values, volumes of disposals and tax rates and allowances.

  The change, between November 2000 and November 2001, in the estimates of the cost of taper relief for 2000–01, reflects changes in the underlying estimate of CGT liability for that year (liabilities for 2000–01 are mostly paid in 2001–02). This is due to new information on asset prices and disposal volumes through 2000–01 and higher than expected CGT receipts in 2000–01.

  Social Security Contributions
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reason for the change in the seasonal pattern of social security contributions in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2000–02; and if he will make a statements.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Figures for social security contributions on an accrued basis are published in table PSF3 of the monthly National Statistics first release on the Public Sector Finances. The source of a key part of the data has changed from the Government Actuary's Department to Inland Revenue, and the new methodology, which has been implemented from the figures for 2000–01 onwards, better reflects the true quarterly pattern. Published figures on cash receipts are not affected by this change.
  29W

  R and D Tax Credit
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration the Chancellor is giving to a regional enhancement to his research and development tax credit for the assisted areas; and if he will make a statement. [22467]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A further consultation on the design of a "volume-based" R and D tax credit for large companies was launched on 4 December 2001. It aims to inform the detailed design of the scheme. There are no plans to introduce enhanced R and D tax credits for specific regions.

  Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the recommendation of the Tax Law Committee's memorandum relating to the tax law on transfer of assets between spouses following separation and divorce; and what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the time period by a further two years in which assets could be transferred between separated spouses without any gain or loss of treatment as advised by the Tax Law Committee; and if he will make a statement. [22465]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have noted the recommendation by the Tax Law Committee.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the lower rate of income tax has achieved its objective of reducing in-work poverty; if he will place such studies in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [22468]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The introduction of the 10p rate of income tax in April 1999, together with its widening in April 2001, is worth between £100 and £188 a year to taxpayers, with the largest gains going to the low paid. Together with the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the reforms to national insurance contributions introduced during the last Parliament, the 10p rate is worth £330 a year to a single person working full-time on the minimum wage. This represents a 30 per cent. reduction in their combined income tax and national insurance bill, compared to the 1997 system.

  The Government's approach to tackling poverty and making work pay has been set out in the series of reports: "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System" published alongside Budgets and pre-Budget reports over the last four years. All of these reports are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in tax liability for a median taxpayer if the lower rate and basic rate of tax were amalgamated at 22 per cent.; and what estimate he has made of the savings in compliance costs from such a change to the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer. [22463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimates requested are not available.
  30W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the opinion of the Tax Law Committee on the impact of the number of tax rates; and if he will make a statement. [22464]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the whole tax system under review, acting where possible to change tax rules to remove complexity in line with its objective of a modern and fair tax system.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the opinion in the memorandum on tax reform by the Tax Law Committee on the taper relief system for capital gains tax and compliance costs; what estimates he has made of the costs of compliance for taper relief; and what estimate he had made of the proportion of taxpayers who benefit from the taper. [22466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Taper relief is an intrinsically simple system: the taxpayer decides whether an asset has been a business asset or a non-business asset and then applies a percentage figure from a table to reduce the amount of gain charged to tax depending on how long the asset has been held.

  Our proposal to reduce the length of the business assets taper to two years will ease that calculation in many cases, and we are currently considering suggestions for further amendments to the details of the taper relief rules which have been proposed in response to our consultation on simplifying Capital Gains Tax.

  The Inland Revenue has a programme of compliance cost research and will study the taper system once it has had time to settle in and data become available. The Inland Revenue estimate that about 85 per cent. of those paying Capital Gains Tax in 2002–03 will benefit from taper relief.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss incurred to public funds as a result of drivers not being insured in the past five years. [22772]

  Ruth Kelly
  No such estimate has been made.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards introducing a system of progressive beer duty. [22912]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have announced that they are minded to introduce a reduced rate of duty on the beer produced by small breweries. Customs and Excise are consulting with the main brewers' representatives. A decision will be announced in Budget 2002.

  Airline Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 328W, on the airline industry, if he will extend the scheme beyond January. [23237]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The UK replacement insurance scheme for the aviation industry has been extended until 22 January 2002, in line with European guidelines. EC
  31W
  guidelines say that Government schemes may run until the end of January, with a final deadline for schemes of the end of March 2002.

  The Government have no intention of intervening permanently in the aviation insurance market. The temporary Government scheme was set up with the objective of encouraging the return of commercial insurance at an appropriate market rate. The scheme will be withdrawn as more commercial insurance becomes available.

  Inward Investment (US)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to assure US investors that public-private partnerships in the UK are attractive investment opportunities. [15269]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are undertaken to deliver value for money services for the taxpayer, combining the complementary skills and experience of the public and private sectors.

  Extensive information on individual PPPs is made available by departments to interested parties through the Official Journal of the European Communities and other channels, and appropriate opportunities for public-private partnerships are promoted by Partnerships UK.

  Public Spending
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the decision to review the consistency of (1) incentives to budget holders with guidance to budget holders through the Green Book, as described in the Treasury document, 'Planning sustainable public spending', paragraph 61; and if he will make a statement; [22500]

  (2) guidance to budget holders through the Green Book with best practice as described in the Treasury document, 'Planning sustainable public spending'; and if he will make a statement. [22499]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As paragraph 61 of the document referred to sets out, the purpose of the review is to ensure that the project appraisal and capital approval system embodies best practice.

  Development Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what development assistance spending has been as a percentage of gross national product in each of the last 20 years. [18189]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The ODA/GNP ratio is an input target whose elements are set by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The Government remain committed to reaching the 0.7 target of Overseas Development Assistance as a percentage of GNP, we are steadily increasing the DOD budget—45 per cent. in real terms by 2003–04, the largest UK development assistance budget ever in real as well as cash terms. Development assistance as a percentage of GNP will rise to 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04, up from 0.26 per cent in 1997.
  32W
  DfID's publication "Statistics on International Development" (ISBN 186192397X), shows the UK's ODA/GNP ratio for the last 25 years.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the reduction in the level of capital gains tax receipts in each of the next five years as a result of the reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent. for assets held for longer periods; and if he will make a statement. [22475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The total costs of capital gains tax taper relief for business and non-business assets for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, which was published on 27 November 2001. These are £360 million and £580 million respectively. Estimates for future years are highly dependent on assumed growth in assets values.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the effect on the yield from the upper income tax rate of 40 per cent. as a consequence of the introduction of a capital gains tax rate of 10 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [22476]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The proposed modifications to the taper relief rules for business assets are not expected to diminish the income tax yield to any significant extent because the effective capital gains tax rate of 10 per cent. will not be reached until the asset in question has been held for two years, and because there are rules already in place ensuring that income is charged to income tax.

  We shall, however, be keeping the position under close review and will not hesitate to take action to protect the income tax yield if tax avoidance schemes for turning income into capital are introduced.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total number of (1) employees with earnings above the national insurance contribution ceiling; [22241]

  (2) earnings by employees in excess of the national insurance contributions ceiling. [22240]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: It is estimated that total earnings over the Upper Earnings Limit of £500 per week for Class 1 Employee Contributions in 1999–2000 were £48.3 billion; and that the average weekly number of employees earning over £500 per week during 1999–2000 was 3.8 million.

  These estimates were provided by the Government Actuary's Department and are the latest available figures.

  War-risk Insurance (Airline)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been given to each airline to underwrite their third party war risk insurance. [22964]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have not given money to UK airlines to underwrite their third party war risk insurance. The scheme set up by the Government on
  33W
  24 September provides cover to fill the gap in the market; airlines are offered insurance above that which is currently available in the market up to the level at which they were insured before the terrorist attacks on the US.

  Airlines and aviation service providers are charged a commercially based premium for cover under the scheme, although for the first month of the scheme charges were waived for airlines in recognition of the particular financial difficulties they faced in the immediate aftermath of 11 September. Premiums charged to airlines and service providers are in line with European guidelines.

  Before 11 September, war and terrorism insurance was included in the premium for the airlines' primary policy. The airlines still hold this: the premiums charged for Government insurance are over and above the premiums for the primary policy.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 203W, on working families tax credit, how many people are in receipt of the various components of working families tax credit with a final income of (a) 20 to 30 per cent., (b) 30 to 40 per cent., (c) 40 to 50 per cent., (d) 50 to 60 per cent., (e) 60 to 70 per cent., (f) 70 to 80 per cent., (g) 80 to 90 per cent. and (h) 90 to 100 per cent. more than initial income. [22667]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated from the Family Resources Survey that, under the working families' tax credit (WFTC) regime applying to awards starting from June 2001, the numbers of such families are in the following table:

  Estimated number of families for which WFTC increases net income by between 20 and 100 per cent. under the June 2001 WFTC regime

  Percentage increase in final net income1 over initial net income1

  Families (Thousands)

  (a)20 to less than 30

  180

  (b)30 to less than 40

  120

  (c)40 to less than 50

  90

  (d)50 to less than 60

  50

  (e)60 to less than 70

  30

  (f)70 to less than 80

  40

  (g, h)2 80 to less than 100

  30

  1Final net income is as projected, including estimated entitlement to WFTC, housing benefit (HB) and council tax benefit (CTB). Initial net income if this less the estimated entitlement to WFTC, plus any consequent increase in estimated entitlement to HB and CTB.

  2 The sample size is too small to yield separate reliable estimates for (g) and (h).

  Notes:

  1 Estimates are derived from 1999–2000 FRS with incomes projected forward to 2001–02 and assuming the 2001–02 regimes for income tax and national insurance contributions. They are subject to sampling error.

  2 Survey results are calibrated to the number of families on maximum WFTC awards yielded by administrative data.

  Business Administration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in the Buckingham constituency are 34W
  (a) administering working families tax credit, (b) providing access to stakeholder pensions and (c) administering repayment of student loans. [22639]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in the Epsom and Ewell constituency are(a) administering working families tax credit, (b) providing access to stakeholder pensions and (c) administering repayment of student loans. [23425]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is either not available, or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Exchange Rate
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the 2001 IMF Article IV, consultation Concluding Statement, assessment of the impact of the level of the pound on the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement. [23758]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's latest forecast for manufacturing output was published in the pre-Budget Report (Cm 5318) and takes account of all relevant factors, while Annex A, Box A5 discusses recent developments in the manufacturing sector.

  Benefits (Fareham)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Fareham constituency(a) received and (b) were entitled to (i) WFTC, (ii) DPTC and (iii) child tax credit in (A) 2000–01 and (B) 2001–02.

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the numbers in the Fareham constituency receiving the working families tax credit (WFTC) and the disabled person's tax credit are published in the respective Quarterly Inquiries, copies of which are in the Library. The estimates for WFTC are however based on 5 per cent. samples of awards, and are therefore subject to sampling error. No estimates are available of the numbers in Fareham who are eligible for those tax credits.

  It is estimated that about five million families will benefit from the children's tax credit for 2001–02. Figures for each constituency are not available, but it is estimated that about 675,000 of these families are in the south-east (excluding London).

  Journalists
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what EU funds are available to(a) train and (b) facilitate the activities of journalists; and what representations he has made on them. [22935]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Community budget is implemented by the European Commission in accordance with the Treaty, EC legislative decisions and the amounts agreed annually by the budgetary authority (Council and European Parliament). Any individual or organisation may make a case to the Commission for support from the budget; for example there is an EC subsidy available for the "Journalists in Europe" association.
  35W

  Annuities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the rules governing annuities so that it is not compulsory for pensioners to translate all relevant funds into an annuity at the age of 75. [22738]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's policy on annuities and proposals for reform will be set out in a consultation document which will be published shortly.

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the forecast cost of the Carbon Trust over(a) the present and (b) the subsequent three financial years. [20471]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Carbon Trust's first year funding from Government and the devolved Administrations is expected to be around £50 million, from Climate Change Levy receipts and the Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme.

  For the following two years it is anticipated that the Trust will continue to receive funding of around £50 million per year from the Government and devolved Administrations subject to relevant parliamentary approvals. The forecast funding of the Carbon Trust beyond this time is subject to the outcome of forthcoming Spending Reviews.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23792]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of staff1

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  29

  2000–01

  41

  1 As published in The Departmental Report 2001, Cm 5199, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many days were lost owing to sickness absence by staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [23377]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year ending 31 December

  Number of days lost to sick absence

  1997

  265

  1998

  295

  1999

  178

  2000

  363

  36W
  As a small Department the Privy Council Office is not included in the published annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" but it is fully committed to working to the overall target to reduce the level of sick absence to five days per person by 2003. The Privy Council Office Service Delivery Agreement confirms this commitment and our requirement to monitor sickness levels quarterly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regulations
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many regulations her Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations her Department has implemented in 2001; and what plans her Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21970]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has proposed the following regulations since June 2001:

  The Broadcasting (Subtitling) Order 2001

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2001

  The Football Spectators (Seating) Order 2001

  The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2001

  The Gaming Machines (Maximum Prizes) Regulations 2001

  The National Lottery (Licence Fees) Order 2001

  The Protection of Wrecks (Designation) Order 2001

  The draft Regulatory Reform (Golden Jubilee Licensing) Order 2002

  The Regulatory Reform (Special Occasions Licensing) Order 2001

  The Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 2001.

  Regulatory impact assessments were published in respect of the eighth and ninth items on this list. The Department also published a regulatory impact assessment on 5 December 2001 on the National Heritage Bill, which is currently before Parliament. In addition, a regulatory impact assessment previously published by the Home Office, on four sets of regulations to do with increases in gaming and lotteries fees, was re-published on my Department's internet site on 28 November 2001.

  My Department's contribution to the Government's forthcoming Regulatory Reform Action Plan will reaffirm our commitment to important regulatory reforms, such as modernising regulation of the converging telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, reforming alcohol and entertainment licensing law and reforming gambling law and regulation.

  BBC3
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date she received the revised proposals from the BBC for BBC3; by what process she will determine her decision on the new proposals; and on what date she will announce her decision on the new proposals. [22362]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a new proposal from the BBC for BBC3 on 4 December. My

  37W
  right hon. Friend will consider the proposal against my published guidelines for assessing BBC public services approvals. In accordance with these guidelines, my right hon. Friend has invited comments on the proposals from interested parties. The consultation period will end on 25 January 2002. Having given proper consideration to all the information and responses received, my right hon. Friend will announce my decision as soon as possible thereafter.

  Ecotourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government have taken to participate in the International Year of Ecotourism 2002; and if she will make a statement. [22496]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have made no plans to participate in the United Nations International Year of Ecotourism.

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners over 75 in the Buckingham constituency receive a free television licence. [22637]

  Dr. Howells
  Everyone aged 75 or over is entitled to benefit from a free television licence. TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,300 people aged 75 or over in the Buckingham constituency.

  Digitally Originated Graphics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 502W, on digitally originated graphics, what assessment she has made of the (a) benefits and (b) disadvantages to television viewers of the use of on screen digitally originated graphics, other than electronic programme guides, to identify and promote (i) television channels, (ii) programme strands, (iii) internet links and (iv) other programmes. [22797]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The Government have made no such assessment.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will make an announcement on the funding arrangements for Culture Online; and when it will open. [22843]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: We are currently considering a number of options for Culture Online. We hope to make an announcement in the near future.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to reply to 38W
  the letter to her dated 6 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Ms Pamela Flynn. [23807]

  Tessa Jowell
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 22 November 2001 and I have sent him another copy of my reply.

  Pirate Tapes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the costs (1) to(a) the television industry and (b) the Exchequer of illegal copying in each of the last five years; [22988]

  (2) to (a) the music industry and (b) the Exchequer of illegal copying of music in each of the last five years; [22986]

  (3) to (a) the film industry and (b) the Exchequer of illegal copying of films in each of the last five years; [22987]

  (4) to (a) the arts industry and (b) the Exchequer of illegal copying in each of the last five years. [22989]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government recognise the importance of combating counterfeiting and piracy for all the creative industries, and are working with the industries concerned towards achieving this objective. My Department does not collect independent figures for the financial impact piracy has on these industries and the Exchequer. Figures from a survey carried out by the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy indicate, however, that the cost of counterfeiting and piracy to UK industry as a whole was almost £9 billion in 2000, an increase of 8.36 per cent. on the figure for 1999. This is estimated to be equivalent to approximately £1.55 billion in lost revenue to the Exchequer. Within this total, it is estimated that the loss to the music industry in 2000 was £20 million and to cinema and home entertainment £180 million. There are no separate sectoral figures for the arts and television industries.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government intend to respond to the recommendations made in the report on its effectiveness submitted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to the Secretary of State in February in accordance with section 69(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [22457]

  Jane Kennedy
  We are pleased to have received the report from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and are currently considering the Commission's recommendations.

  The report is 78 pages and contains 25 recommendations. Detailed consideration is at present being given to the recommendations, all of which recommend changes to primary legislation. Given the importance and complexity of the proposals, the Government intend to publish its report in the new year.
  39W

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days were lost owing to sickness absence by staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [23376]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office is committed to the effective management of sick absence and our current Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) sets out our proposal to reduce average sickness absence rates for Home Civil Servants (HCS) during the planning period as follows:

  Average sick absence targets (HCS staff)

  Target

  Baseline (1998)

  6.5 absences per staff year

  2001–02

  15.2 absences per staff year

  2002–03

  24.9 absences per staff year

  2003–04

  34.6 absences per staff year

  1 20 per cent. saving

  2 225 per cent. saving

  3 30 per cent. saving

  It will seek reductions of a similar order for the larger Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) group in the Department in conjunction with other Northern Ireland Departments.

  Within the last four years sick absence data are available only for 1998 and 1999. The figures are as follows:

  1999: 8.0 absences per staff year

  1998: 6.5 absences per staff year.

  Figures are not available in a comparable format for the NICS staff group.

  Electoral Fraud
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to use national insurance numbers to help eliminate electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. [21819]

  Mr. Browne
  I have noted the arguments pressing for the inclusion of national insurance numbers as one of the items of personal information required of an elector in Northern Ireland on registration. I am looking closely at how national insurance numbers might be used in the electoral process and whether their use would help our efforts to combat fraud.

  European Court Judgments
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Government intend to change the law to comply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 4 May in the cases of Jordan v. UK, Kelly v. UK, McKerr v. UK and Shanaghan v. UK; and if he will make a statement. [22458]

  Jane Kennedy
  As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government take very seriously the findings of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court's 4 May judgments identified a procedural breach of Article 2 of the Convention with respect to the regimes in place at the time to investigate deaths caused by the security forces. However, the Court was not prescriptive about the mechanisms the 40W
  Government should put in place in order to comply with their obligations under Article 2. This is a matter for the Government to determine in consultation with the Committee of Ministers (the Council of Europe body that oversees the implementation of European Court judgments) in Strasbourg.

  The Government are giving active consideration to a package of measures necessary to satisfy our Article 2 obligations and have already been in contact with the Committee of Ministers. Finalising the package of measures has proved a detailed exercise, requiring wide-ranging consultation across Government Departments, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on such discussions.

  I should point out that some areas that caused the Court concern have already been addressed, notably through the establishment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The Government have also indicated the strong likelihood that they will remove Rule 9(2) of the Coroners Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963, dealing with compellability, and the Belfast Coroner was so advised on 14 September.

  The Government are committed publicly to finalising their response in time for the next meeting of the Committee of Ministers, expected in February 2002. Our final decision with respect to the changes that we intend to make to comply with Article 2 will therefore be a matter of public knowledge very shortly.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of the Saville inquiry is to date; and what estimate he has made of the cost of the whole inquiry. [19773]

  Mr. Browne
  The cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry to the Northern Ireland Office, as at 4 December 2001, is £52 million. The current estimated cost to the Northern Ireland Office for the whole inquiry is £100 million. This figure assumes that the rates of payment to lawyers remain as at present for the remainder of the inquiry, and makes no allowance for any change of venue which may follow the divisional court's judgment of 16 November 2001, currently subject to appeal. Neither of these figures includes cost to other Departments such as the Ministry of Defence.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Sickness
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many days were lost due to sickness absence by staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [23378]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has lost days due to sickness absence in the last four years for which data have been published, as follows:

  1996—10.2 per member of staff

  1997—10.4 per member of staff

  1998—9.7 per member of staff

  1999—9.4 per member of staff

  41W
  The CPS has issued guidance to managers to assist them in managing attendance proactively, and we are working towards achieving the challenging targets set to reduce the level of sickness absence by 20 per cent. on the 1998 average by December 2001.

  The Serious Fraud Squad ('the SFO') has lost the following days due to sickness:

  1998—9.9 days per member of staff

  1999—10.8 days per member of staff

  2000—8.6 days per member of staff

  2001—8.3 days per member of staff (projected figures).

  The SFO is continuing in its commitment to reduce sick absence through careful monitoring and regular management reporting. The annual figures have shown a reduction in absence over the past two years, and the SFO is on course to meet its target of reducing sick absence by 20 per cent. (8.8 days) by the end of 2001. The aim is for absence to be reduced by 30 per cent. (7.7 days) by the end of 2003.

  In the Treasury Solicitor's Department the average days lost was:

  1996—6.5 days per member of staff

  1997—7.2 days per member of staff

  1998—11.8 days per member of staff

  1999—9.7 days per member of staff

  A specific target to reduce sick absence days by 30 per cent. is included in the Treasury Solicitor's Department's Service Delivery Agreement. The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is included in the figures for the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  The Law Officer's Departments are fully committed to managing sick absence effectively.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of Ministers (UK Delegation)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at which Council of Ministers' meetings since May 1999 National Assembly Ministers have(a) been present and (b) led the United Kingdom delegation. [20595]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:Welsh Ministers' attendance at Council
  May 1999 to December 2001

  9 November 2000—Jane Davidson (Education and Lifelong Learning): Attended Education and Youth Council (led for UK on part of the agenda).

  20–21 November 2000—Carwyn Jones (Rural Affairs): Attended Agriculture Council.

  13 December 2000—Jane Hutt (Health and Social Services): Attended Health Council.

  26–27 February 2001—Carwyn Jones (Rural Affairs): Attended Agriculture Council.

  28 May 2001—Jane Davidson (Education and Lifelong Learning): Attended Education and Youth Council.

  42W

  21 June 2001—Jenny Randerson (Culture, Sport and Welsh Language): Attended Culture Council.

  23 July 2001—Carwyn Jones (Rural Affairs): Attended Agriculture Council.

  20 November 2001—Carwyn Jones (Rural Affairs): Attended Agriculture Council.

  29 November 2001—Jane Davidson (Education and Lifelong Learning): Attended Education and Youth Council.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of European involvement in dealing with the flow of illicit narcotics from post-Taliban Afghanistan; what assessment has been made of the role of the restructuring of Afghanistan in curtailing drug production; and if he will make a statement. [22356]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We and our European partners are committed to preventing the flow of illegal drugs from Afghanistan. The Central Asian Drugs Action Plan, which may be formally signed later this month, is an EU initiative to provide a framework for tackling the flow of Afghan opiates to and through the central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. We and our EU partners also give assistance to other countries that lie on the drug transit route to Europe, such as Iran, Pakistan and Turkey.

  The Afghan interim administration fully understand that there can be no place for illegal drug production in Afghanistan in the future and that they have a responsibility to root out that problem. One objective of the international reconstruction effort will be to promote economic and law enforcement policies in Afghanistan which encourage and support former opium poppy farmers in pursuing other livelihoods.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes to the constitution of Gibraltar will be subject to primary legislation in the United Kingdom. [21744]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Should a comprehensive agreement affecting sovereignty emerge from the current Brussels Process discussions, changes to the Gibraltar constitution which flowed from such an agreement would trigger primary legislation in the United Kingdom.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to prepare an overseas estate rationalisation programme. [22549]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are making progress in estate modernisation.

  Properties that are surplus, not operationally effective, or not providing value for money, are being sold. Under an agreement with the Treasury, the proceeds are then reinvested. In financial year 1999–2000 we recycled £30 million for investment, and in financial year 2000–01 some £19 million. This financial year, we are aiming to

  43W
  achieve sales worth over £40 million, thus meeting our target of £90 million for the CSR triennium financial year 1999–2000 to financial year 2001–02. In the period financial year 2001–02 to financial year 2003–04 we aim to sell property worth £100 million.

  The proceeds of estate sales have enabled us to fund a range of estate improvement projects, including in Accra, Algiers, Baku, Bucharest, Caracas, Dar es Salaam, Lima, London, Moscow, Tunis and Yerevan.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for the British Council to keep overheads as a proportion of turnover below 5 per cent. over the period 2001–02. [22583]

  Mr. MacShane
  Since 1997 the British Council has reported corporate overheads as less than 5 per cent. of turnover. The current estimate for the financial year 2001–02 is 4.8 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target performance indicator for the percentage of passports issued within five working days. [22514]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 2000, 92 per cent. of posts issued passports within the PSA target of five working days.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for making savings through improved procurement procedures. [22590]

  Mr. MacShane
  Savings of over £9.1 million had been achieved by 30 September.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for securing alignment of financial legislation in the UK's Overseas Territories with international standards. [22511]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In the year following publication of the KPMG review of financial regulation in the Caribbean Overseas Territories and Bermuda in October 2000, the Overseas Territories have made good progress in strengthening their financial regulatory frameworks in line with international standards and good practice, particularly in the priority areas of money laundering, regulatory co-operation and the establishment of independent regulatory authorities. All the Overseas Territories reviewed now have comprehensive anti-money laundering frameworks fully in place. The HM Treasury/FCO press release of 3 December, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, provides further details of the progress that has been made in other areas and where further work is required.

  The Overseas Territories have agreed to publish further progress reports in February 2002 to explain how implementation of the KPMG recommendations are progressing. The UK will continue to work closely with the Overseas Territories to enable them to meet international standards in full.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in 2000–01 towards meeting the public 44W
  Service Agreement target performance indicator for the percentage of posts meeting target times for decisions on non-settlement visa applications. [22512]

  Mr. MacShane
  In financial year 2000–01 89 per cent. of posts met the target time for resolving straightforward non-settlement visa applications within 24 hours, against the Public Service Agreement target of 90 per cent.

  This answer is based on monthly statistical reports from the 112 posts where 98 per cent. of applications were received.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for the consolidation of business units that supply services within his Department into a service organisation to yield efficiency gains. [22509]

  Mr. MacShane
  FCO Services was set up in April 1999 by the FCO as a single service providing organisation in order to maximise efficiencies and create an internal market. By April 2002 FCO Services will have realised efficiency gains of approximately £7 million. As part of the process to develop the internal market, to enable the FCO to secure best value for money from its support services, FCO Services opened to external competition services worth £21 million annually in April 2001 with more scheduled to be opened to competition in April 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for the proportion of business undertaken electronically. [22538]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's continued progress towards the Prime Minister's goal of making all services available electronically by 2005 is detailed in the most recent electronic service delivery report which was published by the Cabinet Office on the Office of the e-Envoy's website.

  Seventy nine per cent. of the FCO's services are now available electronically. We are on track to have 93 per cent. available by the end of 2002, and to meet the PSA target of 100 per cent. by the end of 2005.

  Consular, passport and immigration information, forms and assistance are all available electronically from the FCO. We offer users of our website the chance to communicate with us electronically, provide information about foreign embassies in London and detailed information on a host of foreign policy issues. Our award winning website www.fco.gov.uk has been recognised by The Sunday Times as one of Britain's best websites.

  We aim to have 99 per cent. of the FCO's worldwide staff on the same IT network by June 2002.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for progress towards implementation of the White Paper on Overseas Territories. [22510]

  Mr. MacShane
  Considerable progress has been made in key areas covered by the White Paper. The Bill giving effect to the offer of British citizenship has been introduced into Parliament. Structured political dialogue
  45W
  between the political leaders of the territories and HMG has been strengthened by three meetings of the annual Consultative Council and visits by the Minister for the Overseas Territories. Constitutional modernisation reviews are in progress in most territories. A number of good governance programmes have been supported in areas of law enforcement, drugs interdiction, prison monitoring and electoral process in Montserrat. Environment Charters were adopted by the UK and territory governments in September. Progress has been made in strengthening territory financial regulatory frameworks in line with international standards and good practice in the UK; human rights programmes to support compliance with international convention obligations with regard to children and families and excluded groups have been supported in all territories, economic studies have been undertaken in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. A Caribbean regional drugs strategy has been prepared. A study on institutional arrangements for aviation safety and security has been supported and regional conferences on disaster preparedness and aviation safety held.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in 2000–01 towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target performance indicator for the percentage of posts meeting target times for interviewing applicants for non-settlement visas.

  Mr. MacShane
  In financial year 2000–01, 72 per cent. of posts met the target of dealing with non-straightforward non-settlement visa applications within 10 working days, against the Public Service Agreement target of 90 percent. The shortfall was due to increased demand and staffing supply difficulties.

  Note:

  This answer is based on monthly statistical reports from the 112 posts where 98 per cent. of applications were received.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for BBC World Service efficiency savings in 2000–01 following restructuring of the BBC supplier directorate. [22584]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Public Service Agreement target for BBC World Service cumulative efficiency savings over the period April 1999 to March 2002 is £25 million (i.e. a little over £4 million per annum new savings). New savings of £4 million were achieved in 2000–01. By the end of 2000–01 the BBC World Service was on track against target having achieved cumulative savings of £14 million.

  Function

  Timeframe set

  PSA target (percentage)

  Performance by posts (percentage)

  Birth registrations

  Five working days to issue

  92.0

  93.6

  Death registrations

  Five working days to issue

  94.0

  98.4

  Notarial acts

  One working day to produce document

  93.0

  97.8

  Customer satisfaction

  In response to questionnaires

  97.2

  99.1

  Prison visits

  Contact within 24 hours of notification

  92.0

  99.9

  Hospital visits

  Contact within 24 hours of notification

  98.0

  100.0

  46W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of a scorecard approach for monitoring progress with the Public Service Agreement target for increasing public support for European Union activities. [22518]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO sets public and internal objectives for each financial year, and allocates resources according to these objectives. Our Public Service Agreement commits us to promoting increased support for and better understanding of the merits of EU membership. We review progress against our objectives on a regular basis.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for reducing accommodation running costs in London. [22508]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have made good progress. The number of properties occupied by the FCO in London has been reduced from 10 in 1997–98 to five (soon to be four) at present. These are shown in the list. Annual expenditure on rent, rates and service charges has consequently been reduced by 70 per cent., from £12 million to the current figure of £3.7 million.

  1997–

  Main building

  Old Admiralty building

  1 Carlton Gardens

  Cromwell house

  1 Palace street

  4 Matthew Parker street

  20 Victoria street

  22–24 Whitehall

  8 Cleveland Row

  Clive house.

  2001–

  Main building

  Old Admiralty building

  1 Carlton Gardens

  St. Christopher house (to be surrendered in August 2002)

  Space at 89 Albert Embankment, SE1 (Joint Entry Clearance Unit operated jointly with Home Office).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the performance indicator of posts fulfilling consular action plan targets based on the Citizen's Charter. [22515]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In calendar year 2000, most of our overseas posts met or exceeded consular action plan targets (set for the year ending March 2000). Details are:
  47W
  Passport issuing performance is covered in my answer to the hon. Member's question UIN 22514.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target performance indicator for the percentage of his Department's internal services to be reviewed under Better Quality Services guidelines by 2001–02.

  Mr. MacShane
  The PSA performance target"regularly and systematically to review services in line with Government policy"
  stems from the Whitehall-wide requirement under the Better Quality Services (BQS) initiative to institute a five-year rolling programme of reviews. These are aimed at ensuring that better quality services are provided at the optimum cost to the taxpayer.

  The FCO's BQS programme, agreed with the Cabinet Office in 1999, is broadly on target. Two major reviews, of consular services and security, were due to commence in the early autumn, but had to be put on hold following the events of 11 September. These have now been rescheduled for completion during the first half of 2002. The Department will not be in a position until the end of the financial year to say whether the performance indicator of 60 per cent. of internal services reviewed by end 2001–02 has been met.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [22516]

  Peter Hain
  There is no specific FCO Public Service Agreement target on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, for which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the lead Department. But we are working with DEFRA towards the common Government objective of the reform of the CAP under FCO PSA target 6: a"modern, reformed and enlarged EU … whose policies reflect UK political, social and economic priorities …".

  We want to reduce the overall burden of the CAP, align EU and world prices more closely, and target support measures on the rural economy and the environment. These are also important for our ambitions for international trade and development and for an enlarged EU. The Government's objective is to secure changes that benefit consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy, the farming community and the environment. There is increasing recognition within the European Union of the need for reform.

  There has been progress. In the 1980s spending on the CAP was over 60 per cent. of the European Community budget. In 2001 it will be around 45 per cent. As a result of the Agenda 2000 package agreed at the 1999 Berlin European Council, spending on the CAP will decline in real terms from 2002. Mid-term reviews of certain CAP regimes are scheduled for 2002–03.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for prompt payment for goods and services. [22539]
  48W
  Mr. MacShane
  In 2000–01 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office paid 97.8 per cent. of invoices within 30 days of receipt or the agreed contract terms were these to differ. Calculations are in accordance with HM Treasury's approved method.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical benefits have resulted from achieving the Public Service Agreement target for obtaining commitments from other countries to co-operate with the UK in combating drugs, crime, abuse of human rights and environmental degradation. [22585]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The fight against drugs and crime requires political commitment and practical co-operation. In 2001, nine more ratifications of the three UN drugs conventions have been recorded, including from Turkey, Albania and Ukraine. The FCO's Drugs and Crime Fund (£7.3 million in 2001–02), supports bi- and multilateral project work to combat drug production and trafficking, organised crime, paedophilia, child pornography and money-laundering in more than 40 countries committed to working with the UK and others on these issues. FCO-funded training for overseas law enforcement agencies and operational co-operation with them has led to some notable drug seizures, removing some of the heroin and cocaine consignments destined for the UK and Europe. The UK was a leading player in the negotiation of the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, which already has more than 120 signatory states, and will provide a new framework for international co-operation to fight serious organised crime world-wide. The UK is currently negotiating law enforcement memoranda of understanding with 14 countries as the basis for further practical co-operation with them.

  On the environment, FCO engagement helped secure successful outcomes at international climate change conferences this year in Bonn and Marrakech; in particular, by maintaining the commitment of key countries to the Kyoto Protocol following its rejection by the US. The FCO's contribution to the UK's work in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has been instrumental in maintaining the international commercial moratorium on whaling which came under heavy pressure but emerged intact from the IWC meeting in July 2001. FCO environmental project funds have helped leverage co-operation with other countries (and with UK's Overseas Territories) to directly address restoration of degraded habitats and the control or removal of invasive species of animals and plants.

  As a result of our achieving our targets on human rights, a number of people who would otherwise have faced the death penalty no longer do so; there is a stronger world-wide coalition against torture and improved mechanisms for exposing it and, more generally, growing recognition of the importance of human rights. Of course, there is still a great deal to be done—including on child rights, where we have not been so successful in meeting our target (on reducing extreme forms of child labour). The Government remain committed to promoting human rights at the heart of foreign policy and to backing up action in international forums with practical support from our Human Rights Project Fund.
  49W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target to achieve full cost recovery by the Government Hospitality Fund by 2000–01.

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government Hospitality Fund has been dissolved and the equivalent budget is now held by Conference and Visits Group (CVG), a new business unit that forms part of FCO Services. CVG are working towards full cost recovery and have installed a computerised business information system to capture the necessary information. Full cost recovery is now likely to be achieved during the 2002–03 financial year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for reform of the EU' s structural funds. [22517]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO's current Public Service Agreement commits the Government to pursue a modern, reformed and enlarged EU whose policies reflect UK political, social and economic priorities.

  Lead responsibility for EU structural funds lies with the Department for Trade and Industry. The UK benefits substantially from the Structural Funds: UK regions will receive some £10 billion between 2000–06. The Structural Funds will be reviewed in the context of the next Financial Perspective.

  Diplomatic Staff
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 485W, on diplomatic staff, what reference is made in setting pay levels of locally engaged civilian staff to the local poverty datum line; whether the pay levels can fall below local poverty datum lines; and if he will make a statement. [22778]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Pay scales and other conditions of service for our locally engaged staff in each country are set in comparison with the generality of responsible employers in that country. Typically the comparators are other western diplomatic missions, international agencies and major private companies. Our missions pay what is required to recruit, retain and motivate suitable staff. Normally we expect to be in the middle range of rates of pay: neither leading the market nor poor payers. We also meet the requirements of local employment law. Accordingly we are confident that pay levels for our local staff will be above poverty datum lines.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations the Government have made to the South African Government in respect of the situation in Zimbabwe. [23596]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ministers and officials have regular contact with all levels of the South African Government on the full range of international concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe.
  50W

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU General Affairs Council with respect to the middle east. [23116]

  Peter Hain
  There was intensive discussion of the middle east at the 10 December General Affairs Council. The Council adopted the following conclusions:

  At a time when the situation in the middle east is extremely serious, we cannot be inactive.

  We are convinced that only determined and concerted action by the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and the Russian Federation can help the parties to break the cycle of violence and commit themselves once again to the search for peace. This requires:
  the reaffirmation and full recognition of Israel's irrevocable right to live in peace and security within internationally recognised borders;
  the establishment of a viable and democratic Palestinian state and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories.

  As a first step, the following pledges must be given:
  by the Palestinian authority: the dismantling of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist networks, including the arrest and prosecution of all suspects; a public appeal in Arabic for an end to the armed intifada;
  by the Israeli Government: the withdrawal of their military forces and stop to extrajudicial executions; the lifting of closures and of all restrictions imposed on the Palestinian people; a freeze on settlements.

  On the basis of this EU position and in the light of the discussions which took place on 10 December in Brussels with Mr. Shimon Peres and Mr. Nabil Shaath, we have asked Javier Solana, SG High Representative for the CFSP, to go to the region and report back to the Laeken European Council.

  The aim is to contribute, in concertation with the United Nations, the United States and Russia, to a speedy resumption of negotiations, without preliminaries.

  Greece
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will issue fresh advice to UK citizens travelling to Greece on the activities that may lead to arrest. [23317]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO travel advice for Greece was updated on 30 November 2001 to include the following advice:"Do not take photographs near military or official installations. Seek permission before photographing individuals".

  Scottish Executive
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how arrangements are made between the Scotland Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Scottish Executive to facilitate Scottish Executive officers working internationally. [23604]
  51W
  Mr. Straw
  The conditions for arrangements are detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding and concordat on International Relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 18 June from the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk concerning Manwai Ahmed. [23104]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The right hon. Member's correspondence did not reach the Joint Entry Clearance Unit until 11 December 2001.

  I will send a reply as soon as we have consulted the overseas Post.

  Percentage of full-time regular teachers March 2000

  Under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  All full-time regular

  All regular teachers January 2001 fte

  Darlington

  3.6

  13.3

  10.1

  9.4

  12.4

  25.7

  19.1

  5.3

  1.0

  100

  780

  Hartlepool

  5.6

  13.6

  10.7

  8.1

  15.4

  23.5

  18.8

  3.9

  0.3

  100

  840

  Middlesbrough

  3.1

  13.1

  9.4

  8.1

  15.2

  22.6

  21.4

  5.9

  1.3

  100

  1,270

  Redcar and Cleveland

  4.8

  14.3

  9.9

  6.8

  14.1

  24.0

  19.4

  6.1

  0.6

  100

  1,280

  Stockton on Tees

  4.4

  13.0

  9.7

  9.0

  14.1

  20.7

  21.5

  6.9

  0.7

  100

  1,740

  Durham

  4.9

  11.7

  9.4

  9.1

  14.5

  24.0

  19.1

  6.3

  1.0

  100

  4,240

  Northumberland

  3.5

  11.8

  9.9

  9.5

  15.2

  24.1

  20.4

  4.7

  0.9

  100

  2,620

  Gateshead

  4.9

  14.7

  11.9

  9.8

  11.9

  24.5

  16.6

  4.9

  0.6

  100

  1,670

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4.2

  12.3

  9.0

  10.6

  14.2

  25.5

  18.4

  5.1

  0.7

  100

  2,180

  North Tyneside

  3.9

  13.9

  8.8

  10.2

  14.5

  23.6

  18.1

  6.1

  0.8

  100

  1,820

  South Tyneside

  3.1

  11.5

  9.5

  9.2

  15.0

  23.3

  18.2

  8.8

  1.3

  100

  1,440

  Sunderland

  3.8

  12.3

  10.0

  9.1

  15.4

  22.8

  19.3

  6.7

  0.6

  100

  2,670

  Blackburn and Darwen

  4.2

  10.6

  10.9

  11.7

  16.5

  20.8

  18.6

  6.0

  0.7

  100

  1,310

  Blackpool

  6.2

  16.2

  11.4

  9.8

  13.4

  23.5

  14.5

  4.7

  0.3

  100

  1,100

  Halton

  4.8

  14.3

  13.0

  11.6

  13.9

  20.6

  16.8

  4.6

  0.5

  100

  1,140

  Warrington

  4.7

  18.7

  11.9

  10.2

  13.3

  20.3

  16.6

  3.7

  0.6

  100

  1,680

  Cheshire

  4.3

  15.0

  11.6

  9.0

  14.1

  21.0

  18.4

  5.9

  0.8

  100

  5,600

  Cumbria

  3.0

  12.7

  11.4

  8.6

  15.3

  23.4

  20.0

  5.2

  0.5

  100

  4,180

  Bolton

  5.3

  13.5

  14.0

  10.0

  13.3

  19.7

  17.9

  5.4

  0.9

  100

  2,500

  Bury

  4.5

  13.4

  11.1

  10.7

  13.4

  22.1

  19.0

  5.0

  0.7

  100

  1,480

  Manchester

  3.8

  14.0

  14.0

  11.7

  11.5

  19.7

  18.0

  6.0

  1.2

  100

  3,790

  Oldham

  4.4

  14.4

  12.9

  11.5

  13.5

  21.5

  15.9

  5.3

  0.7

  100

  2,280

  Rochdale

  5.3

  15.7

  10.9

  8.8

  15.1

  22.7

  16.1

  4.9

  0.6

  100

  1,870

  Salford

  4.9

  16.7

  12.7

  9.6

  13.0

  22.6

  15.2

  4.6

  0.7

  100

  1,920

  Stockport

  3.7

  14.1

  12.8

  10.0

  13.3

  19.6

  18.8

  7.0

  0.7

  100

  2,330

  Tameside

  3.9

  15.3

  10.0

  9.8

  12.0

  23.0

  18.8

  6.7

  0.7

  100

  1,930

  Trafford

  4.2

  14.3

  13.6

  9.6

  11.7

  21.7

  17.6

  6.9

  0.6

  100

  1,900

  Wigan

  3.8

  11.8

  9.2

  8.6

  17.2

  23.3

  19.2

  6.2

  0.6

  100

  2,590

  Lancashire

  3.6

  12.8

  10.3

  10.1

  15.0

  22.1

  19.7

  5.6

  0.7

  100

  9,710

  Knowsley

  5.2

  15.9

  11.9

  11.6

  12.3

  21.5

  16.0

  5.0

  0.6

  100

  1,530

  Liverpool

  2.4

  12.2

  10.5

  9.5

  13.4

  25.8

  19.4

  5.9

  1.0

  100

  4,320

  Sefton

  3.7

  13.9

  11.6

  10.3

  13.2

  21.7

  16.8

  7.9

  0.8

  100

  2,520

  St. Helens

  3.2

  13.0

  12.4

  11.6

  11.6

  25.1

  17.0

  5.8

  0.4

  100

  1,670

  Wirral

  3.3

  11.0

  10.6

  11.4

  14.2

  24.0

  18.4

  6.6

  0.7

  100

  3,020

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4.6

  12.2

  9.4

  8.4

  14.6

  24.2

  20.4

  5.6

  0.5

  100

  2,530

  Kingston-Upon-Hull

  5.5

  11.9

  8.1

  6.8

  15.8

  25.9

  19.5

  5.9

  0.8

  100

  2,110

  North East Lincolnshire

  5.0

  11.9

  7.9

  8.7

  14.4

  27.8

  18.5

  5.7

  0.3

  100

  1,360

  North Lincolnshire

  3.8

  12.5

  8.5

  7.2

  15.5

  27.8

  18.7

  5.5

  0.4

  100

  1,340

  York

  4.5

  13.0

  13.4

  9.4

  12.6

  19.7

  20.9

  6.2

  0.4

  100

  1,380

  North Yorkshire

  3.5

  13.4

  10.8

  10.2

  14.2

  20.3

  19.6

  7.2

  0.9

  100

  4,940

  Barnsley

  4.0

  13.3

  8.9

  10.2

  16.5

  24.0

  17.1

  5.1

  0.9

  100

  1,640

  Doncaster

  4.4

  13.3

  10.2

  8.1

  13.4

  23.4

  21.0

  5.6

  0.5

  100

  2,690

  Rotherham

  3.5

  12.1

  9.6

  10.0

  14.6

  23.9

  18.6

  6.4

  1.3

  100

  2,500

  Sheffield

  2.6

  11.0

  10.1

  9.3

  13.4

  25.4

  21.0

  6.7

  0.5

  100

  4,190

  Bradford

  2.5

  10.2

  10.9

  11.3

  16.7

  23.9

  18.9

  4.6

  1.1

  100

  4,400

  Calderdale

  3.9

  14.6

  11.9

  10.1

  14.6

  20.9

  18.3

  5.2

  0.4

  100

  1,840

  Kirklees

  3.4

  11.8

  10.1

  11.0

  15.5

  23.9

  18.5

  5.1

  0.7

  100

  3,370

  Leeds

  4.2

  13.8

  10.7

  10.7

  12.6

  21.6

  19.6

  5.9

  0.9

  100

  6,040

  Wakefield

  4.1

  14.7

  11.0

  8.7

  15.3

  22.2

  18.1

  5.5

  0.5

  100

  2,700

  City of Derby

  4.4

  12.7

  10.0

  11.3

  16.2

  21.8

  17.9

  4.7

  0.8

  100

  1,980

  Leicester City

  4.3

  14.1

  11.3

  10.8

  15.0

  19.3

  18.7

  5.9

  0.5

  100

  2,760

  City of Nottingham

  3.8

  13.7

  12.0

  11.1

  13.1

  22.1

  18.4

  5.2

  0.6

  100

  2,110

  Rutland

  1.7

  13.7

  7.7

  9.4

  12.4

  23.5

  21.8

  8.1

  1.7

  100

  240

  Derbyshire

  4.4

  11.9

  8.6

  9.7

  14.9

  22.6

  21.0

  6.3

  0.6

  100

  5,760

  52W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers there are, broken down by age, school results and local education authorities. [9883]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. The percentage of full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in each age band in March 2000, and the total of all regular full and part-time teachers in the maintained schools sector January 20011,2, were as follows:
  53W

  Percentage of full-time regular teachers March 2000

  Under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  All full-time regular

  All regular teachers January 2001 fte

  Leicestershire

  3.7

  14.1

  10.5

  9.0

  14.1

  22.3

  18.6

  7.1

  0.7

  100

  5,020

  Lincolnshire

  5.3

  15.3

  9.9

  9.3

  12.9

  21.2

  19.0

  6.3

  0.8

  100

  5,300

  Northamptonshire

  5.2

  15.6

  10.8

  10.3

  13.8

  21.1

  16.9

  5.6

  0.6

  100

  5,330

  Nottinghamshire

  3.6

  12.0

  11.0

  9.8

  13.6

  24.9

  19.5

  5.2

  0.5

  100

  5,970

  Herefordshire

  3.4

  12.7

  9.0

  8.1

  16.3

  20.3

  21.9

  6.9

  1.3

  100

  1,300

  Stoke-on-Trent

  4.7

  13.9

  9.5

  9.2

  13.9

  24.8

  17.5

  5.8

  0.6

  100

  1,920

  Telford and Wrekin

  3.9

  13.8

  10.9

  10.6

  15.3

  21.1

  19.6

  4.4

  0.4

  100

  1,410

  Shropshire

  3.3

  13.4

  11.4

  10.3

  14.6

  23.3

  17.7

  5.2

  0.8

  100

  2,110

  Staffordshire

  4.3

  14.0

  9.6

  8.7

  15.2

  22.7

  18.6

  6.5

  0.5

  100

  6,800

  Warwickshire

  5.1

  15.9

  9.8

  8.3

  12.6

  22.5

  19.0

  6.1

  0.8

  100

  4,150

  Birmingham

  4.4

  15.7

  13.0

  9.5

  13.3

  20.8

  16.6

  5.9

  0.8

  100

  10,220

  Coventry

  3.9

  13.4

  9.8

  9.3

  13.4

  24.2

  17.8

  7.1

  1.0

  100

  2,870

  Dudley

  4.7

  15.1

  10.9

  10.2

  15.2

  21.2

  15.8

  6.2

  0.7

  100

  2,780

  Sandwell

  4.7

  16.6

  10.0

  9.7

  16.7

  22.6

  15.0

  3.9

  0.7

  100

  2,620

  Solihull

  6.5

  16.5

  11.9

  9.2

  13.0

  20.7

  16.9

  4.8

  0.5

  100

  2,050

  Walsall

  3.6

  13.0

  9.8

  9.9

  16.2

  23.7

  17.9

  5.1

  0.9

  100

  2,570

  Wolverhampton

  4.0

  12.0

  10.9

  9.1

  17.8

  23.8

  15.8

  5.6

  1.0

  100

  2,290

  Worcestershire

  4.2

  13.3

  10.9

  9.0

  14.3

  23.4

  18.7

  5.6

  0.7

  100

  4,270

  Luton

  4.4

  14.5

  10.1

  10.4

  13.3

  20.6

  18.5

  6.6

  1.6

  100

  1,660

  City of Peterborough

  6.9

  16.8

  12.5

  8.9

  12.2

  20.9

  15.9

  5.3

  0.6

  100

  1,510

  Southend

  5.3

  15.9

  9.4

  10.8

  14.1

  21.1

  15.8

  6.2

  1.3

  100

  1,410

  Thurrock

  8.2

  17.0

  11.0

  9.1

  12.0

  18.3

  17.4

  6.3

  0.9

  100

  1,180

  Bedfordshire

  3.5

  12.3

  9.3

  9.5

  14.6

  22.2

  19.7

  8.0

  0.9

  100

  3,250

  Cambridgeshire

  5.3

  15.9

  11.3

  9.1

  13.6

  20.9

  17.8

  5.5

  0.6

  100

  4,040

  Essex

  5.4

  16.2

  10.4

  9.6

  14.5

  20.1

  16.6

  6.2

  0.9

  100

  10,520

  Hertfordshire

  6.4

  18.5

  11.4

  9.0

  12.4

  17.9

  17.1

  6.4

  0.9

  100

  9,170

  Norfolk

  3.5

  12.1

  8.7

  9.2

  13.7

  23.4

  20.6

  7.8

  1.1

  100

  6,050

  Suffolk

  4.5

  13.6

  9.1

  8.2

  15.2

  22.3

  19.3

  6.9

  0.9

  100

  5,490

  Camden

  3.4

  20.9

  19.3

  14.4

  10.7

  12.0

  12.0

  5.2

  2.0

  100

  1,430

  City of London

  0.0

  28.6

  21.4

  21.4

  0.0

  14.3

  14.3

  0.0

  0.0

  100

  20

  Hackney

  0.3

  4.6

  8.4

  10.2

  18.4

  25.5

  21.2

  9.2

  2.2

  100

  1,480

  Hammersmith

  4.9

  23.7

  16.5

  11.9

  10.8

  14.3

  12.1

  4.6

  1.2

  100

  1,000

  Haringey

  2.8

  14.7

  17.0

  16.4

  14.8

  14.3

  12.7

  5.8

  1.4

  100

  1,850

  Islington

  3.2

  17.5

  19.0

  16.7

  12.2

  14.0

  10.8

  5.6

  1.0

  100

  1,300

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.8

  10.2

  18.6

  13.4

  12.9

  15.2

  18.4

  8.7

  1.8

  100

  660

  Lambeth

  2.9

  14.0

  17.0

  15.3

  13.9

  17.9

  13.5

  3.8

  1.6

  100

  1,580

  Lewisham

  3.4

  14.3

  15.2

  13.6

  13.6

  18.8

  14.8

  5.6

  0.7

  100

  1,980

  Newham

  7.4

  23.3

  16.8

  11.6

  12.1

  13.8

  11.1

  3.4

  0.6

  100

  2,420

  Southwark

  3.5

  17.2

  15.3

  13.5

  13.8

  17.3

  13.3

  4.1

  1.8

  100

  1,960

  Tower Hamlets

  3.4

  14.6

  15.8

  16.0

  14.9

  16.1

  13.2

  4.8

  1.2

  100

  2,180

  Wandsworth

  4.6

  21.2

  17.9

  11.4

  11.1

  15.8

  11.8

  4.9

  1.3

  100

  1,730

  Westminster

  4.2

  25.1

  18.1

  11.9

  10.1

  11.4

  11.7

  5.6

  2.0

  100

  1,250

  Barking

  8.1

  20.4

  14.8

  11.0

  12.9

  14.8

  13.4

  3.6

  0.9

  100

  1,480

  Barnet

  5.5

  19.7

  15.7

  12.4

  11.6

  14.5

  13.8

  5.4

  1.5

  100

  2,740

  Bexley

  5.9

  16.4

  12.2

  9.8

  14.4

  17.8

  16.2

  6.2

  1.1

  100

  2,030

  Brent

  4.4

  15.4

  13.1

  11.7

  14.2

  17.0

  15.1

  7.0

  2.0

  100

  2,110

  Bromley

  4.9

  17.3

  13.7

  10.2

  12.5

  16.9

  17.9

  5.8

  0.9

  100

  2,540

  Croydon

  4.9

  17.7

  13.0

  9.9

  12.5

  17.9

  15.6

  7.2

  1.3

  100

  2,820

  Ealing

  6.4

  21.2

  16.7

  10.0

  11.7

  13.6

  13.8

  5.5

  1.0

  100

  2,220

  Enfield

  5.2

  19.9

  13.3

  11.9

  14.3

  16.5

  13.3

  4.7

  0.8

  100

  2,670

  Greenwich

  4.8

  16.0

  14.3

  10.7

  13.0

  20.3

  14.4

  5.4

  1.2

  100

  2,030

  Harrow

  5.5

  17.1

  14.2

  10.1

  12.6

  16.9

  15.0

  7.3

  1.2

  100

  1,490

  Havering

  6.1

  14.6

  12.4

  10.8

  14.3

  19.4

  14.4

  6.7

  1.2

  100

  1,950

  Hillingdon

  7.6

  23.0

  14.7

  9.6

  12.2

  15.0

  12.8

  4.4

  0.7

  100

  2,180

  Hounslow

  6.1

  20.1

  17.5

  11.1

  10.5

  14.5

  13.0

  6.2

  1.1

  100

  2,020

  Kingston upon Thames

  6.2

  22.2

  12.8

  10.4

  10.5

  17.7

  14.1

  4.9

  1.2

  100

  1,070

  Merton

  4.7

  19.6

  14.0

  10.6

  13.1

  16.7

  13.7

  6.6

  1.1

  100

  1,210

  Redbridge

  7.1

  21.2

  13.4

  10.3

  13.9

  15.0

  13.3

  4.8

  0.8

  100

  2,370

  Richmond upon Thames

  5.1

  20.4

  15.4

  9.2

  12.0

  19.4

  12.3

  5.3

  0.8

  100

  1,040

  Sutton

  4.8

  21.3

  13.0

  8.3

  10.0

  19.2

  16.0

  6.1

  1.3

  100

  1,530

  Waltham Forest

  3.2

  14.6

  14.3

  13.7

  14.3

  19.2

  13.5

  5.7

  1.6

  100

  1,940

  Bracknell Forest

  5.7

  17.9

  10.5

  7.6

  13.0

  19.4

  19.1

  6.0

  1.0

  100

  760

  Brighton and Hove

  2.4

  14.4

  16.2

  12.4

  13.8

  20.1

  15.5

  4.6

  0.8

  100

  1,730

  Isle of Wight

  2.8

  12.5

  10.1

  9.4

  14.1

  23.3

  20.6

  6.4

  0.8

  100

  1,100

  Medway

  3.8

  16.4

  10.5

  9.9

  13.7

  19.6

  18.3

  7.1

  0.6

  100

  2,180

  Milton Keynes

  5.2

  15.6

  12.6

  11.7

  15.0

  21.2

  13.6

  4.4

  0.7

  100

  1,760

  Portsmouth

  3.8

  16.3

  11.9

  9.9

  13.2

  21.2

  15.9

  7.1

  0.8

  100

  1,480

  Reading

  6.8

  17.1

  11.9

  7.8

  12.3

  20.1

  16.0

  6.9

  1.2

  100

  990

  Slough

  6.1

  17.7

  13.7

  8.3

  13.4

  16.6

  16.4

  6.4

  1.4

  100

  1,090

  Southampton

  5.8

  17.1

  12.8

  9.8

  12.3

  19.3

  16.5

  5.1

  1.2

  100

  1,640

  West Berkshire

  5.1

  19.1

  12.7

  9.1

  13.1

  18.7

  14.7

  6.5

  1.0

  100

  1,330

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  5.3

  15.6

  11.2

  9.6

  12.1

  19.9

  16.8

  8.4

  1.1

  100

  990

  Wokingham

  3.6

  16.6

  9.7

  8.2

  13.6

  20.6

  19.3

  6.3

  2.1

  100

  1,280

  Buckinghamshire

  5.6

  17.8

  10.4

  8.2

  11.9

  20.9

  18.2

  6.0

  0.9

  100

  3,900

  East Sussex

  4.6

  13.8

  13.1

  11.1

  15.0

  20.5

  16.3

  4.6

  0.9

  100

  3,610

  54W 55W

  Percentage of full-time regular teachers March 2000

  Under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  All full-time regular

  All regular teachers January 2001 fte

  Hampshire

  5.8

  16.8

  11.4

  8.9

  12.5

  20.4

  17.1

  6.3

  0.7

  100

  8,970

  Kent

  5.3

  15.0

  10.1

  9.1

  14.9

  21.2

  16.9

  6.4

  1.0

  100

  11,320

  Oxfordshire

  4.4

  16.1

  12.8

  10.6

  12.3

  18.4

  18.2

  6.2

  1.0

  100

  4,790

  Surrey

  6.7

  20.5

  15.0

  8.6

  10.8

  16.6

  14.8

  6.1

  1.0

  100

  7,310

  West Sussex

  3.7

  15.8

  11.7

  10.5

  14.7

  20.3

  16.9

  5.5

  0.9

  100

  5,610

  Bath and NE Somerset

  3.6

  17.7

  12.0

  9.8

  12.9

  19.8

  17.3

  6.0

  0.9

  100

  1,390

  Bournemouth

  3.3

  14.8

  9.7

  9.3

  13.1

  23.9

  18.2

  6.4

  1.4

  100

  1,110

  City of Bristol

  4.9

  15.8

  13.7

  11.2

  12.3

  19.8

  17.0

  4.7

  0.6

  100

  2,790

  North Somerset

  4.0

  14.6

  11.8

  10.4

  14.1

  19.3

  18.9

  6.0

  0.9

  100

  1,420

  City of Plymouth

  3.1

  13.5

  12.2

  12.8

  14.8

  19.2

  17.2

  6.5

  0.5

  100

  2,210

  Poole

  4.5

  14.4

  11.1

  8.9

  14.4

  20.9

  19.5

  5.9

  0.4

  100

  1,030

  South Gloucestershire

  4.6

  16.4

  12.4

  10.6

  13.4

  19.0

  16.9

  5.9

  0.8

  100

  2,120

  Swindon

  6.9

  16.7

  11.9

  9.1

  12.1

  19.7

  15.7

  7.2

  0.7

  100

  1,440

  Torbay

  4.2

  14.1

  11.5

  9.2

  12.4

  20.6

  20.8

  6.3

  0.8

  100

  970

  Cornwall

  2.2

  10.9

  9.7

  10.5

  15.3

  23.4

  20.4

  6.6

  1.2

  100

  3,800

  Isles of Scilly

  0.0

  0.0

  15.8

  15.8

  15.8

  26.3

  15.8

  5.3

  5.3

  100

  20

  Devon

  3.4

  11.8

  11.4

  9.9

  14.0

  23.1

  19.1

  6.5

  0.9

  100

  5,030

  Dorset

  4.5

  15.3

  10.8

  10.1

  15.0

  20.5

  17.8

  5.3

  0.7

  100

  2,880

  Gloucestershire

  4.3

  15.6

  12.3

  9.8

  12.6

  21.3

  18.3

  5.2

  0.6

  100

  4,680

  Somerset

  3.7

  12.6

  9.0

  10.0

  15.9

  22.4

  19.9

  5.9

  0.6

  100

  3,770

  Wiltshire

  4.2

  16.5

  11.2

  11.0

  12.9

  21.5

  16.8

  5.5

  0.5

  100

  3,340

  England

  4.5

  14.9

  11.5

  9.9

  13.8

  21.0

  17.6

  5.9

  0.9

  100

  410,170

  1 Totals may not appear to equal the sum of their component parts due to rounding.

  2 Estimates of part-time teachers by age have not been given because about 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, of part-time teachers are not recorded on the Teachers Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Head Teacher Vacancies (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies there are for head teachers at schools in each of the London education authorities. [10265]

  Mr. Timms
  Full-time vacancies for head teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in London at January 2001 is as follow:

  Vacancies

  Camden

  0

  City of London

  0

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  Haringey

  1

  Islington

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Lambeth

  5

  Lewisham

  2

  Newham

  3

  Southwark

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  Wandsworth

  1

  City of Westminster

  2

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  5

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  0

  Bromley

  0

  Croydon

  3

  Ealing

  0

  Enfield

  2

  Greenwich

  0

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  Merton

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  Sutton

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  56W

  Head Teacher Vacancies (London)

    Teachers (East Yorkshire)
    David Davis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the shortfall in the number of supply teachers is in the East Riding of Yorkshire(a) for the current academic year and (b) for each year since 1996; [10726]

    (2) how many foreign nationals were employed as (a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers in the East Riding of Yorkshire during the (i) 2000–01 academic year and (ii) previous four academic years.

    Mr. Timms
    The information is not collected centrally.

    Teaching Qualifications
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of teachers in maintained secondary schools did not have an appropriate subject qualification for the subject which they teach in each of the last five years. [13040]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 6 November 2001]: The most recent figures available show that, in 1996–97, 18 per cent. of secondary school teachers did not hold an appropriate qualification in the subject that they were teaching, including teachers of subjects for which qualifications are not commonly held.

    Pupil Spending (Bassetlaw)
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the change in spending per(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil in Bassetlaw since 1997; [21212]

    (2) what the average spending per pupil is in Bassetlaw in (a) primary and (b) secondary education compared to the national average. [21304]
    57W
    Mr. Timms
    The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas, rather than districts within an area. Bassetlaw is a district of Nottinghamshire Local Education Authority. The information for Nottinghamshire LEA is as follows:

    Nursery/primary

    Secondary

    Nottinghamshire

    1998–99

    1,910

    2,470

    1999–2000

    2,010

    2,560

    England

    1997–98

    1,860

    2,530

    1998–99

    1,960

    2,550

    1999–2000

    2,070

    2,640

    The figures are based on net institutional expenditure per pupil and are expressed in real terms and at 2000–01 prices. The SSA increase for Nottinghamshire for 2002–03 is 5.9 per cent. 1998–99 was the last year for Nottinghamshire with its current boundaries.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she plans to take in respect of individuals who have been defrauded of their individual learning accounts when they have applied for courses with genuine learning providers. [21059]

    John Healey
    The ILA programme is now closed and we shall not be accepting further bookings of learning. We are continuing to log details of complaints and will follow these up.

    Our commitment to adult learning remains cast iron and the Secretary of State has already said that this is not the end of Government funding for adult learning, or of Government support for those who find a lack of money a barrier to returning to education, learning or training. We are developing future plans for a successor ILA-style scheme which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme.

    Alistair Burt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of learning providers who have ceased business as a result of the ending of the individual learning account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [22158]

    John Healey
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Department has made no estimate of the number of learning providers who may have ceased business as a result of the closure of the individual learning account programme.

    Teachers Earnings
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the average weekly earnings of(a) a fully qualified teacher, (b) a primary school head teacher and (c) a secondary school head teacher in 2001–02.

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The estimated average weekly gross pay of full-time teachers in England and Wales from April 2001 is as follows.
    58W

    Teachers in England and Wales

    £

    Qualified teacher in the maintained schools sector1

    550

    Head teacher in maintained nursery and primary

    750

    Head teacher in maintained secondary

    1,020

    1 Including staff on the leadership scale.

    Departmental Staff (Home Working)
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21836]

    Mr. Ivan Lewis
    The Department of Education and Skills believes everyone should be allowed to balance their work and home commitments and that home working should be available to all staff, not just those with caring responsibilities. We encourage a culture of trust where people feel comfortable working from home and do not feel tied to working a fixed 9–5 pattern and try to discourage long hours working among staff. Staff can work at home on a full-time basis or for part of the week on a regular or occasional basis. Business needs remain at the top of our agenda. However, managers are encouraged to be sympathetic to all requests and grant them whenever possible.

    The Department publicises its policy on flexible working to all staff and people working wholly or partly from home have access to our remote working system, which currently has 1,175 registered users, 27 per cent. of our total work force.

    New Schools
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new schools were opened in each of the last 10 years. [21957]

    John Healey
    The following table shows the numbers of new maintained schools opened each year since 1996. The figures exclude new schools opened as a result of an amalgamation or reorganisation of schools or fresh start proposals. Reliable information is not available on the number of new schools opened prior to 1996.

    Year

    Primary

    Secondary

    Total

    1996

    7

    0

    7

    1997

    15

    8

    23

    1998

    18

    3

    21

    1999

    22

    6

    28

    2000

    13

    3

    16

    2001

    21

    7

    28

    Education Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each of the years 1995–96 to 2001–02(a) the total amount of education SSA provided to local education authorities, (b) the final education budget agreed by local education authorities and (c) the amount by which the education budget exceeded SSA.

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The information is set out in the following table.
    59W

    £

    Year

    Total education standard spending assessment

    Total education budget

    Surplus or deficit

    1995–96

    17,024.1

    17,821.1

    797.0

    1996–97

    17,764.2

    18,411.3

    647.1

    1997–98

    17,853.8

    18,399.2

    545.4

    1998–99

    19,383.7

    19,809.5

    425.8

    1999–2000

    20,414.1

    20,802.0

    387.9

    2000–01

    21,478.6

    21,812.0

    333.3

    2001–02

    22,512.9

    22,713.7

    200.8

    Notes:

    Total education budget for 1995–96 to 2000–01 is taken from local authorities' revenue accounts returns.

    For 2001–02 the education budget is total education revenue expenditure recorded at line five on local education authorities' section 52 budget statements, less income from grants recorded at lines 6a and 6b.

    Schools (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have operated four day weeks in the constituency of Buckingham in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [22652]

    Mr. Timms
    My Department is not aware of any schools in the Buckingham constituency which have operated a four day week in the years in question.

    Teachers (South Tyneside)
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers were working in South Tyneside local education authorities on 1 May; and what are the projected figures for 1 May 2002. [22665]

    Mr. Timms
    The information is not available for the dates requested. The full-time equivalent numbers of regular teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the South Tyneside local education authority in January 2001 were as follows:

    Number

    Nursery and primary

    675

    Secondary

    655

    My Department does not project teacher numbers for individual local authorities.

    Standards Fund
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list by local education authority in England the amount per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary education paid out of the Standards Fund in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02 to date. [22682]

    Mr. Timms
    The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund, shown as an amount per pupil, for 2000–01 and 2001–02, for each local education authority. The figures cannot be disaggregated between primary and secondary as most Standards Fund grants cover both phases and the precise distribution will be determined at local level. The figures include recurrent and capital Standards Fund grants excluding those that are specifically for nursery education, further education 60W
    and adult education. The Standards Fund includes Government grant and local authority contributions, which have both been included in the calculations.

    Standards Fund per pupil

    £ per pupil

    Local education authority

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Corporation of London

    1,762

    1,786

    Camden

    549

    656

    Greenwich

    485

    683

    Hackney

    607

    810

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    467

    720

    Islington

    524

    754

    Kensington and Chelsea

    562

    691

    Lambeth

    509

    700

    Lewisham

    435

    634

    Southwark

    490

    667

    Tower Hamlets

    660

    847

    Wandsworth

    496

    665

    Westminster

    479

    614

    Barking

    302

    477

    Barnet

    178

    364

    Bexley

    200

    315

    Brent

    281

    523

    Bromley

    236

    317

    Croydon

    268

    359

    Ealing

    358

    561

    Enfield

    271

    416

    Haringey

    490

    719

    Harrow

    236

    362

    Havering

    207

    341

    Hillingdon

    248

    328

    Hounslow

    307

    448

    Kingston upon Thames

    369

    502

    Merton

    343

    533

    Newham

    426

    579

    Redbridge

    260

    351

    Richmond upon Thames

    386

    357

    Sutton

    219

    334

    Waltham Forest

    412

    617

    Birmingham

    389

    530

    Coventry

    321

    434

    Dudley

    268

    347

    Sandwell

    274

    449

    Solihull

    243

    341

    Walsall

    307

    427

    Wolverhampton

    360

    528

    Knowsley

    430

    702

    Liverpool

    390

    573

    St. Helens

    263

    489

    Sefton

    261

    410

    Wirral

    272

    460

    Bolton

    295

    385

    Bury

    248

    332

    Manchester

    513

    657

    Oldham

    321

    455

    Rochdale

    320

    548

    Salford

    553

    551

    Stockport

    279

    351

    Tameside

    281

    377

    Trafford

    250

    336

    Wigan

    262

    347

    Barnsley

    284

    419

    Doncaster

    277

    369

    Rotherham

    425

    532

    Sheffield

    401

    556

    Bradford

    452

    607

    Calderdale

    319

    354

    Kirklees

    352

    482

    Leeds

    344

    497

    Wakefield

    287

    410

    Gateshead

    336

    551

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    335

    532

    North Tyneside

    288

    465

    61W

    standards Fund per pupil

    £per pupil

    Local education authority

    2000–01

    2001–02

    South Tyneside

    312

    488

    Sunderland

    292

    487

    Isles of Scilly

    1,781

    1,725

    Bath and North East Somerset

    290

    385

    City of Bristol

    303

    463

    North Somerset

    278

    360

    South Gloucestershire

    279

    360

    Hartlepool

    292

    555

    Middlesbrough

    314

    511

    Redcar and Cleveland

    272

    450

    Stockton-on-Tees

    315

    506

    City of Kingston-upon-Hull

    306

    479

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    294

    387

    North East Lincolnshire

    318

    386

    North Lincolnshire

    346

    400

    North Yorkshire

    316

    389

    York

    316

    369

    Bedfordshire

    310

    419

    Luton

    362

    481

    Buckinghamshire

    295

    377

    Milton Keynes

    285

    393

    Derbyshire

    306

    366

    Derby City

    307

    431

    Dorset

    269

    365

    Poole

    240

    289

    Bournemouth

    351

    503

    Durham

    305

    443

    Darlington

    314

    425

    East Sussex

    271

    342

    Brighton and Hove

    305

    390

    Hampshire

    237

    353

    Portsmouth

    273

    382

    Southampton

    276

    364

    Leicestershire

    270

    306

    Leicester City

    362

    493

    Rutland

    340

    497

    Staffordshire

    245

    307

    Stoke-on-Trent

    333

    546

    Wiltshire

    296

    344

    Swindon

    291

    330

    Bracknell Forest borough council

    258

    361

    RB of Windsor and Maidenhead

    283

    376

    West Berkshire district council

    338

    365

    Reading

    354

    442

    Slough borough council

    364

    424

    Wokingham district council

    281

    407

    Cambridgeshire county council

    284

    364

    Peterborough city council

    308

    391

    Cheshire county council

    252

    336

    Halton borough council

    334

    573

    Warrington borough council

    244

    325

    Devon county council

    266

    367

    City of Plymouth

    248

    336

    Torbay borough council

    260

    334

    Essex county council

    256

    345

    Southend-on-Sea borough council

    242

    326

    Thurrock council

    302

    398

    Herefordshire council

    327

    364

    Worcestershire county council

    265

    326

    Kent county council

    266

    344

    Medway council

    253

    336

    Lancashire county council

    311

    392

    Blackburn with Darwen

    435

    528

    Blackpool borough council

    293

    384

    Nottinghamshire county council

    278

    327

    City of Nottingham

    384

    662

    Shropshire county council

    266

    341

    Telford and Wrekin

    358

    417

    Cornwall

    295

    361

    Cumbria

    308

    406

    Gloucestershire

    285

    375

    62W

    standards Fund per pupil

    £per pupil

    Local education authority

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Hertfordshire

    255

    315

    Isle of Wight

    329

    406

    Lincolnshire

    288

    400

    Norfolk

    290

    412

    Northamptonshire

    270

    387

    Northumberland

    250

    385

    Oxfordshire

    300

    362

    Somerset

    360

    356

    Suffolk

    259

    325

    Surrey

    233

    324

    Warwickshire

    274

    367

    West Sussex

    240

    320

    Notes:

    1. Figures include Standard Fund grants relating to five to 16 pupils only. Grants for under-fives and post 16-provision have not been included.

    2. Figures include both Government grant and local authority contributions to the Standards Fund.

    3. Figures include recurrent and capital grants.

    Formula-funded Allocations
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list by local education authority in England, the amount per pupil for(a) primary and (b) secondary education of the formula-funded allocations in the provisional settlement for 2002–03. [22743]

    Mr. Timms
    The information requested is shown in the following table.

    provisional education SSAs per pupil 2002–03

    £

    LEA

    Primary per 5–10 pupil

    Secondary per 11–15 pupil

    City of London

    3,816

    7,607

    Camden

    3,888

    4,767

    Greenwich

    3,622

    4,650

    Hackney

    4,034

    5,382

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    3,871

    4,858

    Islington

    3,937

    5,177

    Kensington and Chelsea

    4,075

    4,813

    Lambeth

    4,058

    5,624

    Lewisham

    3,765

    4,913

    Southwark

    3,898

    5,030

    Tower Hamlets

    4,143

    5,320

    Wandsworth

    3,516

    4,459

    Westminster

    3,774

    4,508

    Barking and Dagenham

    3,125

    4,050

    Barnet

    2,992

    3,755

    Bexley

    2,824

    3,589

    Brent

    3,423

    4,400

    Bromley

    2,790

    3,521

    Croydon

    3,042

    3,946

    Ealing

    3,227

    4,186

    Enfield

    3,106

    3,937

    Haringey

    3,555

    4,587

    Harrow

    2,943

    3,823

    Havering

    2,778

    3,562

    Hillingdon

    2,926

    3,742

    Hounslow

    3,154

    3,946

    Kingston upon Thames

    2,793

    3,555

    Merton

    2,994

    3,838

    Newham

    3,531

    4,521

    Redbridge

    2,972

    3,801

    Richmond upon Thames

    2,753

    3,475

    Sutton

    2,830

    3,534

    Waltham Forest

    3,292

    4,211

    Birmingham

    2,891

    3,721

    63W

    Provisional education SSAs per pupil 2002–03

    £

    LEA

    Primary per 5–10 pupil

    Secondary per 11–15 pupil

    Coventry

    2,702

    3,457

    Dudley

    2,490

    3,183

    Sandwell

    2,745

    3,531

    Solihull

    2,461

    3,119

    Walsall

    2,622

    3,335

    Woverhampton

    2,758

    3,534

    Knowsley

    3,005

    3,924

    Liverpool

    2,972

    3,817

    St. Helens

    2,612

    3,357

    Sefton

    2,601

    3,304

    Wirral

    2,682

    3,454

    Bolton

    2,607

    3,316

    Bury

    2,522

    3,222

    Manchester

    3,087

    4,016

    Oldham

    2,683

    3,424

    Rochdale

    2,721

    3,472

    Salford

    2,732

    3,542

    Stockport

    2,458

    3,164

    Tameside

    2,596

    3,310

    Trafford

    2,523

    3,232

    Wigan

    2,499

    3,186

    Barnsley

    2,609

    3,371

    Doncaster

    2,674

    3,442

    Rotherham

    2,582

    3,274

    Sheffield

    2,648

    3,392

    Bradford

    2,770

    3,575

    Calderdale

    2,618

    3,351

    Kirklees

    2,639

    3,389

    Leeds

    2,612

    3,347

    Wakefield

    2,535

    3,250

    Gateshead

    2,657

    3,405

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    2,801

    3,606

    North Tyneside

    2,576

    3,318

    South Tyneside

    2,716

    3,482

    Sunderland

    2,659

    3,414

    Isles of Scilly

    4,775

    6,165

    Bath and North East Somerset

    2,437

    3,064

    City of Bristol

    2,687

    3,466

    North Somerset

    2,462

    3,169

    South Gloucestershire

    2,390

    3,087

    Hartlepool

    2,678

    3,438

    Middlesbrough

    2,849

    3,722

    Redcar and Cleveland

    2,686

    3,417

    Stockton-on-Tees

    2,620

    3,375

    City of Kingston-upon-Hull

    2,785

    3,564

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    2,485

    3,197

    North East Lincolnshire

    2,673

    3,424

    North Lincolnshire

    2,593

    3,352

    North Yorkshire

    2,557

    3,244

    York

    2,478

    3,192

    Bedfordshire

    2,663

    3,408

    Luton

    2,893

    3,708

    Buckinghamshire

    2,656

    3,411

    Milton Keynes

    2,745

    3,527

    Derbyshire

    2,492

    3,197

    Derby

    2,671

    3,429

    Dorset

    2,494

    3,179

    Poole

    2,452

    3,133

    Bournemouth

    2,574

    3,275

    Durham

    2,628

    3,378

    Darlington

    2,602

    3,338

    East Sussex

    2,713

    3,498

    Brighton and Hove

    2,813

    3,596

    Hampshire

    2,582

    3,322

    Portsmouth

    2,779

    3,532

    Southampton

    2,829

    3,650

    Leicestershire

    2,411

    3,094

    Leicester

    3,850

    3,647

    Rutland

    2,466

    3,039

    Staffordshire

    2,451

    3,146

    64W

    Provisional education SSAs per pupil 2002–03

    £

    LEA

    Primary per 5–10 pupil

    Secondary per 11–15 pupil

    Stoke-on-Trent

    2,658

    3,407

    Wiltshire

    2,509

    3,220

    Swindon

    2,495

    3,200

    Bracknell Forest

    2,711

    3,498

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    2,724

    3,432

    West Berkshire

    2,587

    3,280

    Reading

    2,792

    3,643

    Slough

    3,157

    4,148

    Wokingham

    2,465

    3,177

    Cambridgeshire

    2,533

    3,225

    Peterborough

    2,710

    3,481

    Cheshire

    2,469

    3,149

    Halton

    2,739

    3,546

    Warrington

    2,449

    3,147

    Devon

    2,559

    3,290

    Plymouth

    2,610

    3,314

    Torbay

    2,578

    3,316

    Essex

    2,710

    3,465

    Southend

    2,760

    3,520

    Thurrock

    2,880

    3,681

    Herefordshire

    2,588

    3,314

    Worcestershire

    2,472

    3,157

    Kent

    2,708

    3,470

    Medway

    2,688

    3,440

    Lancashire

    2,589

    3,319

    Blackburn

    2,776

    3,574

    Blackpool

    2,634

    3,394

    Nottinghamshire

    2,506

    3,219

    Nottingham City

    2,897

    3,744

    Shropshire

    2,534

    3,228

    The Wrekin

    2,616

    3,363

    Cornwall

    2,594

    3,335

    Cumbria

    2,581

    3,299

    Gloucestershire

    2,497

    3,186

    Hertfordshire

    2,750

    3,503

    Isle of Wight council

    2,792

    3,600

    Lincolnshire

    2,586

    3,311

    Norfolk

    2,606

    3,325

    Northamptonshire

    2,529

    3,232

    Northumberland

    2,562

    3,288

    Oxfordshire

    2,671

    3,399

    Somerset

    2,529

    3,245

    Suffolk

    2,526

    3,221

    Surrey

    2,718

    3,466

    Warwickshire

    2,489

    3,173

    West Sussex

    2,638

    3,365

    Schools Revenue Budget
    Mr.Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportions of her Department's Schools Revenue Budget for 2002–03 are(a) special grant, (b) standards fund and (c) formula-funded allocations. [22744]

    Mr. Timms
    The Department does not hold a single Schools Recurrent Budget. Recurrent funding for schools is made up of Education Standard Spending, the Standards Fund and Special Grants. For 2002–03, these three elements break down as follows:

    Funding source

    Amount (£ million)

    Proportion (Percentage)

    Education Standard Spending (ESS)

    23,858

    89.2

    Standards Fund

    1,711

    6.4

    Special Grants

    1,168

    4.4

    65W
    Education Standard Spending is the amount the Government consider appropriate for local authorities to spend on education from their total budgets. Local authorities receive about three quarters of their funding from central Government, through the Revenue Support Grant and business rates, and about a quarter through council tax. The figure for the Standards Fund includes Government grant only as the local authority contributions are included in the ESS figure.

    Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what contributions local education authorities have been required to make to the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme in each of the last three years; and what contributions they will be required to make in 2002–03. [22745]

    Mr. Timms
    The rate of contribution payable by all employers to the teachers' pension scheme is determined through actuarial valuations. The percentages of salary payable for the years 1999–2000 through to 2002–03 are:

    Percentage

    2001–02

    7.2

    2001–03

    7.4

    2001–04

    7.4

    2002–03

    8.35

    Children's Fund Budget
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Children's Fund budget for 2001–02 will be spent on, broken down into categories. [22493]

    Mr. Denham
    The Children's Fund consists of two distinct elements: local partnerships of public agencies and the voluntary sector to provide preventive services for children at risk aged 5–13; and the Local Network Fund which provides small grants to local voluntary organisations to address child poverty at all ages, 0–19.

    The Children's Fund budget of £100 million for 2001–02 has been allocated as follows:
    Preventive services through local partnerships, including evaluation costs: £80 million
    Local Network Fund, including evaluation: £10 million
    National support, including partnership support and development, initiatives for children and young people and the costs of the Children and Young People's Unit: £10 million.

    It is for local partnerships to determine their expenditure on individual services from their allocation in accordance with their local strategies for preventive services for children based on guidelines issued by the Children and Young People's Unit.

    Landscape Contracting
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the British Association of Landscape Industries about training and certification of qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [22906]
    66W
    John Healey
    No discussions have been held with the British Association of Landscape Industries about training and certification of qualifications.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the arrangements for training in the landscape contracting sector. [22907]

    John Healey
    Arrangements for training in the landscape contracting sector are a matter for the employers in that sector, as in any other. A network of national training organisations (NTOs), set up by employers and formally recognised by the Government, provides strategic leadership and practical guidance about the learning, skills and qualification needs for a defined sector.

    The Construction Industry Training Board is the NTO for the building and civil engineering sector, which includes "hard" landscaping, that is laying driveways; constructing walls; constructing or repairing swimming pools, playing fields and grounds for sporting or recreational purposes.

    Lantra is the NTO for land-based industries, including "soft" landscaping, that is horticultural activities such as the landscaping of gardens and parks.

    The Government recently announced plans to build a stronger sector network that will engage employers more fully in the planning and delivery of learning and skills. Sector skills councils will be set up which build on the achievements secured by NTOs.

    Construction Industry Training Board
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibility the Construction Industry Training Board has for the landscape contracting sector; and if she will make a statement. [22908]

    John Healey
    The Construction Industry Training Board is responsible for the provision of practical guidance on the learning, skills and qualification needs related to the following landscaping activities:

    Laying driveways.

    Constructing walls.

    Constructing or repairing swimming pools; playing fields; grounds for sporting or recreational purposes.

    Restoring land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations.

    Site preparation in connection with all of these.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the eligibility of the landscape contracting sector for payment of the Construction Industry Training Board Levy; and if she will make a statement. [22910]

    John Healey
    Employers fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) if their main activity is one of the following:

    Laying driveways.

    Constructing walls.

    Constructing or repairing swimming pools; playing fields; grounds for sporting or recreational purposes.

    Restoring land affected by the working of coal by opencast operations.

    Site preparation in connection with all of these.

    67W
    Such employers would be assessed to levy in respect of their work force except for any employees engaged in "soft" landscaping operations where those activities fall within the definition of agriculture.

    Employers whose main activity is "soft" landscaping do not fall within the CITB's scope.

    Local Education Authorities (West Midlands)
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities in the West Midlands have access to sources of European funding to supplement the grants they receive from the Government. [22980]

    Margaret Hodge
    All local education authorities have access to the European Commission's education, training and youth programmes, as well as the European social fund. Funding under each of these programmes is awarded on a competitive basis following a bidding round. Local authorities are well placed to encourage institutions and schools in their areas to take advantage of the opportunities the programmes offer, and can also apply for project funding themselves.

    The Socrates programme aims to promote the European dimension in the field of education, and covers all phases of education from primary schools to higher education, including activities focused on adult education and ICT and distance learning; the Leonardo da Vinci programme funds vocational training, and the youth programme focuses on non-formal learning. The European social fund supports the development education and training systems as part of lifelong learning policy in the wider context of strengthening economic and social cohesion.

    Further details of the bidding procedures and activities covered can be found at the Commission website http: //europa.eu.int/comrn/dgs/educationculture/ and on the ESF at http: //www.dti.gov.uk/europe/mf1.htm.

    Pupil Funding
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the per pupil standard spending assessment is for(a) secondary and (b) primary pupils of (i) shire counties, (ii) other local education authorities and (iii) the average English education authority for (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02 and (C) 2002–3. [23082]

    Mr. Timms
    The information requested is in the following table:

    £

    2000–01

    2001–02

    2002–031

    Secondary (pupils aged 11–15)

    Shire

    3,024

    3,157

    3,310

    Non-shire

    3,304

    3,447

    3,620

    National

    3,175

    3,313

    3,476

    Primary (pupils aged 5–10)

    Shire

    2,348

    2,456

    2,587

    Non-shire

    2,577

    2,697

    2,846

    National

    2,474

    2,588

    2,728

    1 The amounts for 2002–03 are provisional

    68W

    Education Funding (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to bring spending per pupil in Worcestershire closer to the average for the shire counties; and if she will make a statement. [23085]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government are currently working up proposals, in partnership with local government and other education interests, for the introduction of a new funding system in 2003–04. We are taking a fresh and objective look at what provision is needed, and at the additional costs some authorities undoubtedly face. We want a system that is both fair and clear. The element of the proposals set out in the Green Paper most relevant to Worcestershire's position is that LEAs should receive a basic entitlement per primary or secondary school pupil, with enhancements only for authorities where significant deprivation adds to costs, or schools need to pay more to recruit and retain staff. This would mean that a number of LEAs would get the same funding per pupil, rather than those like Worcestershire getting less than almost all others.

    Sex Education
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria the Government follow in determining the suitability of(a) publications and (b) materials to be used in the teaching of sex education. [22881]

    Margaret Hodge
    Our sex and relationship education guidance published last year, and underpinned by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, gives heads and governors a statutory responsibility to have regard to the guidance in ensuring that young people are protected from inappropriate teaching and materials.

    Education Funding (South Gloucestershire)
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason South Gloucestershire has a negative SSA for post-16 education in 2002–03; how many other authorities are in the same position; and if she will make a statement. [22604]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: South Gloucestershire has a negative net post-16 SSA because the deduction in respect of its Learning and Skills funding allocation for post-16 education is greater than its gross post-16 SSA for 2002–03. There are a further six authorities in this position. We will be making a special grant available, to guarantee that no authority will have a net post-16 SSA which is less than 7.5 per cent. of its gross post-16 SSA. Allocations of this special grant will be announced once the Local Government Finance Settlement is finalised at the end of January.

    Returnees Bonus
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have(a) applied for, (b) been rejected for and (c) received the returnees bonus for teachers; and if she will make a statement on the numbers and nature of those applicants who have been disqualified from teaching in the interim since their last full-time post. [23114]
    69W
    Mr. Timms
    Information on the total number of applications for the bonus received by local education authorities, and the number of those to have been assessed as ineligible, is not collected centrally. To date, four local education authorities have submitted claims to my Department for the reimbursement of bonus payments made to seven teachers in their areas, but the bulk of claims will not be made until the new year. Any teacher who has been disqualified from the profession would be barred from working in a school and therefore ineligible to apply for the bonus.

    Special Education Grant (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to pay a special education grant to Worcestershire for 2002–03 financial year; and if she will make a statement. [23495]

    Mr. Timms
    We propose to pay a grant to those authorities where there is a significant impact from the transfer of funding from Education Standard Spending to the Learning and Skills Council. The grant will guarantee:all LEAs a post-16 SSA after their LSC allocation has been deducted of at least 7.5 per cent. of their post-16 SSA before the LSC deduction; and
    all LEAs at least 85 per cent. of the increase in their education SSA to be available for purposes other than sixth forms.

    Allocations of this grant will be finalised in January, after the consultation on the Local Government Finance settlement has been completed, and final figures for LSC allocations and Education SSAs are available. We have no other plans for special grants to support LEA budgets for 2002–03, because increases in funding mean there is less need for special grant support from Government than there was in 2001–02: over £1.3 billion extra in Education Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs); a further increase in Standards Fund grant of almost £160 million; and an increase in the direct grant for schools of 2.75 per cent.

    Student Support
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to consult with Universities UK on the new system of student support. [23549]

    Margaret Hodge
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has written to Prof. Roderick Floud, President of Universities UK, to inform him that a review is under way. We plan to consult on any proposals for change and would expect Universities UK to contribute.

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice she has received from Ofsted on the performance of specialist schools; and when the advice was received. [22322]

    Mr. Timms
    Ofsted's report, "Specialist Schools: An evaluation of progress", was published on 9 October 2001. An initial draft of the report was received within the Department for Education and Skills at the beginning of July. Ofsted's report confirms that four out of five of the schools surveyed are achieving the aims of the specialist schools programme and are making good use of the 70W
    advantages it brings. The report's first main finding states that: "For these schools specialist status has often been a catalyst for innovation and helped to sustain or accelerate the momentum of school improvement." Technology, language and arts colleges are improving attainment at a faster rate than is the case nationally and in GCSE examinations in 2000 the combined average points score for each pupil for specialist subjects was higher in all four categories of specialist school than the average for all other maintained secondary schools. Ofsted also found that, with few exceptions, the community dimension was the weakest part of the school's work. However, sports colleges had responded well to this challenge and the report found that about half of the technology and language colleges visited had developed good examples of community support. We expect all specialist schools to benefit from the findings in the Ofsted report.

  DEFENCE

    Procurement
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much new equipment has been purchased in the last financial year. [17203]

    Dr. Moonie
    This information is contained within the Defence Procurement Agency's "Annual Report and Accounts for 2000–01" (Pages 8 and 11) which was published on 28 November and laid before the House. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Fair Trade Goods
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what the value was. [18161]

    Dr. Moonie
    We do not keep records of purchases that fall into the fair trade category.

    Defence Aviation Repair Agency
    Mr. John Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of repairing the sewerage and water systems of RAF St. Athan. [19422]

    Dr. Moonie
    The Ministry of Defence is currently engaged in a GB-wide public private partnership project, Project Aquatrine, which will involve the transfer of responsibility for delivering water and wastewater services to a private sector service provider over a 25 year contract period. RAF St. Athan is within the scope of Project Aquatrine. The bidders are responsible for assessing both the priority and level of investment in the waste and wastewater infrastructure, and pricing accordingly in their bids.

    Defence Jobs, Ilford
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs that are dependent on defence spending in the Ilford, North constituency. [22293]
    71W
    Dr. Moonie
    There were 24 regular armed forces personnel employed at 1 July 2000 within the local area authority of Redbridge, of which the Ilford, North constituency is a part. In addition to these there are a number of Territorial Army personnel, and within Ilford there were fewer than 10 Ministry of Defence (MOD) civilians at the same date.

    In addition to this direct employment, the MOD supports a significant number of defence related jobs in industry throughout the UK.

    Troop Deployment (Christmas and New Year)
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Royal Navy he expects to be (i) serving abroad and (ii) deployed on front-line duties between 24 December and 2 January 2002; what percentage of trained strength of each force this represents; what provisions he has made to ensure family contact over that period; and if he will make a statement. [18932]

    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The current estimate of the number of personnel who will be serving abroad and deployed on operations overseas over the Christmas and new year period is shown in the table.

    Royal Navy

    Army

    Royal Air Force

    Estimated number serving abroad

    6,300

    22,300

    6,300

    As a percentage of trained strength

    17

    22

    13

    Estimated number of those serving abroad deployed on operations

    3,000

    9,350

    3,200

    As a percentage of trained strength

    8

    9

    6

    We attach great importance to ensuring service personnel deployed overseas are able to keep in touch with their families, especially over Christmas and new year. It is for this reason that personnel on operations over Christmas are, as last year, being given a further 20 minutes free phone call home in addition to the standard 20 minutes free weekly phone call. Free 'blueys' (aerogrammes), 'e-blueys' and concessionary parcel rates as well as internet and e-mail access are also available as part of the standard Operational Welfare Package.

    Armed Forces Pension Scheme
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; what restrictions have been placed on the review in respect of its potential cost; and if he will make a statement. [22800]

    Mr. Ingram
    With regard to progress on the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 319W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

    With regard to the potential cost of the proposed new scheme, it is Government policy that improvements in public service pensions should generally be paid for either by savings elsewhere in the scheme, or by scheme members through contributions. In addition, the review took account of the fact that the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme is one of the most expensive in the public sector. In the proposals issued for public consultation in
    72W
    March of this year, we sought to re-balance the benefits to reflect the needs of the modern armed forces, with regard both to those who can expect to serve a full career and those who we require to leave earlier. These proposals were cost neutral. We will, of course, consider carefully the views submitted in response to the consultation.

    C-17 Globemaster
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C-17 Globemasters are owned by the British armed forces; if Globemasters are deployed in Afghanistan; what plans his Department has for further purchase of the Globemaster; and if he will make a statement. [23223]

    Mr. Ingram
    We have leased four C-17 Globemasters from the US, but currently do not plan to purchase these, or any additional C-17s. The four RAF Globemasters have not been deployed in Afghanistan but have been used in support of the on-going campaign against international terrorism.

    Smart Procurement
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much Smart Procurement has saved his Department since its inception; how much it is projected to save over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [23225]

    Dr. Moonie
    Since the introduction of Smart Acquisition, the Ministry of Defence has identified £2.4 billion of savings in equipment procurement in the 10-year planning period between 1998 and 2008. The savings are set out in more detail in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Major Projects Report 2001 which was published on 23 November. Some £1.5 billion of these savings were made against planned expenditure between 2002 and 2007. Over the last three financial years, savings on the costs of in-service support of equipment attributable to Smart Acquisition, have totalled some £350 million. It is anticipated there will be on-going savings of £250 million per annum over the next few years.

    Work is also under way to develop broader metrics and targets for assessing the benefits of Smart Acquisition.

    Porton Down
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 823W, on Porton Down, if further staff from his Department are to be assigned to work full-time to conduct the comprehensive survey of the service volunteer programme at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [22874]

    Dr. Moonie
    We currently have no plans to do so.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 10W, on Porton Down, on what dates the in-depth searches of his Department's archives were conducted. [22876]

    Dr. Moonie
    Searches of the Ministry of Defence archives have been carried out over the past two years since allegations emerged that participants in the Service
    73W
    Volunteer programme were recruited under the pretext of common cold research. The precise dates on which such searches have been carried out are not recorded.

    Tactical Training Areas
    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions his Department has made a formal objection to the siting of wind turbines in tactical training areas; which sitings were objected to; and on what grounds. [23136]

    Dr. Moonie
    Over the last two years, the Ministry of Defence has objected to 26 proposals to site wind farms within the tactical training areas (TTA). The details of these are withheld for reasons of commercial confidentiality in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The objections relate to the physical obstruction that would be caused by the wind farms within areas where fixed wing aircraft are engaged in operational low flying (OLF) training down to 100 ft minimum separation distance (MSD). Outside the TTA low flying fixed wing aircraft are not permitted to fly below 250 feet MSD. In order to preserve the tactical freedom to practise OLF it is important that the number of tall obstacles, such as wind turbines, is minimised within those areas. For this reason an objection is often, but not always, raised to proposals to locate turbines in any of the TTA.

    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is regarding the siting of wind turbines in tactical training areas. [23138]

    Dr. Moonie
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 297W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman).

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army were involved in assisting the regular Army with operations during the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland. [23205]

    Mr. Ingram
    Some 90 members of the Territorial Army were involved in assisting the Regular Army with operations during the foot and mouth outbreak in Scotland.

    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army from Scottish bases have been called upon to assist the Army in overseas operations in each of the last five years; and on how many occasions. [23357]

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

    Afghanistan
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on coalition plans for the removal of unexploded ordnance from Afghanistan. [23046]
    74W
    Mr. Ingram
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 5 December 2001,Official Report, columns 343–44W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children have been(a) killed and (b) maimed by cluster bombs in Afghanistan since 11 September. [23044]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 860W, to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

    RAF Staff College Site, Bracknell
    Mr. MacKay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the timescale for disposal of the RAF staff college site, Bracknell. [23539]

    Dr. Moonie
    Defence Estates had planned to market the former RAF Staff College site with the benefit of planning permission early in 2002. However, delays in the adoption of the Local Plan, and obtaining planning permission, means this timetable may slip to late 2002, with completion expected in 2003. The site is available for development with the current Local Plan period to 2006.

    Lynx Helicopters
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to convert further Lynx helicopters from Mark 3 to Mark 8 standard; and if he will make a statement. [23624]

    Mr. Ingram
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 351W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).

    Aircrew Retention
    Mr. Kevin Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the comprehensive review of aircrew retention. [23809]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Ministry of Defence has conducted a Comprehensive Review of Aircrew Retention this summer. We sought to identify why we have a shortfall in this highly trained group of personnel and how that shortfall might best be addressed. A study team including representatives from the three Services, HM Treasury and external consultancy have reviewed aircrew requirements and have looked at employment patterns, career structures, training systems and remuneration as well as the recruitment and financial policies of the commercial sector.

    The Working Group collated the views of over 1,000 aircrew (probably the largest such survey the armed forces has undertaken) as well as those of managers. They examined and identified why people leave service life, as well as the attraction of the commercial sector.

    The main cause of the shortage of aircrew was a failure of the training system to deliver against challenging targets. That has already been addressed, but it will take time to deliver. We intend, therefore, further to improve the retention of our current aircrew.
    75W
    The Working Group identified a series of issues impacting on retention. Many of the quality of life issues emerging from the Review of Aircrew Retention were already being tackled. For example, the very significant programmes introduced to spend an additional £1 billion over the next 10 years on modernising single living accommodation and to spend £650 million by November 2005 on upgrading married quarters. We recognise that accommodation problems spread beyond housing and action is needed to address sub-standard working and technical accommodation as well. Senior service officers have also set in hand work to address a number of key concerns raised by aircrew—for example on operational tempo, career management, frequency of moves, and more. The impact of resolving these concerns will also be of benefit to personnel beyond the aircrew community. Some of the issues raised by aircrew are misperceptions, and to address this better communication is being developed across the services.

    There are some remuneration aspects arising from the review and, as is usual, we have made proposals to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB). The outcome will be reported to the House in due course—probably early February.

    We are monitoring closely developments in the commercial sector. But, even if the pull to the private sector decreases as a result of a contraction in the civil sector, we still have a responsibility to deal with the natural factors which cause personnel to leave, and which are preventing us reaching aircrew manning balance.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to(a) assess and (b) publish the variation in applying for antisocial behaviour orders between different police forces. [21156]

    Mr. Denham
    Figures to 30 September this year show that 466 Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) have been issued. I am placing a copy of the force by force breakdown in the Library. I am pleased to say that 16 Antisocial Behaviour Orders have been issued to Lancashire Constabulary.

    There are areas of good practice throughout England and Wales, but we are not complacent about the position. The White Paper on police reform, published on 5 December, makes it clear that the Government are seeking still more effective use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders.

    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the measures he has taken to encourage parents to take greater responsibility for the anti-social behaviour of their children. [21164]

    Mr. Denham
    We introduced the parenting order on 1 June 2000, and its progress is promising. We are also launching youth offender panels, linked to referral orders which have a key role for parents. We are taking a number of wider steps to support families and assist parenting.
    76W
    The White Paper on policing set out steps to encourage the use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts.

    Mr. Simon Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of antisocial behaviour orders made in the last year in(a) Dyfed Powys and (b) Wales. [21127]

    Mr. Denham
    For the period 1 June 2000 to 30 September 2001, there were no Antisocial Behaviour Orders made in Dfyed-Powys. There were four made in total in Wales. Much more use has been made of Antisocial Behaviour Orders in other areas, a total of 466 in England and Wales.

    Hugh Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many magistrates courts have used antisocial behaviour orders. [21129]

    Mr. Denham
    We now have information relating to the use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders in all magistrate court committee areas. I have placed the breakdown in the Library of the House: it shows that Orders are being used in 38 of the 42 Magistrates Court Committee Areas. As I said in response to a Question earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr. Marsden), the White Paper "Policing a New Millennium" makes clear that we intend to take action to promote their use still more widely.

    Mr. Pond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to tackle persistent youth disorder. [21140]

    Mr. Denham
    The Government have introduced a range of measures to tackle disorder and antisocial behaviour. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced crime and disorder partnerships, anti-social behaviour orders, child curfews and changes to the youth justice system. We have also introduced new community sentences for youth offenders including reparation orders, final warnings, child safety orders and parenting orders.

    The White Paper "Policing the Next Century" proposes:
    A new capacity for support staff to contribute to community safety in public places;
    A much greater organised presence of other agencies accredited by the police;
    New powers available to enable accredited organisations to tackle lower level antisocial behaviour; and
    Firmer action on antisocial behaviour.

    Active Citizenship
    Mr. Rammell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote(a) community engagement and (b) active citizenship. [21158]

    Mr. Blunkett
    Community engagement and active citizenship are fundamental to the fabric of our society. I aim to ensure that they underpin all aspects of policy development in the Home Office and across Government.

    Asylum System
    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reform the asylum system. [21159]
    77W
    Angela Eagle
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the steps being taken to reform the asylum system in his statement to the House on 29 October. We are determined radically to overhaul the asylum system.

    Further details will be published in the forthcoming White Paper.

    Police Pensions
    Mr. Heath
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform police pensions. [21160]

    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of police pensions. [21162]

    Mr. Denham
    We are looking at ways of modernising police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants and to reflect modern lifestyle patterns. The Government aim to complete this work as quickly as possible.

    We are aware of police authorities' concern over the increasing burden of the funding of pensions. The Home Office and Treasury are reviewing the options for a revised system of funding which would give police authorities and chief officers greater certainty about pensions obligations on individual forces.

    Special Constables
    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss funding for special constables. [21163]

    Mr. Denham
    The Home Secretary formally met the President of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on Monday 3 December to discuss a range of matters in respect of the police reform programme.

    The Government are committed to increasing the strength of Special Constabulary. We are considering a number of options for achieving substantial improvements in the conditions of service, management and deployment of Special Constables, to ensure that they are deployed effectively and provide an increased visible presence in our communities.

    Police (Upminster)
    Angela Watkinson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of police resources in Upminster. [21125]

    Mr. Denham
    The Commissioner tells me that at the end of October Havering division had 323 police officers. This is 26 more than in December 2000. The Havering division also had 83 civilian support staff at the end of October.

    In addition, the borough benefits from central and specialist services such as the territorial support group, traffic officers and specialist crime units, which are not budgeted for at borough level.
    78W

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to extend the asylum seekers' identity cards to the population as a whole. [21126]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government have no plans to extend to the population as a whole the Application Registration Card which will shortly be issued to asylum seekers.

    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on his targets for the(a) deportation and (b) removal of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. [21135]

    Angela Eagle
    The current Service Delivery Agreement target relating to the removal of failed asylum seekers from the United Kingdom is to remove 30,000 in 2001–02; 33,000 in 2003–04; and 37,000 in 2003–04. The totals include dependants.

    The 30,000 target for this year has always been ambitious and high risk. To enable us to reach and exceed 30,000 removals a year by 2003, we need to remove about 2,500 people a month. It remains our aim to achieve this monthly total by March 2002.

    Published figures are not yet available for non asylum removals but there have been 5,330 asylum removals from April to September including 570 dependants.

    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum applicants have been removed from the country in the last 12 months. [21139]

    Angela Eagle
    There have been 5,330 asylum removals1 from April to September including 570 dependants2.

    Information on the number of asylum removals is published on a quarterly basis. The next set of data will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

    1 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding. Removals includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action has been initiated against them and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).
    2 Data on dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has granted permission to the Angel Development Corporation to house asylum seekers at the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire; [19747]

    (2) what discussions he has had with the Angel Development Corporation about the future of the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire; [19749]

    (3) if a feasibility study has been carried out on the suitability of the Centrex site at High Ercall, Shropshire, for the housing of asylum seekers; [19748]

    (4) what the Government's intentions are with respect to the Centrex site, at High Ercall, Shropshire. [19746]
    79W
    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Angel Group is under contract to the National Asylum Support Service to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. Any discussions that have taken place have related to the services provided under that contract.

    My officials are currently looking at a number of potential sites for use as accommodation centres but no decisions have yet been made on individual sites to be used.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many places are being sought to accommodate asylum seekers around the country; and how many have so far been filled; [19743]

    (2) what conditions must be fulfilled before permission is granted to those organising sites for the accommodation of asylum seekers; [19744]

    (3) what the planned maximum number of asylum seekers is for each centre accommodating them in remote rural areas of the United Kingdom. [19745]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 4 December 2001]: It is intended to establish a number of accommodation centres for asylum seekers, with a total capacity of 3,000, in order to trial the new approach set out in the Home Secretary's statement of 29 October. No decisions have yet been made about the location of the centres.

    In 2002 the Home Office will run competitions for the development and operation of sites to be used as accommodation centres for asylum seekers. The criteria for the award of any contracts that might result from the competitions have yet to be determined.

    No maximum capacity for individual accommodation centres has been set. The capacity of individual sites will depend on a number of issues, including the availability of existing accommodation and the availability of land for development.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department's policy is towards asylum seekers from Zimbabwe in spring 2002. [22474]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: All asylum claims made by Zimbabwean nationals are considered under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. The Home Office, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, closely monitors the situation in Zimbabwe. A country assessment on Zimbabwe is produced by the Home Office and published on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website. The assessment was revised in October 2001 and will be revised again in April 2002, taking into account the latest situation in Zimbabwe, particularly the presidential election that is due to be held there by April 2002.

    Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what locations the asylum seekers who left Cardiff prison last month were dispersed. [22184]

    Angela Eagle
    During the week commencing 12 November the remaining 20 immigration detainees held at Her Majesty's Prison Cardiff were transferred to Immigration Service detention facilities: 18 were transferred to Harmondsworth Detention Centre and two were transferred to Campsfield House Detention Centre.
    80W

    Legal Migration
    Mr. Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide controlled legal migration routes into the UK. [21128]

    Angela Eagle
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made reference to his plans for sensible, controlled legal migration routes into the United Kingdom in his statement to the House of Commons on 29 October. Details of an entry programme for highly skilled migrants were announced in a reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on 13 December 2001,Official Report, columns 1010–11W. Further details of specific managed migration policy proposals will be included in a White Paper to be published early in the new year.

    Prison Service
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the quality of management in the prison service. [21130]

    Beverley Hughes
    Evidence shows that performance in the Prison Service has been increasing year upon year. A key factor in this improvement is the overall quality of management in the Prison Service.

    Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made for the internment without trial of persons covered by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [21131]

    Mr. Blunkett
    None. No one is being interned. The provisions are allowing extended detention for suspected international terrorists who threaten national security and for whom there is no immediate prospect of removal requiring a limited derogation from European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) article 5 providing protection for the public and sending a strong signal to others.

    Banning Order Appeals
    Jeremy Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals have been held against banning orders under existing anti-terrorist legislation in the last six months. [21132]

    Mr. Blunkett
    Since the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations)(Amendment) Order 2001 came into force on 29 March, there have been five applications to the Home Secretary for deproscription.

    Four of those applications have so far been refused:

    Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT)

    Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK)

    International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)

    Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

    One application is still under consideration:
    Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C).

    Three organisations have appealed to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC):

    Lashkar e Tayyaba (IT)

    Mujaheddin e Khalq (MEK)

    International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF).

    81W

    Remand Prisoners
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with the installation of safe cells for remand prisoners. [21133]

    Beverley Hughes
    Progress with the installation of safer cells was summarised in my written replies to the hon. Member on 25 October 2001,Official Report, columns 229–30W. A total of 681 safer cells will be installed in prisons in 2001–02. These cells will be used for all categories of prisoners, including those on remand.

    Prison Health Service
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in improving links between the prison health service and the NHS. [21134]

    Beverley Hughes
    The first annual report of the Prison Health Policy Unit and Task Force, which was published last month, records the progress made during the first year of the partnership between the prison and national health services. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library. The text of the report is also available on the prison health section website of the Department of Health www.doh.gov.uk/prisonhealth.

    Drug Testing and Treatment Orders
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the introduction of drug testing and treatment orders. [21136]

    Beverley Hughes
    Between 1 October 2000, when the Drug Treatment and Testing Order was rolled out to courts in England and Wales, and 31 October 2001, 3,956 orders were made, of which 1,089 were revoked. Implementation of the order is being closely monitored by the National Probation Service and consideration is being given to how research can assist us to understand the longer-term effectiveness of this new court disposal. It is, however, still too early for any independently evaluated information on the effectiveness of the order since roll-out.

    The order had previously been piloted for 18 months in three areas. An independent evaluation of the pilot schemes found that on average there were significant reductions in the spending on illegal drugs and number of crimes committed by offenders subject to Drug Treatment and Testing Orders.

    Crime (Christmas Holiday)
    Kevin Brennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce crime over the Christmas period. [21137]

    Mr. Denham
    The Government's £1 million advertising campaign to cut drink driving was launched on 4 December and features new radio adverts to complement a major television offensive. Guidance has been issued to the police which will better co-ordinate the response of the emergency services to domestic violence. Publicity material has also been sent to police forces to assist local campaigns warning the public not to leave valuables on display in their home or cars.
    82W

    Police Auxiliaries
    Martin Linton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to appoint(a) police auxiliaries and (b) neighbourhood wardens in the Metropolitan police area. [21138]

    Mr. Denham
    The White Paper "Policing a New Century" outlines our proposals for developing the "Extended Police Family". This represents a major increase in the capacity of the police and others to provide an effective public presence giving reassurance and support for decent civil communities.

    The appointment of Community Support Officers is an operational matter for the Chief Officer and neighbourhood wardens are usually employed by a local authority.

    Police Numbers
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police officers. [21141]

    Mr. Denham
    By next spring police strength will have reached the all time record of 128,290 officers. I have set a target for police strength to reach 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

    To help forces reach these targets, the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) is funding the recruitment of 9,000 officers over and above forces previous recruitment plans in the three years to March 2003. In addition, the first ever national recruitment campaign for the police service was launched in August 2000. By early December 2001 over 45,000 expressions of interest generated by the campaign had been forwarded to forces.

    Rehabilitation
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on training and into work schemes undertaken by the correctional services to help rehabilitate offenders. [21142]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    The Prison Service and National Probation Service (NPS) are committed to improving the employability and employment of offenders.

    The Prison Service has a target of doubling the number of released prisoners getting jobs or training places by 2004, and pathfinder schemes in employment and resettlement are being developed by NPS in conjunction with the Employment Service and Prison Service respectively.

    Victims of Crime
    Mr. Allen
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 7, on victims of crime, if he will publish figures on the time it takes the police forces of the United Kingdom to answer telephone queries from the public; and if he will make a statement. [21157]

    Beverley Hughes
    The most recent information on call handling in forces in England and Wales was published on 16 October, Command Paper 230, in the "Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary 2000–01", a copy of which is placed in the Library. This covers 999
    83W
    calls only. Information on response times for non-emergency calls to the police is not collected centrally. Information on Scottish forces is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and, for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    Re-offending Rates
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on re-offending rates of discharged prisoners who have served sentences of more than two years, broken down by(a) prisons and (b) type of programmes provided within prisons in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 1998–99. [22443]

    Beverley Hughes
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Information on re-offending rates for discharged prisoners is not collected. However information on two-year reconviction rates is collected and published annually in Prison Statistics England and Wales. The latest reconviction rates cover prisoners discharged during 1997 and the first quarter of 1998 and are contained in chapter 9 of Prison Statistics England and Wales 2000 (Cm. 5250) a copy of which is available in the Library. Prisoners who have served sentences of two years or more will often have spent time in a number of prisons. It is therefore difficult to attribute reconviction rates to the impact of a particular prison.

    Two offending behaviour programmes within prisons have been evaluated using offenders' reconvictions following discharge. The following tables show the percentage of offenders (both treated and similar untreated offenders) who have been reconvicted of an offence within two years of discharge by risk category. Comparison group offenders were matched to those who had participated in treatment on factors which are known to increase the likelihood of reconviction eg age at discharge, number of previous offences etc. This is to ensure, as far as possible, that the evaluation was comparing like with like offenders.

    Table 1 refers to offenders who participated in two pre-accredited cognitive skills programmes (Thinking Skills and Reasoning and Rehabilitation). These offenders were treated between 1994 and 1996 and had been sentenced to two years or more. Table 2 refers to offenders who completed the pre-accredited Sex Offender Treatment Programme between 1992 and 1996 and had been sentenced to four years or more.

    Overall, the results illustrate that offenders who have participated in offending behaviour programmes have consistently lower reconviction rates, two years after discharge, than similar untreated offenders.

    Table 1. Evaluation of Prison Service cognitive skills programmes.

    Table 1—Evaluation of Prison Service Cognitive Skills Programmes.

    Percentage

    Offender risk level

    Treatment group reconviction rate

    Comparison group reconviction rate

    Difference between reconviction rates1

    Low

    5

    8

    3

    Medium-low

    18

    32

    14

    Medium-high

    43

    54

    11

    High

    75

    80

    5

    Adjusted overall

    44

    52

    8

    1 Percentage point reduction

    84W
    Note:

    1. Reconviction rates reflect the proportion of offenders reconvicted after two years. Offenders were treated between 1994 and 1996 before the accreditation process was introduced. The treatment group consists of 667 offenders and the comparison group consists of 1,801 offenders.

    2. The adjusted overall figure takes account of the different number of offenders in the treatment and comparison group.

    Table 2—Evaluation of Prison Service sex offender treatment programme

    Percentage

    Offender risk level

    Treatment group reconviction rate

    Comparison group reconviction rate

    Difference between reconviction rates 1

    Low

    1.9

    2.6

    0.7

    Medium-low

    2.7

    12.7

    10.0

    Medium-high

    5.5

    13.5

    8.0

    High

    26.0

    28.1

    2.1

    Adjusted overall

    4.6

    9.9

    5.3

    1 Percentage point reduction

    Note:

    Reconviction rates reflect the proportion of offenders reconvicted of a sexual and/or violent offence after two years. Offenders were treated between 1992 and 1996 before the accreditation process was introduced. The treatment group consists of 647 offenders and the comparison group consists of 1,910 offenders. The adjusted overall figure takes account of the different number of offenders in the treatment and comparison group.

    Rape Victims
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has in place to provide support to victims of rape; and what funding he provides to support rape victims. [22449]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    The Government are fully committed to meeting the needs of all victims of crime, particularly victims of serious crimes such as rape.

    The Government grant to victim support, which offers support to victims of all crime, including rape and other sexual crimes, has doubled from £11.7 million in May 1997 to £25 million in April 2001. In 2000–01, victim support offered help to almost 5,000 victims of rape.

    A first time grant, of £406,000, has been made available this financial year to the Rape Crisis Federation. The Federation provides training, support and consultancy services to the network of rape crisis groups across the country.

    From April 2001, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme has increased the minimum award paid to victims of rape by almost 50 per cent. (from £7,500 to £11,000).

    The 1998 Speaking Up for Justice report led to special measures being included in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to help rape victims face the ordeal of a court case. These measures included prohibiting the cross-examination of rape victims by the defendant in court, and further restrictions to limit the questions that rape victims can be asked under cross-examination about their previous sexual history.

    Schengen Information System
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on United Kingdom participation in the second generation Schengen information system. [14808]
    85W
    Angela Eagle
    In accordance with Council decision 2000/365/EC on the United Kingdom's partial participation in the Schengen acquis, the United Kingdom will participate in those aspects of the Schengen Information System (SIS) which relate to police and judicial co-operation, excluding Article 96 data on persons for immigration purposes. The United Kingdom is in the process of implementing the present system (SIS 1+) as part of its overall partial implementation of the Schengen acquis in the United Kingdom.

    The United Kingdom will participate in development of the second generation SIS(SIS II) for the same purposes.

    The Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted, at its meeting on 6–7 December, a regulation under the treaty establishing the European Community and a decision under the treaty on European Union on funding of the development of SIS II from the community budget; the United Kingdom has opted in to the adoption of the regulation in accordance with its title IV Protocol. A recital to both decisions makes it clear that the United Kingdom's participation is without prejudice to the arrangements set out in Council decision 2000/365/EC.

    While the primary aim of the next generation system (SIS II) is to increase its capacity for the new member state upon enlargement, the Council is also examining the scope for SIS II to have an increased range of functions and for a wider range of authorities to have access to SIS data.

    Foreign Nationals
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals are waiting to be extradited from the UK; and what is the longest period such a person has been waiting. [22482]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    117 persons are currently the subject of extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom. The figure includes those who may be United Kingdom nationals. The oldest case has been outstanding since July 1995.

    Correspondence
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Twickenham of 7 August regarding Mrs. Muriel Mason and family (ref. GV 100/52417); and when he will make a decision regarding the matter. [18007]

    Angela Eagle
    I wrote to the hon. Member on 14 December. I am sorry I did not reply sooner.

    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 10 September from the hon. Member for Putney with regard to his constituent Mrs. Marva Corrodus (Ref. C494223). [20350]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 14 December. I am sorry I did not send an earlier reply.

    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 11 and 25 October from the hon. Member for Putney with regard to his constituent Ms Megen Muller (Ref. M1002596). [20349]
    86W
    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 5 December 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 17 December. I am sorry I did not send an earlier reply.

    Mr. Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letters of 18 September and 17 October from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central regarding his constituent Mrs. S. B. A (reference A377560). [17474]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 23 November 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 14 December. I am sorry he did not receive an earlier reply.

    Dr. Dizaei
    Mr. Boris Johnson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the officers monitoring Dr Dizaei's telephone conversations on the police telephone network between September 1999 and January 2001 were part of the team investigating him. [21687]

    Mr. Denham
    The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the staff monitoring Superintendent Dizaei's telephone conversations on the police telephone network were not part of the team investigating him.

    Forced Marriages
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help is available in the Government's action plan to those who do not wish to make public the fact that they are being forced into marriage. [21616]

    Angela Eagle
    We have introduced a package of care to support victims of forced marriage, which includes help in escaping from the situation for those who want to.

    Information can be accessed and obtained in schools via the welfare officer, police stations, GP's surgeries, via the internet and the Community Liaison Unit at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have re-examined and identified ways in which staff in key posts overseas, handle forced marriage cases. Developing links and funding a number of women's refuges to provide support and accommodation to victims abroad. Further links are continuing to be developed with social services and other statutory agencies to ensure victims receive the support they need once they return to the United Kingdom.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures in the immigration rules protect British Muslims from being sent abroad to marry against their will. [21617]

    Angela Eagle
    The Immigration Rules are there to regulate the grant to overseas nationals of leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. They do not seek to regulate the control of British Nationals, entering or leaving the United Kingdom. However, the Government are tackling the problem of forced marriage in a number of ways.

    Included in the recent forced marriage progress report by the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office are some of the steps being taken to provide help, advice and support to victims and potential victims of forced marriage.
    87W
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have also published a leaflet, "Forced Marriages Abroad". This gives advice and guidance on what to do if someone fears they may be forced into a marriage, while abroad.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of a European Network of Contact Points in Respect of Persons Responsible for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes; which will be the UK contact point; what nature of information will be forwarded to other EU member states; if material relating to cases occurring prior to UK legislation being passed pertaining to the accused's crime will be passed on to the states where retrospectivity is in force for those offences; and in which instances spontaneous transmission will occur under Article 5. [22883]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    The Government support the establishment of such a network, which is the subject of a draft European Union (EU) Council decision being considered by member states. An explanatory memorandum was submitted for parliamentary scrutiny on 24 October. The network would exchange information relevant to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Government want to see the fullest possible exchange of such information, in respect of both formal requests and spontaneous transmission, and without limits on when events took place. Options for the UK contact point include National Criminal Intelligence Service and the UK Central Authority.

    Departmental Expenditure Limit
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [20675]

    Mr. Blunkett
    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 full retrospective costs.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19446]

    Mr. Blunkett
    The Home Office Departmental Annual Report for 2000–01 [C5106] contains the Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present year in Table 6, page 109. There has been no draw-down of the Department's DUP to date.

    Outturn against six month forecast for each request for resources will be published in the winter supplementary estimates summary request for supply as usual.

    Competitive Bidding
    Mr. Cameron
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the schemes administered 88W
    by (a) his Department and (b) its agencies where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process; and what was the amount of money allocated to each scheme. [19734]

    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Grant schemes administered by the Home Office, where a competitive bidding process has taken place, were allocated a total of approximately £340 million during this financial year. This has funded 226 projects under 17 schemes. The main grant schemes are as listed.

    £

    Grant scheme

    Allocation

    Active Community Grants

    17,042,532

    ACU Grants funded by Capital Modernisation Fund

    8,226,017

    Race Equality Unit—Summer Activities

    7,000,000

    Race Equality Unit—Connecting Communities

    5,000,000

    Family Support Grants (for voluntary organisations)

    2,000,000

    Research Challenge Fund

    260,000

    Refugee Integration Challenge Fund

    500,000

    Crime Reduction Programme

    51,500,000

    Crime Reduction Programme—CCTV Capital Grants

    70,000,000

    Partnership Development Fund

    2,100,000

    Electronic Chipping Initiative

    2,300,000

    Confiscated Assets Fund

    7,000,000

    Drug Prevention Advisory Service Grants

    1,907,000

    Crime Fighting Fund

    151,000,000

    The following grants schemes were approved by ministers during 2001, and will run until 2004:

    £

    Grant scheme

    Allocation

    Mentoring Fund Grants

    3,448,691

    Infrastructure Grants

    7,719,500

    Immigration and Nationality Directorate
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the application from Mrs. Susan Crwys-Williams, a constituent of Cheltenham, sent by recorded delivery (Ref: RB 13663205GB) on 15 October, for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse of a UK citizen, will be logged on the system of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; when he expects a decision to be made on her application; and what compensation is payable by his Department to those applicants who have purchased air tickets in advance to travel abroad at Christmas on the expectation that applications will be dealt with in the time period advertised. [22141]

    Angela Eagle
    The application has been decided. Mrs. Crwys-Williams' passport and other documents were returned by recorded delivery on 7 December.

    Compensation will not normally be offered to applicants who have made travel plans in the expectation that their application would be completed within any particular time scale. Information on the application form and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website about the likely time scales for processing applications is intended for guidance only and should not be taken to imply that any application will necessarily be completed within that time scale. The website currently advises

    89W
    applicants not to make non-urgent travel plans such as holidays until the outcome of the application is known and their documents have been returned. If an applicant wishes to travel their documents will be returned but applications will not normally be considered out of turn.

    Conviction Statistics
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definitions are used for(a) convicted after trial rate in Crown courts in quarterly Business Information and (b) percentage of those pleading not guilty convicted for persons tried at the Crown court in Table 6C of Criminal Statistics. [22281]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    The "Convicted after contested trial rate" in the Criminal Justice Business Quarterly Report focuses on those defendants, from Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) records, who pleaded not guilty in the Crown court, no guilty pleas being entered, and a jury was sworn in. The resultant contested hearings include those resulting in a judge directed acquittal as well as those convicted or acquitted on the verdict of the jury.

    The "Percentage of those pleading not guilty convicted" given in Table 6C of Criminal Statistics England and Wales is derived from Crown court records and focuses on a larger group of defendants. Non-CPS prosecutions are included as well as some defendants who pleaded not guilty to the principal offence and guilty to other charges. A jury trial may not have occurred and those not convicted include judge-ordered acquittals, judge-directed acquittals and jury acquittals.

    Corporate Manslaughter
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the criminal justice system as it relates to corporate manslaughter. [22291]

    Offenders convicted under the Explosives Acts, England and Wales, 1996 to 2000

    Total number convicted

    Principal statute

    Offence description

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    20001

    Explosives Act 1875 (except sec. 80) and Orders in Council and rules thereunder2

    Manufacture and keeping of gunpowder and other explosives

    24

    28

    16

    21

    17

    Explosives Act 1923 and Orders in Council and rules thereunder2

    Offences in relation to explosives, firearms etc.

    Fireworks Act 19512

    Offences in relation to dangerous fireworks and making of fireworks etc.

    Explosives Act 1875 sec. 80

    Throwing, casting or firing any fireworks in or into any highway, street, etc. public place

    34

    49

    36

    27

    40

    Total

    58

    77

    52

    48

    57

    1 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for convictions at magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table

    2 Data for these offences are not separately identifiable on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database

    Note:

    All data are given on a principal offence basis

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Public Service Agreement target to plan and meet electronic Government needs was achieved. [21288]
    90W
    Mr. Keith Bradley
    We have considered responses to our consultation paper "Reforming the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter" which included our proposals in relation to corporate manslaughter. We will legislate on this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    Resource Allocation
    Mr. Syms
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give(a) the reasons for the projected change in net provision of money for fire and emergency planning in 2001–02, (b) details of those areas of action which have received less funding than was provided for at the commencement of financial year 2001–02 and (c) examples of measures which are funded under Request for Resource 1-H. [22132]

    Mr. Blunkett
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: As a result of Machinery of Government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 8 June 2001, resources were transferred to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for the Fire Service, and to the Lord Chancellor's Department for Remembrance Day in line with the transfer of responsibilities.

    No areas have received less funding than was provided for at the start of the financial year. The reduction in resources is wholly attributable to the Machinery of Government transfer.

    The remaining resources under Request for Resources 1-H fund the Emergency Planning function. These resources are also subject to the Machinery of Government changes and will be transferred to the Cabinet Office in the spring.

    Explosives Offences
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have been recorded for offences under the Explosives Acts in each of the last five years. [22349]

    Beverley Hughes
    The information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database relating to England and Wales for the years 1996–2000 is given in the table.

    Mr. Blunkett
    The proportion of my Department's services capable of electronic delivery is currently 47 per cent. By the end of 2002, this should have risen to about 70 per cent. This compares with the Government's target of 25 per cent. by 2002.
    91W
    My Department's e-Business Strategy is published on the internet. The body of the strategy can be found at http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ebusiness/stratmain.pdf. The appendixes are at http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ebusiness/stratapp.pdf.

    Appendix A lists Home Office services and progress towards their e-enablement.

    Departmental Sickness
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days were lost due to sickness absence in his Department in each of the last four years. [21346]

    Mr. Blunkett
    The average number of working days lost due to sickness absence in the Home Office is as follows:

    1998: 10.4

    1999: 11.1.

    Figures for 2000 and 2001 are not currently available.

    The Home Office and its agencies have introduced new guidelines, policies and procedures with a view to meeting its target to reducing sickness absence, published in its Service Delivery Agreements for April 2001 to March 2004.

    Crime and Disorder
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the budget allocations for local crime and disorder reduction partnerships under the safer communities initiative. [21667]

    Mr. Denham
    We are working on plans for a safer communities initiative (SCI) as a coherent and consistent framework for delivering crime reduction funding to local crime and disorder partnerships, to help them tackle crime and disorder in their areas, to meet local and national crime reduction priorities.

    We aim to announce detailed arrangements for the safer communities initiative soon.

    Joint Entry Clearance Unit
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to visit the Joint Entry Clearance Unit. [18748]

    Angela Eagle
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not yet visited the Joint Entry Clearance Unit and has no immediate plans to do so. However, I visited on 12 November and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker, Minister for Immigration and Asylum, visited on 4 July.

    Alcohol
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the trend in the incidence of youth disturbance involving the intake of alcohol in the last three years. [20984]

    Mr. Denham
    The information requested is not routinely collected by police forces or held centrally. Youth disturbance may vary from nuisance behaviour through to more serious disorder and criminal activity.
    92W
    Tackling the problems associated with underage drinking is a key objective of the Home Office action plan on alcohol-related crime, disorder and nuisance. The most recent Youth Lifestyles Survey, published in October 2000, showed that 15 per cent. of young people aged 12 to 17 admitted to committing some form of antisocial behaviour during or after drinking—most often getting into a heated argument. Frequent drinkers were also more likely to have behaved antisocially.

    We have strengthened the law, from 1 December, to go further in tackling the sale of alcohol to underage drinkers. Section 30 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now places a positive duty on staff in licensed premises to check the age of young customers before selling alcohol, and section 31 provides a power for the police and local authorities to enforce the law by using under-18s to make test purchases. We expect these important new measures to assist in our determination to tackle under-age drinking as part of our wider programme to reduce youth crime and antisocial behaviour.

    Illegal Immigration
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his meeting with the French Minister for the Interior at the United Kingdom-France summit held on 29 November in relation to cross-channel illegal immigration and the effectiveness of checks conducted on persons and vehicles. [22399]

    Angela Eagle
    The Home Secretary and Daniel Vaillant did not meet at the UK-French summit on 29 November. Interior Minister Vaillant was forced to cancel his participation at the last minute due to his involvement in detailed negotiations with the French Police Unions.

    However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Monsieur Lionel Jospin the French Prime Minister had an hour long bilateral during which they discussed among other issues the Red Cross Centre at Sangatte and the Civil Penalty. Discussions also took place between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and his French counterpart M. Moscovici. In addition to formal meetings at ministerial level, officials on both sides meet regularly to discuss proposals to combat illegal immigration between our two countries.

    Victim Support
    Mrs. Betty Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the victim support scheme. [21147]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    The National Audit Office is currently conducting a study of Victim Support, which is an independent organisation and the principal supplier, on behalf of the Home Office, of services for victims of crime and witnesses.

    Contingency Planning
    Mr. Moss
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representatives from(a) devolved Administrations, (b) local authorities and (c) London have been invited to sit on the (i) Civil Contingencies Committee and (ii) the Sub-Committee on UK Resilience. [19591]
    93W
    Mr. Blunkett
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 5 November 2001,Official Report, columns 6–8W, about the terms of reference and composition of the Civil Contingencies Committee (CCC) and its Sub-committees. The hon. Member will also be aware of the letter I wrote to individual Members of this House on 9 November explaining how the Civil Contingencies Secretariat is exercising its support responsibilities.

  WALES

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department since May 1997. [17617]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    This information is not held centrally.

    Heart Operations
    Ann Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Health Secretary in the National Assembly about steps to reduce the waiting time for a heart operation similar to those announced for England on 6 December. [23493]

    Mr. Touhig
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet regularly with the National Assembly First Minister and Health Minister to discuss the NHS in Wales.

    The Assembly is exploring with the Department for Health a range of options including some outside the Welsh NHS. At present, where it is appropriate, cardiac patients are offered the opportunity to receive their treatment in England, notably at the Hammersmith Hospital, co-ordinated by the Specialised Health Services Commission for Wales.

    The target by the end of March 2002 is that no patient needing routine cardiac surgery should wait more than 12 months for treatment. By 2003–04 the target is that cardiac waiting time will have further reduced to six months and then down to three months by 2006–07.

    Absence
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in each of the last four years. [21333]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    In conjunction with the National Assembly for Wales, which manages my Department's personnel functions under the terms of a service level agreement, we are committed to achieving substantial reductions in the number of days lost through sickness.

    The average number of working days sickness absence per staff year were as follows:

    Number

    1996

    9.0

    1997

    8.3

    1998

    7.6

    1999

    7.6

    94W
    Notes:

    1. Details cover the most recent four years for which data are available.

    2. Figures for 1996–98 relate to Welsh Office, Cadw and Estyn (formerly OHMCI).

    3.1999 figures relate to Welsh Office, Cadw and Estyn up to 30 June, and to Wales Office: National Assembly for Wales, Cadw and Estyn from 1 July.

    New Deal (Young People)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21318]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    None at present. The Wales Office is staffed entirely by secondees from other organisations and so does not undertake its own external recruitment. But I should be delighted if people employed through new deal were to offer themselves for secondment to my Department.

    Departmental Expenditure Limits
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the increase in the departmental expenditure limit from 2001–02 to 2002–03 will be accounted for by wage costs. [21237]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    The departmental expenditure limit which is available for the Wales Office's own expenditure, after payment of block grant to the National Assembly for Wales, is not set to increase between 2001–02 and 2003–04.

    Departmental Staff (Home Working)
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21831]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    My Department is staffed entirely by secondees, predominantly from the National Assembly for Wales. We adopt the same approach to home working as does the Assembly; currently one member works regularly from home.

    Regulations
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many regulations his Department has been consulted by other Government Departments since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made by his Department of the cost of UK Government regulations to business in Wales over the last 12 months; and what representations his Department has made to other Government Departments seeking to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses in Wales. [21968]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues, and my Department is routinely consulted, about the impact of Government policies on business in Wales. The Wales Office has itself undertaken no regulatory impact assessments during the past 12 months.
    95W

  SCOTLAND

    Ferry Services
    Mr. Alan Reid
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which businesses were consulted by Steer Davies Gleave while they were compiling, on her behalf, the feasibility study for a ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle; what questions were asked of the businesses; by what means Steer Davies Gleave advertised to businesses the fact that they were compiling the study; what fee was charged by Steer Davies Gleave; and when and where she will make the report available to the public. [17299]

    Mr. Foulkes
    [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The Scotland Office appointed Steer Davies Gleave to undertake a transport and economic appraisal of the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry in consultation with the Scottish and Northern Irish Executives and after a competitive tendering process. The fee paid to the consultants was £18,600. In the course of their work on this study, I understand that the consultants questioned a number of companies within the local areas of Kintyre and Moyle and beyond to assist them in evaluating the likely usage and benefits from a new ferry service.

    A copy of the final report will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what weight will be given to public opinion in Scotland in completing her consultation on MSP numbers; [23390]

    (2) when she intends to conclude her consultation period on considering the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament; and how soon thereafter she will publish the results. [23391]

    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she plans to publish her consultation document of the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. [23808]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I expect to make an announcement shortly about the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament.

    Scottish Executive Officers (International Arrangements)
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Government give direct financial support to fund Scottish Executive officers working internationally under arrangements made with the Scotland Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [23606]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Scottish Executive officers working overseas are funded by the Scottish Executive. However, the full resources of the British embassies overseas are available to assist the executive as well as the other devolved Administrations.

    Friends of Scotland
    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people outside the United Kingdom have signed up to the Friends of Scotland initiative since it was launched. [23605]
    96W
    Mrs. Liddell
    There is no requirement for people abroad to "sign up" to the Friends of Scotland initiative. I have contacted diplomatic missions to inform them of the initiative and to seek their assistance in taking it forward.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scotland Office staff members are working full-time in the Friends of Scotland unit. [23602]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Currently there are two full-time officials working on the Friends of Scotland initiative. Recruitment of further staff is under way and secondments from the private sector are being explored.

    Angus Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many target overseas participants the Scotland Office has for the Friends of Scotland initiative in the first(a) six months and (b) 12 months of operation. [23601]

    Mrs. Liddell
    The first meeting of the advisory committee will take place on Tuesday 18 December, at which the issues and targets will be discussed.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Capital Punishment (USA)
    Vera Baird
    To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the state of Georgia, USA, regarding the proposed execution of British national Tracey House1; and if he will make a statement. [23392]

    The Prime Minister
    The Government are taking what steps we properly can. The Consul General in Atlanta has recently written to the Governor of Georgia underlining the Government's opposition to the death penalty and asking the Georgia authorities to commute Mr. Housel's sentence to a term of imprisonment.

    Project for the Successor Generations
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on contacts since 1 May 1997 between Ministers and the British/American project for the successor generations. [23184]

    The Prime Minister
    The British/American project aims to strengthen the vital and longstanding relationship between the US and UK. As part of that process, it arranges meetings, including with Ministers, for young leaders from the business, economic, professional, cultural, artistic, governmental, academic, scientific, medical, military and social life of the two countries.

    Policy Announcements
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister if his undertaking that announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament prevents(a) special advisers and (b) civil servants briefing the media before such an announcement. [23181]

    The Prime Minister
    In their response to the report from the Public Administration Select Committee on the Ministerial Code, the Government made clear that when the House is sitting announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, to Parliament. Contacts between civil servants, including special
    97W
    advisers, and the media are conducted in accordance with the Guidance for the Government Information Service and the GICS Handbook.

    Waste Policy
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister whether the published review of waste policy being undertaken by the performance and innovation unit will constitute formal planning guidance to waste disposal authorities. [23186]

    The Prime Minister
    No. The performance and innovation unit will look at the whole range of issues around delivery of the waste strategy, which will include planning issues. Any recommendations or conclusions which the PIU may draw will not constitute formal planning guidance but will inform future policy.

    Minister for Retail
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to create a Minister for retail. [23319]

    The Prime Minister
    one. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is responsible for the retail sector. Additionally, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Business champions the interests of small retailers and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) is responsible for issues specific to food and drink retailing.

    BioIndustry Association
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met Mr. Simon Best, deputy chairman of the BioIndustry Association; and what the purpose of each meeting was. [23243]

    The Prime Minister
    I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of such meetings.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Lobbying
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance is provided to Government bodies in respect of the expenditure on funds on lobbying activities; and if he will make a statement. [23189]

    Mr. Leslie
    All contacts with lobbyists are conducted in accordance with the guidance on contacts with lobbyists which is set out in the Directory of Civil Service Guidance, Volume 2. Copies of the Directory are in the Library of the House and on the Cabinet Office website http: //www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/guidance/two/default.htm. Any departmental expenditure will be conducted in accordance with the guidance on Government Accounting.

    E-envoy
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the annual report from the e-envoy will be published. [23271]
    98W
    Mr. Leslie
    The Ukonline annual report was published on 4 December, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available at www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/champions/anrep menu.htm.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target for introducing new development and training packages for Departments' staff. [21250]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Cabinet Office has delivered training packages and other new developments to extend the skills of staff and enhance their leadership potential as part of the Government's programme of Civil Service reform.

    The Centre for Management and Policy Studies is promoting improved leadership across the Civil Service through an updated group of corporate development programmes and networks for the Senior Civil Service, including interactive e-learning, and through a wide range of re-focused training programmes for staff at all levels.

    Other developments aimed at improving the quality of leadership across the wider public sector include the Public Service Leaders Scheme which brings together young high potential middle-ranking officials from the wider public sector and the Civil Service for a two-year development programme. The new Pathways Programme is a two-year Senior Leadership Development Programme designed to identify and develop senior managers from ethnic minorities. We have also introduced a bursary scheme to enable civil servants with disabilities to achieve leadership potential.

    Details of these activities have been placed in the Library of the House.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Magistrates Courts
    Simon Hughes
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which magistrates courts in England and Wales closed in each year since 1992; what plans there are for future closures; and if he will make a statement. [21644]

    Mr. Wills
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the noble Lord Phillips of Sudbury by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on 12 November 2001,Official Report, House of Lords, column WA49. Since that answer we have subsequently been advised that Gravesend courthouse in Kent closed on 9 June 2000. This information was not available at the time the answer was given.

    I am aware that 11 magistrates courts committees are currently considering courthouse closures. These are Warwickshire, Wiltshire, Surrey, Durham, North Yorkshire, Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, West Mercia, West Midlands, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority and Staffordshire.
    99W
    Magistrates courts committees are not statutorily required to inform the Lord Chancellor's Department of proposed courthouse closures which are not subject to an appeal by its paying authority or authorities.

    It is the Government's policy that decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates courts are for each magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities.

    Justices of the Peace
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what is the payment made to justices of the peace for a daily loss of earnings; and when this payment was last(a) reviewed and (b) increased. [22484]

    Mr. Wills
    The amount payable to justices who are self employed for loss of earnings is £41.78 for sitting up to four hours and £83.56 for over four hours. As the Inland Revenue treat this allowance as compensating for loss of profits self employed justices are liable to pay tax. The amounts payable to employed justices are £32.17 for sitting up to four hours and £64.34 for over four hours.

    The rates at which allowances are paid are reviewed annually by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The allowances were reviewed earlier this year and the new rates became payable on 1 September 2001.

    Departmental Sickness
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many days were lost due to sickness absence by staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [22834]

    Ms Rosie Winterton
    The number of days lost due to sickness absence is collected, averaged to show working days lost per person per annum for each Department, and published annually by the Cabinet Office in the reports "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". For the Lord Chancellor's Department(including agencies), the last four published figures (in working days lost per person per annum) are as follows:

    1996: 10.7 days

    1997: 10.7 days

    1996: 10.7 days

    1999: 10.0 days.

    The Department is committed to managing sick absence effectively and has set targets for reducing sickness absence in its Service Delivery Agreement (SDA).

    Gravesend County Court
    Mr. Pond
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were dealt with by Gravesend county court in each six-month period beginning from January 1999. [18429]

    Mr. Wills
    [pursuant to his reply, 27 November 2001,830W]: Certain work load information was inadvertently omitted. This concerned the total number of default and fixed date claims issued and how many mortgage and rent possession actions were made. A revised table follows.
    100W

    Claims issued, small claims hearings and possession applications heard at Gravesend county court during selected periods

    Total claims issued1

    Small claims hearings

    Mortgage and rent possession applications

    January to June 1999

    769

    46

    197

    July to December 1999

    802

    34

    252

    January to June 2000

    699

    33

    215

    July to December 2000

    724

    35

    182

    January to June 2001

    575

    17

    190

    July to October 2001

    531

    21

    187

    1 Includes default and fixed date claims

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Employment Tribunals
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970 to allow for an extension of the time limit beyond six months from termination of employment for bringing an equal value pay claim before an employment tribunal. [15072]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Under the Equal Pay Act 1970 a woman (or man) may bring a claim within six months of the time when she (or he) was last employed in that job for equal work, that is: or like work, work rated as equivalent, or work which is unlike but which the claimant believes is of equal value. Reference was made to time limits which apply in equal pay cases in the "Review of Women's Employment and Pay" published on 5 December by Denise Kingsmill CBE. That review made proposals to deliver improvements to women's employment prospects and reduce the pay gap between women and men. However, there was no formal recommendation made on tribunal time limits. The Government have received no other recent representations.

    Telecom Services
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce regulations to ensure that customers of telecoms companies can transfer existing numbers between suppliers of telecom services. [16812]

    Mr. Alexander
    [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The regulation of telecoms operators is the responsibility of Oftel. All telecoms operators are subject to a licence condition, enforced by Oftel, which obliges them to provide number portability when customers switch networks, wherever that is reasonable.

    We are now considering whether action is needed to ensure the regulatory framework meets the challenges of a competitive market.

    Grant Schemes
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the grant schemes administered by her Department; [18529]

    (2) if she will list the grant schemes to be administered by her Department following its restructuring under each of the five portfolio headings; [18528]
    101W
    (3) if she will list those business grant schemes administered by her Department which she proposes to abolish. [18530]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 27 November 2001]:Grant schemes form part of my Department's wider programme of expenditure in support of business. The Review of Business Support has so far identified 183 business support programmes operated by my Department, of which 59 provide grants direct to business. A number of these programmes consist of a range of sub-activities. The review is continuing to analyse this information to ensure all relevant programmes and business support activities have been identified. Decisions about whether and where these programmes fit in the new portfolio system will be made later in the review.

    Energy Sector
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total(a) direct and (b) indirect Government support for the energy sector, including oil and gas production, was in each year since 1990. [18831]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 28 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 16 November 2001, Official Report, columns 918–19W. Direct support for oil and gas production is set out in the table.

    Since 1998 the Government have also worked with the oil and gas industry through the Oil and Gas Industry Task Force, now PILOT, to identify and deliver the measures necessary to ensure continued profitable activity on the UK Continental Shelf. The industry has made clear to me that they see PILOT as playing a crucial role in getting investment back to 1998 levels. Capital expenditure on UKCS projects was near £3 billion in 2000 and looks set to be substantially higher this year, and oil and gas production remains at peak levels of 4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day.

    Sustained Hydrocarbons Additional Recovery Programme (SHARP) and predecessor programmes:

    Financial year

    £ million

    1989–90

    5.000

    1990–91

    5.631

    1991–92

    5.087

    1992–93

    5.196

    1993–94

    5.000

    1994–95

    4.400

    1995–96

    4.400

    1996–97

    2.251

    1997–98

    3.215

    1998–99

    2.963

    1999–2000

    2.857

    2000–01

    2.731

    2001–02

    11400

    1To date

    Support for the development of new products and services and competitiveness improvement within the UK oil and gas supplies sector:

    Financial year

    £million

    1989–90

    2.316

    1990–91

    2.958

    1991–92

    3.12

    102W

    Financial Year

    £ million

    1992–93

    2.671

    1993–94

    2.718

    1994–95

    2.34

    1995–96

    4.04

    1996–97

    2.603

    1997–98

    1.657

    1998–99

    1.667

    1999–2000

    1.65

    2000–01

    1.537

    2001–02

    1.71

    1 Total

    Correspondence
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter of 22 October from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire on Harrington Generators International. [21471]

    Ms Hewitt
    The matters raised were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for procurement has written to the hon. Member.

    Departmental Strategy Board
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if there will be engineers on her Department's Strategy Board. [21505]

    Ms Hewitt
    I am currently considering the criteria to be applied for the appointment of three non-executive members of the Strategy Board. I expect to make the appointments before 1 April 2002, and will announce them when they are made. We will be adopting an open and transparent procedure for making these appointments and I shall be making an announcement on this procedure in due course.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the savings have been resulting from hedging the cost of interest make-up on fixed rate export finance loans offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last 20 years. [21976]

    Ms Hewitt
    ECGD's interest rate hedging activity protects against the risk of increased support costs arising from adverse interest rate movements under the Fixed Rate Export Finance (FREF) scheme.

    ECGD began hedging its exposure 15 years ago, using interest rate swaps. During the previous five years, the total net cost of FREF interest support, without hedging, was £2,189 million. Over the following 15 years, up to and including 2000–01, the total net cost of support was £1,703 million, within which the net cost of interest rate swaps was £319 million. The yearly breakdown of net swap costs over the period was as follows:

    Year

    £ million

    1986–87

    4.4

    1987–88

    10.2

    1988–89

    -6.2

    1989–90

    -27.4

    1990–91

    -3.6

    1991–92

    13.1

    103W

    Year

    – million

    1992–93

    37.9

    1993–94

    48.1

    1994–95

    48.7

    1995–96

    15.6

    1996–97

    37.4

    1997–98

    29.8

    1998–99

    21.7

    1999–2000

    71.6

    2000–01

    12.9

    318.9

    Future outturn will depend on future interest rate movements and business volumes.

    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the reasons for which the annually managed expenditure of the Export Credit Guarantees Department has risen. [22195]

    Ms Hewitt
    Annually managed expenditure (AME) for the Export Credits Guarantee Department has risen due to the extra cost needed to unwind interest rate swaps. These swaps were used to hedge interest make up (IMU) costs on fixed rate export finance loans and commitments being guaranteed by ECGD. These loans are now being refinanced using direct funding from HM Treasury, as this produces greater value for money in terms of cost and hedging uncertainty. AME estimates have risen as the cost of unwinding swaps in the financial markets has increased since the AME forecast figures were last published at the time of the Budget 2001.

    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the impact of the processes of and terms offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department on the competitiveness of UK aviation exports. [23283]

    Ms Hewitt
    The major aircraft financing support for Airbus and Rolls Royce is governed by the OECD Consensus Large Aircraft Sector Understanding Arrangements.

    Officials at ECGD together with those from its European partners, Hermes (Germany) and Coface (France) have been reviewing their products which are applicable to this agreement and intend to announce new products by 30 March 2002.

    This review and product development has been carried out in consultation with the major manufacturers and they are broadly happy with progress to date. These products as a package are intended to match those provided to Boeing by the US authorities.

    Together, the three Export Credit Agencies which provide support to Airbus and Rolls Royce continue to match the needs for support placed on them by these manufacturers especially since September 11 this year.

    Tom Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what power projects planned in(a) the Philippines and (b) Thailand, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has agreed to support; and which UK companies are involved; [23282]
    104W
    (2) what power projects the Export Credits Guarantee Department has provided support for in (a) the Philippines and (b) Thailand during the last five years; and which UK companies are involved. [23281]

    Ms Hewitt
    In the Philippines ECGD has provided support for the following power project.

    Year/description

    UK investor

    Insured amount ($ million)

    2000

    Overseas Investment Insurance for San Lorenzo Project: 500 MW gas fired combined cycle power station

    British Gas (BG Group plc)

    122

    In Thailand ECGD has provided support for the following power projects:

    Year/description

    Exporter

    Contract value (£ million)

    1997

    Mini Hydros for Provincial Electricity Authority

    Balfour Beatty

    9

    2000

    Pluak Daeng substation for the Electricity Generating Authority

    Va Tech Reyrolle

    7

    ECGD has not currently agreed to support any future power projects in these countries.

    Combined Heat and Power Schemes
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what proportions of energy supply is supplied by combined heat and power schemes; [22332]

    (2) what proportion of the UK's energy requirements were produced by combined heat and power schemes in each of the last 10 years. [22334]

    Mr. Wilson
    The available information is as follows. CHP statistics were not compiled on an annual basis before 1993.

    Percentage

    Proportion of UK gross inland energy consumption from CHP

    Proportion of electricity Proportion of UK gross supplied (gross) by all UK generating companies provided by CHP

    1993

    2.8

    4.0

    1994

    2.7

    3.4

    1995

    3.2

    4.8

    1996

    3.0

    4.8

    1997

    3.0

    5.1

    1998

    3.1

    5.5

    1999

    3.1

    5.8

    2000

    3.1

    6.5

    Source:

    Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001 Tables 6A (and corresponding tables in earlier Digests), 1.11 and 5.12

    While electricity generated by CHP schemes has almost doubled since 1993, heat generation has increased by only 6 per cent. This is because gas turbines working at a

    105W
    higher power to heat ratio have increasingly displaced steam turbines (with lower power to heat ratios) as the main prime movers in CHP plant.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions she has had with BNFL regarding identification of new storage sites for nuclear waste; and if she will make a statement; [22345]

    (2) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding proposals to remove nuclear waste from current storage containers in Scotland and the construction of new storage containers; [22347]

    (3) what discussions she has had with BNFL regarding removal of nuclear waste in Scotland from current storage; and if she will make a statement; [22346]

    (4) what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding storage of nuclear waste at nuclear installations in Scotland. [22348]

    Mr. Wilson
    None.

    Liabilities Management Authority
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) Thorp and (b) the Sellafield MOX plant will be transferred to the Liabilities Management Authority; and if she will make a statement. [22115]

    Mr. Wilson
    It is important that Sellafield continues to be managed as a single, unified site. Therefore Thorp and the Sellafield MOX plant will be transferred to the Liabilities Management Authority (LMA) following its establishment. The necessary legislation will be brought forward in due course.

    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial contribution BNFL will make towards the decommissioning of(a) Thorp and (b) the Sellafield MOX plant; and if she will make a statement. [22114]

    Mr. Wilson
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry indicated in her statement to the House on 28 November, the Government intend that a Liabilities Management Authority (LMA) will take on responsibility for the UK's historic public sector civil nuclear liabilities and the associated assets including funds earmarked by BNFL for decommissioning and clean-up.

    It is important that Sellafield continues to be managed as a unified site. Therefore once the LMA is established, ownership of both Thorp and the Sellafield MOX plant will transfer from BNFL to the LMA. The expectation is that the commercial revenues from these plants will be sufficient to fund their decommissioning costs.

    Wind Farms
    Mark Tami
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to encourage the development of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom. [22333]

    Mr. Wilson
    The Government are vigorously encouraging the development of all forms of renewable energy including wind energy, both onshore and offshore.106W
    The main mechanism through which this development will be supported is the Renewables Obligation and the associated Renewables Obligation Scotland. This will oblige all licensed electricity suppliers in Great Britain to supply a specified and growing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. The Obligation will create a long-term market incentive for renewables which taken with the exemption of renewables electricity from the climate change levy (CCL) and continuing support for NFFO projects, is expected to be worth over £1 billion by 2010.

    The Government have put in place substantial direct funding specifically for the development of offshore wind farms. A total of £74 million has been allocated in the form of capital grants to support the development of this young industry. This fund of £74 million includes £25 million of the £100 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last March, £39 million from the DTI and £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund.

    The Government have also recently consulted on the offshore consents process, and plan to bring forward a streamlined approach which should make it easier for project developers to get their projects up and running.

    It is very encouraging that 18 projects for the wind farms successfully pre-qualified for seabed leases from the Crown Estate earlier this year.

    BAE Systems
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions the Government have had with BAE Systems about job losses at their Woodford site; and if she will make a statement. [21770]

    Mr. Wilson
    My officials are already in close touch with BAE Systems. The North West Regional Development Agency and the local Employment Service are also working closely with the company but I am looking carefully at arrangements to ensure that Government are deploying their resources as effectively as possible to mitigate the effect of the Regional Jet programme closure.

    The prospects for the aerospace sector in the medium to long term remain robust.

    E-commerce
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the need for international agreements on the practice of e-commerce. [22299]

    Mr. Alexander
    The Government believe it is important that we have a clear, coherent, pro-competitive and predictable international framework for e-commerce and are working for this at European and global levels through our bilateral and multilateral channels. To be effective, this work needs the involvement of Governments, providers and consumers. The Government therefore believe that co-regulation is often the most appropriate way to address many international e-commerce issues, such as cross-border Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and mutual recognition between e-commerce codes of conduct.

    The UK is a party to a number of bilateral and multilateral arrangements which apply to commerce generally including e-commerce
    107W
    Multilaterally, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is discussing a possible convention on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and this would cover e-commerce unless a decision is taken to exclude such transactions. The UK is playing a full part in these negotiations.

    Energy Industry
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the need for Government subsidy of the energy industry. [22296]

    Mr. Wilson
    An assessment of the need for Government support in the energy sector is one aspect of the current Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) review of energy policy which is due to report by the end of the year. However, creating the right framework for competitive markets will remain a central part of Government policy.

    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made that the projections in Energy Paper 68 remain credible; and what plans she has to produce new projections. [22344]

    Mr. Wilson
    The projections made in Energy Paper 68, published in November 2000, are long-term projections. At this stage there is no reason to believe that the projections are anything other than soundly based for longer-term assessments. There are no plans to update the projections in the immediate future.

    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions during the last 24 months the monthly average price of(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) coal has been within the range of the medium/long-term high and low fuel price projections contained in Energy Paper 68; and on how many occasions prices of each of the fuels have been (i) above and (ii) below these ranges. [22343]

    Mr. Wilson
    The table shows, by number of months, how crude oil prices during the last 24 months have compared with the EP68 assumptions for the years 2005 and 2010.

    2005

    2010

    Within range

    2

    2

    Above range

    22

    22

    Below range

    0

    0

    The table shows, by number of months, how gas prices during the last 24 months have compared with the EP68 assumptions for the years 2005 and 2010.

    2005

    2010

    Within range

    17

    20

    Above range

    7

    4

    Below range

    0

    0

    International coal prices have remained within the medium and long-term range assumed in EP68 in every month during the last 24 months.

    Results may differ according to the exact comparator used.The potential for prices to move outside the assumed long-term ranges was acknowledged in EP68.
    108W

    British Coal
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the arrangements for apportioning surpluses in the pre-privatisation pension schemes for the former employees of British Coal. [19341]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The agreement that was reached in 1994 with the Trustees of pension schemes for former British Coal staff and employees has supported the schemes' investment strategies, and has meant that members' have been awarded bonuses totalling around 30 per cent. These bonus awards are additional to the inflation linked increases applied to pensions each year to maintain their real value. The Government regularly review all information that they receive on these issues, and expect to be able to make a further announcement shortly.

    Power Lines
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the information contained in recent correspondence from the hon. Member for Vale of York on the health effects of electromagnetic fields; and if she will impose a moratorium on the proposed Lackenby to Shipton overhead transmission line; [21951]

    (2) if she will (a)revoke her decision to proceed with the Lackenby to Shipton overhead transmission line and (b)enhance the power of the existing line through the Vale of York. [21952]

    Mr. Wilson
    While we are always interested to note the hon. Member's representations, development consent was granted for the North Yorkshire power line in March 1998 and it is now up to the National Grid Company to implement that decision.

    Enron
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Secretary of State has made of the implications of the new ownership of the former Enron power station in Teesside; and if she will make a statement. [21965]

    Mr. Wilson
    If a transfer of ownership qualifies for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, it will be for the Office of Fair Trading to advise me on whether to refer the merger to the Competition Commission. If, on the other hand, it falls under the European Community Merger Regulation, it will be for the European Commission to consider it.

    Gas Supplies
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage loss of gas supply(a) during a 1 in 20 peak demand and (b) during an average peak demand on the gas system in (i) winter 2001–02 and (ii) winter 2005–06 would trigger emergency measures under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 or Energy Act 1976. [22340]

    Mr. Wilson
    It is not possible to define when such measures might be triggered. Losses of supply can occur at any time and not just in periods of peak demand.
    109W
    Transco (who manage the National Gas Transmission System) are already empowered to take significant steps to mitigate against losses of supply. These are set out in Transco's Network Gas Supply Emergency Procedures which are tested regularly. I have arranged for copies of the procedures to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

    If the situation arose, it is likely that the powers contained in the Energy Act 1976 would be sufficient to handle a gas supply emergency.

    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency planning her Department undertakes with(a) the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, (b) Transco, (c) the National Grid Company and (d) the Health and Safety Executive to prepare for disruption to supplies of gas; and if she will make a statement. [22342]

    Mr. Wilson
    We have set up the Gas Industry Emergency Committee. Its membership includes Ofgem, Transco, NGC, HSE and many others from throughout the supply chain. It assesses the risks of new and emerging developments that could lead to large-scale gas supply failures. Its aim is to ensure that in the event of a gas supply emergency, contingency plans are in place to ensure the rapid and safe restoration of supplies to consumers.

    These contingency plans have been tested in various exercises in recent months. Further tests are planned for the future to ensure that they are kept up-to-date and are fit for the purpose.

    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the emergency gas stockholding capacity is in days of use at full levels of generation for each of the combined cycle gas turbine power stations commissioned since 1990. [22341]

    Mr. Wilson
    Combined cycle gas turbine power stations do not hold emergency stocks of gas, nor are emergency stocks of gas specifically held as part of the UK gas transmission system for these generators. Where a gas facility is dual fired, power stations usually hold stocks of their alternative fuel—predominantly coal or oil products. Some gas is stored, but this tends to be at the extremities of the transmission system in facilities such as salt cavities' offshore fields or as liquefied natural gas.

    Some liquefied natural gas is held by Transco to cope with system emergencies. The remainder is used to help maintain the overall balance within the gas transmission system between supply and demand for gas. The stored gas tends to be used during periods of peak demand (e.g. winter months) and to meet shortfalls of gas supplies at other times during the year. Combined cycle gas stations compete for any gas coming from storage along with other gas users.

    Telecommunications Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 6 and 7 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [22182]
    110W
    Mr. Alexander
    The Deputy UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, Bill Stow, attended the Council on 6 December on my behalf.

    The Presidency reported to the Council on the state of play of negotiations with the European Parliament on the proposed new regulatory framework for electronic communications. The most contentious issues on which agreement is still outstanding are:
    whether and the extent to which the Commission should be able to override proposed decisions of national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in order to protect the integrity of the single market;
    the grounds on which undertakings should be able to appeal NRA decisions at the national level; and
    whether a digital television standard should be mandated.

    The March 2000 Lisbon European Council set a target of the end of 2001 to agree this legislative package. Informal discussions between the Presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament will continue during December with a view to finding an agreement as soon as possible and so avoid the need for conciliation under the forthcoming Spanish Presidency.

    The Council reached political agreement on the proposed Communications Data Protection Directive by qualified majority; the UK voted in favour. In particular, the Council agreed on:
    a harmonised "opt-in" solution for unsolicited commercial e-mail, with an exception where there is an existing customer relationship;
    the introduction of an obligation to provide users with clear and comprehensive advance information about the purposes of cookies and similar devices and to offer them the possibility to refuse; and
    a clarification of the scope for member states to legislate on data retention for law-enforcement purposes as long as this is in accordance with the agreed principles of Community Law. This was inserted in the body of the Directive itself at the request of the UK.

    The Council adopted a Resolution on "a common approach and specific actions in the area of network and information security", and the Commission will now bring forward proposals for setting-up a cyber-security task force to assist member states in developing the capabilities to address network security problems.

    The Commission presented a Communication on the exploitation of public sector information which aims to remove many of the barriers that content companies currently face in trying to develop the next generation of cross-border information services and products based on public sector information. The Commission may now propose a Directive to cover the commercial exploitation of public sector information. The Commission also gave a presentation on the seventh implementation report on telecoms regulation.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what EU legal requirements governed the transfer of 70,000 telephone lines from Spain to Gibraltar. [R] [21546]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The allocation to Gibraltar of numbers from the Cadiz exchange is a matter for the Spanish authorities. HMG is

    111W
    pressing the Spanish Government for an early resolution to the problems caused by non-recognition of Gibraltar's international dialling code.

    Gender Pay Gap
    Vernon Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of equal pay legislation; and if she will make a statement. [21776]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Equal Pay Act 1970 has enabled many women to make real headway, allowing women to claim their rights in a number of landmark cases and to challenge stereotypical assumptions about aspects of their work that have been undervalued.

    The pay gap has halved from 37 per cent. when the Equal Pay Act was introduced 30 years ago to 19 per cent. today. Individual claims brought under the Act can impact on many other women and lead to employers making significant changes to their pay systems.

    Work is under way to streamline and speed up employment tribunal procedures to make it easier for women to claim their rights on equal pay. Equal Pay tribunals can be stressful and time consuming for women and for employers faced with a claim. The proposal to introduce a questionnaire procedure into the Equal Pay Act has been included in the Employment Bill that was introduced on 7 November 2001. It will enable an individual who believes they may not be receiving equal pay to request key information from their employer when they are deciding whether to bring a case.

    Departmental Staff (Home Working)
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21835]

    Ms Hewitt
    Currently around 900 people in my Department have access to an IT service which allows them to work remotely. We do not keep data on how many people work from home on a regular basis.

    I am keen to promote all forms of flexible working within my Department including working from home. I have asked management and the departmental trade unions to look at ways of achieving that.

    BP
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the occasions since 1 January 2000 when(a) she and any of her predecessors, (b) Ministers within her Department and (c) officials within her Department have had discussions with representatives from BP. [21406]

    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: BP is a major British company which Ministers meet with quite frequently on a wide range of topics.

    Regulations
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the regulations affecting businesses introduced in the last financial year originated in European legislation. [22305]
    112W
    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: Approximately 20 per cent. of regulations introduced during the last financial year originated in European legislation.

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) the number of and (b) the financial cost to (i) small businesses, (ii) SMEs and (iii) businesses in general of regulations introduced in the last financial year. [22307]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: My Department was responsible for 127 regulations introduced in financial year 2000–01. Of these regulations 96 imposed negligible or no costs on business and 11 have reduced costs.

    Where these regulations either imposed or reduced costs for business, regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) were carried out analysing these anticipated costs. These are available from the House Libraries.

    Research Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Research Council held in Brussels on 10 December; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [22679]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Research Council of 10 December:

    1. Reached unanimous political agreement on the Sixth EU Research and Development Framework Programme 2002–06, with an overall budget of euro 16.27 billion.

    2. Reached unanimous political agreement on the Sixth EURATOM Research and Development Framework Programme 2002–06, with an overall budget of euro 1.23 billion.

    3. Adopted a Resolution concerning the promotion of mobility for researchers in the European Research Area.

    4. Received a presentation by the Commission on its Action Plan on Science and Society.

    5. Adopted conclusions in relation to the promotion of closer links between the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA).

    6. Received a short oral report from the Commission on its development of a Life Sciences and Biotechnology strategy.

    Manufacturing Summit
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of her Department's Manufacturing Summit held on 5 December. [22224]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The aim of the Manufacturing Summit was to bring together national Government, devolved Administrations, regional development agencies and industry and trade union leaders to reach a shared view on the challenges facing UK manufacturing industry. The summit built on the joint work of the CBI and TUC on productivity, which was recently presented to the Chancellor and myself.

    Acting on a recommendation from the CBI and TUC, I announced at the summit an additional £20 million of funding over two years to expand the Industry Forum and the Partnership Fund. This funding will help more firms to work to spread best practice within the supply chain through the extension of Industry Forum principles to

    113W
    additional sectors. The expansion of the Partnership Fund will help employee and employer representatives to work together to achieve better performance in the workplace.

    As a result of the summit, RDAs will work closely with manufacturers, unions and other local partners to implement regional industrial policies in accordance with their regional economic strategies.

    At the meeting, industry representatives recognised the need to boost training and skills in order to achieve the productivity improvements that are necessary. We agreed to work more closely to share ideas and best practice on the promotion of innovation and skills that are key to the future success of our manufacturing industry. We will also ensure that Government agencies are working together more effectively to help people who are made redundant to get new skills and jobs as quickly as possible.

    Scottish Enterprise
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she made of the impact of Scottish Enterprise on the business birth rate when deciding to increase the amount of money given to regional venture capital funds. [22498]

    Nigel Griffiths
    In developing Regional Venture Capital Funds the experiences of schemes and initiatives elsewhere, including Scotland, were considered. The Regional Venture Capital Funds have been specifically designed to address the equity gap and their primary focus will be on existing businesses with significant growth prospects. It is unlikely that these funds would invest in start-up businesses, but they are not excluded from the programme.

    Regional Venture Capital Funds are highly innovative in their approach and will bring together public and private equity finance of up to £270 million to invest in small growing businesses in the English regions.

    Regional Venture Capital Funds
    Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what business birth rate targets have been set for each of the regional venture capital funds; and how much additional private investment the ventures backed by the funds are expected to receive in subsequent funding rounds. [22497]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Specific business birth rate targets have not been set for individual Regional Venture Capital Funds (RVCFs). Their primary aims are to ensure that established small growing businesses in each of the English regions are able to access risk capital finance in the equity gap and to demonstrate to institutional investors that robust returns can be made by investing in this sector. As part of the assessment process, all proposals seeking to manage funds were asked to demonstrate their compatibility with the Regional Economic Strategy developed by the Regional Development Agencies.

    As a cornerstone investor the Government will be investing around £80 million to the RVCF programme with up to another £190 million being levered in from private sector investors. There is no indication at present how much additional private investment ventures backed by the RVCFs are likely to receive in subsequent funding rounds.
    114W

    Social Exclusion
    Andrew Selous
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many competitive grant schemes administered by her 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; [22433]

    (2) if she will place in the Library a copy of the application form for each of the competitive grant schemes administered by her 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; [22409]

    (3) if she will publish a list of the grants made under the competitive grant schemes administered by her 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; [22418]

    (4) 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 her 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; [22403]

    (5) if she will list the competitive grant schemes, administered by the 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 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. [22427]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The Phoenix Fund, operated by the Small Business Service, is the only competitive grant scheme that my Department runs specifically to help tackle social exclusion. It is designed to encourage enterprise by promoting the provision of business support for entrepreneurs from disadvantaged neighbourhoods or groups of people. Community and voluntary groups can apply for the bidding rounds. There are no application forms. Bidding guidance is published and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

    There have been four rounds of bidding (Development Fund Rounds 1 and 2 and Community Development Finance Initiatives Rounds 1 and 2). A list of successful applicants and a summary of their individual projects is available on the SBS website www.sbs.gov.uk. Awards totalling £15 million were offered to 50 applicants, from a total of 253, in December 2000 (Development Fund Round 1). In January 2001 £6 million was offered to 16 applicants, from a total of 58 (CDFI Round 1). A further £15 million was awarded to 46 organisations (from a total of 358) in September 2001 (Development Fund Round 2). Up to £15 million will be offered from the current round being appraised (CDFI Round 2), which has received 50 applications. The projects to be supported will be announced in February 2002. Details of individual awards are not published. Although the Phoenix Fund is project based, it is possible for some core costs to be supported.

    115W
    It is not possible to give a total for the administrative costs to the State, as the staff involved also undertake other duties. However, these costs are small in relation to the total grants awarded. The cost of the application will depend on the complexity of their bids, but again, these are small in relation to the average grant offered.

    Disability Discrimination Act
    Lembit Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to issue guidance to businesses concerning compliance with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for labelling which is user friendly for visually impaired and blind people; and if she will make a statement. [22495]

    Alan Johnson
    DTI has agreed to work with the Disability Rights Commission in promoting best practice in relation to the provision of information in accessible formats accompanying manufactured goods.

    The manufacture or design of products, including labelling, is not covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

    EU Chemicals Strategy
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Down) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 653W, what information and advice was contained in the communications; and if she will make a statement. [22755]

    Ms Hewitt
    I have nothing further to add to my earlier reply.

    Pulmonary Disease Claims
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease medical assessments have been made by Healthcall in each of the coalfield areas, showing the level of diagnosed disability in each case. [22234]

    South-east region

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Number of projects

    57

    73

    110

    191

    Number of new jobs

    5,534

    4,497

    6,236

    18,190

    Number of safeguarded jobs

    7,482

    13,957

    15,987

    4,547

    Total number of associated jobs

    13,016

    18,454

    22,223

    22,737

    Broadband (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of(a) the availability and (b) the take-up of broadband services by (i) individuals and (ii) businesses in the constituency of Buckingham. [22532]

    Mr. Alexander
    The Government have made no assessment at that level of localised information. A map showing availability of broadband services in the UK has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
    116W
    Mr. Wilson
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the delivery of the Medical Assessment Process, has completed 50,124 appointments, to date. The Department is unable to list the diagnosed disability in each case. The number of appointments completed by region is as follows:

    Region

    Number of appointments completed

    Yorkshire

    6,124

    North East

    2,300

    North West

    1,226

    Nottinghamshire

    2,244

    Derbyshire

    693

    Midlands Other

    1,871

    South West

    77

    South East

    528

    Wales

    7,670

    Scotland

    2,583

    Mobile Test Units

    359

    Domicillary

    2,912

    Deceased MAPs

    21,537

    Total

    50,124

    Foreign Direct Investment (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the amount of foreign direct investment in the constituency of Buckingham in each year since 1997. [22648]

    Nigel Griffiths
    Figures collated by Invest UK on inward investment are not recorded at constituency level but on a regional basis. Following are figures from the south-east for each of the years since 1997.

    The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

    There is no requirement to notify inward investment decisions and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

    Business Support (Buckingham)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what business support services funded by her Department are based in the constituency of Buckingham. [22529]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The Small Business Service funds a network of local business link operators throughout England. Business link operators provide access to a wide range of services to local businesses, including information and advice, export development assistance, marketing, training and development, financial packaging, information and communication technologies, design, etc.
    117W
    Business link operators assess the needs of individual businesses (including start-ups) and put together packages of assistance to meet these needs, referring as necessary to support provided by partner organisations and other suppliers.

    The business link operator for Buckinghamshire is Business Link Solutions which covers Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

    Small Business Service
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) individuals and (b) small businesses from the constituency of Buckingham have written to the Small Business Service in the last 12 months; and what the average number of working days taken to respond was. [22527]

    Nigel Griffiths
    SBS's South East Regional Team has received three written requests relating to this area, all inquiries were answered within three days of receipt, and were all directed to Business Link Milton Keynes Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.

    SBS takes an average of 10 working days to respond to correspondence. Most requests are handled by Business Links, rather than the SBS.

    May I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to question No. 22528.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) individuals and (b) small businesses for the constituency of Buckingham have used the Small Business Service in each quarter since April 2000. [22528]

    Nigel Griffiths
    The table shows the number of businesses and individuals assisted by Business Link Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Management Information for Business Link local and national services are not desegregated to constituency level.

    (a) Business

    (b) Individuals

    2000–01:

    April to June (Q1)

    2,378

    1,035

    July to September (Q2)

    3,790

    905

    October to December (Q3)

    3,710

    839

    January to March (Q4)

    1,972

    658

    2001–02:

    April to June (Q1)

    2,395

    767

    July to September (Q2)

    3,105

    607

    Source:

    Business Link Management Information returns.

    Public Service Agreements
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target on foreign direct investment. [23172]

    Ms Hewitt
    The latest foreign direct investment (FDI) statistics published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) show that the UK maintained its position as the largest recipient of inward 118W
    FDI stocks in the EU in 2000. The UK percentage share increased slightly from 20.0 per cent. in 1999 to 20.3 per cent. in 2000.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the Public Service Agreement target on support for exporters, quality of service, exports and the business image of the UK. [23173]

    Ms Hewitt
    Details on the requested PSA targets were published in March 2001 in "British Trade International—The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02", Cm 5123, a copy of which was placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target to operate a zero. [23160]

    Ms Hewitt
    The Department has reviewed and refined its Fraud Policy Statement and supporting Guidance on Fraud Risk Management within the last year. These have been published on the departmental intranet. Guidance on the topic has also been issued to departmental staff.

    As well as operating a general "whistleblowing" scheme through which staff can raise areas of concern (which may include suspicions of fraud) the Department has posted contact details for the Fraud Officer so that concerns may also be raised directly with him.

    The Department is represented at a range of ministerial, interdepartmental and treasury working groups on counter fraud measures and liaises with Scotland Yard and others in the wider counter fraud community to ensure that we remain current on issues of best practice in this area.

    We are committed to prompt and appropriate response to the occasional instances of suspected fraud that arise.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on payment of presented bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or a valid invoice. [23159]

    Ms Hewitt
    The percentage of bills which were paid by my Department within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice has increased from 93 per cent. for the period April to November 2000 to 96 per cent. for the same period in the year 2001.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the public service agreement target on the number of companies spun out from universities. [23170]

    Ms Hewitt
    The DTI has met the PSA target of increasing by 50 per cent. the 1997–98 number of companies spun out from universities by 2001–02.

    A recent survey of exploitation activity in the higher education sector has shown that 199 companies were spun out from universities in the academic year 1999–2000, and a total of 537 university spinouts were created over the period 1994–95 to 1999–2000 inclusive. This compares with the baseline of 26 companies spun out from universities during 1997 against the background of a total population of 223 companies wholly or partially owned by HEIs for the commercial exploitation of their research results in 1997–98.
    119W
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on key services on-line. [23156]

    Ms Hewitt
    My Department has already made 32 of its services (41 per cent. of the planned total) available online. We expect to make a further 28 available online by the end of 2002, a cumulative figure of 60 (76 per cent.), and, subject to the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review, the remaining 19 (100 per cent.) by the end of 2005.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on unit cost reduction on document registration. [23165]

    Ms Hewitt
    Companies House has consistently met or exceed its unit cost reduction target for document processing since the target was first set in 1997–98. On the back of record growth in the register in 2000–01, the target was bettered by 100 per cent. in that year. It is not possible to anticipate results for 2001–02 as calculation requires end-year figures. While Companies House believes it is broadly on target, it is unlikely to do more given the increased focus on quality and customer service rather than lower cost per se.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on measures of efficiency. [23166]

    Ms Hewitt
    Progress against the Department's main target on efficiency will be reported on in its Expenditure Plans Report which is due in to be published in April 2002.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on services and activities as set out in the handbook Better Quality Services. [23158]

    Ms Hewitt
    My Department is on line to meet its BQS targets which are to review 60 per cent. of its activities by March 2003 and 100 per cent. of its activities by the end of 2004.

    Universal Bank
    Phil Sawford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the implementation of universal banking services. [23090]

    Mr. Alexander
    Good progress is being made on universal banking services in advance of the migration of benefit payments to ACT in 2003. Through universal banking services there will be post office access to a range of bank accounts. This will enable all those who wish to do so to continue to be able to collect their benefits in cash at post offices. The Government are currently negotiating with the Post Office for the provision of the Post Office Card Account and is developing a detailed migration and marketing strategy for the transition to ACT.

    The emphasis of the ACT migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. Conventional and
    120W
    basic bank accounts offer more services and do not have the limitations of the Post Office Card Account so are likely to be the best option for the vast majority of people.

    Our operational assumption is that around three million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a POCA, but there will not be a cap on numbers or eligibility criteria for a POCA. For most people the best account will be a conventional bank account or a basic bank account, whether new or existing. The vast majority of claimants already have an existing bank account and we expect that they will choose to use them when they start to be paid by ACT.

    If claimants do not have a bank account, staff of the Government Departments concerned will discuss options with them to help them take the best choice for their circumstances.

    Whatever type of account is used we remain fully committed to meeting the Prime Minister's pledge that those who wish to do so will be able to continue to get their benefits in cash at post offices, in full and without charge.

    South West of England Regional Development Agency
    Mr. Butterfill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the South West regional development agency has provided support to the South West regional convention; and if she will make a statement. [23625]

    Alan Johnson
    The South West regional development agency has provided no financial support for the South West regional convention.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam on 26 November 2001. [23318]

    Mr. Alexander
    I answered the question on 11 December.

    Sub-Post Offices
    Mr. Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on moneys available under and progress on the urban development fund for urban sub-post offices. [19493]

    Ms Hewitt
    [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Staff of Post Office Ltd. are working up detailed proposals in consultation with my officials on how best the urban network of post offices should adapt to changes in the marketplace and how Government funding to assist such adaptation should be structured.

    Equal Pay
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to encourage business associations to produce guidance on voluntary equal pay reviews. [15728]

    Ms Hewitt
    The official guidance on voluntary equal pay reviews is that published by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) as a statutory code of practice on equal pay in 1997. The Government have recently
    121W
    provided the EOC with an extra £100,000 to produce a model for voluntary pay reviews. It will offer a technical example for employers in how to review the pay of their male and female employees and will soon be piloted so that it is shown to be workable for business and effective for women.

    The Employers' Association for Local Government has produced equality guidance which includes advice on pay reviews. The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development has also produced an "Equal Pay Guide" for its members who are generally personnel managers.

    The Government have recently announced the annual Castle Awards for employers to encourage them to undertake and act on voluntary pay reviews. They will recognise employers' excellence in addressing equal pay and related issues. Earlier this year the Government appointed 'Fair Pay Champions' from business, the public
    122W
    sector and trade unions to help with our drive towards achieving fair pay for women through promoting and sharing good practice and heightening awareness of employment rights and responsibilities.

    Flooding (Ilford)
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made in the last 12 months of the impact of flooding of the River Roding on businesses in Ilford, North; and what assistance is available to businesses in the event of further flooding. [15528]

    Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We have made no such assessments.

    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the responsible Department for matters dealing with the consequences of floodings. They are considering whether help can be given to all those affected.
    123W

  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    Live Animals (Export)
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live(a) sheep and (b) pigs were exported for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding in 2001, broken down by country of destination. [13548]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 9 November 2001]: The total number of live sheep and live pigs certified for export from the UK during 2001 for breeding, slaughter and fattening are shown in the following tables:

    Live sheep

    Country of destination

    Breeding

    Fattening

    Slaughter

    France

    7

    51,300

    0

    Republic of Ireland

    4,537

    2,226

    130,244

    Belgium

    0

    3,850

    0

    Germany

    0

    10,132

    0

    Italy

    0

    1,679

    0

    Netherlands

    0

    18,344

    390

    Spain

    0

    770

    0

    Totals

    4,544

    88,301

    130,634

    Live pigs

    Country of destination

    Breeding

    Fattening

    Slaughter

    Republic of Ireland

    482

    0

    20,797

    Belgium

    1,629

    0

    0

    Germany

    7,357

    0

    0

    Greece

    9

    0

    0

    Italy

    410

    0

    0

    Netherlands

    2,254

    0

    0

    Spain

    542

    0

    0

    Thailand

    63

    0

    0

    Totals

    12,746

    0

    20,797

    These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment.

    Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the areas of outstanding natural beauty in the Buckingham constituency. [16254]

    Mr. Meacher
    Part of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty lies within the Buckingham constituency.

    UK Fuel Poverty Strategy
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy specifies a target date for achieving the objective of ensuring that as far as reasonably practicable persons in England and Wales do not live in fuel poverty. [17941]

    Mr. Meacher
    The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy sets a target date of 2010 for assisting all vulnerable fuel poor households, as well as all other fuel poor households 124W
    living in social sector housing. Together these two groups represent some 90 per cent. of all the fuel poor households in England in 1998.

    The Strategy therefore meets the terms of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 for England in ensuring that as far as reasonably practicable, persons do not live in fuel poverty. We intend to work with interested groups to develop practical, cost-effective mechanisms for assisting the remaining group of fuel poor: the healthy adult households living in private sector housing.

    Fuel poverty is a devolved matter and it is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales to comment on the situation in Wales.

    Household Waste
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures she is taking to reduce household waste; [18012]

    (2) what incentives exist to encourage households to reduce the amount of waste they produce. [18010]

    Mr. Meacher
    Tackling the amount of waste produced is the first priority in the hierarchy for waste management decisions set out in the Government's Waste Strategy 2000. The Government are supporting the National Waste Awareness Initiative and have issued guidance to local authorities on their powers under the Waste Minimisation Act 1998.

    The Government have implemented the Packaging Directive and a voluntary agreement on the recycled content of newsprint. Further legislation on electrical and electronic equipment and batteries will follow and a voluntary agreement on direct mail and promotions (junk mail) is planned. These are all designed to reduce the amount of waste arising from these products and their impact on the household waste stream.

    Local authorities are experimenting with a range of measures to encourage minimisation. Waste minimisation will be one of the issues considered in the recently announced review of the waste strategy by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

    Sheep (Ear Tagging)
    Adam Price
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the farming community about the proposed ear tagging schemes for sheep. [18516]

    Mr. Morley
    My officials have had initial discussions with English and Welsh industry representatives about the future identification requirements for sheep and goats. We are now considering the views expressed by industry before a final decision is taken.

    Sheep Farmers
    Mr. Moore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make additional financial assistance available to UK sheep farmers. [19249]

    Mr. Morley
    Community Regulations provide for direct support to sheep farmers through the sheep annual premium. Rates of premium are determined each year by
    125W
    the European Commission and are based on the difference between the EU basic price for sheepmeat and the annual average price for sheepmeat on the EU market. There is no provision in the EU sheepmeat regime for additional financial assistance to be made by member states.

    Recycling
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to promote a national recycling strategy, with particular reference to the targets set for recycling within councils' waste(a) collection and (b) disposal policies. [19707]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government set out their strategy for delivering sustainable waste management in 'Waste Strategy 2000', published in May last year. Minimising waste production and maximising the re-use and recycling of waste is at the heart of this strategy and we have set statutory targets under Best Value for local authorities to double the amount of household waste recycled by 2003–04 and treble it by 2005–06. Targets have been set for each collection and disposal authority in England.

    We have recently published a consultation paper on the operation and distribution of a new waste minimisation and recycling fund in England. The fund was agreed in Spending Review 2000 and provides £140 million over the next two years. The fund is designed to support better waste management practices including waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will achieve the packaging waste recovery and recycling targets for 2001. [22593]

    Mr. Meacher
    It is too early to say. Reprocessing of packaging waste reported by accredited reprocessors for the first three quarters of 2001 is over three million tonnes, but we do not expect to have figures for the whole of 2001 until early next year.

    Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the current review of the levels of HEES grants, with particular regard to(a) the scope of the review, (b) the timetable and (c) which organisations will be consulted; and if she will abolish the grant maximum levels and set an average grant level instead. [19373]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The companies that manage the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provide regular advice to my Department on the average cost of work under the scheme. This advice, together with information on work which costs more than the current grant limits is used to review the grant maxima. I plan to consider whether any changes to the maximum grant levels are required early next year.

    We have no plans to set an average grant, rather than the maximum grant approach used at present.

    The present approach encourages scheme managers to reach those vulnerable householders in most need. These householders are likely to live in homes requiring the complete package of measures available under the scheme.
    126W
    Under an average grant system, the scheme managers would be contractually bound to improve a set number of properties using the available moneys. This would create an incentive for them to target householders in less need, who require fewer improvements to their homes, simply to ensure that the average was not exceeded.

    Rural Payments Agency
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the efficiency and promptness of the tasks carried out by the Rural Payments Agency; and if she will make a statement. [20024]

    Mr. Morley
    Following the launch of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) as an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 16 October 2001, the House was informed of the Agency's Performance Targets on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1247W. These cover a range of targets that reflect the efficiency and promptness of tasks undertaken by RPA. Copies of its Framework Document, Corporate Plan and Business Plan were placed in the Library of the House on 15 November 2001.

    An ownership board was appointed, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department. Other members include three independents and representatives of the devolved Administrations.

    Within the objective of providing strategic direction and oversight to RPA, one of the four primary roles of the ownership board is to monitor regularly on behalf of the Secretary of State, the devolved Administrations and Competent Authority the performance of RPA against its targets.

    Portland Cement
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of waste derived fuels constitute total kiln fuels consumed by Portland cement manufacturers in(a) the UK and (b) the rest of the EU. [20511]

    Mr. Meacher
    The latest available estimated figures show that:(a) in 1999 the UK consumption of waste derived fuel was about 6 per cent. of total fuel consumption by Portland cement manufacturers; (b) in 1998 the EU consumption of waste fuel was about 12 per cent. of total fuel consumption by Portland cement manufacturers.

    Livestock Markets
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many employees of livestock markets have been made redundant since their closure under foot and mouth regulations. [19738]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Department does not have any information on the number of employees made redundant from livestock markets since their closure due to foot and mouth restrictions.

    The Employment Service has been collecting statistics of the number of claims made in Great Britain by those who either lost their job or were temporarily laid off as a

    127W
    result of the foot and mouth disease. These are general figures and are not limited to those who worked in markets.

    The Employment Service estimates that approximately 6,600 people have submitted claims as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. However, this figure includes those whose employment has been temporarily stopped (people still under contract to their employer but whose employment is temporarily unavailable, or whose working hours are reduced due to the crisis).

    Organophosphates
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the economic impact on brassica growers of the revocation of licences to use(a) carbofuran and (b) chlorfenvinphos. [20664]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Pesticide products containing carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos have been reviewed as part of the general review in the UK of all organophosphate pesticides. The review was undertaken because of public concerns about the potential toxicity of these chemicals and in the absence of any supporting safety data from the approval holder, products containing carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos will not be available to users from the end of 2001. The economic impact on a particular sector of the industry would not form part of an assessment where the overriding priority is to protect those who work in the industry and consumers of the treated crop. However, my officials are aware of the difficulties the withdrawal of these products from the market may cause and will of course give any assistance they can to exploring other sources of control.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the scientific basis is for the ban on the use of chlorfenvinphos and carbofuran in pesticides; and if she will make a statement. [21478]

    Mr. Morley
    Pesticide products containing carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos have been reviewed as part of the general review in the UK of all organophosphate pesticides. The review was undertaken because of public concerns about the potential toxicity of these chemicals.

    Organophosphate pesticides are mainly older compounds and the review will establish whether there is sufficient safety data available to satisfy modern standards. Companies are therefore required to submit data they hold on human health and environmental effects to support the continued safe use of the products containing these compounds. If data are not submitted then the approval for these products are revoked.

    The approval holders for carbofuran and chlorfenvinphos did not 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.

    The impact of the loss of these pesticides is not underestimated and officials will continue to do everything possible to help the trade and user groups. However the safety of users, consumers and the environment is the key issue that needs to be considered.
    128W

    Animal Welfare
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the working relationships of the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Agriculture Environment Biotechnology Commission. [20925]

    Mr. Morley
    The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) was set up to provide the Government with independent strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment. It reports to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Trade and Industry and to Ministers in the devolved Administrations.

    The AEBC works alongside the regulatory and advisory bodies in agricultural biotechnology. It has taken evidence from and consulted informally the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Through its secretariat, the AEBC has also liaised as required with the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority.

    Flood Protection
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve flood protection in the Portsmouth area. [21214]

    Mr. Morley
    Operational responsibility for flood management measures rests with the local operating authorities, normally the Environment Agency and local councils, who decide which projects to promote and their timing. The operating authorities are invited to submit applications for DEFRA funding for flood and coastal defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score.

    DEFRA recently agreed Portsmouth city council's strategy for Old Portsmouth, including both flood alleviation and coast protection works. Applications are now awaited from the council for funding approval of individual phases of work. DEFRA has also approved funding for the council's strategy study for Portsea Island (Portsmouth and Southsea). The study, designed to examine options for coastal defence work, began earlier this year and is scheduled for completion by the end of next year.

    New Deal
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people are employed by the Department under the new deal for young people; and at what cost to public funds. [21326]

    Mr. Morley
    The Department and its agencies currently employs eight staff under the new deal for young people. All these staff are unsubsidised.

    White Goods
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to improve the consistency of local re-use projects for white goods. [21676]

    Mr. Meacher
    None at present.
    129W
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to increase the capacity of local projects to recondition white goods appliances. [21674]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government currently have no such plans. However, the Prime Minister has announced that across the UK £50 million from the New Opportunities Fund is to be used to support community recycling and related initiatives, which could include the reconditioning and re-use of white goods.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if the Government plan to continue to encourage the re-use of whole white goods appliances to supply to people on low incomes; [21673]

    (2) if she will make a statement on the European Directive concerning the recycling of components parts of white goods; and what plans the Government have to ensure that the Directive does not obstruct the recycling of whole appliances for re-use by those on low income. [21675]

    Mr. Meacher
    A draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive is under discussion. Once agreed and implemented in the UK and other member states it will require targets of recovery, re-use and recycling for components, materials and substances of separately collected electrical equipment to be met.

    The wording of the current draft points to targets for the re-use of whole appliances being set in the future. Although these have yet to be set, an objective of this draft is to minimise the amount of electrical equipment becoming waste and so the proposal ensures that priority would be given to the re-use of whole appliances. There is a requirement for appliances to be collected and transported carefully to ensure that any re-usable equipment does not get damaged in transit. There is also a requirement for consumers to be informed of return systems, which could include information on offering equipment for re-use.

    The draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive defines re-use as any operation by which waste electrical and electronic equipment or components thereof are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived, including the continued use of the equipment or components thereof which are returned to collection points, distributors, recyclers or manufacturers.

    The Government see no reason why the implementation of this directive will obstruct the current infrastructure of the re-use of whole appliances by those on low income.

    Sustainable Timber
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research the Government are conducting into the use of sustainable timber. [21671]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government have commissioned research into the scale and variety of timber and timber products being purchased to meet the operational requirements of central Government Departments and their agencies. Three Departments and three agencies have been selected as samples to reflect the range of activities involved. The research is due to be completed 130W
    by the end of May 2002 and should help the Government in implementing their timber procurement policy by identifying options for guidance that will be made available to its own buyers and to the wider public sector.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's plans to use sustainable timber only, whenever possible, as part of the materials used in the construction of public buildings. [21670]

    Mr. Morley
    The Third Annual Report on Greening Government, published on 27 November 2001 and available on the internet http: //www.sustainable-development.gov.uk includes information on timber purchase by Department as well as information on overall progress towards implementing the Government's policy on purchasing timber from sustainable and legal sources. That report covers activities undertaken during the financial year ended 31 March 2001. Since then the Government have commissioned consultants to undertake research and report on options for further assisting their buyers to actively seek to purchase timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources.

    The Government are working with stakeholders in producing countries to encourage sustainable forest management as well as tackling illegal logging. The UK was instrumental in organising a ministerial conference in Indonesia this year to address forest law enforcement and governance in East Asia. This produced the real prospect of bilateral agreements to secure more effective controls. A similar conference is planned to address the same issues in Africa next year. These international initiatives are intended to help to reduce the volume of illegally logged timber entering the UK and to effectively create more demand for sustainable timber in construction projects and more generally across both the public and private sectors within the UK.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department in encouraging Government Departments to take part in the pilot project to use only wood from sustainable sources. [21669]

    Mr. Morley
    This Department has accepted, on behalf of the Government, an offer made by the World Wide Fund for Nature to assist the Government in their efforts to source timber from sustainable and legal sources when a suitable project can be identified. The Department has written to Heads of Procurement in the major central Government Departments to advise them of the offer made by WWF. To date no Department has come forward to suggest a suitable project. The Department will continue to engage the inter-departmental working group on timber procurement in searching for a suitable project.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take to implement her Department's policy of using only sustainable timber for public buildings. [21672]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government are working with the timber trade, environmental pressure groups and other stakeholders to encourage a greater demand for sustainable timber across all sectors of the economy. The
    131W
    Government are also working with many stakeholders in different producer countries to promote sustainable forest management as well as tackling illegal logging.

    For their own operational activities the Government are committed to actively seek to purchase the timber and timber products they need from legal and sustainable sources. To this end Government buyers have been instructed to implement this policy and to report annually on their purchases. An interdepartmental working group is monitoring progress and will provide further guidance and advice to that already provided to buyers in our Green Guide for Buyers and elsewhere on the Greening Government website http: //www.defra.gov.uk/environment/greening/gghome.htm. The Government's approach should help to transform the market into supplying more timber and timber products from sustainable managed sources. The Third Annual Report on Greening Government, published on 27 November 2001 and available on the internet http: //www.sustainable-development.gov.uk includes information on timber purchase by Department as well as information on overall progress towards implementing the Government's policy on purchasing timber from sustainable and legal sources. More generally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently set up a Sustainable Procurement Group of officials to consider how Government policies on sustainable development can be more effectively implemented through the Government's own procurement activities.

    Departmental Payments
    Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce the cost of administering departmental payments; and if she will make a statement. [20948]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: The Department established the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) on 16 October to make CAP payments. RPA brings together the administration of CAP grants and subsidies schemes previously divided between MAFF's (now DEFRA's) regional offices and the Intervention Board. RPA will deliver a change programme to modernise the way that CAP payments are made through a major investment in new technology.

    This will provide advanced electronic processing capability and enable farmers and traders to submit claims electronically. It will result in significant benefits for taxpayers with a 10 per cent. cut by March 2004 in unit costs of administering payments and further savings in subsequent years after the new systems are fully implemented.

    In addition, and as part of a continuing review of efficiencies, a number of initiatives are under way across DEFRA to improve the processes for the purchase and payment of goods and services through electronic procurement, making greater use of purchase cards, the electronic receipt and payment of invoices and further centralisation of invoice processing where appropriate. It is anticipated that by March 2003 the core Department will have realised the level of savings identified.
    132W

    Peat
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions (1) her Department has had with the Treasury about fiscal incentives to reduce consumer demand for peat products; [21612]

    (2) her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry about funding the development of the peat replacement industry; [21613]

    (3) her officials have had with other Departments about action to promote sustainable alternatives to peat use. [21611]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Peat Working Group is the interdepartmental forum, on which the peat industry and environmental bodies are represented, where such issues are considered. This meets periodically and my officials are represented. The Government's policy on the use of peat is set out in the relevant Biodiversity Action Plan which commits Government to undertake and promote research and development into sustainable alternatives while generating publicity to encourage amateur and professional peat users to adopt alternatives, highlighting the threat to peatland conservation of continued peat use. We aim for 40 per cent. of the total market requirements to be peat-free by 2005 and 90 per cent. by 2010. Recently, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1219W, I detailed the mechanisms which Government use both to ensure the protection of the best examples of peatland habitat and to meet our obligations under the EU Habitats Directive.

    Horses
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to consider the tethering of horses; and if she will make a statement. [22110]

    Mr. Morley
    It is an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to cause a horse unnecessary suffering due to the manner in which it is tethered and is punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 or six months imprisonment, or both.

    Form OTM22
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she plans to introduce to the requirement of form OTM22 for the signature of the producer of the animals; and if she will make a statement. [22116]

    Mr. Morley
    Animals over-30-months of age which are unable on welfare grounds to travel to OTMS collection centres can be slaughtered on farm and presented into the scheme at casualty centres. An on-farm slaughtered casualty animal must be covered by an OTM22 emergency slaughter certificate which in the main is completed by the attending veterinary surgeon. The primary purpose of the OTM22 is to confirm that the
    133W
    animal showed no signs of disease or pathological condition which would render the whole carcase unfit for human consumption. There are currently no plans to amend the OTM22 form.

    Regulations
    Mr. Prisk
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regulations her Department has proposed to Parliament since June; what regulatory impact assessments have been made for those regulations her Department has implemented in 2001; and what plans her Department has to reduce the number of regulations affecting small businesses. [21969]

    Mr. Morley
    With the exception of foot and mouth disease related orders the Department has made 42 regulations since June. In addition to these the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill was introduced on 30 October. Regulatory Impact Assessments for regulations imposing a cost or benefit implemented in 2001 are published on the Department's website and are available in the House Libraries.

    The Department's plans for regulatory reform which will affect businesses, including small businesses, will be set out in a Regulatory Reform Action Plan which will be published in due course.

    Farm Workers (Security of Tenure)
    John Mann
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many farm workers and other rural tied workers have no security of tenure; [21760]

    (2) what representations she has received since January on security of tenure of farm workers and other rural tied workers; and what proposals she has on this subject. [21761]

    Mr. Morley
    I have no information on the number of farm workers and other rural tied workers who have no security of tenure. The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and the Housing Act 1988 provide security of tenure for qualifying agricultural workers who pay no rent at all or only a low rent.

    Most lettings by private landlords to agricultural workers and other people who pay a market rent for their property which began before 15 January 1989 are regulated tenancies under the Rent Acts. Lettings of this sort made after that date will be assured or assured shorthold tenancies under the Housing Act 1988.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no specific representations on this subject since January. Housing legislation is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions although DEFRA is jointly responsible with DTLR for certain provisions in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.

    Refrigerator Recycling
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many recycling 134W
    plants in the United Kingdom are equipped to handle fridges under the new regulations being introduced on 1 January 2002. [22073]

    Mr. Meacher
    EC Regulations No. 2037/2000 requires the removal of ozone depleting substances (ODS) from waste fridges before they are scrapped. The Department is aware of one facility in the UK capable of extracting ODS from waste fridges prior to scrapping, although this facility is not yet on-line. A number of other companies have indicated their intention to establish other such facilities in the UK.

    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the methodology employed to determine the additional sum of money required to deal with the extra costs to local waste service companies of dealing with unwanted refrigerators and freezers; [22220]

    (2) how the additional funding for the storage of old refrigerators containing CFCs will be allocated, broken down by county. [22223]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 12 December 2001]: This Department recently announced a payment of £6 million to English local authorities to cover their costs of handling fridges and freezers until March 2002. We shall urgently assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

    The provision for waste disposal is included, together with other council services, within the upper tier of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) Standard Spending Assessment (SSA). The SSA is taken into account in the calculation of revenue support grant allocations to each authority. The additional £6 million for the disposal of refrigerators regulation has been added into the EPCS block.

    Agriculture Concordat
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the operation of the concordat between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government on co-ordination of European policy issues concerning agriculture; what representations she has received from the Scottish Executive to amend the concordat; and if she will make a statement. [21869]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Our assessment is that the concordat between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government on co-ordination of European policy issues concerning agriculture has worked well. We have received no representation from the Scottish Executive to amend the concordat although it will need to be amended to reflect the change in the name of my Department. The United Kingdom Government attach great importance to ensuring that the devolved Administrations play their proper role in the development of European policy and we are in regular contact with all the devolved Administrations on European issues.

    Departmental Staff (Home Working)
    Mr. Challen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to encourage staff to work from home; and how many staff do so on a regular basis. [21825]
    135W
    Mr. Morley
    The Department is committed to the work-life balance of its staff. A range of flexible working patterns including part-time working, job sharing and home working is available to staff by agreement with their management.

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

    Information on the number of staff undertaking home working on a regular basis is not kept centrally and a complete list of those using working from home arrangements could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, IT dial-in facilities which enable staff to work remotely are widely used, with around 1,400 having access to this facility. A regular element of home working is normal practice for certain groups of staff. It is estimated that around 10 per cent. of staff make use of informal arrangements to work from home occasionally.

    Asbestos
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will seek the support of her European colleagues to press the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for a worldwide ban on all forms of asbestos; and if she will make a statement. [21857]

    Mr. Meacher
    The WTO applies the rules of the multilateral trading system. It does not itself impose restrictions on the import or export of particular goods or services. It is a matter for individual members of the WTO to decide whether such trade restrictions are appropriate.

    With respect to chrysotile asbestos, the WTO's Appellate Body reached a decision in March 2001 which upheld the French ban on imports of chrysotile asbestos, which had been challenged within the WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism by Canada. The Appellate Body found that in view of the toxicity of chrysotile asbestos, the French import ban was justified under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which allows measures necessary for a range of purposes, including the protection of human, animal or plant life or health.

    The Declaration adopted at the 4th Ministerial Conference of the WTO, held in Doha on 9–14 November 2001, reaffirms that:
    "under WTO rules no country should be prevented from taking measures for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, or of the environment at the levels it considers appropriate …".

    The United Kingdom has in place a body of regulations to prevent and control exposure to asbestos. These cover the prohibition of its importation, supply and new use, the control of work where employees may be exposed to asbestos, and the licensing of removal contractors. Forthcoming proposed legislation will additionally require those in control of non-domestic premises to manage any asbestos in their buildings in order to prevent accidental exposure.

    On 26 July 1999 the European Community adopted further restrictions on the supply and use of asbestos, through the Marketing and Use Directive, that must be in force in all member states by 1 January 2005. The United
    136W
    Kingdom legislation which implements this Directive (with a small number of time limited derogations) came into force on 24 November 1999.

    Wild Mammals
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to improve the monitoring of the wild mammal population. [R] [21422]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: At present there is no comprehensive, standardised national monitoring of British mammals that embraces the full range of important species. While a range of organisations undertake monitoring, not all mammals are included, surveys are often sporadic and the results distributed to only a limited extent.

    A GB-wide research contract "Design and pilot a multi-species terrestrial mammal monitoring project" was let in June 2001 to the British Trust for Ornithology and the Mammal Society. The overall aim will be to design and pilot, using a volunteer network, a winter monitoring project involving both visual recording of mammals and the recording of their signs, and is intended to form a building block for an integrated mammal-monitoring system.

    The work will include an analysis of the results and consider aspects such as accuracy, repeatability and the utility of the results for monitoring mammal abundance and distribution and for the potential to assess long-term trends.

    Water Leakage
    Andrew Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how far each United Kingdom water provider has reduced water leakage from the supply system; and which companies have met the targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1997. [22165]

    Mr. Meacher
    At the Water summit in 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the Office of Water Services to set leakage targets for water companies in England and Wales. The objective was for companies to reach their economic level of leakage by 2002–03 and all companies, with the exception of Thames Water, are on target to reach that level. To date, this amounts to a reduction in leakage of about 30 per cent. Thames Water has been required to take the necessary corrective action by 2003–04. Details of the action required of Thames and other companies' performance are contained in the Ofwat report 'Leakage and the efficient use of water 2000–01', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

    The Water summit did not involve the water authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive published their most recent leakage information in 'Public Water Supplies in Scotland 1999–2000 Water Resources Survey'. The Northern Ireland Water Service does not currently publish any information on leakage.

    Farm-based Horse Enterprises
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent steps she has taken to assist farmers diversifying into
    137W
    farm-based horse enterprises; what representations she has received on this issue since June; and if she will make a statement. [22461]

    Alun Michael
    Farmers wishing to diversify their farm business, including diversification into farm-based horse enterprises, can apply for funding under the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), part of the England Rural Development Programme which was launched in September 2000. There are equivalent measures in Objective 1 areas.

    DEFRA also offers assistance in the form of free planning consultancy advice to farmers who intend to pursue an eligible RES diversification project.

    Other funding for farm diversification projects which utilise existing farm buildings is available from regional development agencies in the form of redundant building grant.

    The Government have also taken other practical measures to encourage farm diversification generally which will assist farmers diversifying into equine businesses. The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001 provides for rate relief on buildings and land used for all non-agricultural enterprises on what had previously been agricultural premises. An amendment to guidance in Planning Police Guidance note 7 (PPG7), "The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development", on farm diversification makes clear the importance that the Government attach to diversification. It encourages local planning authorities to support well-conceived schemes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.

    Since June I have had representations on this issue from the British Equestrian Federation and the British Horse Industry Confederation.

    Abandoned Vehicles
    Dr. Murrison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on changes in the numbers of abandoned vehicles in England over the last three years. [22470]

    Mr. Meacher
    Local authorities are responsible for dealing with abandoned vehicles. Although the Department currently holds no central records of the number of vehicles abandoned each year we estimate that some 350,000 are abandoned in the United Kingdom each year. We know anecdotally that the numbers of abandoned vehicles are increasing year on year.

    More up to date information on the number of abandoned vehicles removed by local authorities is being collected in the Department's 2000–01 Municipal Waste Management Survey which should be published in July 2002.

    Flooding (North Yorkshire)
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what allowance has been made in the Revenue Support Grant for 2002–03 for the November 2000 floods in North Yorkshire. [22662]

    Mr. Morley
    The provisional increases in flood defence standard spending assessments (SSAs) for councils in the north of Yorkshire are shown in the table. SSAs are reflected in the distribution to councils of revenue support grant and national non-domestic rates.
    138W

    £ million

    Council

    2001–02

    2002–03

    Percentage

    North Yorkshire

    2.423

    2.577

    6

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    2.001

    2.266

    13

    York

    1.156

    1.354

    17

    Selby

    0.813

    0.927

    14

    Kingston upon Hull

    0.768

    0.809

    5

    Ryedale

    0.096

    0.116

    21

    Harrogate

    0.094

    0.119

    27

    Scarborough

    0.041

    0.038

    -8

    Hambleton

    0.038

    0.032

    -14

    Craven

    0.029

    0.060

    107

    Richmondshire

    0.007

    0.011

    59

    Total

    7.467

    8.311

    11

    Scottish Water
    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what channels of communication she will have with the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland after the formation of Scottish Water. [22788]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The water and sewerage service in Scotland is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Executive. The Executive will write to the hon. Member about the lines of responsibility between itself and Scottish Water. [22788]

    Mr. Weir
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what responsibility her Department will have concerning the level of water bills in Scotland after the formation of Scottish Water; [22787]

    (2) what channels of communication she will have with the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland after the formation of Scottish Water; [22789]

    (3) what role her Department has had in the scheduled transfer of the existing water authorities to Scottish Water. [22786]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: None. The water and sewerage service in Scotland is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the number of all categories of staff devoted to tuberculosis in cattle will be returned to their pre foot and mouth levels(a) in total and (b) in Gloucestershire; what the percentage drop was in each case between February and the latest month for which figures are available; what effect this will have on the projected date for publishing the results of the Krebs Trials; and when that is estimated to be. [R] [22844]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: It is not yet possible to give a firm date when all the staff resource that used to be applied to TB testing can be restored to pre foot and mouth disease (FMD) levels. This depends on developments in FMD and post FMD controls.

    Overall the percentage drop from February to October 2001 was: for SVS and LVIs 81 per cent.; for TVIs 87 per cent. and for administrators 53 per cent. This

    139W
    reflects the fact that many veterinarians were still heavily involved in FMD controls and movement licensing in October.

    The equivalent percentage drops for the Gloucester Animal Health Office were: for SVS and LVIs 97 per cent.; for TVIs 90 per cent. and for administrators 70 per cent. This reflects the fact that the area covered by these staff was more heavily and more persistently affected by FMD and that FMD-free status was only gained by mid-October.

    The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) overseas the field trial. Prior to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, the ISG advised in its second report that firm scientific data were likely to be available to inform policy by 2004. The group has indicated that the FMD emergency might delay this timetable by a calendar year.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been commissioned into finding a vaccine for tuberculosis in cattle; what plans there are to increase Departmental spending in this area; and what progress has been made in finding such a vaccine. [R] [22846]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: In 1999, one three-year and three five-year research projects for finding a vaccine for TB in cattle were commissioned by MAFF at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and at the Institute of Animal Health. £1.2 million funding is being provided by DEFRA in this area each year up to 2004. The key objectives of the research are to produce live candidate vaccines, to develop a test to differentiate vaccinated animals from infected animals and to evaluate the vaccine candidates in the host species. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) is undertaking a detailed study of vaccine development and their potential use. In its third report the ISG advised that vaccines in either cattle or badgers remains a potential policy option although likely to offer prospects only in a long-term context. Nevertheless, research into vaccines remains an important element in the strategy to control TB in cattle and will receive funding accordingly.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of tuberculosis in cattle have been reported in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) each month this year. [R] [22847]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: In 1999 a total of 6,772 cattle were slaughtered under TB control measures. This rose to 8,355 cattle in 2000.

    Raw data on TB incidents in the months of 2001 have not yet been subject to quality control and statistics for each month are not yet available. Raw data indicate that so far some 900 tuberculin reactor cattle have been identified.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the geographical spread of tuberculosis in cattle in the last three years. [R] [22845]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Over the last three years the rise in bovine TB incidents in cattle in England has generally been contained to the south and west. In descending order the areas with the highest confirmed incidence are Gloucestershire, Hereford
    140W
    and Worcestershire, Wiltshire, Avon, Cornwall and Devon. Generally, within this area the number of TB incidents has continued to increase year on year.

    Outside these higher incidence areas we are closely monitoring bovine TB incidence in the areas of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Dorset.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the resumption of(a) full road traffic survey and testing of dead badgers and (b) full scale TB99 questionnaire forms will take place. [R] [22848]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Work on the road traffic accident (RTA) survey of badger carcases and the TB99 survey was suspended earlier this year due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Plans to restart the work are currently being considered and, as staff return to normal duties, it is hoped to do so early in the new year. An exact date for the resumption of the surveys cannot be given at present.

    Agriculture Select Committee
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the financial projections contained in Annexe A of the Government's response to the Agriculture Select Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 92, have changed. [R] [22849]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The estimates for expenditure on tackling TB in cattle contained in the Government response for the years 2002–03 and 2003–04 remain unchanged.

    Outturn figures for 2000–01, when they become available, are likely to show a reduction in expenditure on TB, due to diversion of veterinary resource to deal with the classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks. The outturn figures for 2001–02, when they become available, will almost certainly show a more marked reduction because of the diversion of resource to deal with FMD and the length and severity of the outbreak in this financial year.

    Mink Farms
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many breeding female mink there were at UK mink farms on 28 February. [23180]

    Mr. Morley
    In relation to England, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 814W.

    Fur farming in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. However, I understand that they currently have no mink farms.

    Game Licences
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the number of game licences sold in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [22397]
    141W
    Alun Michael
    I am able to provide figures for the last nine years. The figures are:

    Number

    1992–93

    43,914

    1993–94

    41,311

    1994–95

    30,872

    1995–96

    25,702

    1996–97

    30,285

    1997–98

    31,939

    1998–99

    31,987

    1999–2000

    39,262

    2000–01

    42,310

    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the costs of issuing the game licence for the last year for which figures are available; [22394]

    (2) how many game licences were sold in the last year for which figures are available; and how much was raised, net of costs. [22395]

    Alun Michael
    The costs in the year 2001–02 were £224,792.51. 42,310 game licences were sold in 2000–01. £4,132 was raised net of costs.

    Waste Management
    Donald Anderson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration she has given to instituting specific procedures to check on the background, including criminal convictions, of new relevant persons once a waste management licence has been granted. [21210]

    Mr. Meacher
    Under section 74 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency has the power to take into account the relevant offences of a new relevant person in relation to a current waste management licence. Under section 38 of the 1990 Act, the Environment Agency has the power to suspend or revoke licences if the licence holder ceases to be a fit and proper person—one of the tests of which is relevant offences. When invoking these powers the agency must have a regard to the statutory guidance provided in Waste Management Paper 4, "Licensing of Waste Management Facilities".

    Livestock Movements
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the restrictions on the movement of livestock will be further relaxed. [24056]

    Margaret Beckett
    I welcome the fact that we have not had a confirmed case of FMD since the end of September, and that the programme of testing has enabled us to reduce the risk status of all the counties affected, so considerably easing the movement of livestock within the present control regime. I hope that it will not be long before the country can, with reasonable confidence, be regarded as free of disease. We still need to maintain precautions against the recurrence of the disease. This will need to be recognised in an interim animal movement regime which, assuming all continues to go well, we hope to introduce in mid-February. My Department has been 142W
    discussing the terms of such a regime with the livestock industry over recent weeks. My noble Friend Lord Whitty plans to publish tomorrow the general principles of such a regime.

    Fisheries
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether she has assessed for the year 2000 the impact of the economic link measures introduced for the fisheries sector on 1 January 1999; and if she will make a statement. [23918]

    Mr. Morley
    From 1 January 1999 all British registered fishing vessels over 10 meters in length and catching more than 2 tonnes of quota stocks have had to demonstrate an economic link with fisheries-dependent communities in the United Kingdom. This link can be demonstrated in a number of ways, for example by vessels landing at least 50 per cent. by weight of their quota catch into the UK or by employing a crew of whom at least 50 per cent. are normally resident in a UK coastal area.

    In 2000, 1,627 vessels caught more than 2 tonnes of quota stocks and in each case achieved a satisfactory economic link, primarily through landings into the UK. The economic link arrangements have maintained the increases in UK landings and expenditure achieved by foreign-owned UK-registered vessels in 1999. In addition almost 400 tonnes of quota was made available for redistribution to the UK fleet.

    A full report by the Fisheries Departments in the United Kingdom on the operation of the economic link measures and their impact in 2000 has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Illegal Timber Logging
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken to promote an international code to combat illegal timber logging. [8286]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 18 October 2001 ]: The Government are currently investigating options for intergovernmental agreements to combat illegal logging. My Department works closely with the Department for International Development (DfID) on this. A study by the Royal Institute of International Affairs has been commissioned and final results will be available before the end of the year. The study considers possible options to combat illegal logging and in particular frameworks for voluntary and mandatory agreements and the relationship of such agreements with WTO rules, market based instruments such as labelling and certification, particularly where they include requirements for chain-of-custody documentation.

    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development represented the Government at the recent Forest Law Enforcement and Governance, East Asia, Ministerial Conference (Indonesia, 11–13 September 2001). The conference was successful. Participants agreed to intensify national efforts and strengthen bilateral, regional and multilateral collaboration to address violations of forest law and forest crime and to create a regional task force on forest law enforcement and governance. The UK will play its part in taking forward these actions on forest

    143W
    governance, working with overseas partners both bilaterally and internationally through the United Nation Forum on Forests and the G-8 processes.

    Foot and Mouth
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update and publish the information given in the letter of 11 September from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for the Vale of York assessing the damage to the agricultural and tourism sectors of the foot and mouth outbreak (ref 3468). [12070]

    Mr. Morley
    My letter of 11 September provided the following information:"On 9 July you tabled a parliamentary question in which you asked what assessment has been made of the damage to the agriculture and tourism sectors of the current foot and mouth outbreak. I am sorry I was unable to reply before the House rose for summer recess, but had I had done so, I would have said that the Department does not have statistics on job losses in the agriculture sector resulting from foot and mouth. We are, however, developing proposals for a survey to collect information relating to the impact of foot and mouth disease on farmers directly or indirectly affected by the outbreak, including details relating to employment.
    As regards tourism, our best estimate is that overall UK tourism revenues may fall by over £3 billion over the eight month tourism season (March-October). However, figures from the International Passenger Survey, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), show that overseas visitors to the UK increased by 1 per cent. to 2.3 million in June 2001 compared with June 2000, up from April and May, when visits fell by 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively.
    The latest figures are quite encouraging and suggest that some of the work Ministers and British Tourism Authority have been doing in overseas markets is starting to have an effect.
    A copy of this letter was placed in the Library of the House."

    Our best estimate continues to be that overall UK tourism, in terms of gross value added, may fall by over £3 billion over the eight-month tourism season (March-October). More recent International Passenger Survey statistics, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), show that on average over the seven months between March and September the number of overseas visitors was down by 7 per cent. compared to the same period in 2000. The number of overseas visitors was also down on average 7 per cent. in the first nine months of the year, including those months prior to the outbreak of FMD. There was also an 11 per cent. fall in spending by overseas visitors over the same period.

    The survey of farmers mentioned in my letter has now been completed by ADAS. Officials are now considering the results and these will be made available early in the new year.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of 144W
    blood tests taken from animals slaughtered in efforts to eradicate foot and mouth disease were later confirmed as positive; and if she will make a statement. [13888]

    Mr. Morley
    55 per cent. of tests from animals slaughtered in efforts to eradicate foot and mouth disease were later confirmed as positive. This percentage includes samples taken from animals slaughtered on infected premises, as dangerous contacts, on contiguous premises and as slaughter on suspicion cases. Not all animals slaughtered on infected premises are sampled; confirmation of the disease frequently being based only on clinical examination. Additionally, a negative test result does not necessarily mean that the premises was free from disease. For instance, if the disease is old the virus may not be present in the sample collected, and blood tests from newly infected animals may not give a positive reaction to the laboratory test as antibodies may not yet be present.

    Source:

    DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 17.30 4 December 2001. Figures subject to change as more data become available.

    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what scientific evidence there is that vaccination can prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. [15363]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 16 November 2001]: There are three principal lines of scientific evidence which demonstrate that suitable foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines, properly applied, can minimise or prevent the spread of the disease. These are:
    the results of routine, laboratory-based, vaccine potency tests which are required of licensed vaccine manufacturers in compliance with pharmacopoeial criteria;
    the testing of the duration of immunity engendered by FMD vaccines, by means of similar tests. These tests have shown immunity following a primary course of vaccination with conventional FMD vaccine typically lasts for four to six months; and
    the results of vaccination campaigns which have been associated with the successful control of FMD, as has been apparent in a number of countries.

    It is essential that any vaccination campaign is both effectively and efficiently managed in order for it to work and there are many aspects to this, including, the correct strain of vaccine and enough of it, targeting the correct population of animals in the right location and that there are enough trained vaccinators.

    Throughout the outbreak, the Government have kept vaccination actively under review. Vaccination would be used if scientific advice were clear that it was the most appropriate measure to shorten the outbreak. But vaccination on its own could never have eradicated FMD entirely.

    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will calculate Her Majesty's Government's annual expenditure on foot and mouth vaccine research in each of the last 10 years. [18208]
    145W
    Mr. Morley
    Government expenditure on research into foot and mouth disease vaccine development for each of the last 10 years is as follows.

    Year

    £

    1992–93

    255,000

    1993–94

    285,000

    1994–95

    427,000

    1995–96

    318,000

    1996–97

    312,000

    1997–98

    317,000

    1998–99

    253,000

    1999–2000

    309,000

    2000–01

    268,000

    2001–02

    154,000

    Patrick Mercer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of alternatives to mass slaughter of livestock in the event of further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [18020]

    Mr. Morley
    The disease control policies employed by the Government to eradicate foot and mouth disease are being guided by advice received by the Chief Veterinary Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. The requirements to slaughter animals which are infected or suspected of being infected with FMD is also a key part of the rules established by the European Union on the control of the disease.

    The use of vaccination in certain circumstances would be considered if scientific advice were clear that it was the most appropriate measure to shorten the outbreak. However, vaccination does not provide complete protection against FMD and could never be used solely to eradicate FMD entirely. The Government recognised early in this year's outbreak that future EU and international policies for handling FMD would need to be reassessed, including the role of vaccination. The UK, with the Dutch, took the initiative to organise an International Conference on Prevention and Control of Foot and Mouth Disease on 12–13 December in Brussels.

    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk of the transmission of foot and mouth disease from the consumption by dogs of fallen stock. [17969]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Although experimental studies demonstrated a degree of susceptibility to FMD in some dogs, there is no direct evidence to show that the species has been involved in the transmission of FMD to susceptible livestock. There is a theoretical risk that dogs could be involved in the mechanical transmission of the virus by carrying infective virus on their paws or coat. There is also a remote possibility that the consumption by a dog of FMD infected material could pass infection on to susceptible livestock, particularly if the dog vomited soon after consuming the infected material. However, provided the dog had a normal digestive process, it is unlikely that any viable virus would survive passage through the stomach and intestines. It is considered most unlikely that this theoretical possibility poses a serious risk of spreading FMD.
    146W
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her oral statement of 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 578, on what basis she stated the number of local appeals which were lodged against the contiguous cull in the Thirsk blue box. [20822]

    Mr. Morley
    Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement of 12 November, I have asked my officials to re-check the source of the figures I provided on challenges to the contiguous cull in the Thirsk area. I can now confirm, that while accurate in themselves, the figures my right hon. Friend gave then relate to North Yorkshire as a whole. Thirsk was the name given to the area imposed for foot and mouth disease control and is often used as a shorthand to describe the wider area. I apologise if this led to any confusion.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the changes in foot and mouth(a) management and (b) eradication policy since the previous significant outbreak; and if she will make a statement. [20991]

    Mr. Morley
    An accurate and complete list of headline changes in the management and eradication of foot and mouth disease since 1967 would need to pick up a wide range of issues such as changes in legislation, science and technology. This could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, a comparison of the way in which the current outbreak differs from the 1967 outbreak may be found on the DEFRA website at http: \\www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/about/current/comparisons/1967 a.asp. This contains a section on how the 1967 and 2001 outbreaks were tackled.

    A clearer picture of the changes requested by the hon. Member will emerge as my Department and the independent inquiries commissioned by the Government are able to assess the lessons learned from the current outbreak.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards the request for pre-action disclosure of departmental papers relating to the Government's handling of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if she will make a statement. [21105]

    Margaret Beckett
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: Pre-action disclosure is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules which regulate the conduct of civil litigation. The question of disclosure of any departmental papers would have to be considered in the light of these rules as applied to the facts and circumstances of each case.

    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what moneys remain outstanding to auctioneers and valuers subcontracted to MAFF in Scotland during the foot and mouth outbreak; and if she will make a statement. [21541]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 10 December 2001]: A total of £327,061 remains outstanding to auctioneers and valuers in Scotland. This matter is currently being considered by my legal department and it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage.
    147W
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many vets work for the State Veterinary Service; and how many were employed at the outbreak of the current foot and mouth epidemic. [22104]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 December 2001 ]: The number of vets that work for the State Veterinary Service is 286 (full-time equivalents, as at January 2001). All of these veterinarians have assisted in the eradication of foot and mouth disease in some capacity.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost of employing temporary veterinary inspectors during the foot and mouth outbreak was. [22107]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: The total cost of payment to those temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) appointed for foot and mouth disease, (as of November 2001) is £33,183,049. This comprises fees plus travel and subsistence expenses.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many temporary veterinary inspectors, by area, were taken on during the foot and mouth epidemic. [22105]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: It is not possible to provide the number of temporary veterinary inspectors (TVIs) employed by area during the foot and mouth epidemic. We appointed 2,575 TVIs during the foot and mouth crisis and they moved around the country where they were most needed. TVIs were not necessarily assigned to one area.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will answer the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight concerning HF Holidays and letters from HF Holidays to her Department. [12919]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 6 November 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 23 October 2001. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.

    Tony Baldry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he will answer the letter dated 8 August from the hon. Member for Banbury concerning Mr. Rodney Thompson and those leaving the pig industry. [15602]

    Mr. Morley
    A response to the hon. Member's letter of 8 August was sent on 10 December 2001.

    Mr. Hendry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Wealden of 26 July relating to a petition on genetically modified foods. [16385]

    Mr. Morley
    A response to the hon. Member's letter of 26 July was sent on 27 November 2001. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.
    148W
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter (1) from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire dated 4 July concerning Mr. and Mrs. Don Holland of Shallow Grange Farm, Chelmorton, Derbyshire; [5444]

    (2) of 4 July from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire concerning Mr. and Mrs. Don Holland. [17964]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 26 November 2001]: A response to the hon. Member's letter of 4 July was sent on 10 December 2001.

    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from Mr. V. Patrick, of Woodmancote, Gloucestershire, a constituent, which was acknowledged by her Department on 25 June, Reference 156734. [19804]

    Mr. Morley
    A response to the hon. Member's letter was sent on 30 November 2001. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters of 14 May and 3 September from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire concerning his constituent, Mr. John Sanders. [22265]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: My noble Friend Lord Whitty replied to the letter dated 14 May from the hon. Member on 21 November 2001. The Department has no record of the letter dated 3 September.

    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire of 20 August concerning the foot and mouth disease slaughter policy. [15013]

    Mr. Morley
    Lord Whitty replied to the letter from the hon. Member on 10 December 2001.

    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter dated 10 October from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding livestock movement and traceability. [21477]

    Mr. Morley
    A response to the hon. Member's letter of 10 October was sent on 6 December 2001. I apologise for the time taken to respond to this letter.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Child Support
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions further to his answer of 16 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1209–10W, if he will commission an up-to-date assessment of the numbers of non-resident parents gaining and losing from the introduction of new child support mechanisms for 2002. [10264]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The assessment of gainers and losers carried out in 1998 was made in order to determine the general effect of the new child support scheme. As I indicated in my answer to my hon. Friend on 16 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1209–10W, simple comparisons between current and potential liabilities cannot provide reliable information on the effect of the

    149W
    reforms on individual parents. The new child support rates are now laid down in legislation and we do not intend to commission further work to establish the overall pattern of gain and loss resulting from conversion to the new scheme.

    New Deal
    Mr. Peter Duncan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those who have entered work through the new deal programme have commenced unsubsidised employment in(a) Scotland and (b) the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency. [23265]

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

    Number of people entering unsubsidised jobs (up to the end of September 2001, unless otherwise stated)

    Programme

    Scotland

    Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

    New Deal for Young People

    35,231

    424

    New Deal 25 plus

    6,398

    107

    New Deal for Lone Parents

    12,130

    108

    New Deal 50 plus: Employment Credit

    16,688

    1130

    New Deal for Disabled People

    116

    3—

    New Deal for Partners

    2243

    3—

    1 At end of October 2001

    2 At 26 October 2001

    3 Information at constituency level is not available for the new deal for disabled people and the new deal for partners

    Sources:

    New Deal Evaluation Database

    Employment Service Labour Market System

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the proportion of those leaving for sustained jobs from(a) the new deal for young people and (b) the new deal for the long-term unemployed who were still in employment (i) six and (ii) 12 months after leaving the new deal. [9330]

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

    Proportion of clients leaving the programme for employment who had not re-claimed jobseeker's allowance (JSA)

    Percentage

    Within 6 months of leaving

    Within 12 months of leaving

    New Deal for Young People

    80

    66

    New Deal for the Long-Term Unemployed

    88

    77

    Notes:

    (i) Figures for new deal for the long-term unemployed relate to the pre-April 2001 programme.

    (ii)The figures include those leavers show have been in employment for less than 6–12 months, bur who have not yet returned to JSA.

    Source:

    New Deal Evaluation Database

    New Deal (Loughborough)
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and pensions how many people in the Loughborough constituency are on the new deal programme, broken down by each category. [18491]
    150W
    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The available information is in the table.

    Programme

    Number1

    New Deal for Young People

    102

    New Deal 25 plus

    41

    New Deal for Lone Parents

    274

    New Deal 50 plus (Employment Credit claims)

    363

    1 To 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.

    Pensioner Poverty (South Tyneside)
    Mr. Hepburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress he has made in combating pensioner poverty in South Tyneside in the last 12 months [13210]

    Mr. McCartney
    Since taking office in 1997 we have made a significant impact on the lives of our poorest pensioners.

    We have introduced the minimum income guarantee from which some 6,800 pensioners in South Tyneside have benefited. We have boosted retirement pension through above inflation increases, both this year and next, to the benefit of some 29,800 pensioners in South Tyneside. We have also introduced free TV licences for the over 75's and next winter the winter fuel payment will again be £200.

    All in all, throughout Great Britain, 2 million people in pensioner households are now at least £15 a week, or £800 a year better off in real terms as a result of our measures.

    Benefit Take-up
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to improve take-up of benefits by older people [23118]

    Mr. McCartney
    I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hermel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, columns 601–02W

    Benefit Take-up (Wycombe)
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) men and (b) women in each ethnic group living in the Wycombe constituency were in receipt of income-related benefits in each of the last four years. [14876]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The information is not available.

    Income Support
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to review the arrangements for the level of deductions from income support based upon an individual's capital limit; [16127]
    151W
    (2) What research his Department has carried out into the relationship between the rate of interest and the level of deductions from income support, based upon capital limits; [16128]

    (3) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on income support for those who have relatively low savings. [16129]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 20 November 2001]: It would make no sense to carry out research into the relationship between interest rates and the level of tariff income deducted. This is because a tariff is deducted from income support on a sliding scale for capital held between the lower and upper capital limits. Capital is treated in this way so that people with capital in excess of the lower limit make a reasonable weekly contribution from those resources to help meet their normal living expenses before having recourse to public funds. It is not intended to represent any return that could be obtained from investing capital and is not based on the current bank interest rate.

    ONE Pilot
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the benefits included on the integrated claim form piloted in the ONE-callcentre pilots. [17999]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The benefits included on the integrated claim form which is used in the ONE-callcentre pilots are income support, jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

    Departmental Bodies and Reviews
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the date of establishment was for all(a) taskforces and (b) policy reviews with external members established by his Department since January 2000; which of them have issued their final reports and what the dates of publication were; which of them have been terminated and what the dates of termination were; and for those bodies still in existence, what their expected (i) reporting and (ii) termination dates are; [18157]

    (2) what (a) taskforces and (b) policy reviews with external members have been established by his Department since January 2000; and what (i) sub-groups, (ii) working parties and (iii) other subsidiary committees were established by each body. [18158]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Departmental Ministers and officials consider many policy questions and issues on a routine and on-going basis and frequently seek the views of people external to the Department on a more or less informal basis. The following taskforces, ad hoc advisory and policy review groups with external members, have been established since January 2000 with formalised terms of reference:

    Older People—Media Images Working Group was established in August 2000 and terminated in March 2001 with no report being published.

    Partnership Against Poverty and the Scottish Partnership Against Poverty were established in March 2001 and November 2001 respectively. The groups are
    152W
    on-going with no planned formal reports or end dates. The Partnership Against Poverty group has formed a Black and Ethnic Minority Elder sub-group.

    Jobcentre Plus Employers Forum and Jobcentre Plus Stakeholders Forum were both established in May 2001. Both are consultative groups and have been involved in discussions about the development of Jobcentre Plus. The Jobcentre Plus Stakeholders Forum has formed two sub groups, the services sub-group and the training sub-group which are looking at specific issues and will report to the main forum. None of the groups have a time-bound existence, although both the Employer Forum and Stakeholder Forum are under review, and the Stakeholder Forum sub-groups are likely to complete their work by April 2002.

    The National Employment Panel was launched in October 2001 as the successor to the New Deal Task Force. The National Employment Panel is an employer-led body which provides independent advice to Ministers on the design, delivery and performance of the UK Government's labour market services. The panel reports on a regular basis to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The panel has established the following sub-groups: the Performance Committee; the Minority Ethnic Advisory Group; the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Board; and a Skills sub-group which will report to the Under-Secretary of State for Adult Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey). The panel does not have a time-bound existence.

    The Private Pensions Simplification Review was announced on the 26 September 2001 and is expected to report in July 2002.

    The Minimum Funding Requirement Consultation Panel was announced on 18 September 2001. There are currently no plans for the panel to produce a report. It will continue to meet while legislation for the replacement for the MFR is being developed. The termination date for the panel depends on when a Bill is secured and legislation is in place, so it is not possible to give a precise termination date as this is subject to the parliamentary timetable.

    Parliamentary Ombudsman
    Mr. Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since 1997 the Parliamentary Ombudsman has written to him asking for redress on the grounds of equity to be made to clients of his Department resulting from a finding of maladministration leading to injustice; and how many people have received compensation in each case. [19505]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    [holding answer 11 December 2001]: I am aware of five such instances since May 1997.

    Information concerning any people who may have received compensation in those cases is not generally available.

    Specific records have, however, been retained of payments made further to the Ombudsman's report to Parliament on 26 February 2001 (State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) Inheritance Provisions: Redress of Maladministration HC271). To date, 101 people have received financial redress as a consequence of that investigation.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is(a) take-up of winter fuel payments by males over 60 years not in receipt of a retirement pension and (b) the average delay between claims and payment for such persons. [20798]

    Mr. McCartney
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: For winter 2000–01, we estimate about three in every four men aged 60 and over but not in receipt of retirement pension received a winter fuel payment. This figure includes men paid automatically because they receive a social security benefit other than retirement pension and those who needed to claim.

    It is not possible to provide a meaningful figure for the average time between a person claiming and receiving a payment.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on take-up of stakeholder pensions among the target group. [20998]

    Mr. McCartney
    As set out in our 1998 Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" the Government's long-term pension reforms are designed to ensure that all pensioners have a decent income in retirement, building on the foundation of the basic state pension available to all. This means everyone recognising their responsibilities; with those who are able, saving for their retirement, the Government supporting those who cannot save, and the private sector providing affordable and secure second pensions.

    Before April 2001, many of those who could put money aside to provide for themselves in retirement had no straightforward, good-value way to enter a pension scheme. Stakeholder pensions, which were introduced from that date, offered such people a route through provision of a simple, low-charge, flexible pension scheme which, for many employees, can be accessed through their workplace.

    Income-related benefit recipients in the Regent's Park and Kensington, North constituency

    May 1998

    May 1999

    May 2000

    May 2001

    Income support

    14,600

    14,000

    13,600

    13,600

    Jobseeker's allowance (income based)

    4,900

    4,700

    3,600

    3,200

    Family credit/working families' tax credit1

    1,300

    1,600

    1,900

    2,200

    Disability working allowance/disabled person's tax credit1

    20

    24

    31

    38

    Total

    20,800

    20,400

    19,200

    19,000

    1 Family credit and disability working allowance were replaced in October 1999 by working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit which are not social security benefits.

    Notes:

    1 Figures (other than disability working allowance/disabled person's tax credit which is a 100 per cent. count of all cases) are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

    2 Income support, jobseeker's allowance (income-based), family credit/working families' tax credit and "Total" figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

    3 Income support/jobseeker's allowance claimants in receipt of family credit/working families' tax credit or disability working allowance/disabled person's tax credit are not shown in income support/jobseeker's allowance totals.

    4 Disability working allowance/disabled person's tax credit figures are for April each year.

    5 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001

    Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001

    Family Credit/Working Families' Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1998-May 2001

    Disability Working Allowance/Disabled Person's Tax Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries April 1998-April 2001
    154W
    Stakeholder pensions are open to everyone and over 490,000 have been sold in their first seven months on the market. They are particularly targeted at moderate and higher earners who do not have access to an occupational pension or to a cost-effective personal pension. Many of the target group work for employers without a comprehensive occupational or personal pension scheme for their staff before the introduction of stakeholder pensions. The requirement for such employers to provide their work force with access to a stakeholder pension scheme came into force on 8 October. It is too early to have sufficient information on which to base a reasoned assessment of take-up by the target group.

    Pension Up-rating
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of the minimum state pension up-rating guarantee in 2004–05 for each half a per cent. if the September retail price index were to undershoot by 2.5 per cent. [21010]

    Mr. McCartney
    The information requested is in the table.

    Inflation rate in 2004–05 (Percentage)

    Cost of up-rating guarantee (£million)

    0.0

    700

    0.5

    550

    1.0

    400

    1.5

    300

    2.0

    150

    Note:

    Figures are in 2001–02 prices, rounded to the nearest £50 million.

    Income Related Benefits
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people living in Regent's Park and Kensington, North were in receipt of income-related benefits in each of the last four years. [21459]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The available information is in the tables.
    155W
    Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are not available for the Regent's Park and Kensington, North constituency but are available for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster.

    Housing benefit and council tax benefit caseload for Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

    Housing benefit

    Council tax benefit

    May 1998

    16,240

    13,560

    May 1999

    15,570

    12,930

    May 2000

    15,350

    12,820

    May 2001

    14,030

    11,940

    Housing benefit and council tax benefit caseload for City of Westminster

    Housing benefit

    Council tax benefit

    May 1998

    21,890

    16,090

    May 1999

    20,200

    15,350

    May 2000

    17,720

    13,220

    May 2001

    17,630

    13,140

    Notes:

    1 Regent's Park and Kensington, North parliamentary constituency is covered in part by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and City of Westminster local authority areas. Figures are not therefore representative of the constituency area.

    2 The data refer to households, which may be a single person or a couple.

    3 The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases.

    4 City of Westminster figures for May 1998 are estimated because the authority failed to provide statistical data for that quarter.

    Source:

    Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken each May from 1998 to 2001

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    20011

    Number of appeals heard

    50,360

    56,920

    53,215

    35,305

    15,305

    Number of appeals found in appellants favour

    21,925

    23,410

    22,500

    14,575

    6,365

    Proportion of appeals heard found in appellants favour (percentage)

    43.5

    41.1

    42.3

    41.3

    41.6

    1 To June

    Notes:

    Figures may be subject to change.

    Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

    Decision making and appeals legislation was changed from 6 September 1999.

    The 'All Work Test' was replaced by the 'Personal Capability Assessment' test from April 2000.

    Source:

    100 per cent. download of Generic Appeals Processing System.

    National Insurance Contribution Credits
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how long his Department keeps records of people who have signed on as unemployed and in respect of which they have received national insurance contribution credits. [23111]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Information relating to an individual jobseeker is kept for a minimum of two years after they have ceased to register as unemployed. National insurance records are maintained for the lifetime of each individual.

    Pension Service
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on preparation for the introduction of the Pension Service with particular reference to(a) access to services for users and (b) development of partnership working. [23119]
    156W

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when he intends to reply to the letter of 7 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. L. J. Sullivan; [22187]

    (2) for what reason he has not replied to the written question (ref 22187) from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to correspondence relating to Mr. I. J. Sullivan. [23697]

    Mr. Darling
    A reply has already been sent to my right hon. Friend about Mr. Sullivan.

    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter of 2 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. Willingham. [22188]

    Mr. Darling
    I replied to my right hon. Friend on 12 December.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Hoban
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of appeals against the rejection of applications for incapacity benefit were successful in each year since 1997. [22984]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The available information on the number of appeals against an incapacity benefit 'Personal Capability Assessment' decision found in the appellants favour is given in the table:

    Mr. McCartney
    The Pension Service will offer an improved service for pensioners. It will be customer focused and will give pensioners a modem, personalised and efficient service designed to meet their needs. It will be accessible by telephone, post, in time the internet and locally where pensioners need to do so. It will also provide information for future pensioners to help them make decisions about their future pension arrangements.

    The Pension Service is committed to providing a seamless service to its customers. The local service will develop relationships with third parties and other local service providers, and will be looking to use other premises, particularly to enable them to hold surgeries, either for appointments or for drop-in sessions. This negotiation will be done at a local level.

    Job Centre Plus
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees of the Benefits
    157W
    Agency and job centres have been assaulted at work in each of the past three years; and what impact the introduction of Job Centre Plus offices has had on the level of assaults. [23240]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    For information on incidents in the Benefits Agency and Jobcentres I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 176W.

    We estimate that over a quarter of a million people have passed through the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices during the first month of their operation. To date there have been no serious incidents in these offices. While it is still early days, this experience from the Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices so far confirms our belief that the new service and the new environment which we are offering in these offices promotes better behaviour in our customers. This, along with improved risk management arrangements, will we believe lead to fewer incidents of verbal and physical assaults on staff.

    Staff Safety
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reasons underlay his decision not to engage in discussions with the PCS Union on their concerns about the safety of staff; and if he will make a statement. [23241]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    Since the beginning of September 2001, my officials have engaged in over 60 hours of talks with the PCS union about their concerns on the safety of staff. Proposals for settling the current dispute were put to the PCS on 17 October, but were narrowly rejected by the PCS national executive committee. These proposals reflected the fact that the safety of staff has been our number one concern in developing the Jobcentre Plus offices. Security measures are stronger than ever, underpinned by comprehensive risk assessments which were developed in conjunction with PCS. In November, following further discussions, the PCS were asked, if they were still unable to accept the previous proposals, to put forward their own tangible and detailed proposals on which the dispute could be settled. We have made it clear to the PCS that we are willing to have further discussions on this basis.

    Employment (Over-50s)
    Mr. Denis Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress is being made to help the over-50s find work in areas of high unemployment; and what incentives are available to potential employers in this respect. [19931]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    We are firmly committed to tackling the high levels of economic inactivity among people over 50 in all areas of the country. The employment rate of older workers is up for the fourth year running, by 1.3 percentage points on last year's figures. In 2001–02 our range of nationally available new deals, including new deal 50 plus, new deal 25 plus and now new deal for disabled people, is expected to help some 50,000 over-50s into employment. In areas of particularly high unemployment people of all ages may be able to benefit from the additional support available through action teams for jobs and employment zones.
    158W
    Older people can offer a wealth of talent and expertise to employers. Additional incentives for employers include the new deal 25 plus employer subsidy, and the new deal 50 plus in-work training grant, which can both be paid to the employer.

    Patients Forums
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he intends to allow clients(a) receiving means tested benefits and (b) subject to work and availability tests to participate fully in the proposed patients forums and receive support for reasonable costs. [19489]

    Malcolm Wicks
    [holding answer 3 December 2001]: People of working age in receipt of benefit can do unlimited voluntary work, as long as the usual entitlement conditions are met. Payments in respect of expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with voluntary work are wholly ignored in the calculation of income-related benefits. Where someone receives remuneration in respect of his or her participation in a patients forum the normal rules concerning paid work would need to be considered.

    Cases are decided on an individual basis, so it is necessary for people to let the Jobcentre or benefits office know about their participation.

  HEALTH

    Cholera Vaccine
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since 1971 children have been injected with cholera vaccines in place of ones relating to whooping cough, diphtheria and tetanus; and if he will make a statement. [22991]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department is not aware of any incidences of children being vaccinated with cholera vaccine in place of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines.

    Beta Interferon
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 24 August from the hon. Member for North Shropshire, concerning the issue of beta interferon and multiple sclerosis sufferers. [22392]

    Ms Blears
    A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 September.

    Orthopaedic Surgeons
    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting times were (i) to see an orthopaedic surgeon and (ii) between seeing an orthopaedic surgeon and having an operation where that was necessary in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23244]

    Mr. Hutton
    The average (median) waiting times for in-patient and out-patient treatment as at September 2001 are given in the tables. The data collected for waiting times by specialty are available by quarter only, the latest data being quarter ending September 2001. Data on
    159W
    maximum waiting times are not collected; however the number of patients waiting over 26 weeks for out-patient treatment and the number of patients waiting over 18 months for in-patient treatment are given.

    We are committed to reducing waiting times. We have allocated £75 million to tackle this in a number of specialties (ophthalmology, ear, nose and throat, dermatology and orthopaedics), through the action on programmes.

    Trauma and orthopaedics out-patient waiting times

    Average (median) waiting time (Weeks)

    Of those seen, number who waited 26+ weeks

    Percentage who waited 26+ weeks

    September 2001

    10.01

    18,694

    10.2

    Note:

    Data refer to patients who have been seen during quarter a first out-patient appointment following GP referral. All data are HA based

    Source:

    QM08R, QF01 quarterly waiting times returns

    Trauma and orthopaedics in-patient waiting times

    Average (median) waiting time (Months)

    Number still waiting 18+ months

    Percentage of total list waiting 18+ months

    September 2001

    4.24

    73

    0.03

    Note:

    All data are HA based

    Source:

    QM08R, QF01 quarterly waiting times returns

    Bob Spink
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use is being made in the NHS of orthopaedic physicians to reduce waiting times for orthopaedic surgeons. [23183]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Modernisation Agency's national health service orthopaedic service collaboratives programme shows a number of NHS trusts have developed innovative solutions to improving waiting times, access and throughput of patients. Trusts such as Gloucester Royal, Isle of Wight and Addenbrookes use orthopaedic physicians. These tend to be orthogeriatricians or rehabilitation physicians who focus on the care of the more elderly, anaesthetically vulnerable population after their operations.

    The Modernisation Agency is also leading on the action on orthopaedics programme that has been developed by the Government. The aim of the action on orthopaedics programme is to significantly encourage and disseminate best practice; improve access to care; and reduce variations in waiting times.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 5 October (his ref POH(4)5332/24) from the hon. Member for Northavon regarding a constituent, Mr. Wilcox. [18027]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 26 November 2001]: I regret the delay. A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 12 December.
    160W
    Mrs. Roe
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 6 August, 21 September, 25 October and 29 November relating to correspondence about her constituent, Mrs. Doris May Johnston, of Belmont View. [20912]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 6 December 2001]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on the 13 December.

    Youth Helplines
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what money the Government have made available to UK-wide youth helplines in the last 12 months. [16979]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the Department's records of its funding of voluntary organisations reveal that a number of organisations currently receiving core funding provide helpline-type services as part of their core activities. These include Kidscape, the Children's Legal Centre, the National Youth Advocacy Service and ChildLine.

    In addition, the Department provided project grant assistance specifically for helpline services designed for young people in the year ending 31 March 2001 as follows:

    Name of organisation

    Name/type of helpline

    Amount of funding (£)

    ChildLine

    Childline for children in care

    50,000

    Child Psychotherapy Trust

    Professional call back advice

    20,000

    Youth Clubs UK

    Youth Listens to Youth

    35,000

    After Adoption

    TALKadoption

    30,000

    Falls (Older People)
    John Austin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and the management of hip fractures will be included in the clinical guidelines on the assessment and prevention of falls to be published by NICE; and if he will make a statement; [18863]

    (2) what discussions he has had recently with NICE on the implementation of section 6 of the National Service Framework for Older People regarding standards for services related to falls and osteoporosis. [18862]

    Linda Gilroy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that the clinical guidelines on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people will include specific guidance on osteoporosis; [19635]

    (2) when he expects NICE to publish clinical guidelines on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. [19641]

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if osteoporosis will be included in the NICE clinical guideline on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people. [20102]

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if NICE will issue clinical guidance on the assessment and prevention of falls that mentions osteoporosis; [19920]
    161W
    (2) if (a) the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and (b) the management of hip fractures will be included in NICE' s clinical guidelines on the assessment and prevention of falls. [20015]

    Jacqui Smith
    In July we announced that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) would produce clinical guidelines for the assessment and prevention of falls including recurrent falls in older people, with an associated clinical audit dataset, database and methodology. NICE is currently looking at what this guidance will cover and has written to organisations with an interest to seek their views. No discussions have taken place with NICE on this issue of scope but as a consultee the Department will send its views to NICE shortly. NICE has indicated a provisional publication date of August 2003 for these guidelines.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the private care homes industry. [18358]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I have met and corresponded with representatives of the independent care home sector on a number of occasions to discuss matters of mutual concern, and have had similar discussions with hon. Members.

    We are committed to working with the independent care home sector to make sure that we use capacity and resources to achieve the best possible outcomes for service users and their carers. To this end, I chair a strategic commissioning group to give greater direction to the commissioning of care services, in particular those for older people. Membership of the group includes representatives of the independent care home sector. Recently the group published an agreement—"Building Capacity and Partnership in Care"—that focuses on councils and independent sector providers entering into long-term agreements about placing people into care homes or giving them other forms of support.

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportions of the provision of residential and nursing home bed spaces are(a) public sector and (b) private sector in (i) England and (ii) Staffordshire. [22681]

    Jacqui Smith
    The table shows the percentage of places in residential care homes that are in the public and private sector as at 31 March 2001. All of the registered nursing beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics are in the private sector (186,800 in homes in England and 5,200 in the health authorities of north and south Staffordshire).

    As at 31 March 2001 Rounded numbers and percentages

    England

    Staffordshire1

    Total places in residential care homes

    341,200

    6,800

    Public sector2 (percentage)

    15

    26

    Private sector3 (percentage)

    85

    74

    1 Information presented for Staffordshire shire county and Stoke-on-Trent unitary authority. These areas equate to the health authorities of north and south Staffordshire.

    2 Residential places in local authority staffed homes

    3 Residential places in voluntary, private, small homes (with less than four places), including dual registered homes

    162W

    Nurses Accommodation
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with local authorities on housing for nurses; and if he will make a statement. [18887]

    Mr. Hutton
    The importance of affordable, appropriate accommodation for national health service health care workers in areas where property prices are high is an important factor in the recruitment and retention of staff and in particular nurses. In recognising difficulties experienced by staff, an NHS housing co-ordinator has been appointed and the NHS plan set a target to provide an additional 2,000 extra units of accommodation in London within three years. In addition suitable accommodation is being sourced outside of London in appropriate locations.

    The NHS co-ordinator, together with NHS trusts, had dialogue with a range of local authorities throughout the country to ensure that NHS key worker needs are reflected in local plans for housing and opportunities maximised for affordable housing secured through section 106 planning obligations. The identification of bids and subsequent commencement of implementing the starter home initiative has been a further example of successful joint co-operation.

    Protection of Children Act
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many individuals have been vetted under the Protection of Children Act 1999; [19096]

    (2) how many individuals from organisations which may vet but are not required to do so under the Protection of Children Act 1999 have been vetted. [19098]

    Jacqui Smith
    Over 972,000 individual checks have been made against the Protection of Children Act List since this part of the Act came into force in October 2000. Information is not collected in a way that allows the Department to identify the number of checks that are made where there is no requirement to do so.

    Abortion
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the start dates for those commissioning abortion services; and if he will monitor the process. [19451]

    Jacqui Smith
    From April 2002, primary care trusts will be able to commission abortion services, taking over the current role of health authorities. We will closely monitor any impact of this change, in particular the percentage of women accessing national health service funded abortions.

    The sexual health and HIV strategy has set a target that from 2005, commissioners should ensure that women who meet the legal requirements have access to abortion within three weeks of the first appointment with the general practitioner or other referring doctor. An implementation plan for the strategy will be decided following the current consultation, which closes on 21 December. This will include monitoring of progress towards each of the new targets set by the strategy.
    163W
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources have been committed to the improvement of abortion services following the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV. [19452]

    Jacqui Smith
    We have committed £47.5 million to support initiatives in the sexual health and HIV strategy over the first two years. The precise breakdown of this funding for the next financial year will be decided in light of responses to the consultation on the strategy, which closes on 21 December. Future spending on specific activities will be set by the 2002 spending review.

    Most abortion services are currently—and will continue to be—funded from main national health service allocations. As part of the implementation plan for the strategy, we will need to work with health commissioners to ensure that there is sufficient investment to meet the level of need locally; and towards achieving the new target set by the strategy that, by 2005, women who meet the legal requirements should have access to abortion within three weeks of the first appointment with the general practitioner or other referring doctor.

    Public Inquiries
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the criteria which have to be met before a public inquiry is set up within the health service. [19456]

    Jacqui Smith
    There are no set criteria that have to be met. When considering whether an inquiry (in public or private) is appropriate, our main concern is to ensure that the full range of relevant issues is identified and subjected to proper and effective scrutiny. This would include consideration of the depth and nature of any earlier investigations, for example, an inquest or internal review. In making a decision we would also bear in mind the need for effectiveness, fairness, speed and economy.

    NHS Walk-in Centres
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of NHS walk-in centres in Lancashire. [19922]

    Jacqui Smith
    National health service walk-in centres are one of a range of new initiatives designed to improve access to primary care. Forty-one pilot centres are currently open. The Department has commissioned an independent evaluation of these national pilots. The final report is due shortly and this will inform the future development of NHS walk-in centres.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment of the psychological effects of terrorism on the general public he has commissioned; and if he will make a statement. [20264]

    Jacqui Smith
    No formal assessment of the psychological effects of terrorism on the general public has been commissioned. However, we are very well aware of the consequences, including a range of long-term effects for a proportion of those directly involved. Following the tragic events of 11 September, Government Departments worked together to ensure support would be available.
    164W
    A dedicated helpline was set up; support for family liaison officers was provided; and the Department issued a leaflet to all general practitioners on the management of acute stress disorder and post traumatic stress disorder. We have embarked on a radical programme of modernisation to improve access to effective treatment and care, reduce unfair variation, raise standards, and provide quicker and more convenient services across the spectrum of mental health services. The National Service Framework for Mental Health, published in September 1999, sets out general standards for treatment and care. In addition, the Allen Report 1989 and 'Planning for Major Incidents: the NHS guidance' 1998 were issued to help those involved in the provision of support for people with post traumatic stress disorder to identify psycho-social support, and disseminate messages about good practice.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the retention of general practitioners in the national health service. [20658]

    Mr. Hutton
    We are improving retention in general practice by developing policies designed to improve working lives. Measures include increasing general practitioner numbers, improving the standard of GP premises, cutting bureaucracy, introducing an occupational health service for GPs and their staff and adopting a range of family friendly policies. We are working with the profession to identify further measures to boost GP numbers and make general practice a better place to work.

    Cleft Lip and Palate Services
    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 2001, which single north-west regional centre for cleft lip and palate services the clinical implementation group recommended to Ministers in accordance with the Clinical Standards Advisory group standards. [20411]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 4 December 2001]: Proposals were submitted by the two regional tertiary paediatric trusts in the north-west, which reflected a service model based on one single regional centre providing all primary surgery to children with cleft lip and palate. A cleft review panel considered these proposals and recommended that the Royal Liverpool Children's Trust should go forward as the preferred option in the consultation document.

    However, Ministers sought reassurance as to whether the proposed single site options to be consulted upon would provide the best quality service. Further work is currently being undertaken which is exploring the possible merits of a twin-site centre and whether this could offer greater potential for maximising access to skills and attracting applications from a range of high quality technicians.

    Positive discussions are now progressing between the two trusts in Liverpool and Manchester and it is anticipated that as a result of these joint discussions a number of options, together with a clear recommendation, will go to public consultation in January 2002.
    165W

    Xenotransplantation
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement of the possible use of GM animal tissue and organs for xenotransplantation. [20917]

    Jacqui Smith
    We are assisted in the consideration of issues about xenotransplantation by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA). The authority was established in 1997 and, in addition to advising the Government on the acceptability of specific applications to undertake xenotransplantation procedures, it also acts as a focal point for xenotransplantation issues. Organisations undertaking research into xenotransplantation in the UK are required to comply with all relevant legislation. No clinical trials involving humans have yet been approved in the UK. Our position remains that clinical trials in xenotransplantation involving humans will only be allowed to take place when we are fully satisfied that the risks associated with such procedures are acceptable taking account of all the available evidence at the time.

    Haemophilia
    Mr. Connarty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a safer recombinant treatment product will be made available to haemophilia sufferers in England and Northern Ireland. [21720]

    Mr. Hutton
    We are actively considering extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors to all haemophilia patients in England when supplies allow. Currently the policy is to provide recombinant (synthetic) clotting factors for new haemophilia patients and children under 16.

    Questions relating to Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved Administration.

    Trainee Nurses
    Mr. Denis Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) female and (b) male trainee nurses have been recruited into the NHS in the last 12 months. [21599]

    Mr. Hutton
    20,021 nurses entered nurse and midwifery training in 2000–01. The breakdown by sex is not collected centrally.

    The non-medical work force census records changes in the size and composition of the nursing work force employed in the national health service. In 1999, 31,070 male and 279,080 female nurses were employed in hospital and community health services (HCHS) (the breakdown by sex is not collected for practice nurses). In 2000 there were 32,380 male and 284,370 female HCHS nurses.

    Medical Robotics
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice is available to NHS trusts on the medical and cost benefits of using medical robotics; [22145]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the cost benefits of expanding the use of medical robotics in the national health service; [22144]
    166W
    (3) if he will make a statement on the use of medical robotics in the national health service. [22143]

    Jacqui Smith
    The application of robotics to diagnosis and clinical care in the national health service, as in other health care systems, is at an early stage. The safety, cost effectiveness and acceptability of robotics in medicine will need to be evaluated by the NHS Technology Assessment programme, the Medical Devices Agency and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, before large scale introduction.

    Betts Way Children's Residential Centre
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the NSPCC's report on Betts Way Children's Residential Centre, SE20; and what plans he has to review the law on evidence given by children with severe learning difficulties. [21762]

    Jacqui Smith
    The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children investigation into allegations of abuse at Betts Way Residential Centre was conducted with the full co-operation of Bromley Social Services Department, the Ravensbourne National Health Service Trust and local police. A copy of the NSPCC's summary report has been made available to departmental officials. In the context of the terms of reference established for this investigation the NSPCC concluded that no young person at the centre could be identified as having suffered significant harm or abuse. The report also found no evidence that there had been, or was, widespread poor practice or that there was a culture of institutionalised risk for services users at Betts Way.

    However, the report did recommend a review of policy and practice. Bromley Social Services Department and the other relevant agencies are taking this forward together. The London borough of Bromley has also recently commissioned an independent review of the investigation process to identify what further lessons can be learned from the Betts Way case about conducting investigations of this nature with service users whose needs are complex. Officials from the Department have asked to be kept informed about progress.

    Part II of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 sets out a range of special measures to assist vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give evidence in court. These include the use of video-recorded statements, screens, live TV links, clearing the public gallery and an intermediary to put questions to a witness. The categories of persons eligible to apply for special measures under the first chapter of Part II of the Act are: children under the age of 17; those who suffer from a mental or physical disorder, or have a disability or impairment that is likely to affect their evidence; and those whose evidence is likely to be affected by their fear or distress at giving evidence in the proceedings. The special measures are part of a much larger programme to implement the "Speaking Up For Justice" report, which contains over 70 recommendations designed to encourage and support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings.

    The Act also changes the law on competency. It will allow someone who is unable to understand the implications of taking the oath to give unsworn evidence,

    167W
    providing that they can understand questions asked of them in court, and can answer in a way that can be understood.

    Childhood Obesity
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to tackle obesity in children; and if he will make a statement. [22111]

    Jacqui Smith
    We are committed to tackling the current trend of rising obesity among children. The NHS plan makes a commitment to wide-ranging action to improve diet and nutrition, and local action to tackle obesity and physical inactivity, informed by advice from the Health Development Agency on what works.

    The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease requires that all national health service bodies will have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of local programmes of effective policies on overweight and obesity and will have quantified data on the programme by April 2002.

    There are major programmes of work under way to tackle poor diet and physical inactivity. 80,000 children are now receiving a free piece of fruit every day as part of the national school fruit scheme. We recently announced that the scheme will benefit from an extra £42 million from the New Opportunities Fund and will be extended to cover the whole of the West Midlands region from the summer term 2002—extending its reach to over 250,000 children. In addition, £2 million is being invested in the food in schools programme which brings together under one umbrella all food-related initiatives in schools and after school clubs to improve health and learning.

    We are also working across Government to ensure that children have opportunities to participate in a wide range of physical and sporting activities, including high quality physical education and walking and cycling to school. This is backed up by significant investment, including £581 million of New Opportunities Fund money for the physical education and sports programme, which is being used to improve school sports facilities.

    Following the publication of the National Audit Office report "Tackling Obesity in England" which was published earlier this year, we are awaiting final recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee. Their conclusions will shape future work in this area.

    Learning Disabilities
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to the learning disability partnership boards regarding the need to establish intentional community provision in Hampshire under the provisions of the Valuing People Paper. [22275]

    Jacqui Smith
    On 31 August 2001, the Department issued statutory guidance on implementing the proposals set out in "Valuing People". This confirms that local councils must give people with learning disabilities a genuine opportunity to choose between a range of housing, care and support options that include village and intentional communities. Copies of the guidance (Health Service Circular 2001/016: Local Authority Circular (2001)23) are available in the Library.
    168W
    The guidance also states that learning disability partnership boards should work with councils and other bodies to ensure that a local housing strategy for people with learning disabilities and related plans for commissioning care and support packages is developed by winter 2002–03.

    Wanless Report
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the identified spending for mental health referred to in the Wanless report will be allocated to(a) preventive interventions, (b) increased use of atypical antipsychotic drugs, (c) increased staffing and (d) spending on capital projects; and if he will make a statement. [22619]

    Jacqui Smith
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-Budget statement has made clear the need to secure substantial additional resources to ensure a modern health service across all clinical areas. There is no doubt that increases in national health service expenditure over the next decade will see substantial increases in spending on mental health including preventive interventions, increased use of atypical antipsychotic drugs, increased staffing, and spending on capital projects. We are studying the Wanless report with great interest and it will be an important source of analysis and information in the allocation of resources to the service.

    Mental Health (Children)
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school-age children suffer from mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [22489]

    Jacqui Smith
    A survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain was carried out in 1999 by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department, the Scottish Health Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. The intention was to provide up-to-date baseline information on the prevalence of mental disorders among 5 to 15-year-olds. Prevalence rates were produced for the three main categories of mental disorder, for example conduct disorders, hyperactivity and emotional disorders.

    Key findings on prevalence were:
    about 10 per cent. of children aged 5–15 in Great Britain had a mental disorder in 1999;
    5 per cent. had conduct disorders (eg aggressive and antisocial behaviour), 4 per cent. had emotional disorders (eg anxiety, depression) and 1 per cent. were hyperkinetic (inattention, overactivity);
    mental disorders were significantly more common in boys than girls in both the 5–10 and the 11 to I5-year-old age groups.

    Diabetes
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the proposed funding for diabetes care outlined in the interim Wanless report is broken down; and if he will make a statement. [R] [22766]

    Jacqui Smith
    We published the standards for the Diabetes National Service Framework on 14 December, with the delivery strategy to follow in summer 2002. Funding decisions for the period 2003 to 2005 are the subject of the current spending review.
    169W

    Anti-TNF Therapy
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of anti-TNF therapy within the NHS. [22739]

    Jacqui Smith
    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently appraising the two main drugs involved in this therapy, etanercept (enbrel) and infliximab (remicade). Until NICE has completed its appraisal, national health service bodies have been advised to use existing arrangements to determine local prescribing policies, using the publicly available evidence to inform their decision.

    Health Pay Review
    Derek Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the health pay review bodies. [24096]

    Mr. Milburn
    I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the reports of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) and the Review Body on Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB), which are published today. I understand that a similar announcement is being made by the Minister for Health and Community Care in Scotland, and the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales. Copies of the reports are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairmen and members of both Review Bodies for their hard work.

    The pay recommendations of the two Review Bodies are being accepted in full and without staging.

    Nurses, midwives and health visitors are to get an across the board increase of 3.6 per cent. Some 45,000 of the lowest paid nursing support staff on grade A will benefit from a minimum cash uplift of £400 giving them pay rises of up to 4.3 per cent. Non registered staff on grades A and B will also have access to an additional incremental point if they achieve National Vocational Qualifications.

    On call and standby payments increase by 50 per cent. while Psychiatric and Regional Secure Unit Allowances are increased by 32 per cent. Other cash based allowances are increased by 3.6 per cent.

    London Allowances will be increased by 3.6 per cent. and the earnings related element will be consolidated into a new rate of £3,228 for all nursing staff working in inner London irrespective of their earnings.

    This year additional action has been targeted to support clinical leadership in the national health service. Staff undertaking matron roles will have access to an increased maximum salary up to £32,760. The lowest three incremental points on the Nurse Consultant scales will be deleted giving a new minimum rate of £33,940. Nurse Consultants will potentially be able to earn up to £46,675.

    On top of these increases the extension of the geographic coverage of Cost of Living Supplements from 1 April 2002 to a further six health authorities will result an estimated 20,000 more qualified NPRB staff benefiting from additional increases worth between £400 and £600.
    170W
    The minimum starting pay of a newly qualified nurse will rise to £16,005, in Inner London starting pay for a new nurse will be £19,873, including London Weighting and the Cost of Living Supplement.

    The NPRB has also recommended an across the board increase of 3.6 per cent. for physiotherapists, radiographers and other allied health professionals within its remit. The lowest increment of the basic grade will be deleted with the assimilation arrangements for all existing basic grade staff. Starting pay for newly qualified staff will increase by 7.5 per cent. on 1 April 2002 to £17,115 or £21,028 in London, inclusive of London Weighting and the Cost of Living Supplement. Cash based allowances are increased in line with awards made to nursing staff.

    The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body (DDRB) has recommended an overall pay increase of 3.6 per cent. for salaried doctors and dentists and general dental practitioners. In addition the DDRB has recommended adjustments to the pay scales, including increases in the scale maxima, for senior house officers, associate specialists, staff grade practitioners, and dental officers, and an extension in the dentists' commitment scheme worth around an extra £5 million per year.

    For general medical practitioners it has recommended an increase in the amount to be delivered through the fee scale of 4.6 per cent, together with an increase in the out of hours supplement for GP registrars from 30 per cent. of basic salary to 50 per cent.

    The pay rise recommended by the DDRB takes the starting consultant salary to £52,640 and that of a consultant on the maximum of the scale with maximum distinction award to £133,585. The number of distinction awards has also been increased by 186 which will support the Government's proposals to reform the existing schemes to give more opportunity to reward consultants for their commitment and contribution to the NHS.

    These above inflation increases are fair and reflect the important contribution that these key staff are making to delivering the modernisation agenda outlined in the NHS Plan.

    Psycho-geriatricians
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psycho-geriatricians there were in England in each of the last five years; and how many will be in post by 2004. [23290]

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

    Hospital medical staff within the old age psychiatry specialty—England at 30 September

    Number

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    All staff

    640

    710

    760

    820

    860

    of which:

    Consultants

    230

    240

    270

    310

    330

    Note:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

    Source:

    Department of Health medical and dental work force census.

    The number of trained specialists in old age psychiatry is projected to increase by at least a third by 2004.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Spanish Fishing Fleet: EU Policy
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 18th November, the European Union will pay £122 million to compensate Spanish fishermen who can no longer fish off the coast of Morocco.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the payment of £122 million or 197 million euros is for restructuring the Community fleet that had previously fished within the framework of the old EU/Morocco agreement. It fulfils a decision by the Nice European Council meeting of December 2000 that a package of restructuring aid should be put in place for Spanish and Portuguese vessel owners and fishermen if it proved impossible to renew the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Will he now confirm that next year the huge Spanish fleet, which is bigger than the rest of the Community fleet put together, will move into our northern waters for the first time? Will the Minister comfort British fishermen, their dependent families, myself and this House by saying what precautions the Government will put in place to ensure that the behaviour that occurred in Moroccan waters does not take place in our northern waters?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not confirm in the terms expressed by the noble Baroness that the
2
Spanish fleet will be redirected to our waters as a result of the agreement. The money to which I referred is intended primarily for the decommissioning of Spanish and Portuguese vessels. Access to northern waters, which will have to be discussed over the coming months, is confined to quotas contained or limited by the quotas which prevail in those waters. Therefore, Spanish access will be very limited and the existing precautions will continue. As the noble Baroness knows, the whole fisheries policy will be under review next year.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, do the Government differentiate between the waters off Morocco and those off Western Sahara?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the agreement with Morocco covered the area of sea which related to the internationally recognised territorial waters of Morocco. Other agreements cover an area further south, but the one relating to Morocco meant that in practice Spanish and Portuguese vessels were fishing not only in Moroccan but also in Western Saharan waters. The agreement with Morocco has not been renewed. The cost of renewing it would have been substantially greater than the cost of the restructuring for decommissioning in Spain and Portugal.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the question of selling fishing licences to Spanish companies. I do not understand it. Does my noble friend know of any pressure that has been brought to bear on this matter other than that of the money gained from selling the licences? Is there any other aspect to this issue of which he can make the House aware? As I said, I am concerned by the whole concept of selling licences. Are they sold only for money or for another reason?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, basically there is no reason other than that the previous government left this country wide open to the ability to sell licences without conditions. During that period, some fishermen within

3
the United Kingdom were prevailed upon to part with their licences. It was only in 1999 that we inserted a provision which required those acquiring UK licences to have an economic link with the United Kingdom. That move has limited the number of licences now being acquired by foreign owners. In addition, foreign owners are required to ensure that at least 50 per cent of the catch or 50 per cent of the crew are connected with the United Kingdom.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister agree that every November and December Ministers and scientists hold protracted discussions on the total allowable catch? The result of this year's talks seems to be the most serious ever in relation to the cuts required around United Kingdom waters. Does the Minister believe that the decommissioning money available for the United Kingdom fleet is adequate, bearing in mind the long-term impact on small fishing ports which have no alternative employment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that at roughly this time of year we become engaged in long, protracted and detailed negotiations. Indeed, my colleague, Elliot Morley, is attending a meeting of the Fisheries Council today to discuss these very issues. The Commission proposes a substantial cut in the total annual catch and in the quotas. While we agree with the overall approach of the Commission, we believe that in certain respects its proposals are not appropriate and that the cuts are too great. However, we do not accept the view of some in the industry that such an approach should not have been adopted. Certainly, the needs of conservation and of restoring cod stocks requires a fairly substantial cut. We believe that the decommissioning money will help a number of our fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his answer to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, the Minister said that the £122 million was intended primarily for decommissioning the Spanish fleet. That presupposes that there are other reasons. What are they?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the bulk of the money is for decommissioning. The rest relates to various social provisions in the Spanish and Portuguese locations of fishing.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question. I understand that some 300 fishing vessels from the Spanish fleet will be, or are supposed to be, decommissioned now that they can no longer fish in Moroccan waters. How quickly will that happen, and will they all be decommissioned? Secondly, what cross-border agreements have been reached between British and Spanish inspectors in relation to inspection? I know that that subject has been talked about for many years. Has it been moved any further forward?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the second point, although substantial discussions have taken place and there is improved understanding between the British and Spanish authorities, so far as I am aware there is no cross-presence of personnel in the sense to which I believe the noble Baroness referred.
With regard to the noble Baroness's first point, a time-scale will be applied to the decommissioning over the next year or so. The final details are not complete because the agreement between the EU and Morocco was given until the end of the year to run. It is only now that it is recognised that the agreement will finish, and therefore the final conditions have yet to be stipulated. However, a limit will be placed on the time taken by Spain and Portugal to decommission their boats.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that before we joined the common fisheries policy the United Kingdom owned some 80 per cent of the fish that swim in European waters, can the Minister tell the House whether repatriation of the common fisheries policy is on the Government's agenda post-Laeken as we move towards 2004? If not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that for once the noble Lord and I agree: the common fisheries policy is not the greatest success of our European policy. There have been problems in that respect and we look to a major change in the common fisheries policy. However, our assessment of the position indicates that, although the present common fisheries policy has not served our interests well, due to conservation needs, the decline in stock and the need for co-operation between the EU countries, we still need a common policy. Therefore, repatriation in the total sense to which the noble Lord refers is not appropriate.

Tax Revenues
2.39 p.m.
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much tax revenues have declined as a result of the economic slowdown; and how this shortfall will be met.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tables B8 and 2.4 of the Pre-Budget Report set out the changes to the projections for receipts since Budget 2001, including those that result from changes in GDP. The Government remain on track to meet both fiscal rules over the economic cycle, including in the cautious case.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Government would raise more revenue overall by lowering the rate of corporation tax—thus encouraging inward investment—than by increasing the rate of national insurance contributions that make this country less competitive, and if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a peculiarly complex hypothetical question. We do not

5
believe that it is necessary for taxes to rise. We are meeting the firm fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable development rule.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister may remember that a few weeks ago the Treasury was planning to save taxpayers' money by selling f 100,000 worth of its silver and to give the proceeds to the NHS. How does the Minister consider that people will now react when they discover that since then the Treasury has spent 500 times that amount (£50 million) on one item—lawyers' and accountants' fees for the liquidation of Railtrack?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Treasury was not planning to save £100,000 by selling what is called the "Treasury silver" for the benefit of the NHS. The Treasury has a rule, as do all departments, that non-performing assets should be disposed of unless there are good reasons to the contrary. None of the proceeds from those asset sales, and certainly not from Treasury asset sales, are hypothecated to any particular purpose. There is a history of payments of lawyers' and accountants' fees. Some of the most extreme examples took place during the privatisation programme of the previous government. Some noble Lords feel that the size of them is regrettable.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister's Answer to my noble friend Lord Northbrook was factually correct. Unfortunately, it was totally meaningless to most noble Lords and certainly to myself. Can he tell the House what is in table 2.4, for example?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It is a complex table with five columns and seven rows. It is not possible to answer that kind of question in reply to a Starred Question.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the greater challenge facing the Government this year is not so much under-receipt in terms of tax revenue, but underspend in terms of government expenditure programmes, bearing in mind the £0.7 billion underspend next year? Can he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the underspend this year will be less?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I agree in large part with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Underspend is a serious problem, particularly when it follows many years of underfunding. For a long time the need has been well recognised, but this particular tanker takes time to turn. All the spending departments in the Government have been given firm targets and encouragement to overcome that problem as soon as possible.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, as a result of the economic slow-down or otherwise, recently the Government have suggested that tax levels will have to rise. Can the Minister confirm that national insurance
6
contributions are regarded by the Government as part of their overall pledge on tax levels? I refer particularly to their pledge not to increase taxation for higher level taxpayers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have not said, explicitly or implicitly, that taxes will rise. Quite clearly we have said that in the period of the current spending review there is no need for taxes to rise. We are meeting both of the fiscal rules to which I referred earlier and the money that is available from existing taxes—in the next financial year a surplus of £10 billion is forecast—is sufficient to provide resources for the needed investment in health, education and transport. Therefore, the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, does not apply.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by lowering the rate of corporation tax, the total revenue will increase, so creating a virtuous circle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some economists say that. At times that may be true. I do not particularly want to commit the Government to saying that it is true now.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is ill conceived because the rate of corporation tax in Britain is lower than in any other country in Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, under certain circumstances it still could be true—it is true of all taxes—that if the rate is lowered, receipts are encouraged. That was why I was not quite as dismissive to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as the noble Baroness indicates that I perhaps should have been.

House of Lords Reform
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, whether they consider that list systems will deliver appropriate levels of independence among the membership of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Yes, my Lords, any system of elections has to balance the independence of the representatives with the need for accountability to the people. Both of those attributes are desirable in a democracy and must be balanced against each other. List systems can deliver both.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for that reply. Does he agree that

7
independence can come in a variety of forms and from any quarter of your Lordships' House, as was admirably demonstrated by noble Lords on the Government Benches last week? In the government White Paper on House of Lords reform, such independence is an element to which people attach the highest importance. Can the Minister tell the House what form of list system is likely to be employed? Am I right in believing that the closed party list is currently the Government's preferred option? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that any election system that is likely to lead to similar Whipping techniques as those that exist in another place should be studiously avoided?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that independence is a prized attribute of most, if not all, Members of this House. I personally am a strong supporter of that. The Government have no closed view about closed lists. The White Paper suggests that there should be a list system and we have specifically said that we welcome observations on the type of list to be used.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while hoping that my noble and learned friend may yet not decide to push ahead with a hybrid House, does he accept that with any system in which lists are selected by the parties, particularly one in which the order of the names on the lists are selected by the parties, one may just as well have appointments? The principle would be identical. Can he assure the House that, if the Government intend to go ahead with a list system, the legislation will include a clause preventing political parties proceeding in that way?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend speaks of a hybrid House. At the moment it is a hybrid House. It consists of Law Lords, Bishops, hereditary Peers and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. At the moment we do not have a blanket uniformity and nor shall we want that in the future. It is well known that elections in modern times are normally funded by political parties and political parties have a part to play. However, I agree with my noble friend's underlying theme; I believe it was the underlying theme of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. We want a House that is able to scrutinise the Government, whichever government are in power, at any particular time. I repeat my earlier proposition: the way that we work is as important as the composition of the House
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the admiration that some noble Lords hold for political parties is very limited indeed? Is there any prospect that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—I have said this before—that political parties are the only thoroughly nasty thing of which I know of which one needs more than one?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always defer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he has had a
8
very long life, serving—I use that word neutrally—a political party. I am bound to say that, being an innocent in these matters, I have always thought that politics was a dirty business. Thank God I have nothing to do with it.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that attention has perhaps been deflected away from the working practices of this House and much attention has been given to its composition? Perhaps that will not help matters as regards the long-term prospects of the reform of this House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. We need to attend not simply to the attraction of the moment, which is composition. Although that is deeply important, what will fundamentally matter much more to this House—I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate—is how we deliver, and that means how we work; how we scrutinise; and how we bring the executive to account.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that if the Government choose to proceed under the system of election in use in the European Parliament, both the nominated and elected Peers will be chosen by the parties in proportion to votes cast? Where is the difference?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one needs to bear in mind—I hope that this will be borne in mind at some stage—that there will be very little opportunity to alter the composition of this House numerically because the life Peers have been assured that they shall remain as long as they choose. What will happen at the moment is that 92 hereditary Peers—in whose defence there is no stronger partisan than I—will be substituted by 120 elected Peers. I should have thought that by and large that was quite a good idea.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who have maintained our contacts in the other House, and who meet people every day, know of no support whatever for a system of election to this House which in any way replicates the system used for the European Parliament? Indeed, we confidently predict that in the other House there will be the biggest rebellion of this Parliament on this electoral system if it is adopted in the way that someone suggested, although I cannot speak for what may happen here. I ask my noble friend whether we can discard that European-type system altogether now, immediately, and begin a proper debate on a way to elect Members to this House which carries both support in the country and in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is fair to say that closed lists have not been met with universal acclamation. I think that I hold the world record for ping-pong, since the matter went back and forth from this to the other place five times. I understand what my

9
noble friend says. There is a debate which is going on. In talking to Members of the House of Commons, it is interesting that many of them—probably all of them—do not want the closed list, but none of them agrees on what they want instead.

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
2.53 p.m.
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to review the powers and role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have no plans to review the powers and role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I had anticipated one as brief. I hope, nevertheless, that he is aware of matters that are occurring in Northern Ireland in reference to that office. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that in the recent review from the ombudsman on the Omagh bomb, the Chief Constable was condemned without ever being heard, to such an extent that legal action is threatened? Furthermore, does he agree that a report which tells only one half of the story is totally worthless?
Finally, can he tell the House who is responsible for ensuring that the ombudsman carries out her duty,
"To enhance public confidence in the police",
in a satisfactory manner and within the law?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one needs to be quite cautious here and to disentangle what is in the report, which has not been published so far as I am aware to anyone other than the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My information comes from my friend in the other House, Mr Quentin Davies, who has read it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not disputing that Mr Davies may or may not have read the report, I am simply repeating my factually correct observation that it has not been published.
There is the prospect, I am told, of legal action by the Chief Constable. He wishes to have his opportunity to respond fully to the final report. We should give the Chief Constable the opportunity to take legal action if he wants. That will be a form of legal constraint, to which the noble Lord referred, on the ombudsman. He should have his opportunity to make his observations. I am taking no sides in this particular dispute because I do not regard myself as sufficiently well informed. All I can say is that, having
10
known the Chief Constable and worked with him over several years, I have always found him to he a public servant of the highest quality.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can I ask the noble and learned Lord what the remit of the ombudsman is so far as concerns South of the Border? I think that he would agree that the Omagh operation began in Dundalk and that necessarily therefore the RUC and the Garda have both been involved and worked together. Does the ombudsman have access to Garda papers and documents, as she has in the case of the RUC? If not, is it not strange that she should make a professional judgment based on half the evidence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I repeat my cautionary words. The noble Baroness will not have been able to read the full report. The ombudsman has to exercise her powers by United Kingdom statute. She has to have regard to the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system and the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system. I do not know whether the ombudsman had access to Garda papers. What she was rightly concerned with was a serious criminal act within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. She was entitled to carry out the inspection. My information is that the Chief Constable has publicly and honourably said that if the ombudsman had not started her investigation he would have invited her to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a strange Alice in Wonderland world where the security services and the Chief Constable are attacked and excoriated, while the people who actually carried out the bombing and caused such carnage get off scot-free and with apparently no criticism?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that for a single second. No one has failed to criticise on any appropriate public or private occasion the wanton criminality and the cruel wickedness of those who carried out that bomb attack. We are dealing with a system that was set up prior to the attack in Omagh. It was set up with the support of the chief constable of Northern Ireland. It is a statutory regime which allows an ombudsman to carry out certain inquiries. I do not know sufficiently well whether she has reached a right or a wrong judgment. The Chief Constable is entitled to his opportunity to make a full response. But I utterly repudiate the suggestion that no one has criticised those who carried out those wicked acts.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is nevertheless need for a greater and tighter delineation between the role of the Police Ombudsman and the functions of the Policing Board? Does he further agree that when, as all too often happens, an investigation about the police takes place in Northern Ireland, relevant documents invariably go

11
missing? That detracts from, not adds to, the reputation of the police. Does he agree that that is a criminal offence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry if documents go missing or witnesses are not available. Self-evidently, the noble Lord is right: if documents are wilfully disposed of or secreted, that may be a criminal offence—I know that it has been prosecuted as such.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the European Council in Laeken. It is likely that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and before the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in the debate on Afghanistan.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Afghanistan
3.2 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean) rose to move, That this House takes note of the current situation in Afghanistan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, since the unforgettable events of 11th September, this House has had several opportunities to discuss the international community's response to the threat of terrorism. Today, we look forward to hearing a fresh voice, in the form of the maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. For my part, I very much welcome his choosing this debate for his first contribution. As a former colleague, I know first hand that his wise, practical and down-to-earth approach—and, indeed, his humour—will be of enormous value to us in this House.
The Government welcome the opportunity today to debate the situation in Afghanistan. We have achieved a great deal during the past three months since the
12
terrible events of September 11th. But we must be clear too that we have a great deal more to do. We said that we were in this for the long haul, and we are.
Events on the ground have moved rapidly in Afghanistan. Let us not forget that only a few short weeks ago there was much speculation that our military campaign against terrorism could and would achieve nothing. Now there is similar speculation that its success is automatically guaranteed. Neither is true. The reality of this campaign is different. It is much more complex and tough. Of course, we regret any casualties caused—especially civilian casualties, which we continue to strive to minimise and avoid. But I pay tribute to the extraordinary efforts and courage of our Armed Forces, and of the armed forces of all our coalition partners, in pursuit of our objectives.
The pace of change in Afghanistan must not and will not obscure those objectives, which remain now as they have been throughout this campaign. They are as follows. Our first objective is to bring Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network to justice and prevent them posing a continuing terrorist threat. To that end, the second objective is to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism, including securing sufficient change in the leadership of Afghanistan to ensure that its links to international terrorism are broken. The third is to dismantle the mechanism of international terrorism and to ensure that states are deterred from supporting or harbouring it.
We have made great strides over a short period towards securing those objectives. First, bin Laden has not yet been apprehended, but he will be. As President Bush put it, we will bring bin Laden to justice or bring justice to him. Secondly, we have severely damaged the ability of Al'Qaeda to mount international terrorism, although we must be continually on our guard against it. Thirdly, the Taliban has been routed in Afghanistan and, accordingly, its ability to use Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism is effectively over. Fourthly, we have made widespread moves against the apparatus of international terrorism.
Behind those objectives and the purpose of what we have achieved lie the events of September 11th. Bin Laden and the Taliban want us to forget about September 11th. We shall never forget. Let us be clear. The loss of nearly 4,000 lives in New York. Washington and Pennsylvania resulted directly from the decision of the Al'Qaeda networks to launch those evil attacks. The loss of life in Afghanistan in the weeks that followed resulted directly from the decision of the Taliban regime to go on protecting the terrorists in defiance of the will of the international community and against the interests of the Afghan people.
Al'Qaeda and the Taliban made their own choices. They could have chosen to renounce terror. Instead, they chose the path of destruction. They chose the path of evil. We in the coalition made our choices too. We could have chosen to do nothing. Instead, we chose the path of tackling terror—of looking into the face of evil and deciding that good must come from it and that good must succeed.

13
I respect the view of those who disagreed with that choice, but I hope that they 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.
The video of Osama bin Laden, believed to have been recorded in November this year and released by the US authorities last week, provides conclusive evidence of the role of Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda in the 11th September terrorist attacks. It reveals yet further disturbing evidence that he was behind the atrocities of 11th September and that if he is not stopped now, he will strike again.
Once again, bin Laden is condemned by his own words, boasting about his involvement in the evil attacks. He says,
"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for".
That is the chilling evidence of his complete disregard for human life. It demonstrates why the coalition's campaign is so necessary.
I am pleased to report that the military coalition is well on the way to achieving the campaign objectives. The Taliban protectors of the terrorist networks have been driven out of the major cities of Kabul, Mazar-i Sharif, Herat and Kandahar. The Al'Qaeda training camps have been destroyed. Al'Qaeda has been driven out of its key base in Tora Bora.
However, there is still a lot to do. Military operations will continue until the coalition's objectives have been fully met. Osama bin Laden and his associates must be brought to justice and the Al'Qaeda network prevented from posing a continuing terrorist threat. Make no mistake, these people would, if they could, perpetrate further evil and destruction. We believe that bin Laden remains in the Tora Bora region. We are pursuing him and the remaining Al'Qaeda terrorists and will continue to do so until we catch them or know that they are dead.
The Taliban harbourers of terrorists were a sinister, barbarous and fanatical regime. They demonstrated cruelty of medieval proportions towards the Afghan people—especially towards women, who had little or no access to healthcare or education and virtually no access to the outside world. The Taliban regime became a major obstacle to getting humanitarian relief through to the people of Afghanistan. Its collapse has given the Afghan people hope for a brighter future. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.
Since 11th September, the World Food Programme has brought 70,000 tonnes of food into the country. At present, the aid agencies and the international
14
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 in Bonn perhaps the most astonishing success of all. Almost without exception, every forecast from every commentator was not just that Bonn would fail, but that it could not possibly succeed: that these were people who could not be in the same country as one another, let alone at the same conference. But what in fact happened was that the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, some of whom have certainly fought each other at different times over the past 20 years, sat down together in Bonn and thrashed out an agreement which puts Afghanistan back on the path to peace—although there is still a way to go.
In recording that, we express our gratitude to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and to his Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi's patience, insight and skill were critical factors 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 the involvement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and through the work of diplomats such as Robert Cooper, Paul Bergne, Steven Evans, Andrew Tesoriere and many others. Now the interim Afghan authority is due to convene in Kabul on 22nd December. We all wish it well and we want it to succeed.
One indicator of the success already achieved is the position of women in Afghanistan. As little as four or five weeks ago, under the Taliban, women could not go outside their own homes without being accompanied by a man. Now, from Saturday, the new administration will include two women, with one of them the vice-president. That is an extraordinary level of social change delivered by the campaign we have mounted with the Afghan people. It is extraordinary in one sense, but it is entirely normal in another. Like everything else in the agreement, this is the beginning of a process of returning Afghanistan to normality.
I believe that 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. We were the first country to establish a diplomatic presence in Kabul, and we welcome the raising of the American flag at its mission in Kabul today for the first time since 1989. As the US said today, "We're here, and we're here to stay". My Lords, so are we.
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; from fear, hunger, poverty and war. There are several immediate and urgent tasks.

15
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 assistance in Kabul and the surrounding areas for the nascent political community, and for the institutions of that fledgling state.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear our willingness in principle to,
"play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan",
just as we were there to make a key contribution to the pursuit of the Al'Qaeda network and bin Laden, and continue to do so. However, there are still details to be discussed and no formal decisions have been taken yet.
The recent military co-ordination meeting, which was held in London on Friday and discussed options for an international security assistance force (ISAF), was a vital part of that process. However, it is important that the international community keeps its planning in step with the new interim authority in Afghanistan. In this regard a small international reconnaissance and liaison team, led by Major General McColl, is in Kabul to discuss proposals for the ISAF. He will report back later this week.
These are merely the most pressing needs of the new Afghan state, but there are many other problems that cannot be resolved quickly. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. The country has known little but war, bloodshed and chaos for a generation; one-quarter of all children do not make it to their fifth birthday; one-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 road map to a better future. We have to ensure that all the parties involved stay on the road 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.
The international community and the UN have assisted the Afghan people to begin the process of rebuilding their nation. Their future is in their hands. We have an urgent responsibility to support the interim administration, and we will continue to support it to build a brighter future for all the people of Afghanistan.
I want to pay particular tribute to the central role that the United Nations has played since the beginning of this crisis. The UN moved rapidly into action by passing Security Council Resolution 1368. Two weeks later, it passed Resolution 1373, designed to tackle the organisations which support and finance the terrorists. Resolution 1373 was the first global resolution with an
16
obligation on all states to tackle terrorism. All states owe it to the victims of September 11th to implement its provisions as soon as possible.
Important as the military, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are to the fight against international terrorism, their successful completion alone will not remove terrorism as a force in international affairs. Therefore, we must all do what 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.
All our hopes for the Middle East are stretched to the limit. But despite that—perhaps because of that—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 which do not endorse this principle, our scope for active co-operation with them is indeed 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.
The shock and the tragedy of the attacks of September 11th remain with us all. The lives of many families can never be the same again. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers go out to them now, as they have done since that dreadful day. But we are determined that the victims should not have given their lives in vain. We all carry that responsibility: to make sure that the ability of international terrorists to kill, to damage, to destroy is halted, and then ended. I believe that we are all shouldering that responsibility. That is what the coalition is all about. That is what the campaign in Afghanistan has been about. That is what the continuing campaign will be about.
Let us all be in no doubt how hard that will be. We should not delude ourselves that the response to Al'Qaeda and the routing of its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan spells the end of the international terrorist threat or of the fight against it. We cannot put a time on when terrorism will be defeated, but defeat it we shall.
We have shown that the determination of the international community can defeat the evil that seeks to destroy us and that destroyed the lives of so many people on 11th September. We have shown that action to enforce universal values is a powerful force for good in the world. We have shown, too, that we have not forgotten 11th September and that we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never

17
happen again. We shall continue to strive so that good can come out of evil, and that good will come out of evil. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the current situation in Afghanistan.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean).
3.20 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for setting out in such a clear way the Government's latest thinking on the unfolding crisis and saga of global terrorism. I share her anticipation of and enthusiasm for the forthcoming maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. His vast experience and judgment will be an enormous asset to your Lordships' House.
It is now a little more than three months since the horrors of 11th September. I understand that bodies are still being brought out of the burning wreckage and that the ruins are being gradually dismantled amidst the smouldering horror—vividly reminding New Yorkers of what happened on that day.
Having listened to the noble Baroness, I am struck—as I am sure are many noble Lords—by the way in which that event, and the huge campaign against terrorism which has grown from it, interweaves and interconnects a vast range of issues which, in the past, we often used to discuss separately—for instance, issues of military deployment; of our own security; of development and third world and humanitarian aid; of the Middle East crisis and Gulf stability, to which the noble Baroness referred; of the future role of European defence forces and the role they will play, if any, in Afghanistan; of the role of NATO and the way it should be reshaped in the light of 11th September; of the handling of Russia and the way in which the Russians now fit into the global pattern and the pattern of reorganisation in Afghanistan, where again there are now Russian troops; and of our own civil liberties and internal security, which we debated in your Lordships' House last week. Those matters have created an entirely new landscape. It is against that new landscape of global interweave that we have to look at the next stage of events and what is about to happen.
Perhaps I may first deal with the foreground and raise one or two queries with the Minister. We understand that the affair in Tora Bora and the White Mountains is more or less over. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he believed the Taliban were finished in that area. Whether it is finished in the whole of Afghanistan, no one is quite sure. One hopes that it is.
There remains the question of the monster, bin Laden. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the video confirms what no one should have really doubted—although some people did doubt it before—that this man was a planner of multi-mass murder—and enjoyed it. He took delight in the slaughter, mayhem, evil and sorrow that he was imposing on his fellow human beings. We need not have any doubts about that. I heard one distinguished and right reverend Prelate, a Member of the House, say over the weekend
18
on "Thought for the Day" that in everything there was a clash of values. But in this case there is no clash of values. The values are on the side of those who have sought to halt evil; the sheer valueless evil was all on the other side. There is no ambiguity about this—it was pure evil, as the noble Baroness rightly emphasised. The sooner this particular embodiment of it is nailed—and I think someone will get him before long—the better.
We are seeing a curious saga coming to a close and a much bigger saga about to begin. It was not so much a question of state-sponsored terrorism as the emergence of a terrorist-sponsored state, which has now brought ruin on itself and much misery to the Afghan people, which we must do our best to repair.
The immediate question in regard to foreground is what kind of force are we to send? I know that the Prime Minister has trailed that he will be briefing Members of the other place about this issue very shortly, but there remain some disturbing questions for those of us who are following the situation from outside. Do the Afghans want a force? What size force do they want? General Fahim of the Northern Alliance said that he wanted 1,000 men at the most and indicated a general distaste for having any foreign troops in a stabilisation force. Mr Hamid Karzai, who has a formidable task, clearly wants a stronger force of 5,000 or 6,000. General Wesley Clarke said on the radio this morning that that might be enough for Kabul, but if we wanted serious policing of this enormous country it would take 25,000 or 30,000. Are we absolutely clear that we are organising the right force for the right job? That issue worries a number of people. I look forward to the expert views on that question which will be given later in the debate.
There is also the question of what is to be the mandate for the stabilisation force. Is it to rebuild infrastructure? Is it to help the Americans in the cleaning up of the remainder of the Taliban in the mountains? Will it have a Chapter VII mandate? Will its members be able not only to defend themselves but to enforce some kind of peace? These are urgent questions because all of this is supposed to happen on Saturday night.
Those of us who follow these matters—and, indeed, the Parliaments of this country, which treasure and cherish our army and its brilliant performance—want to be absolutely sure that we, and those in charge on the military side, have a clear view of what is expected. We want to be certain that this is not some kind of gesture politics before we have thought out precise tasks and roles. Yes, we understand what needs to he done, but vagueness of purpose and vagueness about the size of the force is dangerous. While clearly the Afghan people must now be supported and fed—it is good news that more food is getting through—nation-building has to be done by the Afghan people. We can perform only certain, specialised—and maybe unfamiliar—roles in supporting it.
So that is the foreground. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for commenting on those issues. It may be that we will hear a little more when her noble friend comes to reply to the debate.

19
Perhaps I may now turn to the background, which the Minister also covered and which is a far longer stretch ahead of us. I wish to make only a few points. Solving the problem in Afghanistan—if that is what we have done—does not begin to solve the world's terrorist crisis. It takes out one miserable terrorist-sponsored state, but it does not even ensure that Afghanistan will settle down rapidly. I hope that it will, but the chances of Afghanistan leaping into instant democracy after years of civil war and the traumas of recent months are very slight. It is indeed a situation where there is far to go.
It may be that some events have occurred overnight. I hear that the sellers of burkas have put up their shutters or discarded their stock and taken on CD ROM's instead; the sound of music is to be heard and life allowed to return after the hideous dark night of the Taliban. That is fine—but the habit of democratic debate and argument, the give and take, will take very much longer to appear. That is the first consideration which we need to bear in mind.
Secondly, Afghanistan is not the only theatre of war. The one thing we have learned is that the Al'Qaeda is a vast network of cells, not necessarily with any one particular head, and that it is embedded across the globe. As I understand it, to some extent it is embedded in Iraq; there is growing evidence that Saddam Hussein had more than a passing interest in the horrors of 11th September and may have more than a passing interest in future atrocities being planned. It appears that some of the Al'Qaeda cells are still operating in Somalia and in Bosnia; that there are training camps in Indonesia and the Philippines and that, nearer home, there may well be Al'Qaeda networks in Germany. Then we have our own home base in the United Kingdom to consider—at one stage described as "a safe haven for terrorists".
I would like to think, as I am sure would your Lordships, that, after the efforts of last week, we now have some good and, dare I say, much-improved legislation of an anti-terrorist kind in place, in order to do our part in helping to close the net on the terrorist networks of the planet. I would also like to think that our position will not be weakened or undermined by any more European Union treaty deals, reached over our heads, bypassing the scrutiny of this House among other places, and imposed on us by prerogative decision, without necessarily any relevance to terrorism. That aspect was dealt with last week, and I hope that we can put such distractions behind us when focusing on the need to close in on global terrorism wherever it is found.
That is the home front. World-wide, the requirement is very clear: we must stick very closely—and not everyone will like this—with the Americans. The President, George Bush, said recently that the Euro-allies "have a tendency to wilt". I feel with him. After the weekend, when there were distinct tones of anti-Americanism coming from some EU leaders, I can understand why the Americans feel a little uneasy about the commitment of their European allies—not their British allies; about them I think that they have
20
no doubts at all. The commitment demonstrated by the Prime Minister is much admired and is very strong. For the rest, however, the message which needs to be asserted even more strongly than in the past is that we must move very closely with America in the next phases of the anti-terrorist campaign.
I read a speech by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, with some puzzlement. The implication that there was a divergence from the American view and that we had a different way to go was quite wrong. I do not think that there is a divergence or a choice. As for the squabble over who should be part of the Afghanistan force, what part the rapid reaction force should play in it and whether there should be a wider remit, this is a terrible distraction from the main focus on which international effort must be aimed. It is very good that, as I understand it, it is to be led by this country.
I hope that we do not spend too much time in endless discussions about whether this is a moment for the European Union to assert its super-state role, to project its power in the world, and so on. These are distractions from the task. There seems to be a constant confusion between the sort of partnership of sovereignties seen in NATO, which works extremely well, and this idea of the pooling of sovereignties. I hear this even in some of the things said by the Foreign Secretary. It is a quite different and unworkable concept when it comes to dealing with security, foreign affairs and issues such as finding a solution for the Afghanistan problem.
Instead of bickering, the task is now to focus on the real issues post-phase one, after the defeat of the Taliban, and those real issues loom up and demand our attention. They are, first, the tidying up of the Afghanistan security threat. Secondly, to look at ways in which the festering terrorism of the Middle East can be contained. The idea that came from the European Union at the weekend—that monitors should be put all over the Occupied Territories—was quite barmy. I am very glad that the British Government shot it down at the United Nations. There is no doubt that Hamas must somehow be eliminated before it takes over the whole area, and that Mr Arafat and senior Palestinians must somehow be given the backbone and determination to do it. That is the first task.
The second task is to go on clearing out the Al'Qaeda cells. There is growing evidence that they have not only weapons and plans but also access to nuclear and to biological materials. There is evidence that the Pakistani nuclear programme somehow leaked into the hands of Al'Qaeda. It is a matter of the highest priority that this issue be addressed very sharply and very soon.
Finally, we need new thinking about our military and security deployments, operations and resources. Obviously a huge new resource has to go into intelligence—where there was a catastrophic failure, as the Financial Times set out in some fascinating articles. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State for Defence talking about more men on the ground in the homeland. In other words, more emphasis on bodies

21
like the Territorial units, reflecting the increased emphasis that the Americans are putting on their own homeland defence through the National Guard. If that is serious—and I hope that it is—and the regular army supports it, which I hope that it does, then we will need some changes in the provisions to encourage more Territorials, who will be increasingly needed to ensure our own home security.
There are some new ideas evolving on how our Armed Forces should work and on how our non-armed anti-terrorist forces should be mobilised. I do not think that these new ideas will come from Laeken—on which we shall shortly hear a Statement—or from those who are hostile to the Americans, or from those who said from the start that bombing would not work; it has. I hope that these new thoughts will come from the Government and, if they are bold enough, innovative enough and realistic enough, I happily stand here, as I have before, and say that we will continue to give them our full support.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. He has been very helpful and kind to me on a number of professional occasions in the past and I look forward to his many contributions in debate here.
This is another unavoidably interim debate. No doubt there will be many more, as the situation continues to move in ways which none of us can predict more than a week or two ahead. It is remarkable how rapidly the Taliban regime has collapsed. As I read the American newspapers, I note a degree of happy triumphalism at what is seen to be a massive success for American arms. That is not the whole story. It is also a tribute to the pragmatism of many people in Afghanistan who clearly recognise that, when a fight is lost, the best thing to do is to surrender and, if possible, change sides.
We do not yet have the successful construction of a successor regime. The Bonn agreement is very welcome. Translating the Bonn agreement into practice and having a stable government which maintains law and order across the whole of Afghanistan, however, is a very long way off, let alone the massive, costly and long-term reconstruction of Afghan watercourses, its agricultural base and the whole economy and society, which is a 10 to 20-year programme at least.
The questions which I suggest we should be addressing today are these. First, how does the international community share the responsibilities of rebuilding Afghanistan and reintegrating it into the international system? Secondly, what role do the different parties—international institutions such as the UN, the various UN agencies and, of course, the European Union and NATO—play in this? What roles should the United States and the United Kingdom play in a large, ambitious and long-term task?
Thirdly, how do we reinforce stability in the region around Afghanistan? I refer not merely to the Middle East, but also to south Asia. We on these Benches have
22
said in every debate on this subject that the problem of Kashmir is part of the problem of Afghanistan. We saw that again with the attacks in New Delhi. So we must examine the security of the region as a whole, as well as that of central Asia.
Fourthly, how much wider should the hunt for terrorist networks be drawn? Rogue states are again being cited—there are suggestions about Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and the like. And what do we have to do about the terrorist threat within the West? Lastly, what are the lessons for Britain?
What comes next? Clearly, there must be nation building for Afghanistan. This is a long-term commitment for the global community. What we have learnt from Afghanistan and from some other states is that collapsed states export disorder: refugees, drugs and eventually even terrorists. It was the failure to help rebuild Afghanistan after 1989 which carne back to haunt the United States and the international community. It was a classic mistake for the United States to walk away from Afghanistan so quickly and so easily after the Soviet withdrawal. We must not repeat that mistake, and we must not allow the United States to repeat it.
We should, however, recognise how enormous the task may be. Afghanistan is not alone. If we are talking about rebuilding collapsed states and preventing weak states collapsing, the United States is already, of course, talking about Somalia—a state in which central order virtually does not run; about the Yemen; about Iraq—a state, again, where the central government, authoritarian as they are, do not control the whole territory; and about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In Britain, we are committed to nation building in Sierra Leone, in effect. We may well find ourselves committed to some kind of co-operative nation rebuilding in Zimbabwe after the course of the next year, if Zimbabwe turns out as badly as, sadly, it may do.
The tensions of transition from traditional societies to modern social and economic life cause disorder across the whole of Africa and central, west and south Asia—that is, across Africa and the Middle East. And there will be more, including the collapse of regimes which are major oil producers. So we need to strengthen international institutions for this task. In previous debates a number of noble Lords have referred to how far we need to take into account the implications of the Brahimi report and a whole host of other proposals concerning the need to reform and strengthen the United Nations. That has not yet been done.
We also need to insist—here I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—that the United States remains engaged. There are many things in the current American debate which should leave us extremely worried. The phrase "super-powers don't do dishes" reverberates from discussions that I had in Washington some weeks ago. It indicates a degree of disdain for nation building—namely, that others do those things; that the role of the United States' allies is to come in behind and tidy up, or, as Admiral Boyce

23
recently put it, "backfilling" for the United States, just as other nations occasionally backfill for Britain in other theatres.
Backfilling for the United States is not a particularly glorious role for Britain. We must also insist that the United States remains engaged financially in a task in regard to which, in the US Congress, it is hard to get a commitment to the idea that the United States still needs to pay. I remember, in 1990, visiting someone I knew well on the National Security Council, and hearing in relation to eastern Europe the stern phrase: "Last time, we paid for you. This time, you are going to pay for them". There is a sense in which, although I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on the need for a new Marshall Plan for the region—and recognise how ambitious financially and multilaterally it is to use that sort of language—a Marshall Plan has to be a global commitment by all the advanced industrial countries. The United States cannot off-load that on to Europe. This means that the role of the European Union remains important. We need also to engage the Asian states and the richer Latin-American states, given our mutual interest in global stability, in controlling the flow of refugees and in maintaining access to oil.
Where shall we be going next? There is much talk in Washington about moving on to Iraq, in spite of all the briefings that have appeared about the lack of evidence that Iraq really is involved in the Al'Qaeda network. Sadly, that is part of the triumphalism after the action in Afghanistan. Having seen the campaign go so well there, it is assumed that what worked there—in very different circumstances, with a very different structure of government and tribal societies—might possibly be transferred to Iraq. There have also been suggestions about Somalia and other countries.
I very much hope that the British Government are setting their face firmly against such an extension and are using what influence they may have in Washington to put that case across. When I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago, I was saddened by the extent to which the tremendous warmth of feeling expressed by the Congressmen to whom we spoke in regard to how Tony Blair had supported the United States was without any expression of mutuality—without any sense that the United States should, therefore, listen to Tony Blair a little more in exchanges between the two countries.
Clearly, what is needed in combating international terrorism and in pursuing the wider ramifications of the international terrorist network is closer co-operation among all democratic states. But that needs to be within the context of international law and through and within multilateral institutions, not by unilateral action and not—again, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—simply by clinging close to the United States whatever it does, accepting that treaties may be imposed over our heads, or torn up over our heads, by the United States without our having any influence. We need, instead, to be stressing in our relations with the United States, and with our
24
major European partners and others, that as far as possible, if we are talking about the international community, it has to be a multilateral community.
In that context, we have also to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was struck, when reading the coverage on Afghanistan in the Financial Times on Saturday, to see the passing comment that one had to understand that,
"Sentiment towards the US in the Arab world is influenced mainly by US attitudes towards the Arab-Israeli conflict".
If that is the case, we have to do something about the Arab-Israeli conflict. We cannot leave this entirely to the Americans; and we certainly cannot leave it to Prime Minister Sharon. The proposals for international monitors on the ground are a useful contribution to an extraordinarily difficult situation, which risks becoming worse within the next two or three weeks. We shall debate the matter briefly later today.
Finally, what are the implications for Britain? The first is that the British Government are committing themselves to a series of heavy global commitments. The speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates a long-term and significant increase in British contributions to international assistance for development across the world. Admiral Boyce's speech to RUSI clearly indicates also an expansion of Britain's military commitments and responsibilities.
If we are talking about links with the United States and with Europe, I again disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Admiral Boyce signalled a number of areas in which British interests and American interests do not entirely go together. Therefore, the question of the balance that Britain must strike between the United States and our European commitments is extremely important for us to work out. One of my conclusions is that closer EU military co-operation is needed much more after the events of 11th September than previously.
I regret that we have made so little progress towards the rapid reaction force. I regret, too, that some of our European partners, including the Italian and Belgian governments at Laeken at the weekend, seem remarkably unserious about it. If we are to be taken seriously in Washington, we need to have credible military forces that the United States feels are of some use in joint action. Otherwise, policymakers in Washington will leave us to do the dishes and clean up afterwards.
The implications for British forces, about which my noble friend Lord Redesdale will say more, are complex. We have used special forces heavily in Afghanistan. The balance between the special forces and the infantry is one that we may need to look at again. We must consider British and European intelligence assets alongside American intelligence assets in the complex area of transnational terrorism, as well as failed states, which can raise all kinds of different assumptions of what we need to know. If we wish to learn from the Americans, we probably need to invest much more heavily in precision guided weapons. If we do commit ourselves long term to

25
nation building, we need to think about how Britain makes a contribution to what we may have to call the "gendarmerie" function—the policing function that conies behind the first strike forces. We have to consider whether Britain should leave that to other states in a kind of role specialisation system, or whether we need to create a territorial reserve, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, so that we can send highly capable policing units abroad for extended periods. Those are large, complex questions that we shall no doubt debate again.
We shall have to take on board the depth of British commitment that the Government have accepted. They will come back in the future with their budget for defence, overseas aid, and so on. In managing this complex situation—I know that there is a great distance to go before a stable Afghanistan is established, let alone a stable region beyond—we need to promote as broad a multilateral approach as possible.

European Council, Laeken
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which took place in Belgium on 14th and 15th December.
"The fight against terrorism remains uppermost in the minds of all members of the European Union. There remains unanimous support for the military action that has been taken in Afghanistan and a determination to continue our efforts to root out the Al'Qaeda terrorist network. The recent video of bin Laden demonstrates his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. It brought home the sheer evil of bin Laden and his followers and their sick pleasure in the murders that they committed. No one can now dispute that ridding the world of the Al' Qaeda terrorist network is a job in the interests of us all.
"The European Council welcomed the Bonn agreement between the Afghan groups. It gave strong support for the deployment of an international security force authorised by the UN Security Council, as called for by the Afghan parties in the Bonn agreement. The details of such a force must await the outcome of the meetings in Kabul between an international military team led by Major-General McColl and the interim authorities in Afghanistan. I can tell the House that Britain is willing in principle to lead such a force. It is likely to comprise troops from various countries—European and others. Friday's meeting of potential contributing nations was attended by a number of EU countries, as well as Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. The British contingent is likely to be from 1,000 to 1,500, though
26
I stress that that is not yet decided. We expect the resolution to be passed by the UN Security Council later this week.
"The US has given its full help arid support for the security force and we hope to have lead elements in place shortly.
"This force was a critical part of the agreement reached in Bonn on 5th December for the establishment of a provisional government in Afghanistan. There has been a brilliant victory over the Taliban who have ceased to be the Afghan government. That is a welcome liberation. But we know that it is only the start of enabling Afghanistan to cease being a failed state and to become a responsible partner in the region. The situation in Afghanistan remains fragile; the new political process remains in its infancy. There is therefore an urgent need to ensure that as the war is being won, we play our part in securing the peace.
"The European Council took stock of European security and defence policy. We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations over the full range of the so-called Petersberg tasks.
"The European Council met amid continuing and appalling violence in the Middle East. In our view, and that of all our partners, the only basis for peace in the Middle East is full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The members of the European Council will continue to do all that they can individually, and through the good offices of the Secretary-General, Javier Solana, to whom I pay tribute, to help to create the circumstances in which the violence can be halted and the dialogue resumed.
"The European Council's other main purpose was to prepare for discussion on the future of Europe. It now looks increasingly likely that 10 new countries will join the European Union in 2004. We welcome that. Their accession will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe—ours as well as theirs. But it is obvious that the European Union, with 25 and more members, cannot work in the same way, with precisely the same constitution, as it has with 15. Decision-making will need to be streamlined. EU laws increasingly will need to take the form of framework legislation, with the details of implementation being left to the member states. It is already the task of the European Council to give strategic direction to the European Union as a whole. But carrying that strategic direction into practice will mean looking again at the size and role of the Commission, reviewing the workings of the existing presidency of the Union, which presently changes hands every six months, and managing the business of the various specialist Councils in a more coherent way. That was why at Nice, a year ago, when we opened the way for enlargement, we also agreed that there should be another intergovernmental conference in 2004 and why we

27
are now setting up a convention to prepare for that conference by detailed examination of all these issues.
"The basic agenda for that conference was agreed at Nice. The kinds of questions which will need to be asked are set out in the declaration of heads of government issued at Laeken at the weekend.
"That declaration, which I welcome, acknowledges the contribution that the European Union has made to peace, stability and prosperity in all our countries, but also the extent to which it has had to deliver results to its citizens on jobs, the single market, the fight against crime and a safe environment. The British view, which is widely shared, is that while it is right to co-operate ever more closely with our partners, democratic accountability is fundamentally and ultimately rooted in the member state. As the declaration says, Europe's citizens expect more results and better responses to practical issues, not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life.
"The Laeken declaration and the convention give us the opportunity to take a serious look at the division of competences between the Union and the member states. For the first time in the Union's history, we shall be looking at the prospect of restoring some tasks to the member states. We now also have the chance to open up the European institutions to greater public scrutiny. The role that I want to see our Parliament playing in policing that process is now explicitly recognised.
"The convention which we have now established will be chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing who, when President of France, played an instrumental role in bringing the European Council into being. It will work for a year. Each national parliament will have two representatives as members of the convention. The regions will be represented as observers and there will be ample opportunity for views from all sectors of public opinion to be fed into the proceedings. Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who our parliamentary representatives will be. The convention will present options to heads of government, who will determine whether those options should lead to changes in the treaty. Those changes would be made by unanimous agreement of governments.
"In the aftermath of 11th September, the European Council welcomed the agreement that has been reached on a European arrest warrant. We also agreed to give fresh impetus to delivering our objectives on asylum and illegal immigration. That will mean return agreements with third countries and a new agreement on handling asylum seekers, including common standards on asylum procedures and reception. We have agreed to improve cooperation on our external border controls. These are all areas on which we need common action within Europe and the strength of a united European
28
approach in dealing with the rest of the world. I hope that we shall see some agreements concluded in the coming year on all those points.
"Once again at this Council, Britain played its full part constructively and achieved the outcome it desired. Europe faces huge challenges ahead, as it enlarges to 25 and, over time, to more than 30 countries covering territory from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, with 500 million citizens in the EU: challenges over the completion of the single market with a single currency; over economic reform; over making European security and foreign policy work; and over giving Europe the institutional framework to allow it to function effectively. Those debates matter to Europe. They matter fundamentally to Britain. The days of isolationism are gone. Our role now is to be a leading partner in shaping the Europe of the future, not following reluctantly the shape moulded by others. We are playing that role now. We will continue to do so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. Laeken was an important summit, which reinforced the impression that the integrationist movement in Europe has stepped up a gear, although the Prime Minister keeps saying that things are coming Britain's way.
What is Britain's way, as far as the Government are concerned? Does it, for instance, include seeking to take powers to introduce EU third pillar measures by secondary legislation? Does it include trying to take powers to adopt a European arrest warrant without this Parliament having the right to amend it—something that the Government would have done if your Lordships' House had not denied them the power to do so only last week? Has the noble and learned Lord noted that the Belgian Prime Minister has declared that the European arrest warrant will be a "unique instrument" and as important in the police and judicial sphere as the euro is in the economic sphere?
When do the Government propose to introduce legislation to bring in the arrest warrant? Can the noble and learned Lord give us an undertaking that he will publish a full list of those orders that the Government intend to bring in under Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act? The Prime Minister talks about involving national parliaments, but his actions increasingly show that he wishes to take things the other way.
Furthermore, before the Laeken process begins, we need to consider the Nice process. When will the Nice treaty be ratified by all member states and when will it come into force?
The Laeken presidency conclusions, under EU defence and security policy, say that their aim is,
"progressively to take on more demanding operations"
in the field of defence and security. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what is envisaged? Will he spell out the contribution of EU member states to the war on

29
terrorism so far? Do not recent events underline the fact that the United States is the bedrock of the world security system and that Britain's most vital national interest lies in maintaining that alliance? Nothing that happens to Europe must be allowed to undermine that position.
Specifically, on the announcement in the Statement that Britain would play a role in the peacekeeping force, when will the number of British troops to go overseas he decided? Does the noble and learned Lord have any idea how long they will be garrisoned? Is there a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan? The noble and learned Lord has kindly explained the rules of engagement privately to some of us, for which I am grateful. In the event of British troops being involved in peacekeeping, will those rules of engagement change?
The EU has pledged £60 million of aid to Afghanistan from the total community budget. How does that compare with provisions from our Government and other national governments? Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied with that level of commitment?
The Laeken Summit was historic in many ways, one of which was that it will be the last one before the euro comes into physical reality on 1st January. We wish the participants well, although we also remain convinced that it is not in our national interest to join. Was there discussion at Laeken of the five economic tests? What did the Prime Minister tell his partners when they asked about a date for a referendum on the euro—or did he say that his lips were sealed?
A number of stores and other organisations have said that they will now accept payment in euros. Will that also be the case for government offices and agencies? Will it be possible for an EU resident to pay in euros for a driving test or a prescription dispensed in hospital? After all, was that not part of the National Changeover Plan, on which so much as been spent?
Turning to agriculture, I wonder whether the Prime Minister took the opportunity of raising the French ban on British beef, following the judgment by the European Court of Justice. Does the noble and learned Lord have any news on when the ban will be lifted? The Prime Minister has said that former President Giscard d'Estang was his candidate to lead the convention. Did he seek to raise the lifting of the beef ban before his expression of enthusiastic support for a French candidate?
Can the noble and learned Lord say a bit more about the membership of the convention? Will members of the official Opposition in this country be included? Bearing in mind that we have a bicameral legislature, can he give us an assurance that a member of your Lordships' House will be sent? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would no doubt make an important contribution.
What are our objectives in the convention? The Prime Minister has agreed with the Belgian Prime Minister that nothing is taboo on the agenda. Does
30
that include a written European constitution, binding on Britain, and a directly elected president of Europe? Do the Government support those objectives?
We differ from our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who openly support some of those integrationist objectives, whereas we do not. Where do the Government stand? Where in the drive to European integration do they plant their standard and say, "This far and no further"? Will they simply go on as far as they think that they can get away with? Will the noble and learned Lord agree to an early debate on Europe so that the Government can set out their position to Parliament well before the convention is set up?
Finally and briefly, I am sorry to raise a more disagreeable matter, unrelated to Laeken, but since the Leader of the House is here I could not resist asking whether he could say anything about the extraordinary reports in the weekend press about the surveillance of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. The noble Lord is a much respected Member of the House. He is not here, but I apologise to him for not having warned him that I would raise the matter. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord may not be in a position to say whether the noble Lord has been the subject of surveillance, but, as Leader of the House, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to explain the remarks, as reported in the press, of Mr MacShane? Has the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms been contacted by Foreign Office Minister's over the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed? I know that the Leader of the House is as keen as I am to defend the privileges of this House. That includes ensuring that no Member of this House is subjected to bullying by Members of another place. I hope that this episode is not a sign of things to come.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place. I assure him that my remarks and questions will be limited to the Laeken summit.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, although Laeken was marred by minor squabbles about where agencies should be located, it was an extremely important summit. The House should appreciate and welcome the extraordinary fact that no fewer than 10 new member states are likely to join the European Union by 2004—which puts a great many concerns at rest.
Can the noble and learned Lord say something about the candidature of Cyprus? Will it follow some agreement on unity between the Greek-controlled and Turkish parts of Cyprus? Is the noble and learned Lord able to comment on the opening of accession discussions with Turkey? Can he reiterate that for the United Kingdom, as for other EU member states, a crucial condition of membership must be the establishment and strong support of human rights in

31
Turkey? We welcome the advances that have been made as a result of changes in that country's constitution.
We much welcome the suggestion for a constitution that—to use the terms of the presidential conclusions—would clarify, simplify and adjust the divisions of competence between member states and the European Union. That might constitute the return of powers to member states. One of the issues that has soured relations between the EU and its member states has been the lack of clarity about competence. There could be constructive discussion of where competencies should lie. There is no reason for not recognising greater competencies for member states. It would be a great help to clarify the position and, significantly, to establish where the divisions fall.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say something about the suggestion that there should be greater reliance on framework laws, which would enable member states to complete the framework with their own implementation of its general principles.
On accountability, we would like to hear more about who from the United Kingdom is likely to be involved. We hope that the convention will he fully in touch with the proposed civic forum. We have concerns about the nature of the leadership, in that it looks rather conventional in terms of the individuals chosen. It does not appear that there will be a great deal of room for individuals who have not up to now been within the EU leadership cycle—in particular, minority communities in all our societies, women and marginalised groups. We seek an assurance that the civic forum will be taken seriously and that the Government will do all that they can to encourage dialogue.
If there is to be serious involvement of the people of Europe, as there must be, in the development of the European Union, we need to go beyond the convention to establish a parallel dimension of civic involvement within each member state and the European Union as a whole.
We much welcome the suggestion that Britain could be in a leadership position by contributing between 1,000 and 1,500 troops to a peacemaking and nation-building force in Afghanistan. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the constitution of that body? Will the 1,500 troops be complemented by a civic group able to build an understanding of democracy and the rule of law? That is clearly a crucial part of any contribution that Britain can make. That development reflects recognition of Britain's responsible role in the battle against terrorism. Many other EU states are more than ready to contribute hut, for reasons to do with the formulation of military policy, many have not been invited to contribute as much as they have offered. We may be able to rectify that in Afghanistan.
I emphasise the important and crucial role of the European Union in bringing another element to bear on peace issues. Is it not important that the EU plays a greater role in the Middle East? We need to say
32
loudly and honestly that the current destruction of the structures of law and order in the Palestinian territories is hardly conducive to the battle against terrorism within those territories. Do the Government have anything to say about the dangers of paving the way to a terrorist leadership of the Palestinian territories, instead of one that—for all its flaws—recognises that peaceful negotiation is the only way out of the current terrible situation? Will the noble Lord say something about the role of Britain and the European Union in the increasingly desperate crisis that is overtaking the Middle East?
Finally, can the Leader of the House say something about the arrangements between European security and defence forces and NATO? The Statement makes a brief reference to the difficulty of establishing proper relations. We are conscious of the role of Greece in that respect but we would like some assurances. Clearly the relationship between European forces and NATO is crucially important in future diplomacy between the EU and the United States.
I said "finally" but I have another question. Let us recognise honestly that no solution was found in respect of asylum policy. Does the Leader of the House agree on the crucial importance of common asylum conditions—relating to the Dublin convention, common standards of treatment and common recognition of the responsibilities that all in the European Union bear for dealing with asylum issues? Can the noble and learned Lord say anything further about the extent to which those objectives were achieved at Laeken?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Britain's way is to be determined to be at the centre of Europe, influential, confident—not the Mr. Faint-heart of the past 15 years—powerful and able to give a lead that historically has long been lacking. Above all—I say this without presumption—Britain's way is to be able to bring the history and traditions of a long democratic life, which many of our colleagues in Europe have not had. We intend to play a powerful role that will be beneficial to our colleagues in Europe and to our country. That is Britain's way.
The noble Lord asked me to consider publishing a list of secondary legislation in Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and I certainly will. He said that Laeken was an integrationist meeting that produced an integrationist document. That is not so—for the reasons well itemised and scrupulously focused by the noble Baroness. Laeken proposed—I paraphrase fairly—that there should be framework legislation. One sees the virtue of that. We ought to use our history, distinct culture and traditions. I take as a fair analogy the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, within which we now legislate domestically. We willingly subscribe to the requirement in the Human Rights Act 1998 that every

33
Minister introducing a Bill must certify, deliberately and seriously, that the proposed legislation is compliant.
The noble Lord asked about Nice, which we are working towards putting into effect. I do not imagine that the noble Lord thought, even in the run-up to Christmas, that I would be able to say when Nice will be ratified by all potential signatories. He asked me to comment on his proposition that the United States is the bedrock of the world's security system. It is—but it is not the sole component. Nor does the United States, in my experience and understanding, wish to be the sole component of that security. It wishes to have co-operation, which is why President George W. Bush has so frequently extolled the co-operation and the full-hearted support—standing shoulder to shoulder—that he has had from the current United Kingdom Government.
The number of troops is between 1,000 and 1,500, although, as the Prime Minister's Statement made perfectly plain, those matters have not been absolutely finally decided. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there is a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan. If he meant his question to be taken as he expressed it, then I would hope not.
The noble Lord was very generous in saying that I had delivered on my undertaking to speak to him, to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the rules of engagement and other matters. If a change is required, obviously it must be put into effect immediately; but I rather doubt that there will be such a change. However, as the Prime Minister said, it is proposed that we should have the lead role.
I do not know whether the five economic tests were discussed, possibly over cigars, but there could be nothing more interesting than asking about the five economic tests, even over a cup of tea and a sandwich. I do not know the answer to the critical question, which is about to raise calls for my resignation, of whether one may pay for one's driving licence in euros. What I do know is that Sir Stanley Kalms, who is a prominent donor to the Conservative Party and the controlling shareholder, I believe, of a well-known emporium known as Dixons, has said that he is content, happy and even rapturous to have euros handed over in exchange for a DVD—which is a digital video disc.
There is no news on the ban on beef; one would hardly expect it as the judgment was given by the court only a few days previously.
Will there be a written European constitution? I doubt that there will be one in my lifetime. Will there be an early debate on Europe? Yes, there will be. As my noble friend and Deputy Leader of the House, Lady Symons, pointed out to me, the date that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to place in his diary—the correct diary, of course—is 17th January, when we shall consider, on Report, the relevant Bill.
I come now to my noble friend Lord Ahmed and his alleged surveillance. I have made it a rule, which I have found to be a good guide throughout my life, not
34
necessarily to believe everything that I read in the newspapers, particularly on Sundays. I do not know whether there was any surveillance of my noble friend, although I should think it unlikely. None the less, I believe—I read it in the newspaper, so I assume that I can rely on it—that he is intending to make a complaint to the relevant commissioner. That is the appropriate action to take. Nothing unlawful should be done to any citizen, including Members of this place or of another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that no one should try to bully anyone in this House, not least because, at least in my experience, such attempts always boomerang.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the 10 new member states, and she asked in particular about Cyprus and Turkey. The 10 candidate states are Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The conclusions—I am happy to give this information—specifically state that
"if the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms"—
the noble Baroness is quite right about that—
"in the candidate States is maintained",
those 10 countries could be ready.
So that is good news. In the case of Cyprus, it is also very heartening news that, after so many years of misery, and indeed bloodshed, at least some contact is being maintained between the two parts of that unhappily divided island.
The noble Baroness asked me particularly about Turkey. The conclusion was that Turkey had made progress towards the political criteria, which has brought forward the prospect of Turkey's possible accession and certainly of the opening of accession negotiations. The conclusions state that
"Turkey is encouraged specifically to continue its progress towards complying with both economic and political criteria, notably"—
to deal with the noble Baroness's specific point—
"with regard to human rights."
I therefore give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks.
The noble Baroness also rightly pointed out the heartening news that greater competences will either be transferred back or left with member slates. That seems to be right as a matter of practical reality. I believe that such arrangements work better and tend to build up public confidence in the institutions of the Union.
Certainly there will be consultations on the two United Kingdom members to the convention. I do not know whether there will be a member from your Lordships' House, although I did notice that a number of ears pricked up when that question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness. I have no news to bring.
"Along the electric wire the message came:
He is no better—he is much the same".
I am afraid that I have no news hot from the press, but then one would hardly expect it. It is only Monday today, and they finished only on Saturday, I believe.

35
Should civic groups be involved in nation building—one cannot even say reconstruction; it is the construction of a civil order—in Afghanistan? I should hope that that will be possible further down the line. I know that the noble Baroness's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has been very astute in trying to engage a wider public in civic and civil reform.
The noble Baroness is in danger of becoming a lawyer. She said "finally" but then confessed her sin and said that she had another question to come. However, we lawyers are used to that as we have been transgressing in that manner all our lives. The issue of the Middle East is of central significance. That is why the Prime Minister's Statement referred to it and reiterated Her Majesty's Government's view that a viable independent Palestine is essential, not forgetting the rights of Israel, which as everyone knows has been under continued external attack since its birth.
On the issue of the defence force and NATO, and in relation to security and defence policy, the Prime Minister said at one point in his Statement:
"We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations".
I cannot go further than that, except to reiterate that sign of the Prime Minister's determination.
The final point that the noble Baroness raised was on the Dublin convention. I think that most people who fair-mindedly examine that document cannot agree that it is an instrument of perfect utility. It needs to be re-examined and reformed. The noble Baroness also asked for my assent to the proposition that there should be a common European approach to the problem, and I agree. I agree also that we should look for common standards. I think that that was the entire thrust of Jack Straw's policy when he was Home Secretary, and it remains so now that he is Foreign Secretary.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, with reference to the European arrest warrant, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and is dealt with in paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Council's conclusions, did the Leader of the House notice the outspoken attack by an Italian cabinet minister on the integrity and honesty of Belgian justice? Before the noble and learned Lord dismisses that, will he remember that 300,000 people took to the streets of Brussels to protest against their legal system after the Dutroux case? What is his view on that matter given that the whole basis of the European arrest warrant must be that everyone has 1,000 per cent total confidence in the justice system of every other country? Only on that basis can one sweep away the safeguards that the citizens of this country have traditionally enjoyed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do remember the demonstration, which was a very moving one. However, it was not a demonstration against the legal
36
system; it was a demonstration focusing on the alleged—and perhaps the real—defects in the way in which the police had investigated, or failed to investigate, those particular gross criminal acts against young children. I think that the noble Lord will forgive me if I suggest that he puts it a little too high to say that one would contemplate extradition only if one had 1,000 per cent confidence in the other country's judicial system. I do not think that that is so. Indeed, the European arrest warrant was agreed in principle at Laeken. However, it will have to come before your Lordships for legislative scrutiny. It is likely to be included in primary legislation to be introduced next year. It will not comprise a sole item but will be part of a wider review of extradition in legislative terms.
I do not think that one can claim that extradition works perfectly at the moment; there are substantial delays. In the increasingly globalised world in which we live, one wonders whether one ought to he too limited in considering the European arrest warrant. In the past the noble Lord has raised legitimate questions of public interest. There will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the concerns that the noble Lord and others have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that securing a concerted approach to outstanding problems is to be welcomed to the somewhat carping attitude on such matters of the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Is it not important indeed that 10 new members of the European Union are closer to membership than they have ever been? Finally, will my noble and learned friend make it abundantly plain that Israel will continue to exist and that genuine attempts will be made to get a real solution to all outstanding problems? In that regard I hope that he will agree that President Arafat has an important part to play. But, equally, he must be genuinely committed to the whole peace process, including the right of Israel to exist.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there can be no question at all of any doubt about Israel's right to continued existence. Indeed, I do not think that any government in this country since the birth of the state of Israel has ever questioned that. I put it as plainly as I can: the continued existence of Israel as an independent state is a given. There is no question of derogating from that in any circumstance. Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the Statement refers to the,
"full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state".
Some would say that those two elements go hand in hand.
The noble Lord referred to the 10 new members. That is an extraordinary achievement. I shall be selective for a purpose which will emerge. I refer to Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. If we remember for a second their history since 1945, to witness the day when they may join us will be quite extraordinary. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord,

37
Lord Strathclyde; namely, that if you visit these different countries in Europe, you are humbled when bearing in mind how greatly they admire the traditions and institutions of this country. If, subject to the tests and preconditions to which the noble Baroness referred, they are able to join us, that will be so much the better for us and infinitely the better for them.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, although I welcome many of the points in the presidency conclusions and the declaration, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the declaration raises an extraordinary number of questions for the convention? On a quick count there are 50 question marks in the relatively short text on the convention. Will the Minister invite his colleagues to give particular attention to two points in order to reduce citizens' discontent, which is one of the main purposes of this operation? The first is to concentrate on reducing secondary legislation. Primary legislation in the European Union is well monitored; secondary legislation is not well monitored, nor is the control which should reduce the amount of secondary legislation fully in effect. That is an extremely important point as regards citizens' reactions. Secondly, in order to improve the openness of procedures, will the Minister support the idea that meetings of the Council when it is legislating should in future be held in public, thus bringing the Council into line with legislative bodies in all democratic states?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. My predisposition is always towards openness as most central authorities that pray in aid secrecy do so for reasons which are not sustainable, legitimate or capable of being rationally defended. In respect of secondary legislation, again I rather sympathise with the noble Lord's sentiments. With regard to the proper scrutiny of secondary legislation, often I question whether we do our duty sufficiently in this House, let alone anywhere else. But perhaps when we improve the way we work we may better be able to discharge our duty.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House really mean to imply that my noble friend Lady Thatcher had been faint-hearted in relation to Europe? Does he consider that the Prime Minister would agree with that adjective, given that he seems to spend much of his political life seeking to model himself on my noble friend Lady Thatcher?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps both the adjective and the noun are wrong—not faint-hearted, but rather wrong-headed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I certainly welcome the rousing statement by the noble and learned lord the Leader of the House in reply to Opposition questions and statements. But, unfortunately, I cannot reconcile that statement with what appeared in the EU declaration at Laeken. The
38
whole document seems to me to be integrationist. It talks about a greater role in foreign affairs and security and in police and judicial matters. It also talks of economic co-ordination, a European constitution, a directly elected president and European parliamentary constituencies. What is more—apparently with the support of our own Prime Minister—the chairman and two vice-chairmen of the convention are well known rampant zealots for a single European state. That seems to underline the real purpose of the convention; that is, to provide and promote a single European state.
Finally, how is the forum for organisations representing civil society to work, given that a large percentage of people who are very sceptical of the whole exercise will not be represented at all at the convention? How will their representations be considered? How will the forum that is referred to, presumably under the "etcetera" part of the institutions, be consulted? Will it mean, for example, that organisations such as the one I chair, Campaign for an Independent Britain, will be able to make proposals and suggestions and that they will be taken seriously by the convention?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly organisations such as the organisation that my noble friend chairs will be able to make submissions and proposals. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any value in a forum unless it is inclusive in its remit; that is, willing to consider alternative points of view in all circumstances.
I do not think that one can look at this declaration in the over-simplistic way in which some noble Lords have done in seeking to attach adjectives to it. I do not believe that there is a true opposition between the label "integrationist" and the label "subsidiarity". What we are looking for in the constitutional changes, or, I ought to say, the mechanical changes, to which the noble Lord referred, is efficient, effective, transparent, accountable institutions. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have favoured that. He has often been, rightly, a critic of the inefficiency, secrecy and non-accountability of some European Union institutions. At the same time, it is being suggested that framework legislation should be passed in Europe with a good deal more individual margin of appreciation for member states I should have thought that those went happily together and that one without the other would not be agreeable.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tells us that certain competences may be returned to the component nation states of the union as a consequence of Laeken. Does that mean that the acquis communautaire—we have always been told that it is completely sacrosanct and cannot be eroded—is considered no longer sacrosanct?
On Cyprus, the noble and learned Lord said that there had been a great deal of unhappiness and bloodshed in recent years. He may be partly right about the unhappiness but, on reflection, does he agree that in the 25 years since partition became effective

39
there has been little bloodshed, with no more than half a dozen people killed? That is in enormous contrast to the previous 15 years.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord takes a shorter historical perspective than I do. In many ways the history of Cyprus over the past 25 or 30 years has not been happy. The noble Lord speaks of only six deaths—he may be right—but I should have thought that those were six too many.
On competencies, the conclusions are designed to bring about this situation. When national institutions, national legislative bodies and national governments are able to deal with matters which otherwise would be dealt with centrally they should be dealt with locally.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome the results of the Laeken Council. I think that the Belgian presidency did extremely well to get as much agreement as it did. The situation was not always easy.
I have two questions. First, given the welcome prospect of as many as 10 countries now coming into the European Union within the next four years, was anything said at the council about the confidence of the European Union to accommodate the costs up to 2006 within the 1.27 per cent GDP ceiling?
My second question relates to what appears to be a contradiction. The Laeken Statement says that in parallel with the proceedings of a convention a certain number of measures can already be taken without amending treaties. It lists proposals for adapting council structures and functioning. At the same time, it seems clear in the appendix that such an issue will be discussed in a convention. With discussions on two parallel tracks, are we in danger of being at cross purposes, making the operation of a convention somewhat difficult?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. I shall deal with his second question first, if I may.
The convention review is time limited to about a year. At the same time it is proposed to see whether there can be accommodation regarding existing practices. I agree with him that both parallels must not be allowed to operate so distinctly one from the other that muddle and confusion arise.
It is believed that the 10 countries joining can be welcomed and the costs accommodated.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have a couple of general questions for the noble and learned Lord. In answer to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lamont he says that we shall have the power to scrutinise this arrest warrant when it comes before us. Can he be specific? Is it not true that we shall not have any power to change what has been agreed at Laeken?
On the general points, is it not pretty clear that one question which should be on the convention agenda is whether the European Union should continue in
40
anything like its present form or whether it should be wound up and replaced by inter-governmental collaboration and free trade under NATO? After all, we all know that the European Union is at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous for its two pretended purposes: to guarantee peace and to foster trade. So why keep the European Union?
Secondly, assuming that some of the other nations are foolish enough to proceed towards their megastate—and of course we cannot stop them—the question must be whether the United Kingdom should be part of it. Surely the noble and learned Lord agrees, because he is a reasonable man, that the Government cannot answer that question unless they have a clear idea as to what life might be like outside the European Union. So will the Government now agree to set up an impartial inquiry to inform the British people of the advantages and disadvantages of staying in or leaving the European Union and of just what liberation and riches might be ahead if we left the ill-fated venture? Surely it is only honourable for the Government to agree that we cannot have this debate unless we know what life might be like outside the thing altogether.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Surely we cannot have this debate". I must be mis-remembering. Most months we have a debate in your Lordships' House along the "Pearson of Rannoch lines" in one way or another—it may be only at Question Time. The noble Lord—here must be another budding lawyer—says, "Surely the noble Lord must agree"—that always implies that if one does not agree one is somewhat deficient "that the 10 candidates should be told how awful life might be within or without the Community". They know life outside the Community.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I refer to the people of the United Kingdom. I am quite content for this debate to take place in the United Kingdom.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom have frequent opportunities—I think that they are called general elections—to express their views. We know what happened when the pro-Pearsons put forward their modest platform at the last election. I seem to remember that it did not achieve resounding support among the populace. Perhaps that is the fault of the populace but it might be the fault of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the debate at the last election was purely about the currency, not on whether we should he in or out.
Noble Lords: Oh! Sit down!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, we should not stifle debate. We are part of a civilised parliamentary democracy. I am happy because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes up my 20 minutes quite agreeably.

41
On the European arrest warrant, that will have to be given effect in primary legislation. It will be part of a larger Bill to do with extradition. It will have to come to this House for scrutiny.

Afghanistan
Debate resumed.
4.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many who have participated in the recent debates on the anti-terrorism legislation, I greatly value the opportunity afforded by this debate to move our focus away from the pressing issues of how we might deal with perpetrators of terror and on to the situation as it is emerging in Afghanistan.
I am sure I speak for many when I say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. I remember meeting him last year at a very agreeable naval occasion in Portsmouth—it consisted of rather more than the tea and sandwiches to which the Lord Privy Seal referred earlier—when he spoke most movingly of Lord Nelson.
I want to focus on some of the wider issues of this Question. Having a particular responsibility for the Portsmouth area I have been deeply impressed by, as well as concerned for, members of the Armed Forces who are participating, if only on the fringes, in the current conflict, especially where this impinges on the work of the Royal Navy. On Friday morning I was involved with a small group welcoming back to Portsmouth HMS "Marlborough" following her escort duties in the Saif Sareea duties in the Gulf. The professionalism and dedication that was displayed by those whom I encountered give me hope and confidence that other members of the Armed Forces will display an equal level of professionalism in the task they are undertaking. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in that regard.
The present Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has been quoted as saying that a difference in emphasis will emerge in the next stage of the current campaign. I stress how much I appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in that regard. I am not in a position to comment on the validity of that view, but I strongly suspect that I am not alone in wanting to acknowledge that we are at war. Much of the language that we have chosen to use skirts around that issue, but it nonetheless remains a fact that our Armed Forces are engaged in a combat situation. That merits a wider, more open and ongoing public debate. For example, there may be ethical questions about bombing; there are also ethical questions about different types of bombing. Some of the questions that have been raised in your Lordships' House in recent weeks bear witness to that. The possible extension of the current campaign to include a range of other spheres of activity seems to provide a timely opportunity for us to question what are the appropriate limits of our involvement and commitment.
42
I stand with a host of others in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his handling of the war on terrorism and for the support that he has given to the United States of America. There has been a right place for the pursuit of justice, but the practical destruction of the Taliban, which we have witnessed in recent days, must give us pause for thought about where to turn to next.
In particular, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the role of the United Nations in the events since September 11th. The Security Council has passed no fewer than four resolutions of varying length unequivocally condemning terrorism and calling upon all member states to work together urgently to bring justice to those who organise terrorist attacks. The Security Council has likewise supported the programme to establish representative government in Afghanistan through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan. It has moved swiftly to bring forward the necessary humanitarian aid, another theme that noble Lords have touched on in various debates. However, apart from the generalised sense that the military campaign falls within the rights of member states to self-defence, the broader campaign has not received explicit support from the United Nations. I very much hope that the debate in the Security Council, which is going on as we speak, will result in support for a multinational peace-keeping force. I believe that the United Kingdom has a central part to play in such a role, one for which we are well-equipped and experienced. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need for new and continuing intelligence services.
It seems that we are at a particular turning point where justice may end and retribution may begin. I have to ask myself whether the total elimination of all those who are regarded as terrorists would in fact lead to the end of terror. I suspect that the experience of the United Kingdom is very pertinent in that respect and not one on which the United States can so readily draw.
I am appalled by acts of terror and condemn them without reserve. Like many others, I found the recent bin Laden video as distasteful as I found the events of September 11th horrifying. I strongly echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I should "nuance" slightly his words about value. It is, I suggest, possible to observe negative values at work as well as positive ones. It is nonetheless incumbent on the House to ask searching questions about whether the focus should now be turned on identifying the root causes of terror, however they may be perceived and however uncomfortable we may find them. We should do that rather than unwittingly help to create a new generation of people who are embittered by the West.
To turn to my classical and theological roots, this might be a moment for what is referred to in Ancient and New Testament Greek as kairos; that is, a moment of opportunity for decision, change and a new direction. The United States has won the sympathy of many nations around the world and has received the

43
practical support of numerous allies. At this crucial moment—at this kairos—respect and restraint would only enhance our esteem for a country that has been so sorely affected by recent events.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, I first thank Members and the staff of your Lordships' House for making me welcome and for their advice. I am honoured to have become a Member of your Lordships' House and trust that I will be able to make an appropriate contribution. I am also pleased to find that I have served in the Army with a surprising number of the Doorkeepers; I joined my regiment with one of them more than 40 years ago.
The operations in Afghanistan are continuing satisfactorily—very much more satisfactorily than some commentators predicted. The United States has given the coalition good leadership and only struck after calm deliberation and careful analysis. As the Minister said, the Taliban is in disarray and although some of its surviving members could still cause serious trouble, Afghanistan has been freed from a vile regime by what many Afghans—not just those supporting the Northern Alliance—see as a war of liberation, not as a war against Islam. There is every reason to suppose that in time Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed; he has no escape.
Much progress has been made in Bonn and elsewhere to find a new government. We should not expect a tidy solution or one that is similar to that which developed democracies enjoy. In a land where tribe has often been against tribe and, within a tribe, family against family, power sharing does not come naturally. We have every reason to hope for better leadership; more representative leadership; leadership that is not feared or hated: and leadership that gives Afghans hope. However, we should not be surprised if there are some members of the new government with whom we are not comfortable.
The scale of the humanitarian crisis has been nowhere near what was predicted by some. Great credit is due to our own NGOs and the DfID for their contribution to the international community's achievements.
The conflict in Afghanistan that we are witnessing may well prove to be relatively easy when compared with what remains to be done in the struggle against international terrorism. We should remember that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 1 million Muslims and that he was decisively defeated in the Gulf War but that he remains a hero to many Muslims. It is important that Osama bin Laden appears, particularly to the younger generation, as the evil man he is—whose actions have brought nothing but misery.
The recently secured and widely shown video—it has already been referred to—of a gloating bin Laden, should help. However, if he does emerge as a hero, the long struggle that we have embarked upon against international terrorism—which can certainly succeed—will be even harder and longer.
44
The front-line states in the conflict deserve our understanding—none more so than Pakistan, which has many internal, cross-border and ethnic problems and disputes with its neighbours, mostly notably over Kashmir with India. The president, General Musharraf, has with great courage steadfastly supported the coalition against terror and Al'Qaeda, and he deserves our help and understanding in return.
For far too many years, Pakistan was treated as an outcast. Certainly, some of her problems were of her own making. But those who cry for a quick return to democracy fail to understand that there has never been what we understand by "democracy" under the rule of either civilians or generals in Pakistan. President Musharraf has already shown that he is moving in the right direction and is committed to democratic rule. Once the crisis in Afghanistan is over, it will be indefensible for the people of Pakistan to be abandoned, as they have been before, by the richer members of the coalition.
I want to raise two other matters. The first is the quite outstanding work of the BBC World Service. Between 60 and 70 per cent of Afghan male heads of households are regular BBC listeners. Broadcasts in Pashto and Persian have been increased to more than 90 hours a week since 11th September. BBC radio broadcasts are trusted and are the only way that many Afghans, a large percentage of whom cannot read or write, receive independent, impartial information. That will continue to be important when the fighting stops and Afghanistan is being rebuilt. The importance of the World Service needs to be recognised in the next spending round.
Secondly, and lastly, the Armed Forces have yet again performed magnificently under particularly difficult and dangerous conditions. I am proud that the regiment in which I served and of which I am now the Colonel Commandant has yet again been in the van. Our forces remain respected and admired at home and overseas. But for how much longer can we go on taking that for granted? The defence programme was underfunded before 11th September. There is now a new commitment. Is there anything that can sensibly be given up now that we are involved in Afghanistan and the struggle against terrorism?
Priorities—particularly spending priorities—are always difficult. But we must avoid falling into the trap of becoming so mesmerised by Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda that other key parts of defence are neglected and underfunded and we are found unprepared when confronted by a new threat. For we live in dangerous times and we can be absolutely sure that new threats will appear.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord on his excellent maiden speech. His time as CDS, when considerable change was taking place in the Armed Forces and when those forces were very heavily committed operationally, will be a great asset to our discussions on defence and on the wider, important geopolitical issues.

45
Perhaps I may pick up two points in his speech. First, I reinforce what the noble and gallant Lord said about the importance of the BBC World Service. I sense that many people do not realise what wonderful work it does on behalf of this nation and in a wider capacity.
Secondly, I refer to the noble and gallant Lord's mention of Pakistan. He did not say that his personal relationship with General Musharraf was a key part in helping Pakistan to come on side during this very important time. I agree absolutely with what he said. General Musharraf took an important and also very brave step in supporting the battle against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. He also said rightly that it would be a terrible mistake if we were to walk away from Pakistan after the support and assistance which it has given us.
I want to focus, first, on the military campaign. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for providing us with very helpful briefings about the situation as it has progressed. Like many others, I have been greatly heartened by the success to date of the military campaign. Its progress has been far quicker than I believe many of us expected. The combination of the devastating impact of US air power and the Northern Alliance, brilliantly and bravely encouraged by British and US special forces, has proved highly effective. I also praise—although it has had a much lower key role—the air refuelling fleet of the Royal Air Force. Without its assistance, the United States naval forces could not have taken such an effective part in the campaign. Certainly those forces destroyed the will and fighting effectiveness of the Taliban, although it is too early to say whether we have seen the last of them.
They also inflicted considerable damage on the Al'Qaeda organisation. If we get bin Laden, I believe that the military campaign in Afghanistan can be hailed a triumph. But, as the noble Baroness, the Minister, has been right to remind us, we are only at the beginning and there is a long way to go before we can say that the Al'Qaeda organisation no longer poses a serious threat. Certainly, after the success of the initial campaign, it would be a bad mistake if we thought that we could sit back, believing that the worst was over either for Al'Qaeda or for Afghanistan.
I know that we are concentrating on Afghanistan, but a number of noble Lords have already mentioned the importance of the tragic, ongoing crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. That deserves as much direct attention from America and Europe as does the war against international terrorism. While there is no sign of establishing a viable Palestinian state, the terrorists of the Al'Qaeda organisation will continue to believe that they have a cause.
Perhaps I may now focus again on Afghanistan and refer to the situation there, the role of the international security force and its command and control arrangements. I recognise that the meeting in Bonn was a great achievement and, certainly, much better than many expected. But, equally, we cannot divorce the present situation in Afghanistan and the way ahead from the country's turbulent history. More
46
recently, there has been no peace since 1973, and in the past five years Afghanistan has not existed as a functioning state.
Even the Northern Alliance, which has had some success, consists of five or six tribal warlords, and their loyalty to the new government is at least questionable. The Northern Alliance has a history of changing sides and of resentment and suspicion towards foreigners. Revenge features high on its list. It will be a very long time before we see a viable state and viable Armed Forces there. That means that we must spend a lot of time on that country. We are in for a long haul and it will cost a great deal of money. I recognise, of course, that we cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan, as happened in 1989.
That said, I have great difficulty in understanding what will be the role of the international security force. It all seems to be rather vague at the moment. There is talk of maintaining only Kabul and perhaps its surrounding areas and some of the other towns where the UN mandated force might be deployed. But what will happen elsewhere in the country? It is also said that Afghan military units will be withdrawn from Kabul and elsewhere. However, I believe that that will be difficult to achieve. And what i1 those units do not agree and refuse to move or hand in their arms? Shall we be prepared to fight them? I believe that we must consider that before the force deploys.
There is talk of a training task, but we must recognise that the training standards of the forces being deployed from the various nations vary considerably. Finally, there is talk of protecting aid convoys. We are trying to achieve that in a country that is two-and-a-half times the size of France and where the terrain is difficult and rugged.
I am conscious that all that sounds very negative and that Afghanistan needs real help. Certainly, if the Armed Forces are deployed there, they will have my strongest support. But Her Majesty's Government should be in no doubt about the challenge that we may be asking our Armed Forces to undertake. They will be doing so at a time when they are already dangerously over-committed; at a time when, if they are committed to Afghanistan, we shall have very little left to deal with the unexpected; and at a time when they are under-recruited and when the defence budget is already underfunded.
The operational commitment has—to use a phrase which I dislike but which people seem to understand—"mission creep" written all over it. The Government must prevent mission failure.
I know it is early days, and I know that General McColl is still on his recce, but I hope that when he returns they will listen careful to what he says, to what the Chief of the Defence Staff says, and to what the Chief of the General Staff says. If we deploy a force to Afghanistan, it must be clear that the Government understand what that force will face. The force has to be properly structured; it must be competent, by which I mean that it is prepared to fight if necessary; it must be large enough; it must have adequate reserves; and

47
multi-nationality must not be taken to too low a level so that the fighting cohesiveness of the force is not undermined.
On the command and control of that force, I have heard three options suggested. The first is the United Nations. I am glad to hear that that is unlikely to happen. I have great respect for the United Nations and some of the roles that that organisation undertakes. Clearly, it could be a UN-mandated force, but the UN cannot command awkward, difficult, dangerous and complicated military operations. Secondly, it has been suggested that Europe should take command. I belong to the school that believes that Europe should do more, but we are a long way from forming the European rapid reaction force, and the military structure in Brussels is nothing like ready to command something as complicated as that.
That leaves us with the United States, which is my favoured option. Frankly, even if the Americans are under a central command, that is not an ideal option because they will be concentrating on the fight against international terrorism. My biggest concern is that unless they have troops on the ground they will not concentrate or focus their minds in quite the same way. It is disappointing to hear the Americans say that already they are overstretched when I consider how overstretched the British Armed Forces are, and given the immediate, practical and real support that we gave the United States after those dreadful events on 11th September. I hope that somehow we can persuade the United States to provide forces that will stand shoulder to shoulder with ours if we decide to send forces to Afghanistan, which appears to be inevitable.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, although the convention is that only the immediately following speaker congratulates a maiden speaker. I hope that I have the indulgence of the House to comment on the outstanding speech that we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. That was not at all unexpected in view of his distinguished career. We look forward to hearing much more from him in the House in the future.
Not one noble Lord who spoke in the debates when the House was recalled during the Recess could have believed that at this date, barely three months later, we would be in the present position, either militarily—with the Taliban not entirely extinguished, but no longer in control of any region in Afghanistan—or politically—with the Bonn meeting of representatives from the four major groups in Afghanistan—the Northern Alliance, the former King's group, the Cyprus group and the Peshawar group—all agreeing on an interim executive and an interim council to govern until the spring when a Loya Jirga should convene to start to discuss a new constitution.
The interim government is due to commence on Saturday, 22nd December. While the situation is extremely fragile and the problems enormous, it is still a huge step forward. There are misgivings outside and
48
inside Afghanistan, but I do not believe that one could continue in foreign affairs or diplomacy if one were not a perennial optimist. However, one also has to be a realist. One has to hope and to work for the best, but to be aware of what could be the worst. Nowhere is that more true than in Afghanistan.
However, it is not helpful for commentators to harp constantly only on the negative and to carp if they cannot have the ideal instantly. Courageous and patient negotiators such as Mr Brahimi and others, deserve great praise for what they have achieved. I echo what my noble friend Lady Symons said about that in her opening speech. The Afghans, in Bonn and in Afghanistan, also deserve great praise. They have reached a compromise and are struggling to make matters work.
Sometimes I lose patience with outside critics (often in the media) who, with little detailed knowledge or sensitivity, make instant judgments based on their own cultural prejudices of groups and individuals inside Afghanistan, he it the forces of the Northern Alliance or others. Of course, I do not mean that we should suspend judgment, but some understanding of circumstances, history and context should be brought into play.
Inside Afghanistan, not everyone is content with the Bonn agreement; for example, Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who controls a large region around Mazar-i Sharif, believes that his faction has not been given enough power in the new executive. The Pashtun spiritual leader, Sayed Ahmed Gailani, is also critical of the agreement, and the former President Rabbani, who was persuaded to stand aside for the new structure is, perhaps understandably, also less than happy with the new arrangements.
Looking at the new executive, one sees real grounds for hope that it may work. Inevitably, it is headed by a Pashtun leader, Hamid Karzai, who appears to enjoy the confidence of most. Three key ministries are headed by Tajiks who were close to Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on 9th September, undoubtedly by Al'Qaeda. Many, like myself, consider that his loss was a tragic blow to Afghanistan and welcome the presence of the people whom he trusted in the new government. They include Dr Abdullah Abdullah as foreign minister; Yunis Qanuni, who led the Northern Alliance delegation in Bonn and who was given the honour of delivering the eulogy at Massoud's funeral, as interior minister; and Mohammed Fahim, who succeeded as military commander of the alliance on the death of Massoud, as defence minister.
An issue of enormous sensitivity and importance is the place of women in the future of Afghanistan. That is an issue dear to my heart, as it is to many others in this House. I believe that it is important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. It is most important to listen to the women of Afghanistan and with all means at our disposal to support them in the way in which they choose to proceed. They have various opinions, but it is worth looking at what two

49
of the women who attended the Bonn meeting said. Fatima Gailani, who was with the former King's delegation, said:
"We do not want things that will lead to a backlash. I just want three things—education, work, politics. If we have these we can build on them".
Ansia Ahmadi, who was in Bonn with the Northern Alliance delegation, said:
"I wear the veil because I want to, not to please the men round the table".
As my noble friend Lady Symons said, there will be two women in the new government. One of the deputy leaders in the new government will be a woman. The name of Dr Sima Samar, who is a Hazara, has been mentioned.
Those are small steps, but they are enormously important for women in Afghanistan. I believe that we would do a disservice to Afghan women if from outside the country we appeared to want the impossible immediately. That does not mean that we should not do everything possible to encourage and to support their progress along the paths that they choose.
I am afraid that whatever can go wrong probably will go wrong. Enormous progress has been made along the way to better governance for Afghanistan and a better life for its people. We must do everything that we can to help. We must not impose our ideas, our norms or our ways, but assist the Afghan people, men and women, to do things their way to achieve that better life. It is only right that we provide whatever appropriate support we can, including, if necessary, our Armed Forces.
I welcome the Statement today by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which we have just heard repeated in this House, that in principle Britain is willing to lead an international security assistance force. I am confident that our forces, if deployed, will provide whatever is needed in whatever leadership role is asked of them with their usual high standards of professionalism and expertise.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, it was good to hear my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie make his most excellent and wise maiden speech. He has had much recent experience in troubled times. No one knows better the delicate balance and interrelationship between the political and military imperatives that exist in any crisis situation. He will have so much to contribute in your Lordships' House.
I want to make three points. First, as has been said, the military campaign in Afghanistan has so far gone extremely well. All concerned deserve congratulations, in particular the commander-in-chief of the US central command, General Franks, who has organised and co-ordinated the land/air battle with skill and a strong degree of sensitivity. His success has been due, first, to the fact that, as my noble and gallant friend said, he was initially patient and did not rush in before he had gathered intelligence and could be selective in his targeting; secondly, because he increasingly related the
50
air bombardment to the ground action undertaken. largely and sensibly, by indigenous forces; and, thirdly, because the United States was presumably prepared to provide sufficient gold to enable Field commanders to persuade large numbers of the opposition to give themselves up and even change sides without too prolonged and costly fighting, although I imagine that the going became a little rougher as the Al'Qaeda were cornered. Anyhow, that famous Chinese general and tactician of 500 BC, Sun Tsu, would no doubt have thoroughly approved.
As a result, the most impressive results in destroying the power of the Taliban have been achieved far quicker than many of us dared hoped. In all this the American marines and special forces and our own special forces have clearly played a significant part in advising local forces of the Northern Alliance and other factions and specifically in directing the air effort to both Taliban and Al'Qaeda targets and also by providing maximum fire support to friendly forces on the ground. As has been said, the Royal Air Force has played a big role in photo-recognisance and air refuelling. We should be grateful to them all and very proud of our own country's contribution.
Now the remaining Al'Qaeda bases, hideaways and training camps must be destroyed. Osama bin Laden, who may well, for all we know, now be in Pakistan, must be isolated from any network in that area or anywhere else, and, if possible, put out of action for good. But I have always felt that the network, much of which lies elsewhere than in Afghanistan, and sonic of it much nearer to home, has always in some ways been a more important target than the figurehead himself, whose mantle could so easily, while various issues remain unresolved, be assumed by others.
My second point is that having been so successful so far, I, too, like my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, hope that we do not spoil it by forcing formed bodies of British troops on to reluctant Afghans, to do heaven knows what for heaven knows how long. It would surely be tactless to those who have done the lion's share of the fighting; their precise task would seem still to be obscure; and, as the realities of non-Muslim forces getting involved in internal domestic power struggles and squabbles sinks in, their safety could become increasingly precarious.
Such deployment would also significantly increase overstretch and it is highly doubtful whether the necessary support services, not least the medical services, could be provided without irreparable damage being done elsewhere. For all those reasons it must surely be contrary to military advice. But if I am wrong about that no doubt the Minister will correct me. Only in the context of humanitarian aid under UN mandate could an intervention such as this be seen to be justified.
I would therefore plead for the most thorough consultation with the people on the ground and not just in a European forum, as to what kind of force or organisation is needed. Also, like my noble and gallant friend, I hope that the general officer who has been sent out there, when he comes back will he listened to

51
carefully as to what he thinks will and will not work, and that there will not be some preconceived idea which does not fit in to his report. I also hope that we shall not be contriving to create a democratic Afghanistan with full human rights, long after the military aims have been fully met. That must surely be left to the Afghans with the maximum encouragement and financial aid from outside.
My third and last point—this has already been touched on—is that I wonder, when our Armed Forces are needed as much as they are respected, what possessed the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence to raise in a very long speech delivered to a seminar at King's College London the spectre of yet another defence review, albeit dressed up as a new chapter of the last one. Of course the JIC should be making an up-to-date assessment of the relevant threats post 11th September. That is its job. An intelligence effort should be strengthened. After all, the only sensible way to deal with terrorism is to be forewarned.
In the light of that assessment, the chiefs of staff should be revising organisation and deployment of forces at home and overseas; and the home commands, in consultation with the home department, should, if necessary, be revising plans to deal with a variety of crises situations, in particular, how to make best use of our splendid reserve forces, as has already been said. All that is their job, but it should be part of an ongoing process in any efficient and flexible organisation.
But to announce in public in a speech—much of which admitted, not unreasonably, that the situation may not have changed that much and that there are no obvious reasons why the presently organised Armed Forces should not be capable of reacting effectively to any new situation—that now there would be a formal review, a new chapter, run by a small caucus of the central staff, and which proudly boasted that the Treasury were in from the outset, can only set alarm bells ringing among those desperately trying to see that the last review—which incidentally fully took into account international terrorism and the threat of religious fundamentalism—was fully implemented in terms of manpower, equipment and money.
For however it is dressed up, however the approach to this chapter is paved with good intentions, any one with any experience in Whitehall will see this as a golden opportunity for the Treasury to question the sensible and fully agreed parameters of the Strategic Defence Review and reduce still further in cash flow terms the already underfunded and overstretched defence programme. This can of course only reproduce the uncertainly which was so powerful in the past among middle piece officers and senior non-commissioned officers, all of whom are so vital for retention and manning.
The organisation and speed of reaction of our forces works—as has been manifest over and again. After all, we sent a task force to the Falklands with four days' notice; we have long had a spearhead battalion at immediate readiness; we have special forces grouped for quick reaction, a Marine Commando Brigade, an
52
Air Assault Brigade, a Strategic Reserve Division and a Rapid Reaction Corps all designed for rapid deployment anywhere in the world. If it works, why try to fix it? No two crisis situations will ever be exactly the same—as my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank has said. What is needed is a general combat capability over a wide spectrum of threats and great flexibility in its usage. Of course, that is exactly what the Strategic Defence Review provides.
Finally, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to pay a short tribute to the late Lord Carver. Over the years, he was a most regular attendee of your Lordships' House and often a committee chairman. His speeches in debates such as this were keenly looked forward to, as he was a brilliant and erudite speaker with great experience behind him.
Although his obituaries may to some extent have dwelt on his brusqueness and intellectual self-confidence, noble Lords will have experienced nothing but courtesy and kindness from him in his dealings in your Lordships' House. As someone who served under him in Normandy and north-west Europe, I can vouch for his excellence as a commander in war. Clear headed and calm under fire, he was always, like the great Duke of Wellington, to whom he was related through his mother, where he was most needed in the battle. He was ready to take clear-cut decisions, however tough, and to seize tactical opportunities as they occurred, while at the same time being considerate of the lives of the soldiers under him. In this, he was everything that a soldier should be.
Michael Carver was also, in peacetime, a highly civilised human being—a man of letters and of culture. Those who knew him well—and I count a great number in your Lordships' House—will miss him very much indeed.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
5.33 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his tribute to Lord Carver, whom he certainly knew much better than I. However, I recall that he had an original and questioning mind and that when I was Secretary of State a shiver used to go through the Ministry of Defence every time that it was known that Lord Carver was about to speak in the House of Lords. He made a significant contribution to your Lordships' House.
As an aside to my remarks, our debates on Afghanistan should be required reading for anyone considering reform of your Lordships' House. Having come so recently from another place, I cannot fail continually to be impressed by the quality and authority of the contributions made in these debates, as in so many others. We have among your Lordships so many people with outstanding experience in the field. If I may congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, on his maiden speech—I did not know that we were not allowed to do so—I must say that having been, as I continually told Chiefs of the Defence Staff and others, by an accident of

53
National Service, commissioned earlier than several of those most senior in rank in the Ministry of Defence, I am delighted to see young officers making such progress and joining your Lordships' House.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, recognised, the value of our multi-national training programmes is seen to particular advantage at present. The authority and contribution that he has brought to our relationship with Pakistan at a critical moment may owe something to that background. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, may remember that on one occasion our relationship with Turkey in Operation Provide Comfort was enormously helped by the joint membership of the Royal College of Defence Studies of the British and Turkish officers concerned.
I was also delighted that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, echoed something that I said in my maiden speech about the importance of the BBC World Service. In whichever country we find ourselves, we discover that it has huge listening figures in the area. I was certainly not aware before of what a high listening audience the BBC World Service has in Afghanistan, which can only be helpful.
Your Lordships have now had the privilege of listening in rapid sequence to the words of authority of three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and I am about to be followed by another. They have all, with the authority that they bring to the subject, echoed the words from the recent Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies lecture by the current Chief of the Defence Staff about serious concern about funding and the number of concurrent operations in which our forces now find themselves. In his chilling words,
"Something will have to give".
I may be seen as the guilty man behind Options for Change. I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the subject of defence review—as we never dreamt of calling it—but that was a specific and direct response to the ending of the Cold War. It was led by the then Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, assisted by the now Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Sir Richard Mottram. I always believed that that move was from one state to a new state—an end of Cold War state, as it were—but not a moment on a continuous path downwards. I believed that it was essential that we kept reserves, some tolerance and sufficient capacity for what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, precisely described as the next problem and threat to arise.
There is an awful thing about defence reviews—especially the most recent one, which claimed, if I may make a tiny party political point, that it would be better than any other because it would be foreign policy-led and, presumably, intelligence-guided. We know that our current problem stems from something that intelligence did not identify. Once again, as was the case in the Falklands and with the invasion of Kuwait, intelligence failed to give us the guidance that we needed. Yet again, the Ministry of Defence was told
54
that it must do something and find the resources to take the necessary action. Each case proved unexpected. While I strongly believe in our being, in a phrase that the Prime Minister now echoes, a force for good in the world, the world is a more dangerous and unstable place than it was during the Cold War. If we are to achieve that admirable objective, we cannot do so without the necessary resources to make our contribution.
If I may, I shall now briefly consider the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to this debate as an interim debate on the situation in Afghanistan. That must surely be correct. Objective one is to bring Osama bin Laden and Al'Quaeda to justice. We may be pretty close to achieving that; but we do not know just how close. But objective two is to prevent Al'Quaeda posing a continuing terrorist threat.
Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that we ought to focus on the enemy, rather than on the ground taken. When we focus on the enemy, which is Al'Quaeda and its cells around the world, none of your Lordships will be in any doubt that its current capability is well distributed and resourced. It is a dedicated and autonomous terrorist force. When I say that it is well distributed, I mean that in a global sense. If it is true that 70,000 people passed through its training camps before the world awoke to the scale of the threat and took action, where are they now? We know that they were in places which the intelligence and security forces had not sufficiently anticipated. Even with the increased activity of the security agencies, we cannot he confident that we know where they all are. The chilling phrase used by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce was that they are "quite capable" of further atrocities comparable with those carried out on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
The rapid success in achieving objective one and the progress towards objective two may have dented the middle and longer-term capability of Al'Qaeda. We hope that that will prevent any further training taking place in Afghanistan. We also hope that the severity of the action being taken against Afghanistan is making other countries and governments think hard about whether they are keen to welcome Al'Qaeda into their territories. The Yemen, Syria and the Sudan are areas where Al'Qaeda might possibly have sought to establish an alternative base.
I turn to further action that might be taken. I have not yet mentioned Iraq, but there is a distinction between cases where terrorist organisations are perhaps being harboured by a state and cases where our suspicion is that the state itself is the terrorist organisation. We have to give careful consideration to that distinction.
Your Lordships will have noted a disturbing theme which has emerged. My noble friend Lord Howell thought that it might have been exaggerated by some commentators. It is that there is a divergence of view between the United States and the United Kingdom. That would be extremely worrying. Clearly, while

55
there is evidence that the United States does not want to become engaged in nation building—the chilling phrase used was "Super powers do not do dishes"—the reality is that the coalition must stick together.
I am told that the British favour not merely the military approach but seek to win hearts and minds, too. They want to seek to establish an enduring relationship. The right reverend Prelate said that justice may have been achieved and retribution may now begin. I, too, believe in the importance of the hearts and minds programme. If we see a long-haul situation, if we see the need to sustain the campaign against terrorism from wherever it may come, it is critical to carry public opinion with us. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a nasty shiver which went around at the scenes in Mazar-i Sharif when it was thought that some of the methods used fell some way below the traditions of the Geneva Convention and other rules of warfare in which one might expect British forces to be involved.
I turn to the outcome of British involvement and pay tribute to our Armed Forces and the regiment of which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, has the privilege to be colonel. If the bravery and outstanding service of our forces are seen to be followed by the kind of outrages and terror we have despised in the former Taliban government, that will be extremely damaging to future campaigns against terrorism in other areas. The hearts-and-minds approach, better government, good administration and trying to improve the lot of the people may be seen in some United States quarters as slightly eccentric British post-colonial hang-ups, but I believe that they are critical if we are to sustain an effective campaign against terrorism.
Although I bow to the greater authority of those noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, I wonder what we are going to do with the force which we are to send out there. Is it to be a British command unit which will organise everyone else and bring in Muslim forces and others which can be better deployed in the country? Is it to provide close protection for the British office in Kabul and members of the administration? Is it to be a major multi-national stabilisation force?
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, spoke of Afghans not wanting to see an occupation force moving in and the difficulties associated with that. I recall visiting our training force in Namibia and seeing the South West African Territorial Force and SWAPO; former enemies which had been trained together under a British training instructor. As regards Afghanistan, the problem about nation building is whether there is even a nation to build. Is it unrealistic to believe that if one tried to build stability in that troubled land, the formation of a national, embryo army which could benefit from the training we have provided elsewhere, could be one of the contributions we could make to whatever elements of nation building will follow? The initial efforts have proved to be an outstanding success but so much more now needs to be done.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in order to abide by the Companion, I have already congratulated my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank on a fine and thoughtful speech. He is a most welcome addition to these Benches.
Much has already been said today and in previous debates about the situation in Afghanistan. I propose to confine myself to the role which air power has been playing in this campaign and to touch on three particular issues which spring from that experience. As happened in Kosovo 18 months ago, a principal aspect of the strategy in Afghanistan has been to rely heavily on the offensive contribution of air power.
In Afghanistan, it began with the use of Tomahawk and conventional bombing to establish that first essential of any serious military operation; air superiority. Even at the outset, the Taliban threat to air operations was not that significant. I recall that during the previous debate I reminded your Lordships that the achievement of air superiority was but a step on the road to realising the coalition objectives and not an end in itself.
At that time, we were anticipating that the next stage would be the insertion of a considerable ground force. British and United States army units had been placed on shortened notice to move. The situation on the ground, and the contribution to it from the Northern Alliance, however, was not clear.
I was concerned about the problems which our own ground forces might face, though I thought it right not to comment beforehand, particularly as I was not privy to all the intelligence information available. However, our principal objective remained and it was very clear: to eliminate the Al'Qaeda and to get Osama bin Laden. First it was necessary to defeat the Taliban.
In the event, the decision, which I strongly endorsed, was to continue to rely on the use of air power, assisted by small independently operating teams on the ground. Even the most cursory study of the terrain—and one had to bear in mind the onset of winter—suggested that there were likely to be serious logistic and other problems. Inserting and sustaining ground forces over a period of weeks or months in a very unstable country, particularly if they were involved in offensive operations, was quite a task. The mix of factions on the move within Afghanistan then could further add to the difficulties of telling friend from foe.
So I was relieved when it became clear that the intention was to continue to rely heavily on air power. That was a very sound decision and reflects the increasing value now being obtained by the use of air power. Ever since the bombing began, and particularly in recent days, the weight of attack on first the Taliban and subsequently on Al'Qaeda has been immense.
There is a temptation to measure air power's contribution by the number of sorties and the weight of bombs which have been raining down from B-52s, F-18s and other aircraft flown from United States naval carriers or even from the continental USA. These statistics are, of course, very impressive. They are, too, a measure of the collective efforts of very large

57
numbers of individuals and units, working together on planning and operational staffs, on airfields and on ships, as well as in the air, to achieve a massive and sustained level of operations. That reflects the depth of professional training and the most meticulous preparations for operations. It points, too, to the levels of performance of aircraft and weapons which are now required and the need to provide adequate numbers of them.
Planning and implementing operations on this scale is a major undertaking. All who have participated are to be congratulated on their efforts. Altogether, we have seen a most professional and skilful employment of air power, one which terrorist supporters in other parts of the world should note.
But it is not right to measure success solely by the number of sorties flown or the weight of ordnance delivered. Achieving the military objectives apart, we need to consider how often the right targets have been struck, how often they have been missed.
In war, as in training, there will be missed targets and thus some wasted effort. Training is essential if such mistakes are to be minimised. Cutting back on training is a grave mistake. It increases the chance of ghastly errors in war, which could very adversely undermine public support. We make cuts far too often, as a short term economy measure, in the training of our Armed Forces. Bombs that miss sometimes do dreadful damage to non-military targets and kill or maim children and non-combatants. Such horrific incidents understandably get considerable critical media coverage.
But there is more to it than that. Noble Lords should take it as read that great efforts are taken to avoid such tragedies—not only because of their adverse impact on public support for any campaign but also because bombs which go astray do not destroy the target and further sorties will have to be mounted to deal with it. Bombs will go astray, even the latest smartest guided weapons, and for a variety of reasons. There is a tendency for some critics to argue that even if a single bomb misses, something has gone wrong and that it is a poor show.
The Royal Air Force was criticised after Kosovo because not every bomb it dropped hit a target. That is uninformed criticism and very wide of the mark. Noble Lords will recall that during the Falklands conflict a Vulcan bomber, operating from Ascension Island, dropped a stick of 21 1,000lb bombs on the airfield at Port Stanley. The direction of attack across the runway was at an angle calculated to give a high probability—there can never be certainty—that one, only one, of the 21 bombs delivered would hole the runway. None of the other 20 bombs would hit the runway, either falling short or overshooting along the line of flight. To achieve the objective it was necessary to drop all bombs in a stick to get the right assurance that one of the 21 would hit and explode on the runway.
To a greater or lesser extent the same principle applies whatever number of unguided, or dumb, bombs are used. Several are dropped to straddle the
58
target. Much modern ordnance today incorporates some form of guidance to achieve a higher probability of a successful attack and to reduce the number of bombs that would be required to destroy the target if they were unguided ones. The chances of hitting unintended buildings or individuals are, of course, also much reduced.
But even with smart bombs, not everything will always go right. If one is a good shot and fires at a target at Bisley, not every round will be a centre bull's eye. Even if the aim is rock steady, small variations in the wind or in the charge in the rifle round, for example, will affect the ballistics and reduce consistent accuracy. Flying at several hundred knots, where the altitude, acceleration and attitude of the aircraft at weapon release are all variables, will affect the flight of a round far more than one fired lying still on your stomach. On-board computers should cope with these variables but, like the experience at Bisley, there will be small deviations. The bomb's own guidance system will also have to deal with other variables as it descends towards its target. Of course one does all that one can to get everything working perfectly, hut the nature of warfare is that there will be technical as well as human error. Not every bomb that goes astray is due to pilot error.
Other noble Lords will comment on what we should do next. All I would add is that Her Majesty's Government should be very clear what their exit strategy should be for forces that they may commit on the ground.
Finally, there is one other point that I should like to highlight. Those whom we rely on to mount and participate in operations of war are a very special breed of individual. They are, of course, volunteers, but are now—far more than was ever the case during the Cold War—exposed to enemy threats. They are sent on operations and their lives can be at risk.
If they are to achieve what is expected of them, they need to be properly trained and the money for that must be found. They need to be provided with the aircraft, weapons and defensive aids to give them a much better than even chance of defeating their opponents in the air or on the ground. They need a rewarding career structure and consideration for their families and other domestic needs. If they are unlucky and are killed or handicapped by wounds, then they must be adequately taken care of with a pension and benefits that match today's best practice.
Let me name and shame. Recent figures that I have seen indicate that, for the Armed Forces today, the death-in-service benefit payable to the surviving relative is 1.5 times salary compared to four times salary for an MP. There is a proposal to increase the Armed Forces benefit to three times salary in 2004, but that is still well short of the best. There are other comparisons that also indicate that the present, and even the future, proposed pension and benefit schemes for the services are not up to those of other public service groups.
Surely if we are to continue to recruit and retain individuals who perform as well as the Armed Forces do today, we must ensure that they are not

59
discouraged by their pension and other benefit prospects. A young man or woman may not have a pension as their top consideration, but it is wrong to disadvantage such people by relying on their lack of interest. We should ensure that when the time comes their service will be properly recognised.
I urge the Government to think again about revamping a pension and benefit system which has been constrained from the outset by a diktat that any changes must be cost neutral. More money is required if the services are not to be shabbily treated. I hope that the Government will show that their admiration for the Armed Forces, often so eloquently expressed, will be matched by deeds in their review of service pensions and benefit schemes—a review which will impact on every soldier, sailor or airman who is on operations supporting Her Majesty's Government's policy in Afghanistan, over Iraq and elsewhere.
6 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest because of my involvement in Oxfam and other humanitarian agencies concerned with the issue we are debating tonight.
Whatever the conventions, I too must say at the outset how good it is to see the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, among us. Those noble Lords who, over the years, have had an opportunity to know him personally not only unreservedly admire his military career, but also appreciate his wisdom and great sense of humanity. These will be tremendous assets in what he contributes in the time ahead.
I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on having come before us yet again for this debate. It can be nothing but to the good that they are so open about enabling us to scrutinise activity and to put forward our views.
My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean reminded us in her opening speech that at the forefront of our minds all the time must be 11th September. That is the essential point to make. Our firm and enduring friendship for the people of the United States demands no less. She also said that we must make sure that such an atrocity will never happen again. In that context I was glad to hear her emphasise the role of the United Nations, not only in what it has done already but in what it may be able to do in the future. I am sure that it would be appropriate at this juncture to pick out the name of Lakhdar Brahimi and to say that he represents all that is best in international service and leadership. He played a remarkable part in enabling the Bonn agreement to be reached and in enabling us to take the first tentative steps on the political way forward.
Tributes are due to a great number of people for the progress so far, especially our own armed services. At the time of Christmas we think not only of them but also of their families. As I have said before in our debates—because I believe it very deeply—a tribute is also due to our own Prime Minister for the critical leadership role he has played in the saga so far.
60
We have now to face the issue of winning the peace. I was interested that, in his remarkable maiden speech, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, emphasised the long haul. This will have economic and social dimensions. It will not be cheap; it will be very expensive. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale also underlined that point. It will involve reconstruction, institution-building and a tremendous educational programme. It will involve the rule of law. We are very apt to preach about the importance of the rule of law, but the rule of law costs money. It costs money to have judges and advocates in place, to run prisons and to look after prisoners and the accused decently.
In that context it will not be good enough simply to say that the rule of law is essential to the future of Afghanistan. If we want the rule of law, we must be prepared to resource it. It will involve the whole approach to governance and the resources needed for it. It will also involve the regional dimensions. The burden will not be simply upon Afghanistan but is already upon adjacent states. We need to make sure that the necessary support goes to them. I hope—I am not ashamed to say it in view of my past and present involvement in the non-governmental world—that in all of this there will be close co-ordination with the non-governmental organisations.
There are also the immediate humanitarian needs. My noble friend stressed that there had been a welcome increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting through and in place. Winter is upon the people who have already suffered so grievously, however, and the question is whether there is enough in place for the winter. Are the supplies reaching the country getting through to the displaced, not least those on the Iran border? Are the incredible needs of the camps, both inside and outside Afghanistan, being properly addressed? I hope that my noble friend, when replying to this debate, will be able to give us some precise estimates and answers on these points. I know that my noble friend will forgive me for stressing what I have always stressed: I believe that this involves close co-ordination with the non-governmental community.
My Lords, history will scrutinise this campaign in great detail. We have to be ready for that. If we seek to claim the moral high ground and to present our commitment as the stand of good against evil and as the defence of civilised values, then we shall rightly be judged by those standards.
The questions that inevitably will be asked of us will probably include whether the bombing has been proportionate, discriminate and justified in terms of the stated objectives. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, with all his experience, has just spoken about the complications this issue. How many civilian casualties have there really been and were they unavoidable? What has been the agreed policy on the taking, treatment and protection of prisoners and on the response to offers of surrender? What did happen at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress? Why did it happen and how thoroughly is it being investigated? What is the agreed policy on assassination as a method of pursuing the coalition's objectives? What arrangements have

61
been agreed by the coalition on the procedures for trials, for forms of punishment to be applied, and on extradition? Specifically in this context, where do the Government stand on the death penalty? Other questions concern whether the overriding objective is to bring bin Laden and his followers to justice or to bring justice to them. Those objectives are not the same. Is there a determination to demonstrate our commitment to and confidence in the processes of the law? If there is not, have we honestly considered the messages to others? Have policy and action on all these matters and others been tested, and will they always be tested, against our existing commitments to the upholding of human rights? What is the policy of continuing explicit rather than implicit authorisation by the UN for action?
I believe that these questions will have to be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because of the ringing moral terms in which we have spelt out our mission. Secondly, because they are central to the battle for hearts and minds.
Around two weeks ago I was standing in a camp for displaced people—a dreadful place—in Znamenskoye, Chechnya. I caught sight of a group of young men in the camp. Their faces were a study. They had been through indiscriminate and disproportionate bombardments; they had seen the abuse of human rights; they were now faced with the grim circumstances of the camp. I wondered what was their stake in the future and in what direction they were beginning to see their futures lead.
We must uphold the finest qualities, as they have evolved, of our own military forces, as well as of those at all levels in our forces who strive to maintain them, as they have done repeatedly in immensely difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland and abroad. I also presume that it is for this very purpose that the international stabilisation force is being considered.
While we have to he decisive, firm and tough, we have to he certain that, as in domestic emergency measures, we never allow ourselves to be provoked into doing precisely what the coldly calculating terrorist leaders want us to do; namely, to indicate that, under pressure, our civilised values could begin to dissolve and be seen as largely rhetoric.
There are other issues which have to be addressed and they have been mentioned in this debate. Conceptually, the Middle East is highly relevant in terms of the issues of justice. There will never be a lasting imposed solution in the Middle East unless the issues of justice are properly addressed, and those are very deeply rooted in history. But there are other issues. Why are so many arms so readily available in the world, and what are we doing responsibly to control them? The Export Control Bill, which is to come before the House next month, is highly relevant to the kinds of situations with which we are now confronted.
During a lifetime working in humanitarian agencies and the rest, I have come to one conclusion. It is that we must not skip over the differences between peacekeeping and peace-making. Both are necessary,
62
but peace-making is an infinitely more complicated and demanding task even than peacekeeping. One has to face the complexities of the task. One has to be ready to talk with those with whom it is not always easy to talk. In Britain, I believe that all that has happened in Northern Ireland under successive governments is an illustration of what is necessary if one is seriously to approach the task of making peace.
We hear a great deal of talk nowadays about "pax Americana". There is a difference between enforced order and participatory order. There is a difference between order which is imposed top-down and order which is rooted widely in the community. I listened with interest to Bill Clinton's Dimbleby Lecture on television last night. He spoke movingly and tellingly about the need to redistribute wealth and the advantages of our society throughout the world. However, he did not address one critical question in his interesting lecture. There are quite a number of people in key positions in the United States and around the world who do not always address this question. It is about sharing power. We lament the alienation in the world, but unless we come to terms with the political issue of the sharing of power, we shall not build enduring stability. We may impose order for a while, but the eventual cost may be higher than ever. We have to win that order by the conviction of the broadest cross-section of people in society. That means their participation.
I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I frequently find myself very much in agreement with him, and I have a high regard for a great deal of the work that he has done in this House and in the other place. However, I believe that some of the wisdom and experience in the European setting is relevant; we ought to encourage it—not in any challenging sense, not in any sense of animosity, but as a way of contributing to what will be the enduring and lasting solution to the situation.
We have an enduring friendship with the American people—I know that I have—based on many experiences. But it must be a mature and honest relationship. I worry that the grandchildren of the present generation of American leaders may say: "But what did you do with our supremacy when you had it? Why did you not throw yourselves into an unprecedented commitment to building viable world institutions instead of trying to run the world yourselves—because you could not do that for ever and it would not last for ever? The task was to build viable global institutions".
The news on ABM defence, on Kyoto, on exclusiveness in regard to Afghanistan and talk of extending the conflict is not altogether promising. In terms of real friendship, it is now that the Government and the Prime Minister—in the sense of the loyalty to their good friends across the Atlantic, which they have established beyond question—have got to speak honestly about these anxieties; to spell out what they believe is the way to a viable future. I think that they do believe that. If we do not do it now, we may never have another opportunity.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is my belief and that of the Green Party that this war was not an appropriate reaction to the events of 11th September. It is reinforced by the knowledge that the toll of civilian lives lost on that date is at least matched by the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan. However, that does not stop us being thankful for the success of the operation or feeling proud and having a sense of gratitude towards those who achieved it.
Nevertheless, we should not think that peace has been achieved. The Afghan war, when it finally ceases, will have spawned an escalation in the on-going war over Palestine which has lasted for so much of our lives; and perhaps we are threatened with another one in Somalia, Iraq or wherever. We should never forget that World War II did not become a "world" war until about three years after the invasion of Poland. It is easier to let slip the dogs of war than it is to kennel them.
But this debate is about Afghanistan rather than the wider field and there the damage is appalling. Irrigation systems, orchards, agricultural land and forests have been devastated, increasing the misery caused by a four-year drought. All this, and we have still not captured bin Laden, at least, so far as I know. As for what I understood to be an assurance by the Minister that the events of 11th September could not happen again, it is what Nathaniel Gubbins used to call "the good fairy, Wishful Thinking"—as a large number of speakers have pointed out.
Terrorism will continue. It has not been defeated and will not immediately be defeated. It has been here for a long time and is here, in a way, to stay. It is also fair nonsense—as ex-President Clinton said last night in the Dimbleby Lecture—to say that it is not effective. He spoke about Ireland. Does he really think that the Republic of Ireland would be where it is today if it had not been for a certain amount of terrorism? Kenya—a thriving nation, unlike one or two others in Africa—would not be where it is today were it not for some terrorism. We must face facts. It may be sad, but it is so.
The immediate future of Afghanistan, as noble Lords have said—and it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in such debates—is one of dealing with short-term refugees and with immense hunger. It is to be hoped that we shall be able, through the non-governmental agencies, to come to the help of the people there and in the surrounding countries. As the noble Lord said, it will not come cheaply but we must not run away from it.
The needs are not merely short term. It is necessary to build a healthy, long-term democracy, and that will not come easily to Afghanistan. The country also needs a healthy agrarian system, which may take 20, 30 or 40 years to build up again. What plans do the Government have for rebuilding the agrarian system, and for re-afforestation, given the immense number of trees that have been destroyed in the bombing, quite apart from those that have died as a result of the drought? These are the areas which are of basic importance to Afghanistan.
64
There are other areas almost as important, although they may not seem so. Ben MacIntyre wrote recently in The Times about the need to restore the cultural heritage and, in so doing, to make sure that UNESCO, which at its best is a very fine body, can have an important part to play.
I deplore the war, but I can see that, if we really try, we can bring something to Afghanistan that it has not had for a very long time. The first reading in the communion service yesterday morning for the large number of Christians in different churches in this country was from Isaiah about making the desert blossom as a rose. That is the challenge before us. It is enormous, but it is one that we must take extremely seriously—as seriously as going to war.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but he appreciates insufficiently the evil that the government of the Taliban and the Al'Qaeda movement, which is protected by the Taliban, have brought to the rest of the world. The operation was fully justified. Had we not taken such firm action after 11th September to frustrate the activities of Osama bin Laden, he and his allies may by now have committed further atrocities. Their objective was not simply to destroy the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon; they were intent on destroying the United States and to spread their perverted mutation of Islam around the world by force, contrary to the holy Koran, which says that there must be no compulsion in religion.
If I may say so to my former noble friend, there can be few people naïve enough to believe that if the terrorists had been left to themselves, it would have been a long time before they perpetrated further shocking mass murders—and not only in the United States. I am sure that they never intended those crimes to be a one-off. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, they were capable of mounting further operations. We have seen from the papers that have been discovered in great profusion in the bases captured by opposition forces during military operations that they were preparing and planning such attacks, including one in the City of London using a massive bomb.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord must not attribute to me a naïvety that I do not have. I did not suggest that if we had not gone to war there would have been no more atrocities. I know what the terrorists wanted, but I do not think that by going to war we have put an end to terrorist attacks. There will be others. Going to war was an inappropriate way of dealing with terrorists. There are other, more appropriate ways about which I have spoken in previous debates. The noble Lord must not attribute to me a naïvety that I do not have.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, no one is suggesting that the operations that are approaching completion were the only method of combating terrorism. I have not heard that in this debate and I do not think that

65
anyone believes that by eliminating Al'Qaeda and the Taliban we shall have solved the problems of terrorism.
Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to collect and analyse the evidence that has been reported by journalists about the further atrocities that Al'Qaeda proposed to commit? Journalists have had no difficulty finding the papers, but there has been no attempt systematically to collect from ruined buildings the papers and forensic evidence that apparently blow around the floor waiting for somebody to pick them up. Can individual terrorists be brought to justice? There is a strong case for a process that will examine the nature and intentions of the movement so that its offshoots and allies outside Afghanistan can better be countered and stopped.
It is also necessary to convince people in the Muslim world that there was sufficient justification for our actions. The tape showing that Mr bin Laden was fully associated with crime involving the twin towers has been published. That is an important and useful example of what should be done, but I am afraid that in spite of the Prime Minister and some of your Lordships saying that it is a matter beyond reasonable doubt, reactions from the Muslim world show that they are not absolutely convinced. Provenance is important and it has not yet been established how the tape came into the hands of the Americans. It would have to be proved that it came from an authentic source if it were produced in a court of law.
Will the Minister say what instructions have been given to our own forces about the collection of documents and tapes? What rules of evidence will apply if the information is ever used in a prosecution?
Public opinion about intervention in Afghanistan will be influenced in the long run not only by the success of the operation in closing down a particular source of international terrorism, but by the success of the Bonn agreement. If that works and a peaceful democratic Islamic state emerges from the rubble, not only will the Afghan people be rescued from the nightmare of the 22 years of repression and conflict that they have endured since the Soviet invasion of 1979, but it will provide important lessons for dealing with other failed states that may also be the laboratories of terrorism.
The big question from Bonn is the extent to which it will be accepted by the warlords, tribal leaders and ulema in Afghanistan. We shall be in a better position to assess the prospects, having opened our embassy in Kabul earlier than anyone else, as the Minister said in her opening remarks. But that does not make it easy for us to evaluate what people are thinking in Herat, Kandahar or Jalalabad. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, mentioned that there is some dissatisfaction with what was agreed in Bonn. She said that General Dostum was dissatisfied with his share of power under the agreement. Haji Abdul Qadir, who controls Nangarhar province, walked out of the Bonn meeting because he thought that the Pashtuns were under-represented, although I understand that they formed more than half of the participants in the meeting while
66
constituting less than half of the population. The noble Baroness also mentioned Pir Gailani, the leader of the so-called Peshawar group, whose importance in the future may not be as great as those who control territory in Afghanistan. Perhaps the opposition of some of the people to the Bonn agreement is less important, but if they hold territory and maintain military forces, we have to find a way of getting them on side and approving what is being done in the name of the Afghan people.
It is impossible to satisfy everybody, of course, but the process is designed to keep the dissenters on board by focusing their attention on the next stage of that process. The 21-member special independent commission has to be established by 22nd January. It has the crucial function of making the rules for the indirect election or selection of delegates to the emergency Loya Jirga, which in turn will elect the head of state for the transitional authority.
The composition of the commission is much more important in the long run than that of the transitional authority, which takes office in less than a week. It appears that anyone claiming to be a civil society group can submit a list of candidates to the Loya Jirga, although an unspecified number of them must have expertise in constitutional or customary law. The agreement is silent on the vital question of how the selection will be made from the lists submitted, which could prove contentious. Will the interim administration, which is the repository of Afghan sovereignty, give final approval to the membership of the commission?
On the matter of the international security force, the Bonn agreement asks the Security Council to consider the early deployment of a UN-mandated force, initially to help to maintain security in Kabul and surrounding areas. One would have expected that force to be in position by 22nd December, but the Prime Minister said nothing definite this afternoon about its size and composition or about when it would be in place. Can the Minister say anything more about the timetable and about what happened to the idea that Islamic states should take part in the multi-national force? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, asked, is there a strategy for deploying forces to other centres of population after Kabul? What proposals are we making for escorting aid convoys along the lawless highways in between times?
The priority for the next three months is obviously the humanitarian aid programme, which I understand is going well, from all that I read about the World Food Programme's efforts on the borders of Iran and the opening up of new routes to bring humanitarian supplies in from the central Asian republics. We can look forward to adequate supplies reaching the country to prevent starvation or an increase in disease over the winter.
At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the programme for reconstruction has to start now. One way of persuading local leaders to disarm the militias could be to offer specific projects in their areas in return for handing in weapons. Some of the

67
fighters might be employed in unskilled jobs associated with the reconstruction, or the agencies could undertake training in the various building skills that will be required for some years to come.
The chairman of the Anglo-Afghan circle in the UK, Mr Nasis Saberi, wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development suggesting that many thousands of Afghan professionals in the outside world would be eager to make their contribution and it would make a lot of sense if the UN and NGOs recruited from among those exiles, who would speak the local languages, when looking for engineers or other professionals.
It has been said that, in carrying out our task of bringing terrorists to justice, it is vital that we observe international law and use our influence with allies to do the same. The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Judd, mentioned that. That does not appear to have happened in the Qala-i-Jhangi fort, where several hundred prisoners died, some with their hands tied behind their backs. Since the circumstances are disputed and members of our Armed Forces were involved indirectly in the tragedy, we ought to clear the air with an independent investigation into the deaths, as Amnesty International has demanded. As it is, we cannot be certain whether the all-out attack with heavy weapons and aircraft on the prisoners was a proportionate response to a situation in which a few of them got hold of some Kalashnikovs and started to attack the guards. We ought at the very least to ensure the protection of the 50 or so survivors, some of whom were badly burned and in need of medical attention. They must be at risk as witnesses to events that the Northern Alliance, the US and the UK appear to want to sweep under the carpet.
The treatment of prisoners generally has been pretty appalling in the conflict. Even when the television cameras are present, guards treat captives with great brutality. The practice of keeping them in old containers with no light or ventilation is barbaric. There may be a shortage of places where prisoners can he held securely and humanely, but why did we not anticipate that need and treat it as a priority?
If the future is to be better than the past in Afghanistan, institutionalised impunity must be brought to an end and human rights upheld from the word go. The interim administration is to establish an independent human rights commission, which will have the responsibility, inter alia, of monitoring human rights. It may wish to inquire into what happened in Qala-i-Jhangi, even if that turns out to be inconvenient for Mr Straw and Mr Hoon. If in the meanwhile the evidence has been destroyed and witnesses have gone missing, the objectives that we all share of making the new Afghanistan a state based firmly on the rule of law will he undermined.
6.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, so much of great value has already been said, not least by the
68
noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and latterly by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I shall try not to repeat what has already been said.
We have reached a situation in which we need to take note of regional issues on the one hand and the rebuilding of Afghanistan on the other. The latter must depend on recovering the ever-elusive sense of Afghan identity, over and above mere tribal loyalty. The glory days of Afghanistan have always been those when charismatic leadership and external threat have combined to unite the Afghan people. The great Afghan nationalist and poet, Khushhal Khan Khattak, was able, through his oratory alone, to bring the different tribes together in the face of the threat from the Mogul empire.
Today also, the tribes, particularly the Pashtun tribes, must see that the interests of their own tribe are bound up with a strong, safe and united Afghanistan. There is a nation to be built.
As another Afghan poet, Mehrab Gul, cried out:
"Rome and Syria and India have changed;
You too wake up 0 sleeping mountain warrior,
Wake up to your Afghan identity,
Wake up and seize your destiny!".
I apologise for the translation, but I thought that it would be better than the Pashtun in this House.
In the meantime, the day-to-day work of securing the country must go on, so that food can reach the hungry, fuel the cold and medical assistance the ill and injured. For the foreseeable future, it seems that an effective international force will be necessary to guarantee the delivery of some of those services.
Just as the new government in Afghanistan should be broadly based, drawing on different ethnic, language and religious groups in the country, so also an international force must not he merely a European or American one. I cannot say that too strongly. In particular, it must include elements drawn from predominantly Islamic countries, such as Jordan, Malaysia, Bangladesh or Turkey. If that does not happen, there is a risk of alienating opinion in Afghanistan in a very delicate situation. The right size of force is important, but so is its make-up.
In due course, plans need to be made to encourage the return of millions of refugees from neighbouring countries and from further afield. If such movement is to be voluntary, it will happen only if the conditions are right for the refugees to return. That will mean extensive de-mining of the countryside and the disposal of numerous unexploded bombs. It will also mean the gradual rebuilding of Afghanistan's shattered infrastructure. If agriculture, for instance, is to be viable again, the irrigation system has to be made operational—and sooner than in the 10 or 20 years mentioned by another noble Lord.
It is important that prisoners of war are treated in accordance with international law. Britain is a signatory not only to the Geneva Convention, but to those protocols that govern conduct in the context of action against groups that are not representing nation states. The United States is not a signatory. Those who have been accused of crimes against the international

69
community should be tried in duly constituted courts. Those who are accused of crimes within Afghanistan should be held in secure conditions until a broadly based administration is in place and a reasonably impartial judicial system is working. I fully endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in that respect.
Taliban conscripts, sometimes no more than teenagers, who have often been pressganged into military service, should, after appropriate debriefing, be allowed home. Foreign prisoners not accused of specific crimes should be handed over to their country of origin. As has been said by the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, our values and methods should be different from those of the terrorist.
We must not forget security in neighbouring countries—especially Pakistan. Is that country receiving assistance for the deployment of thousands of troops and much hardware along its northern and western borders? That event is of deeper significance than just preventing Al'Qaeda leaders escaping from Afghanistan. For the first time in recent history, it may be possible to make those lawless borders more secure.
It is encouraging that internal security in Pakistan continues to improve and that the Government seem determined to regulate the activities of the Madrassas—the religious schools that produced the Taliban and other extremist movements. Are the Government offering any support to the revision of the curriculum at those schools and the introduction of modern teaching methods? A broadly-based Madrassa system will not only improve education in Pakistan but may produce more enlightened ulema or religious leaders—a task of the first importance.
As to international terrorism, restricting the flow of financial resources available to extremist organisations must continue—but that extends not only to drug dealing and money laundering but official and semi-official channels. Can the Government report on their dialogue with other countries about the measures being taken to prevent the use of such channels?
The Government of Pakistan are to be congratulated on the steps that it has taken to protect non-Muslim and Christian minorities during the conflict. The structural and legal causes of discrimination remain. A law that is ultimately un-Islamic—the blasphemy law should be repealed and meantime made incapable of abuse. The development of democratic institutions must be on the basis of universal adult franchise. The system of separate electorates is not commensurate with the return to full democracy that we expect. In the legal system, non-Muslims need to be accorded full equality.
The Indian Prime Minister said that the recent attack on the Parliament in New Delhi must be condemned as an attack on democracy itself. We do not know who or what was behind that attack but a large regional issue still looms in the background—Kashmir. Until that problem is resolved, the region will continue to be unstable. It is time for the international community to be proactive in bringing
70
all the parties to that dispute to a common table. We cannot afford to wait for another crisis before steps are taken to defuse that particular time bomb. The international community needs to impress on the Governments of India and Pakistan that the matter has to be settled—not least so that the long-suffering people of Kashmir can live in peace.
As the imperial power ultimately responsible for creating the background to the Kashmir dispute, Britain has a special responsibility. Let us seize the chance for peace at this time.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we are reaching, one hopes, the military end game in Afghanistan. That many of our objectives have been met is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition. I share unreservedly the aspiration of my noble friend Lord Howell that we should continue to support the Americans.
When the fighting stops, with winter getting a grip, the aid agencies must move fast. Humanitarian resources should be devoted to getting a picture of the needs as they really are. Non-governmental organisations have been speculating in the dark. They need good and impartial humanitarian information. I hope that the Afghans have survived better than we imagined but we need to know the details and to respond fast.
After more than 20 years of conflict, the resistance shown by some Afghans will be dangerously low. The United Nations estimates that 6 million people are in need of food in Afghanistan. Red Cross surveys conducted in Ghor province in the spring of 2001—long before 11th September—revealed a population of 500,000 too impoverished to survive the winter without external assistance. Many children will be prey to all manner of ailments and may not live long.
Serious drought is affecting remote provinces such as Ghor and Dar-e-Souf, where Afghans have been abandoning their homes for more than a year. Natural springs have dried up, livestock has died and food supplies are reportedly too low to last the winter. That is a real challenge to the aid agencies. Relationships between them and the military—international and Afghan—must be clearly defined and respected. Humanitarian agencies and the military have serious obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and enable the necessary relief supplies to get through.
An NGO invasion must be avoided. Last week, 20 NGOs per day were trying to register in Pakistan. The arrival of the NGO circus is always a problem in a high-profile, well-funded emergency—when all agencies think that they must be seen to be there. That invasion should be kept to a minimum. There are agencies with many years' experience in Afghanistan. In Britain, they include Oxfam—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, Save the Children, Tear Fund and Christian Aid. Internationally, there is the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations. Those organisations should be given the room for manoeuvre that they need.

71
The World Food Programme has food, trucks and staff in Quetta in Pakistan—ready to deliver when the situation improves. Distribution is the greatest problem faced by the humanitarian agencies. My honourable friend Caroline Spelman has just returned from Pakistan and reports that there are enormous difficulties in getting vital food to the most needy in Afghanistan. That is partly because of internal security—hardly surprising, when a war is raging. The country is still volatile and the area around Kandahar is particularly chaotic.
There are other obstacles for aid agencies to overcome. Serious looting is taking place. Sensitive negotiations are needed with a variety of local commanders and warlords. Rivers that must be crossed are swollen by rain. It will be a race against time to complete distributions before snow blocks access to remote villages.
Land mines—most of them dropped years ago by the Russians—are a serious problem. Afghanistan is one of the countries worst affected by mines and unexploded ordnance. I am told that clearance is not yet being addressed. I am not sure who will be taking a lead on the issue, the Government or the land mine charities, but if it is the latter, we should be aware that they are seriously under-funded. They desperately need ambulances, for example, to rescue the many victims who continue to be injured by mines. I should he grateful if the Minister will give the House some clarification on the land mine clearance strategy.
The WFP distributes food through its local partners, but some of them are exploiting the crisis to obtain the highest price. Lorry drivers—partly because of the danger, but mainly because of the crucial role that they play—are also exploiting the situation. With the cost of transportation skyrocketing, food networks are not running smoothly. Parts of the central highlands have not had food for three months. We do not want to be counting the bodies in February when we can do something now. Will the Government press for air-drops of relief supplies in the most remote areas? Clearly, however, the risks of increased mine casualties must be taken into account if there is a possibility that hungry and deprived Afghans will try to pick up relief supplies air-dropped across the country.
While we consider the situation in Afghanistan we must not forget the impact of the crisis on Pakistan. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that Pakistan deserves and must have our continued support. Some of its refugee camps are neglected and refugees urgently need food and shelter.
The cumulative impact of war, isolation, bad management and drought has brought Afghanistan to new levels of desperation. The Minister pointed out that the international community has previously let Afghanistan down. I was therefore delighted with her reassurance to the House that Afghanistan will not, once again, drop off the humanitarian agenda and that
72
the Government recognise that this is a long-term commitment. I hope, as she said, that good will come out of evil.
I also hope that, although we are rightly focusing on Afghanistan, other countries suffering disasters—the forgotten emergencies—will remain firmly in the Government's focus.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this important debate and I am grateful to the Minister for initiating it. We have heard some very wise and eloquent speeches by noble Lords who have great experience, and I refer particularly to the maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. My remarks will be brief and concentrate on the situation of women in Afghanistan, especially on the situation of older women, widows of all ages and very young children. We have to remember that they are just as much the victims of war as those who are on active service and are killed or injured. In such situations, those who suffer most are often the very young and the very old.
I am grateful to HelpAge International, of which I am a board member; to Margaret Owen, an expert on the situation of widows in developing countries who has given me a great deal of information; and to Joan Ruddock MP, who only last week raised the issue of women in Afghanistan in an admirable debate in the other place, and on whose remarks I shall draw briefly. Joan Ruddock does much excellent work as co-ordinator of the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, serves on that organisation's advisory board.
I should like first to address the issue of widows and older women in Afghanistan. HelpAge International is working in Afghanistan, although it is very difficult to do so, and is ready to go into Ghor, Badakhshan and Konar provinces, areas where little aid has yet reached. My noble friend Lord Judd pointed out that winter is upon us. As we know, even in this country those most affected by the cold are the very old and the very young. Sadly, we can expect mortality rates to remain very high. HelpAge International is also working in the border regions, mainly in Pakistan, to which most of the refugees have fled. NGOs such as HAI do such wonderful work around the world, but very often they receive little recognition. Just as in this country, work with elderly people often does not grab the headlines.
The long period of war in Afghanistan, since the 1970s, has created many thousands of widows of all ages. It has been estimated that there are 700,000 widows in Afghanistan alone, which is an extraordinary statistic. Every time another soldier from either side is killed, it is likely that he leaves behind a widow, children, and sometimes also elderly parents.
Although widows have obviously suffered, they also have a crucial role to play in the future. In many cases they are the sole supporters of children and other dependants, and many of them are extremely young.

73
Added to their plight is the fact that, whereas women generally suffer from a lack of basic human rights and the opportunity to participate, the situation worsens markedly for women when they lose their husbands. That reality is not unique to Afghanistan or to the current crisis, but is common in many developing countries around the globe.
The situation of women in Afghanistan has at last received much coverage and comment. Unfortunately, it has taken a long while for the international community to recognise the problems. I should, however, like to add a note of caution: the total disregard of rights and the cruelty to which women were subjected in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime did not start in 1996. The seeds were sown earlier by other governments in that nation, including those involving previous incarnations of the Northern Alliance. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to help ensure that that does not happen again.
As the Minister pointed out, it is very good news that the new interim 30-member council includes two prominent women, both of whom are doctors: Suhalai Seddiqui as health minister and Sima Samar as women's affairs minister. Dr. Seddiqui is a striking example of the ludicrous situation initiated by the Taliban regime: first, it banned her from working, but then she was allowed to work because her skills were needed. Meanwhile, most other women were being thrown out of their jobs.
As we now know, the result of banning women from their jobs was that schools closed—the University of Kabul could not operate; health care suffered and mortality rates for women and children have been abysmal. It has been estimated that in Afghanistan one women dies in childbirth every 15 minutes, while one in four children dies before the age of five. I encourage my noble friend Lady Symons to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that women are represented in Afghanistan, as they were at the Bonn talks. I think that my noble friend gave us that assurance in her earlier comments.
Any future international reconstruction and development initiative also has to ensure that those bodies involve women, preferably on an equal basis to men. The Minister knows as well as I do that, in a man's world, it is vital to involve women fully and not "tokenistically". In the longer term we should be aiming for equal representation in Afghanistan, although we have not yet achieved that in this country let alone in many other parts of the industrialised world.
I was encouraged to learn from the UK Women's Link that the Afghan constitution gave equal rights to men and women in 1964, and that as late as 1988, it had seven women MPs. We therefore have some positive precedents on which to build. However, the work to be done is immense. Once the current, immediate military crisis is over—thanks to the amazing achievements of the armed services, not least our own, it looks as though we may be nearly there—I hope that we recognise that we cannot walk away from Afghanistan
74
again. We have a responsibility to the widows, young and old, to the young children and to the older people of Afghanistan as well as to the population as a whole to help them rebuild their nation.
7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am the 17th speaker and much has already been said. The quality of this and all our previous debates on Afghanistan has been so high, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said, that perhaps we should publish them separately as a book. That would show how our perceptions have changed since we first debated the matter.
This is only the 105th day since 11th September. We have debated the matter since early October. However, events have moved rapidly. It is a good thing that the war came to a speedy end. As far as I am concerned, as I said in our previous debate on the subject, I want the destruction of the Taliban even more than that of Al'Qaeda and that has been achieved. The Taliban constituted a terrorist state. The Taliban probably caused more civilian deaths and more harm to its own population than have been caused by any amount of bombing in the past few months. However, I believe that the speedy end of the war has led to certain problems.
After 11th September we saw a great change in the attitudes of the USA as regards multilateralism, co-operation with allies and being open and co-operative with the United Nations and so on. We thought that this was perhaps a new dawn in American policy. However, I believe that the short war has probably confirmed Americans' previous assumptions that they do not need the rest of the world. They may return not to isolationism but to unilateralism as, after all, although our forces have made significant contributions to the war, the Americans perceive that they have done 98 per cent of the work and that they do not need anyone else, thank you very much. The war has ended dangerously quickly and that may lead to some problems.
One of the problems concerns the Middle East. I do not wish to discuss that now as it is the subject of the later Unstarred Question. The small window of opportunity to raise the Palestine issue has now been closed as now the Americans do riot need the co-operation of the Arab world as they considered they did in the weeks after September 11th. Therefore, although the speedy end of the war is a good thing, it will have other consequences in that regard. However, the speedy end of the war will probably ease the humanitarian problem. As many noble Lords have said, I too hope that the ending of the war will allow us to avoid as many deaths from starvation as possible in the coming winter.
I am somewhat pessimistic at the prospect of the new Afghan regime. In that I am more on the side of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, who made an excellent maiden speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord King, rather than that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. I do not think that Afghanistan is a nation. It was a kingdom and a

75
territory but not a nation. Creating a nation is not automatic. If nationalism takes hold, ethnic rivalries get worse. It is difficult to construct nations, especially in a situation in which there are not only many ethnic groups but also family rivalries among tribes. Afghanistan is not merely feudal; it is a pre-feudal country with a nomadic pastoral economic base with some agriculture and hardly any industry. In that situation it is not easy to think of Afghan loyalty. People's primary loyalty is to their family, then to their tribe and then to their ethnic group.
We shall have to be cautious in approaching this problem and allow much time for its resolution. I do not believe that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a modern constitution such as we are used to. It will have to recognise not only adult universal franchise but also give a balanced role to different ethnic groups. I refer to the process which has been tried in Northern Ireland where each ethnic group has some kind of veto so that it is not deprived of its rights by the majority ethnic group. It is important to build a multinational Afghan polity taking into account what is called a "consociational" arrangement in which minority rights are recognised and in which all the decisions are not made by the majority.
I refer to the reconstruction of the Afghan economy which many people have already mentioned. That will not be a quick and easy task. I am pleased to note that Mark Malloch Brown, the head of UNDP, has been put in charge of that. When reconstructing Afghanistan it is important that the relief agencies should concentrate their efforts as much as possible on the neighbouring economies and make demands on them to enable them to gain some prosperity in helping Afghanistan to recover. Rather than import everything from thousands of miles away and drop it into Afghanistan, let us try to create a common trade region, as it were, around Afghanistan so that the Uzbeks, the Tadjiks, the Pakistanis and the Iranians also gain something from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and do not merely bear the costs of Afghan refugees, as they have done. I hope that some imagination will be brought to bear in planning the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Another consequence of the speedy end of the Afghan war is that the India/Pakistan issue remains unresolved. Here again, the window of opportunity we might have had to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table has, I am afraid, shut. What is more, as the latest attack on the Indian Parliament and the earlier attack on the Kashmir national assembly show, things are getting much worse rather than better. There is a serious danger that military hostilities may break out. There are many pressures on both governments to adopt a slightly adventurous posture on the matter. I hope that the Foreign Office is doing everything it can to warn the two parties against any such adventure.
However, it is not up to us to solve the Kashmir problem. It would be counter-productive for the UK or any other government to be seen to be meddling in that matter. It is one of those rather peculiar problems
76
in which neither India nor Pakistan wants to admit third parties. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that the people of Kashmir are suffering due to the selfishness of India and Pakistan in that respect. The only solution to the Kashmir problem is an autonomous Kashmir, but I do not know when that will occur. However, we can make progress in that matter not through the Government but through the multi-racial, multi-cultural civil society here. The many communities in this country should start a dialogue on Kashmir. I refer to people whose origins lie in India, Pakistan or Kashmir as well as to the majority community here. We should all get together and thrash out possible solutions to the Kashmir problem in a non-official capacity. That would have much more resonance than anything that the Foreign Office could do.
Finally, I turn to the longer-term problems that we have to address. We have not talked about them much today. How will the dialogue with Islam and modernity be addressed? It is not a question of reading the Koran. Far too many people have bought the Koran and read it. Reading the Koran does not help this situation, just as reading the New Testament would not have helped to solve the Northern Ireland problem. The problem is not about that kind of religious knowledge. We have to know about the fragments and divisions through history within the Muslim society. People have taken attitudes about modernity and western civilisation. Some have adopted modernity; others resist it. Our task is to appreciate those differences, learn from our friends in the Muslim community and harness their help to convince their brethren that some Muslim communities have gained from modernisation, westernisation and the new developments. Therefore, those developments should not be seen as a threat to Muslim culture or religion because all religions can live happily in the modern world. That is the message we have to send. I hope that the British Council will do its utmost to foster dialogue among countries.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is still too early to measure the success of the Afghan campaign because technically we have not yet met all the original objectives. However, I, too, should like to congratulate the Government again on their rapid response after 11th September and their share since then of the success of the US-led operation. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in praising those diplomats who have worked behind the scenes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am not sure whether the coalition is still intact. Perhaps we shall receive some assurance on that. But it is consoling that other European states are subscribing to the peacekeeping force and that whatever difficulties lie ahead key countries like Iran and Pakistan are fully behind the new administration.
We have heard many deserved tributes—they came not only from noble and gallant Lords—to our Armed Forces. I wish to raise the question of civilians and follow the example of my noble and gallant friend

77
Lord Craig. The Minister gave me last week an Answer to a Written Question suggesting that there had been no assessment of civilian casualties. Frankly, I find that unsatisfactory. His honourable friend Mr Hoon, after regretting injuries to our own Royal Engineers and other military casualties, properly mentioned in last week's debate the suffering of the Afghan people. I am sure that the Minister, too, will today acknowledge and regret the loss of civilian families as an indirect result of bombing. Will the noble Lord agree with me that any inaccurate targeting by highly sophisticated weaponry such as we have today, whenever properly confirmed and recorded, deserves some form of official statement, assuming that our policies are not being dictated by insurance companies?
In this context, the Minister will be aware of known civilian casualties from some of the 600 cluster bomb units containing about 122,000 bomblets, mainly used up to 3rd December by the US Air Force. Many of those bomblets were BLU-97s, with a failure rate of around 20 per cent in difficult terrain according to expert opinion from Landmine Action and the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Although the US Department of Defense has modified the CB U-87 with a wind-corrected CBU-103, there are still tens of thousands of unexploded BLU-97s lying around from this war, sometimes close to villages where children may be playing.
Leaving aside military capability, given that the UN is currently reviewing the use of inhumane conventional weapons in Geneva, will the Government confirm that the disproportionate impact on non-combatants is now against international law and that users of munitions nowadays also have a post-conflict humanitarian responsibility? Will the Minister also agree that the specialised agencies which have been actively removing landmines in Afghanistan over many years—the noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised this point—and which always have funding difficulties should now be given the fullest support from DfID in coping with not only with mines from previous wars but also additional unexploded ordnance resulting from the war against the Taliban?
On the role of the peacekeeping force, it is premature to make judgments while the UK is halfway through the planning process. I welcome the common European initiative. However, I have noticed that the aid agencies have an underlying anxiety that a multinational force will retain a separate identity instead of putting its full weight behind the new administration of Mr Hamid Karzai. It is imperative that the Afghan people—remembering that fighting continues in some areas—do not see our forces as a continuing invasion but as an essential and temporary guarantee of national reconstruction as well as of humanitarian work. The training of police and militia in the protection of citizens will become an urgent priority. With Sierra Leone and Kosovo in mind, Britain is undoubtedly playing its part.
In debate on the Statement today, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that he hoped that there would be no permanent garrison.
78
Afghan has a long history of fierce independence. Surely it is out of the question that there should be any permanent garrison.
With some allies or elements of the Northern Alliance proving less than reliable as time goes on—religious leaders are already preaching against foreign forces—it will become more important to carry out visible short-term assignments such as protecting convoys on key roads so as not to indicate a permanent presence in the country.
Since 1st December, food distributions have gone up to 2,800 tonnes a day, higher than the rate before the bombing started. Non-governmental organisations are now delivering more than half the total reported by the World Food Programme. I believe that that in itself is a guarantee of safe arrival. However, since 11th September the daily average is still only 1,000 tonnes which means that there is an enormous backlog of food. Inevitably, while there is still political uncertainty and security is patchy it will be impossible to meet all the shortfalls.
Some remote areas like Ghor are at last receiving supplies. This may relieve pressure on displacement camps like Maslakh near Herat where conditions are very poor and Christian Aid has reported that arrivals have increased tenfold to over 1,000 people a day in one camp. But there remain mountainous parts—for example, Badghis and Faryab in the north-west. Despite the re-opened border crossings in the north, large areas are still either insecure or inaccessible by road.
Security is the biggest anxiety for the NGOs because there have been some attacks on their vehicles on the main roads. The road from the border to Kabul is still unpredictable. Trucks make it in two days but there is harassment at checkpoints and guns have been fired at drivers who refuse to pay a bribe. In Kabul some areas are still unsafe and aid agencies are subject to looting, thefts and threats even from soldiers who have a duty to protect them. Law and order, which did at least exist under the Taliban, has broken down and the people are often at the mercy of half-trained militia who have their own agenda.
None of this is surprising in a country recovering from civil war and still suffering from acute poverty and inequality. Foreigners bringing aid tend to be seen by the impoverished as legitimate quarry as much as sources of charity. There is now no overall shortage of food in the capital but much of it is being sold into the market and many other commodities are in short supply.
There is a lot of concern among NGOs about the future funding of the United Nations Inter-Agency Emergency Humanitarian Assistance programme since the assessment was made in Islamabad at the end of November. I gather that last week only half of the 662 million dollars required for the six months to March 2002 had been pledged. While immediate needs are vital, there are fears that long-term reconstruction may, for example, be held up by the insistence of the Asian Development Bank on guarantees for debt servicing payments.

79
Finally, many friends of Afghanistan are now concerned about the long-term future of the country. The Foreign Secretary spoke last week of the need for spiritual regeneration alongside physical rebuilding. That leads me to ask the Minister whether he believes that the views of the Afghan people and experiences of NGOs in Afghanistan over many years have been sufficiently considered in the international plans for rehabilitation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I hope that DfID will continue its long tradition of having joint consultations with NGOs—I have attended them myself and know that they apply especially to Afghanistan—in order to plan for health, education and social programmes and the strengthening of civil society organisations. That will provide a firm foundation for long-term reconstruction.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rightly widened the debate. I shall follow her example.
Many noble Lords will have visited the United States since September 11th. I was there for four days in October and went to Ground Zero on Saturday 20th. I stood with a multiracial and multilingual crowd of New Yorkers with the stench of terrorism in our nostrils. Water was still being poured on to the fires—the wreckage was still burning six weeks after the attacks. When the smoke has drifted away and the stench has evaporated, September 11th will still be a major factor in the American psyche, possibly for years or even decades to come.
I was in the United States to meet six different groups of sophisticated American fund managers. I noted their naïvety and their surprise and distress at the sudden arrival of terrorism in their midst. However, they made it very clear how determined they are to fight terrorism and how much they appreciated the support of our Prime Minister, who I suspect is probably the most recognisable foreign political figure in the United States today.
We must all recognise that one cannot fundamentally distinguish between the different faces of terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said—I hope that I noted this down correctly—that terrorism against civilians is never justified and that the Government are not prepared to condone terrorism on the grounds of fighting for freedom. That is why I was so glad that Her Majesty's Government at once agreed to an amendment to include domestic terrorism within the provisions of the anti-terrorism Bill. That amendment was passed by the Conservatives, without the support of the Liberal Party, in that first vote in this House. It was an essential change—if it had not been accepted on the grounds that it would damage the peace process in Northern Ireland, that would have involved a compromise with terrorism. Sadly, much of the so-called peace process in Northern Ireland has been a compromise with terrorism.
80
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not still in his place. I was interested in his suggestion that history shows that terrorism has justified its ends. He cited the examples of Ireland and Kenya. I suggest that terrorism very often delays a move forward rather than helps it.
I follow the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, about some of our domestic critics of the war in Afghanistan. They seem to be unaware of the realities of war. I give two examples. First, there has been much reference to collateral civilian casualties. With the amount of ordnance and air-power that has been used in Afghanistan, the extraordinary thing is how few collateral civilian casualties there seem to have been. The air campaign has in general been marked by astonishing accuracy. Some casualties have resulted from friendly fire.
Secondly, shock at the nastiness of war is astonishing. My Lords, war is nasty. It is no more and no less nasty when death comes from 30,000 feet than from a bullet or a knife in the stomach. Death is death, murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism. I sympathised with the Foreign Secretary when he expressed serious reservations and surprise at Amnesty's demand for an immediate inquiry into the events that followed the attempted escape of Taliban and Al'Qaeda prisoners after the fall of Mazar-i Sharif. Those prisoners approached their guards and then blew up themselves and their guards. Our soldiers should not be expected to take personal risks with their lives when faced by suicide fighters, any more than a policeman in the United Kingdom should do, when his life is personally threatened with a firearm. To shoot—and to shoot to kill—is the justifiable response.
I turn to bin Laden and his possible fate. The Government have got themselves into difficulty by indicating that if he fell into the hands of our forces, our constraints on the death penalty would have to apply in relation to any decision to hand him to the Americans. I know how the Americans feel—and are likely to feel for quite a long time. The tremendous good will that they feel towards the British Government, and particularly towards our Prime Minister, would rapidly evaporate if there was any suggestion that the British were standing in the way of the American desire to administer what they feel to be justice to bin Laden. That is a fact, regardless of our opinion one way or the other on the death penalty.
Some of these questions were raised—quite rightly—by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They bring me to that crucial reservoir of hatred that nourishes terrorism. I refer to the Middle East, which is the subject of the next debate. The current tragedy is that Prime Minister Sharon has joined Hamas in making a peaceful solution impossible. He seems not to have recognised that the attacks by Hamas on Israel are equally an attack on Arafat and thus the possibility of a peaceful solution. That solution must involve withdrawal from the West Bank settlements and the creation of the state of Palestine, which should be as permanent and sustainable as the state of Israel.

81
I turn to the United Nations. The Security Council of the United Nations is the fastest legislature in the world. Its resolutions have the force of international law as soon as they are passed. Security Council resolutions are a source of great power and opportunity to the United Nations, and particularly to Britain, in view of our permanent "veto" membership of the Security Council.
If ever confirmation were needed of the end of the Cold War, the collaboration of Russia with the anti-terrorist coalition is it. It is perhaps one of the most encouraging glimpses of a silver lining in the dark cloud of 11th September.
The United Nations started rather well after the end of the Cold War with the expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. However, since then things have not been so good. I believe that 11th September and the international coalition against terrorism, underwritten by the law enacted by the United Nations Security Council, could provide a fresh start. That applies essentially in the Middle East. The United States must now combine UN legal and moral authority with its own political and financial muscle to impose a peace solution on the Middle East. There is not much time to waste.
I believe that we have more to do in this country than was done in the terrorism Bill enacted last week. I think in particular of intelligence, referred to by more than one noble Lord. There is a need for much better intelligence, and this depends on a reliable system of identifying and, when necessary, tracing individuals. We should move as soon as possible in this country to a system of unique personal reference numbers, making the fullest use of the biometric methods of identification which are now available. The Americans are moving rapidly in that direction, and I believe that we must follow their lead.
Finally, terror, whether it is called "international" or "state" terrorism, is the chosen instrument of terrorists. Support for terrorism comes from two main sources: either hatred, quite often justified historically, or the subversion of tine ideals, both religious and political. Those sources have motivated and been used unscrupulously by Osama bin Laden. Let us not forget that the final phase of the French Revolution, which at the time was known as the "Great Terror", did not end until the death of Robespierre, its chief architect.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is a daunting experience to take part in a debate of this kind following a former Defence Secretary and four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, who made an excellent and memorable maiden speech.
I want to use as a point of departure for my own remarks one aspect of the current operations in Afghanistan: the announcement that Britain is apparently to take the lead in the peace-keeping or stabilisation force which is now being planned for that country. Before I continue, I want to ask the Minister
82
whether we were asked to take the lead or whether the Government took the initiative in proposing that we should do so.
I believe that there is an important point here. It was certainly right that we should play our full part in the operations which followed the outrage of September 11th. It may also be right that we should play a part, if asked to do so, in the peace-keeping or stabilisation force which may be needed immediately after the operations in Afghanistan are successfully concluded, as I am confident they will be. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, one of the most satisfying aspects of this whole episode has been the speed with which the Taliban and Al'Qaeda have been overcome by the coalition of international forces led by the United States.
However, whether we should play a leading part or volunteer to take the lead in nation-building, stabilisation or whatever it may be called is another matter. Of course, if we were to do so and it all went horribly wrong, I should rather have our own military commanders in charge of the rescue operation than anyone else's. But there is a very real question of whether our Armed Forces should be involved in this kind of endeavour at all.
It is perhaps interesting and significant that one of the full-page photographs in the last defence White Paper showed a British soldier gently leading an old lady across a street. Of course British soldiers lead old ladies across streets; that is the kind of people they are. But it is not their primary role. There is a powerful argument that the primary role of our Armed Forces is national security, or the defence of the realm. But that, of course, is no longer a matter of defending "Fortress UK" or even "Fortress Europe"; it is much wider than that.
Indeed, the basic function of national armed forces has always been and always should be to support the nation's foreign policy. For example, it may be necessary for this country to take part in any counter-terrorist operations that may be required elsewhere in the world when the fighting in Afghanistan is over. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the destruction of the Al'Qaeda network in one country will not be the end of the affair. It is a network with tentacles and cells all over the world, and it may be necessary to deal with any state which gives it shelter and support. This is no time for anyone to make equivocal and hesitant noises about this matter. We all know the dangers to our preparedness for battle if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound.
This is not a question of giving the United States a blank cheque or any knee-jerk clichés of that kind; it is a matter of our own security and self-interest. There is no point in embarking upon a great endeavour such as this—the fight against international terrorism—if we are not prepared to see it through to the end, however long it may take and however much it may cost.
This country is fortunate in having military forces among the finest in the world. They are highly trained, well-led and—against the odds sometimes, it seems—their morale is high. But their training, skills and

83
morale are directed primarily at the business of making war. They are not a gendarmerie, and they are not designed for such tasks as peace-keeping or humanitarian projects, however laudable those may be.
Already, our forces are committed to the limit of their resources. If they should be sucked into a long-term commitment in Afghanistan, they will simply not be available for real military operations elsewhere. I believe that it is worth reminding ourselves that we have troops in Northern Ireland, Brunei, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, Germany, Gibraltar and the Indian Ocean, as well as with United Nations forces in Bosnia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If our Armed Forces are to continue to be committed at their present level and if we are, as is planned, to commit forces to the rapid reaction force or European army—I believe that it is very unlikely that that strange project will ever see the light of day—as well as to some type of stabilisation force in Afghanistan, and if we are to be ready, as we should be, to engage in a long and costly war against international terrorism, our resources will have to be increased.
None of our NATO allies has anything like the commitments undertaken by our Armed Forces. Yet our defence budget as a percentage of our gross domestic product is smaller than that of the US or France or even of Turkey and Greece. In 1985, in this country we spent more than 5 per cent of our GDP on defence. Today, in a world which poses even greater threats to our international stability and national security, that figure is less than 3 per cent.
It is all very well to say that the forces committed to nation-building in Afghanistan will not become involved in the internal conflicts that are a part of that country's everyday life, but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, we have all heard of "mission creep"—a horrible phrase but one that conveys a clear idea. I ask the Minister in his reply to assure the House that any forces committed to Afghanistan will have clear military aims and some basic and clear rules of engagement. It would not be proper to discuss in this House what those aims and rules should be, but I believe that we are entitled to know that they will be clear and unambiguous.
Finally, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said in his first-class maiden speech, all this is only one element of a larger problem about our Armed Forces. We can pay tribute to the quality of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and their leaders, but we must do more than pay lip service. We must give them the resources—financial and otherwise—to enable them to continue to be the very best.
I understand that the Government are already giving serious thought to yet another reorganisation, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has warned us. However, if the defence budget does not receive serious thought as well, only a limited amount can be done. I do not mean increases of the order of £100 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who is not in her place at the moment, knows from her
84
previous ministerial experience that that is pocket-money in terms of the real needs of the forces. As any competent military historian will tell one, military preparedness is not merely a matter of money, but it is mainly a matter of money.
To some extent, I conclude where I began. The crucial question is: do the Government have aspirations to play a leading role on the world stage? If they do, are they prepared to sustain the military establishment that is essential to support a foreign policy of that kind? Perhaps the Minister will let us have his views on that in his reply.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but with rather more justification, I find it quite intimidating to take part in this wide-ranging debate. I rise to speak towards the end of the debate when your Lordships' patience is, no doubt, slowly coming to an end.
I want to concentrate on the position of Afghan women and on the democratic Afghan state that we all hope will one day be established. The education of women and their enjoyment of political rights are not novel ideas in Afghanistan. The first primary school for girls was set up in the 1920s and by the time of the Soviet invasion, 40 per cent of students at Kabul university were women. The 1964 constitution gave men and women equal rights and a few women were elected to Parliament in 1965.
In 1977 a UN survey showed that 70 per cent of teachers, 15 per cent of legislators, 50 per cent of government workers and 40 per cent of doctors were women. If one compares that situation with the current situation one sees a terrible decline. Women have been deprived of healthcare and they have been prevented from exercising their professions as healthcare workers. They have been denied education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, every year thousands of Afghan women die in childbirth, and confinement in their homes is thought to have led to an increase in the spread of TB.
Women form a large proportion of the refugees, partly because so many men have been killed in the fighting in the past 20 years, but also partly because of the special difficulties that they have faced in trying to safeguard and to feed their children. Across the world, parliamentarians have campaigned for the full integration of Afghan women into the struggle to rebuild the country's government and institutions, its economy, its services, its society and its culture. In this country, they have been led, with real commitment and distinguished enthusiasm, by Joan Ruddock, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reminded the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, commented that some women saw a danger in asking for too much as that may cause a backlash. But why should women enjoy less active education, work and

85
politics in the future than they had in the past? I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, does not agree with that.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I would not like it to be on record that I indicated that women should not receive such things. In fact, the woman whom I quoted said that she wanted education, work and politics and that they could build on those. She warned about political realities. She was an Afghan woman who knew what she was talking about.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, recognise all the points made by the noble Baroness in her intervention. I do not associate her with the ideas that were expressed in her speech as she was quoting.
At all events, the recent conference of Afghan women in Brussels called for the establishment of women's rights to vote, to work, to healthcare and to education; the rapid re-opening of schools for boys and girls with a new curriculum—a point made by the right reverend Prelate—and new teacher training; the inclusion of women lawyers in the creation of a new constitution, including principles of non-discrimination; the rebuilding of a healthcare system; the inclusion of women in the Loya Jirgah: and the protection of women from forced marriages and sexual harassment. The women who voiced those claims came not just from the diaspora, but also from Afghanistan and from the refugee camps.
Last week in Portcullis House, those aims were wholeheartedly endorsed by a meeting of the Women's Link with Afghan women.
It is important to emphasise that the part played by women in a developing country—or in any country—is not just a matter of "feminism". The World Bank has finally recognised that countries where the gap between men and women in education, employment and property rights is smallest have lower child malnutrition and mortality and, more importantly in this context, more transparent business and government and faster economic growth.
Elizabeth King who is a co-author of the World Bank's recent report, Engendering Development, said:
"Societies that discriminate on the basis of gender pay a significant price in greater poverty, slower growth, weaker governance and a lower quality of life".
Curiously enough, in the Victorian era, many thought that the influence of women upon society was benign, civilising and pacific. That was used as an excuse for preventing women doing anything in that society. However, the World Bank's cross-country studies show that increasing the participation of women in public life reduces corruption and that more equal education of women and men results in healthier families and makes the single largest contribution to declining levels of malnutrition. Economic development and institutional change are needed to improve the status of women. True to its new
86
approach, the World Bank has projects in post-conflict reconstruction that include one to fund Afghan teachers' in-service training in the camps in Pakistan.
The current activities are quite reassuring, but we still need to be concerned for the future. Women, as has already been said, are already in the provisional government. But what about the forthcoming constitution-making projects carried out in Afghanistan and not in Bonn? Will Afghanistan women lawyers be involved in this process? Are the Government responding to the invitation, which I understand was extended by the German Government, to put forward a candidate to advise the EU mission to Afghanistan on gender issues.
It is extremely important that not just the United Nations—where Kofi Annan has made some splendid statements and definitions of standpoints in favour of equality and equal rights—but all the organisations that will be working in Afghanistan have the interests of women, and therefore of the new country of Afghanistan, in their minds and hearts.
One of the most splendid symbols of the fall of the Taliban was that the first TV broadcast was made by a professional woman, a journalist, with her head covered. What a splendid symbol that was of a free Afghanistan. Support for women's aims in Afghanistan is not a question of treading on cultural sensibilities; it is a matter of legitimate demand on the part of women and sensible provision for the future wellbeing of Afghanistan as a whole.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we have had a long and very interesting debate. I feel quite humble as I have not been to Afghanistan. My knowledge is somewhat limited. However, I bring a small and narrow facet to this fascinating question. I start by referring to the powerful maiden speech of my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie. It impressed the House as it did me. I refer in particular to his point about not making a hero out of Osama bin Laden. In order to achieve that the western coalition needs to understand where he is coming from and what are the ultimate objectives of the Al'Qaeda organisation.
In spite of having lived on the subcontinent for six years, I was never fortunate enough to get up to Kabul—or "Korble" as we used to call it in those days. But during my time in India I learned to appreciate the importance that religion played in the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims alike throughout the area. That was mainly as a result of having witnessed in Calcutta at first hand what happens when misunderstandings—often deliberately generated by politicians—arise between religious faiths. They create mayhem and death. We witnessed that from the comfort of our living rooms through our television sets in these last months.
Kabul in the 1960s was a relatively peaceful place, unlike today. It was by all accounts a beautiful tree-lined city, with fine, courageous and artistic people as its citizens, who made, among other things, I seem to

87
recall, magnificent carpets. Hopefully, in the aftermath of the present conflict, this idyll will return to Kabul.
The few television images we have seen recently, brought to us by the magic of hand-held broadband satellite dishes and a journalist's palmtop computer, reveal an entirely different and desolate panorama. However, we have to accept this sombre landscape as part of the harsh realities of war. It is the result of the winning strategy played by the western military coalition against the Taliban forces. Our soldiers fought with fire the fire originally ignited by Osama bin Laden and his henchmen on September 11th. Colonel Gaddafi was quoted as saying soon after the destruction of the World Trade Center that America had the right to retaliate against such an act and that the Taliban and Al'Qaeda were,
"godless promoters of political Islam",
in order to pursue their own evil ends.
How will the war against international terrorism be won? Will it be through total victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by a massive humanitarian aid and peace-keeping programme, as some noble Lords have suggested? Will it be won by returning the country to a democratic nation, friendly to the western coalition, with all the trimmings of the free world which have been denied to the people of Afghanistan for so long? Will the western way of life, which includes fast food chains, equality of women, free thinking newspapers, discotheques and tele-evangelism, do the trick in the long run of uniting a people who have been brainwashed to resist such things? I do not know, but I sincerely hope so.
The right honourable Jack Straw in his address on Afghanistan to the International Institute of Strategic Studies on 22nd October touched on these questions but did not, in my view, answer them fully when he said:
"Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qa'ida pose a clear and present danger to our way of life and we have to defend ourselves against it";
and that,
"the current military action in Afghanistan is not in itself the long-term answer to the threat of terrorism. But it is an essential first step".
I am sure that most noble Lords agree with these statements, as I do. But does the Minister agree that humanity may be faced with an entirely new type of global terrorism, led and masterminded by Osama bin Laden and the top echelons of the Al'Qaeda? Have Osama bin Laden and his henchmen not only highjacked aeroplanes but also one of the world's greatest religions—Islam—to achieve their commercial and political aspirations? Immediately after the atrocities of September 11th he is quoted as saying that:
"God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims—the forefront of Islam—to destroy America".
88
That statement reveals his true motive, which is completely to distort the Islamic faith for his own ends. It has nothing to do with spiritual Islam, which individual worshippers have used for centuries to advance their personal spirituality.
But surely this is not the first time that upstart radicals from the Middle East have used this methodology to advance their political and commercial aspirations through deliberate misinterpretation of the Koran. Is it not possible that bin Laden is simply following the path of one or other of the so-called Muslim reformers of the last century such as Jamil ad-Din al-Afghani, Mohammad Abduh, the Egyptian radical, or the Syrian journalist Rashid Rida?
The author Karen Armstrong, in her definitive work Holy War, described on page 514 Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, who died in 1897, as one such reformer. Her hook is, I think, available in the Library. I suspect that al-Afghani, who liked to be known as "The Afghan", was a possible role model and inspiration for bin Laden's recent crimes against humanity.
According to Armstrong, al-Afghani, "The Afghan", wanted all Muslims to band together so that they could face up to what he saw was the threat of western domination to their way of life. Only then did he believe they could take their destiny into their own hands. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, touched on this matter. But I think it is different from the modernity approach to a modern Islamic approach using modernity. This is something much more sinister.
He tried to build a new Islamic civilisation on classic Arab foundations. That was through the introduction of secular politics as part of fundamental religious doctrine. Al-Afghani wanted the new political Islam to be an allegiance rather than a religious faith. Al-Afghani's followers, like bin Laden's, also practised erhan, which taught them through their Muslim instructors the belief in total fearlessness and indifference to death in defence of the Muslim religion. Is that not the same training that made a collection of well-educated and reasonably intelligent people willing to sacrifice their lives on September 11th in the false belief that they were "defending their religion"?
On 12th September Osama bin Laden announced through his video:
"The wind of faith is blowing. Every Muslim must defend his religion".
Al Afghani may not have succeeded in his ambition at the time, but he was followed by his disciple Mohammad Abduh from Egypt, who could have been the inspiration of the Egyptian element of the attack on the World Trade Center a century after his death in 1905. However, history recognises that Abduh succeeded in secularising and updating many Arab schools in his attempt to bring about the vision of pan Arabism. The Syrian journalist, Rashid Rida, then took the concept of pan-Arabism further across the many ethnic groupings of the Arab world, using a more commercial and political approach than his master, Mohammad Abduh, who died in 1935.
It is interesting that several ethnic groups were used by bin Laden in his attack on 11th September. That may have resulted in a number of different Islamic

89
fundamentalist groups around the world offering support afterwards. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda. are quasi-religious terrorists whose intentions are to divide humanity through the misuse of the Muslim faith of ordinary people around the world.
Was that not confirmed when Osama bin Laden proclaimed on 12th September the chilling words:
"These events have divided the world into two camps—the camps of the faithful and the camp of infidels"?
Is it not possible that the well-intentioned and conventional response of the western coalition and the United Nations to the international disruption created by Al'Qaeda may be the equivalent in terms of cinema to applying a "Harry Potter" solution to what is essentially a "Lord of the Rings" problem?
Was not the Home Secretary therefore not only correct but far-sighted in including the religious hate element, which was recently rejected by this House, in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? Should not the keepers of spiritual Islam ensure that their faith is safe from corruption through infiltration by agents of Al'Qaeda? Should not we as legislators give those responsible every support to achieve that?
I believe that September 11th heralded a new world order which will require redefinition of many of our previously long-held values—one of which is the role of institutional religion.
I conclude with the words of Sri Aurobindo in his works, The Future Evolution of Man and The Hour of God. He predicted that one day humanity might have to confront the forces of evil that it has not faced since the time of the Upanishads. He advises that if such a situation arises, we must have a starting point. He writes that that starting point should be,
"the spiritual religion of humanity",
which means the growing realisation that there is a divine reality in which we are all one and that humanity is its highest present vehicle on earth. We might have to take his advice, if it is to survive.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, unlike our previous debates on the subject, this debate has focused on the future. However, I should like to start by saying that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we should produce a coffee-table tome of past speeches will not really be a winner. I cannot see that being a Christmas best-seller.
Lord Desai: My Lords, not a coffee-table book, a very dull but contentful book.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, obviously, as a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, the noble Lord has spotted a gap in the market that I failed to spot.
I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, on his maiden speech, especially because he used it to champion the cause of the Pashtun service of the BBC World Service, which
90
has done so much to provide information to those in Afghanistan. Indeed, by making his maiden speech tonight, the noble and gallant Lord ensured that we had the benefit of four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff speaking in the debate.
The collapse of the Taliban so quickly has been described by many noble Lords, and by many in the media, as surprising. However, the power of the ordnance dropped by the Americans—especially the truly terrifying Daisycutter—achieved the objective of breaking the Taliban. Few forces in the world could have stood up to such battering. However troops on the ground were needed to take control, and it was the Northern Alliance who were there and able to do so. It was a vain expectation that the Northern Alliance would not occupy the capital when the BBC had spearheaded its capture, but leave it for an international force.
However, the far greater problem of who will run Afghanistan remains. The achievement of the United Nations in Bonn and the formation of an interim government should not be underestimated, but it remains unclear how far their writ will run on the ground in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground will be needed. We on these Benches welcome the British commitment to send troops set out in the Prime Minister's Statement today.
The shape and membership of a peacekeeping force has yet to be fleshed out. It is essential that that force has a clearly defined mission. Will it be escorting humanitarian convoys? Will it be patrolling? Will it be manning checkpoints? Will it be mandated to intervene if it witnesses gross breaches of human rights? Will it have armoured personnel carriers? It will need robust rules of engagement if it is to be successful. Most importantly, it will need to know why it is there in the first place. I do not expect the Minister to answer those questions; they are rhetorical, especially as an assessment is currently being undertaken by Major-General McColl.
That assessment will have a political as well a military basis. The peacekeeping force will need to know where it is to operate. The size of the area of its responsibility will determine the numbers. It has been estimated that policing the whole of Afghanistan would require a force of about 100,000 troops. It is unlikely in the present climate that the international community would commit such a number, which suggests that the initial deployment may be much smaller and localised in its remit.
It has been suggested that a force for Kabul would be a sensible place to start. In fact, Kabul seems to have fewer problems than does most of the rest or the country. Nevertheless, it is obviously sensible to promote stability in the capital, and it would be a good place from which to direct the security of the humanitarian aid operation.
British forces, and those of other European nations, have plenty of experience of such operations, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who said that the Europeans may wilt. If the Americans move on to

91
Iraq, the Europeans would wilt, and we on these Benches would wilt with them. However, it should be noted that members of the European Union have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and provided assistance in the campaign. The Americans understand what assistance they have given.
Britain cannot go it alone. As other noble Lords have cited the current Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, it is fair for me to do so. He has warned of the danger of getting,
"our hand caught in the mangle",
of Afghanistan. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, pointed out, British forces are stretched amazingly thinly around the international crisis management scene. They may be good at peacekeeping, but even the best soldiers can be in only one place at one time. The deficiencies in manpower in the services make the problem even worse. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have the best of motives in their strategy for Afghanistan, but they may find that the defence cupboard is bare after the continuing lack of investment in the wellbeing of servicemen and women.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord King, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, have suggested that a new defence review is needed—perhaps the son of the Strategic Defence Review or the grandson of Options for Change. I do not suggest that we go down that route immediately, but it is perhaps as well to start to consider the outline of such a review.
Mr Karzai's administration will assume its responsibilities on 22nd December, but it is unclear whether it will be assuming power. The warlords that ruled the roost before the advent of the Taliban in 1996, who were responsible for the levelling of Kabul and 50,000 deaths, are back in charge. Gul Agha in Khandahar, Ismail Khan in Herat, General Dostum in Mazar and Haji Abdul Qadir in Jalalabad. Mr. Karzai will have to treat with those people if he is effectively to exercise his mandate.
Afghanistan has not had a strong central government for decades. We cannot expect one overnight. However, the test for Mr Karzai will come in whether he is able to create the conditions under which the international community is able to look after the immediate humanitarian needs of his people. That issue has been raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
The immediate problem is getting humanitarian aid in. It is unsurprising that lawlessness has come to Afghanistan and that aid delivery mechanisms are difficult to put in place. The aid agencies estimate that 7 million people—about one-third of Afghanistan's population—are classified in the "very high risk" category. The first job of the Karzai administration must be to create the conditions to ensure the swifter delivery of humanitarian aid to all parts of the country.
92
There is good news according to DfID. The friendship bridge from Uzbekistan is now open; food tonnages entering Afghanistan have doubled in the past two weeks as the World Food Programme has scaled up its operation; and United Nations staff are beginning to return to the cities of Afghanistan in order to oversee distribution.
However, the situation is not clear. The humanitarian situation, particularly in the north, is extremely precarious. The World Food Programme estimates that 2.3 million people in the mountainous areas—that is, areas above 6,000 feet—may soon become stranded and inaccessible to large aid convoys due to the coming of the snow. Indeed, it is only lucky that perhaps due to global warming Afghanistan has had one of the warmest winters on record. When the snows come, air drops may be necessary and questions will be raised about who will fund or carry out those operations.
In initiating the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned that this would be a long haul. Estimates for the Bill of reconstruction in Afghanistan have run as high as £25 billion over the next decade. The international community cannot walk away from that bill. Afghanistan has been the breeding ground of terror. It has been shown that instability in Afghanistan can affect every part of the globe. However, one issue has not been discussed openly and it has caused me considerable concern. It is reported that farmers in Afghanistan are already considering next year's crop. They are not considering the planting of food but the planting of poppies. That will have a devastating effect, considering Afghanistan's main contribution to heroin in this country.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for bringing the debate to our attention today and once again thank her for bringing us up to date in her usual informative, clear and concise way.
Before I go any further, I would like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, on his outstanding maiden speech today. His speech was highly significant and informative, and it gave the Government and all noble Lords plenty on which to reflect. There is no doubt that his wisdom, experience and knowledge will be most beneficial to your Lordships' Chamber and, as others have already said, we look forward to his future contributions.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships when I say that I shall concentrate my remarks on the military aspects of the campaign and touch only briefly on the humanitarian aid aspects because that is really a subject for a separate debate.
Much progress has been made both diplomatically and militarily since our previous debate just over a month ago. We on these Benches have given our complete support to the Government on the actions taken so far and we shall continue to do so. I must at this point say how grateful I am to the Minister for the excellent and informative briefing he arranged for

93
some of us last week. I would like also to stress how important it is that we, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are kept up to date with the current situation and future policy which greatly assists us in our support of the Government.
I will not weary your Lordships with repeating yet again the objectives of this campaign which were clearly set out in an FCO document which is held in the Library. However, it is important that we know what has been and has not been achieved so far and that does bear repeating.
We have seen the fall of the Taliban regime, but some well-armed isolated Al'Qaeda groups remain which may offer stiff resistance yet. We have destroyed the training camps and have prevented terrorist training from continuing. The al'Qaeda, it would seem, is in total disarray. It is in retreat and unable to work its network within Afghanistan. We have yet to capture or find the bodies of bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is no longer in a position to be able to harbour or sustain international terrorism.
We have gained the position where the coalition can mount future operations and humanitarian aid can be delivered. Those military achievements are of great significance. And let it not be forgotten that all of them have been achieved in about nine weeks and have been a great contributory factor in making the Bonn meeting take place and its outcome so successful.
It is clear that rapid progress in Afghanistan has been made and momentum is there to drive future policy forward. Those who were faint hearted and doubted the coalition's resolve and tactics have been proved wrong. Furthermore, a clear signal has been sent to those contemplating terrorist actions or sponsoring them that retribution will be swift in the future.
It is worth noting some facts which can be drawn from the campaign so far. First, much of the Taliban collapse can be ascribed to the use of air power, the careful selection of targets and the critical importance of intelligence and aerial surveillance. The revolution in precision bombing has had a profound effect on the conduct of these military operations minimising the number of civilian casualties and yet causing significant casualties to the Taliban both in terms of men and equipment. Air power in the North precipitated the first Taliban retreat and set the scene for the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban forces to make rapid gains. Virtually all the territory and the major cities are now in the hands of the new regime.
Secondly, the need for flexible military capability, backed up by the abilities to deploy rapidly and provide sound and timely intelligence. Special forces are playing a key role in the effective deployment of anti-Taliban forces and the destruction of the enemy. Their effectiveness is out of all proportion to their relatively small numbers and they have been and will continue to be a vital asset in these operations.
In the previous two debates, I drew your Lordships' attention to the essential need for accurate and timely intelligence. I said on both those occasions that
94
without more money it would be impossible to advise the Government of forthcoming threats and the Armed Forces would be unable to make use of intelligence so essential to successful operations. The extra £20 million recently announced to the intelligence services while a step in the right direction is totally inadequate for the future asymmetric threats with which we may have to contend. A minimum of hundreds of millions of pounds is required now and a substantial increase to the annual budget of the intelligence service will be required.
Intelligence is not the only area which requires more funding, as has been said today by noble and gallant Lords. More money is required for all three services if they are to continue to be successful. Without it, one day the Armed Forces could fail in their mission. It will not be their fault or, I believe, the fault of the Ministry of Defence. The fault will lie solely with the Prime Minister and the Treasury and they will be to blame for any operational failure.
I want to turn to what the United Kingdom has contributed to the operation so far. We have deployed some 4,500 members of our Armed Forces since 7th October; a Royal Navy task force remains in the area with a submarine presence; and Tomahawk land attack missiles were fired against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda on the nights of 7th and 13th October.
The task force consists of the aircraft carrier HMS "Illustrious", with a number of helicopters embarked, the assault ship HMS "Fearless", the destroyer HMS "Southampton", the frigate HMS "Cornwall" and seven Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. The Army has provided ground forces from special forces and specialist troops. There are Royal Marines at Bagram airport and lead elements of 40 Commando embarked with the task force for immediate support with the remainder in the United Kingdom at immediate notice.
Six British troops have been injured, and our sympathy and good wishes go to their families.
The Royal Air Force has flown a high proportion of the combat support sorties, and provided Tristar and VC-10 refuelling aircraft, giving refuelling support to the United States carrier-borne aircraft. Sophisticated E3D Sentry surveillance and control aircraft are deployed, as well as Nimrod reconnaissance and Hercules aircraft providing an air transport capability within the area of operations. The Royal Air Force successfully flew the interim government delegates to and from the Bonn conference.
I turn now to the difficult question of further deployment of British troops as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The first question to be asked is why should Britain once again contribute our over-stretched Armed Forces to an international security force, even though we are probably the most capable? Why is it not possible for the French to lead and contribute to this operation? Is it because, in their petty way, they refuse to have troops under the overall command of CENTCOM? Or is it because their Armed Forces are in such disarray, not ready and so ill-prepared? Why is it not possible

95
for the Germans to lead and contribute to this probable force? Why could not the Americans take command of it, thereby relieving our overstretched army of this commitment?
Could the role of the International Security Assistance Force be carried out by a Muslim force led by Turkey, which has already offered to take on this responsibility and has said that it is ready to dispatch troops to Kabul once military operations allow? But would a Muslim force be acceptable to the Afghans?
I have grave reservations about the United Kingdom leading and contributing more troops to this force, even though we are the most experienced and most capable in these matters. In any event, there is a series of questions that need to be answered before any commitments are made or agreed, and I should now like to ask the Minister some of those questions.
Although the United States of America wishes to retain the overall command of this operation through CENTCOM, will it continue to provide air cover, and in what other roles will it be involved? What has been agreed with the Afghan interim government relating to the number of troops to comprise this force, and from what countries are they to come? It is appreciated that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Malaysia the USA and Jordan have all volunteered troops.
Who will provide the heavy airlift for the insertion and extraction of the proposed force? Are the British the best suited to this role given that we are involved in search and destroy missions alongside the Americans? Does the interim government want British participation in the force? What will be the roles for the force? What will be its objectives? If the UK is involved in the International Security Assistance Force, how long will it be before British troops can be withdrawn?
I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer all of these questions now, but I should be grateful if he would write to me in due course.
Many noble Lords have spoken with great knowledge and experience about humanitarian aid and I am somewhat hesitant to make any further comments. However, the successful military operations have made it possible for humanitarian aid to start again, and the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan is an essential part of the restructuring of that country.
Food, clothing, medical aid and equipment, and children's school text books, are all being distributed on a large scale. The Friendship Bridge from Uzbekistan has been opened to traffic, and a train carrying 10,000 tonnes of food has crossed into Afghanistan. The Nijni Pyandj river crossing between Tajikistan and Afghanistan has been opened, and barges with humanitarian aid from Russia are crossing the river on their way to Kabul.
International staff have been redeployed to Bamiyan in the central highlands. UN staff have returned to Herat and international staff from NGOs are also returning.
96
Food tonnages entering Afghanistan have doubled in the past two weeks and there are food trucks in Quetta waiting to deliver food to 200,000 people in Kandahar. Thirty-three thousand tonnes of food have been dispatched to the central highlands for around 1 million people.
As your Lordships' have heard, our top priorities are to help immediate life saving needs in Afghanistan. The Government have allocated £40 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and a total of £26 million has been given to Pakistan.
In conclusion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what has been called the "next chapter" to the Strategic Defence Review, which it seems is designed to rebalance our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, wisely warned us not to be so mesmerised by the Afghan operation that we change the structure of the Army. Any re-balancing must not be at the expense of doing away with our war fighting role. If we are able to train for war fighting efficiently, it is no great difficulty to adapt to counter terrorist tasks. To change from counter terrorism to war fighting, and become efficient at it, would take several years.
The four noble and gallant Lords, all who were Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are steeped in military experience. I very much hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will reflect carefully and take note of what they have said. I agree with the many points that they have made. The Government would be failing in their duty if they do not give them due consideration.
On these Benches we support strongly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord King, especially in relation to intelligence and the enemy, Al'Qaeda; those of my noble friend Lord Marlesford in relation to the points that he made about air power, the capture of bin Laden and intelligence; and those of my noble friend Lord Astor in relation to the points that he made about humanitarian aid.
From these Benches I wish to pay tribute to our Armed Forces of the Crown. I am sure that the House will join me in this, especially as a great number of families will he separated this Christmas because of so many operations. Our Armed Forces are highly professional and exceptionally well trained. They are determined to achieve success and to protect our liberty and freedom. They are brave and courageous and they are always prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. We owe them a very great debt. It is our parliamentary duty to look after these men and women who are such an outstanding example of loyalty to their country and dedication to duty.
8.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I apologise for my rather rough voice and the accompanying cough that goes with it.
I start by adding to the comments of other noble Lords—particularly those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord King

97
of Bridgwater—in marking the sad loss of Lord Carver, who died last week. As we have heard, he was a great soldier and a true free thinker. He was never afraid to challenge accepted thinking. He was always motivated by the highest principles and fortified by the keenest of intellects. He was a great asset to the House and his expertise and insight will be much missed.
On a much happier note, I welcome the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. Everyone agrees that he gave an exciting speech, one which was full of wisdom and experience. I for one—and I know that the House is with me on this—look forward to hearing his future contributions. I dare say that defence Ministers generally will enjoy, and look forward to his saying on many occasions in the next year, what he said at the end of his speech about there being a need for more resources to be given to defence. That part of his speech went down very well indeed. Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I believe that this is his first speech in his new position as defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in this House.
This is the sixth debate that we have had in this House on this subject, and much has changed. This is the first debate in which the massed battalions of military expertise have taken part. They are led by the four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and there is also an ex-Secretary of State for Defence—a very distinguished Member of this House. There is the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who claimed to be slightly frightened by all these eminent people. In fact, he himself has a record as a former Minister and also as a distinguished defence journalist. I shall not leave out the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who was a distinguished soldier and is held in high regard. There is also a huge amount of other defence expertise in this House. If others were put off or frightened by this battalion, imagine how I feel, having to answer some of the points they made. I am tempted, perhaps misquoting Wellington, whose name has already been raised today, to say, "I do not know what they do to the enemy, sir, hut, by God, they frighten me!". I am very glad that they are on our side.
The situation has changed a great deal in the six weeks since our last debate, and very much for the better. At the beginning of November the Taliban regime and its terrorist allies, Osama bin Laden's Al'Qaeda network, still controlled the bulk of Afghanistan. Now the former has been shattered and the latter is being hunted down by the coalition. However, as my noble friend Lady Symons said, there is still a huge amount to do. We are in the forefront of that work and should be proud to be so. Your Lordships will know that part of that work will be of a military nature, and I shall return later to what that might involve. Before I do so, I briefly remind noble Lords of the reasons for our actions and for the strong contribution we have made to the coalition's achievements so far.
No one who saw on live television the attacks on 11th September—attacks that killed 4,000 people, 78 of them our countrymen—can doubt that we could do
98
anything but respond in the way we have. That is why, with the greatest respect, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the suggestion that we had some sort of choice here. We did not. This is what we had to do. Otherwise, we would have been letting down not just ourselves but future generations. It was right that we joined the United States in her effort to form a global coalition against terrorism, and it is entirely right that we give the United States all the assistance and support we can to bring the perpetrators to account.
It cannot be stressed often enough that the United States has acted not in pursuit of revenge but, rather, justice. In another place the Prime Minister, on 4th October and again on 14th November, made the case against Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that he leads. But, as has been said in this debate, they stand condemned by their own words. A number of those words have been quoted from the video that was shown on our televisions last week. The particular phrase used that was as affecting as any other, in my view, was the frightful sentence from Osama bin Laden, "They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building. So I said to them, 'Be patient'". Those are chilling words indeed. Any noble Lords who harboured any doubt about his guilt should harbour them no longer. He also added, having known five days before the attacks precisely when they would take place, that the hijackers themselves did not know what their crime was to be until shortly before they boarded the aircraft that they then seized. That betrays the callous cynicism of the terrorist. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that Osama bin Laden himself hijacked Islam in a very profound way.
No one can doubt that we have achieved major objectives. When Kandahar fell, the last pretensions of the Taliban to govern Afghanistan fell with it. The training camps have been overrun. The Bonn agreement is the opportunity to restore peace in a country that has suffered from war for far too long. We believe that we have greatly damaged the ability of Al'Qaeda to threaten the peace and safety of civilised peoples throughout the world. However, bin Laden remains at large and many members of that organisation are still active and able to plan further barbarities such as 11th September. We are co-ordinating our researches into what the coalition found as Afghanistan was taken, in terms of future projects. I cannot say much about them, but noble Lords should not think that we are being careless about documents and exhibits that are found. The international community cannot afford to relax for a moment.
I am confident that we shall fulfil the tasks that we set ourselves. We have a broad strategy to rid the world of the threat posed by international terrorism. As the House has heard many times, it covers diplomatic, economic, trade, legal, humanitarian and military strands.
Senior Ministers have played an important role in building and sustaining the global coalition. We have frozen the assets of the supporters of terror. We have,

99
as no doubt noble Lords recall, taken steps to close loopholes in our legal system that might otherwise be exploited, and we have always been conscious of the plight of the Afghan people. They already laboured under a natural disaster in the shape of a four-year drought, whose effects were made far worse by the rule of the Taliban, with its brutality and savagery, causing so many to flee their homes.
We were therefore forced, reluctantly, to take military action. Before I deal with that, I shall try to deal with a few questions that have been raised during the course of the debate. I do not for a moment promise to answer all of the questions. That would be impossible. It is more important that I should end my speech at the appropriate time. I will of course write to noble Lords if questions remain unanswered.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about casualties. I replied to him in writing last week. I hope that he did not take the fact that I did not say in that reply that we regretted any casualties as somehow a sign that we do not. As the Secretary of State said in the other place last week, any civilian casualty is regretted by Her Majesty's Government and by all civilised people. I am afraid, however, that casualties are always the product of conflict and that is something which has not altered. I do not want the noble Earl to be under any illusions about how seriously we take the problem of civilian casualties.
As far as concerns land mines, military operations are still under way and the scope for de-mining operations is necessarily limited. We are very aware of the problem, however, and noble Lords know that one of our brave soldiers was seriously injured by a mine at Bagram only a week or so ago.
In taking this military action we had clear aims. They were as follows. First, to destroy the terrorist camps. Secondly, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden. Thirdly, to create the right conditions for future operations in Afghanistan. As a coalition, we have effectively achieved them all. The Taliban broke under the coalition's pressure. The coalition and its Afghan supporters now control virtually the whole country. These are real achievements and ones in which we can be justifiably proud of our contribution.
That contribution has been significant, extensive and varied. It has embraced all three services in forming a valid, sustainable and often essential element of the wider coalition's military campaign. For example, the Royal Navy launched Tomahawk missile strikes at terrorist training camps. As we have heard, HMS "Illustrious" leads a large and versatile naval force in the Indian Ocean. Some of our ships are engaged in policing the waters of the Indian Ocean. Others form a base for operations for 40 Commando, Royal Marines and we still have a submarine presence in the area armed with missiles.
We have deployed our ground forces deep into Afghanistan. Noble Lords will understand that many of their operations are sensitive. However, I can say that our presence at Bagram, where we have helped
100
secure the airstrip for humanitarian and diplomatic flights, is well known. This helped to make the Bonn negotiations possible by allowing the Royal Air Force to fly the Northern Alliance's delegation to Bonn.
That is not all. The RAF, together with helicopters aboard the fleet, have provided support to our forces in often dangerous circumstances. But that, too, is not the limit of the contribution made by the RAF. As was referred to in particular by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, it extends to air-to-air refuelling, airborne warning and control, maritime patrols and photographic reconnaissance. All are essential to the operations that have taken place. Our assistance has been welcomed by the United States and acknowledged for the crucial role it has played.
Our Armed Forces have not achieved this without risk. The most obvious is from hostile forces. But it does not end there. I have mentioned that one of our soldiers was injured by a mine—laid by goodness knows who, and goodness knows when. There has also been the loss of one of the United States' aircraft through mechanical failure. Its crew are safe, but its loss brings home to us dramatically the risks that are always involved in such operations.
We continue our operation against international terrorism. But we need to secure what we have gained. That is why the Bonn agreement is the key. But it is still a fragile agreement. War has torn Afghanistan apart virtually ever since the former Soviet Union invaded on Christmas Eve in 1979—almost 22 years ago. If the physical impact has been dire—and it has—we can imagine the effect on the morale and psychology of the people.
If Bonn is to work, then the Afghan people, some of whom consider the interim authority it created to be unrepresentative, must all be convinced that it is a better alternative to civil war. We have heard about the loya jurga that will assemble in six months' time. But if Bonn is to work, the international community must give the process its support. The Afghans who negotiated the Bonn agreement know that too. For that reason, they explicitly consented to, and welcomed, proposals to deploy an international security force to Kabul.
As the Prime Minister made clear on 11th December, and again in his Statement to the other place which was repeated in this House, in principle we are ready and willing to lead in the deployment of an international security assistance mission (ISAF) to Kabul once the United Nations has given its authorisation. I am sure that a number of your Lordships will have read the comments of Monsieur Michel with some interest at the weekend. But notwithstanding his enthusiasm, perhaps I may quote our European Minister, my right honourable friend Peter Hain, who said:
"The European Rapid Reaction Force … is not even walking yet let alone up and running".
All I can add is that we have not yet made a final decision. The Prime Minister made that clear. In principle, we are content to lead, but no final decision has been made, although it can be said clearly that the

101
ISAF will not be a European force. Our plans focused on creating a coalition of the willing—some European, some not. Crucially, too, we shall look to the United States to provide the support that only its unique capabilities can do.
Many noble Lords will know about the successful co-ordination meeting that took place on 14th December of countries which in principle are interested in providing significant deployable and sustainable forces or support for an ISAF. I shall not name those countries. Their names have been in the newspaper. They include our partners in Europe and they also include countries that are not European, and some countries that have large Muslim populations.
These countries welcomed our offer to lead an ISAF, but also agreed with our own assessment that for such a demanding and challenging task we must make sure that we get things right. None of us can make final decisions until the preparatory work is complete. We need to work through exactly the kind of questions that have been asked during this debate. We need to work through the logistics of deploying and sustaining an international force like this. For deploying such a force to Kabul is, of course, as all noble Lords acknowledge, an immensely complicated task both politically and militarily. There are still many uncertainties which we, our international partners and the Afghans must clarify and resolve before any final decisions can be made.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while we are working all this out, who will provide protection for the transitional authority on and after 22nd December?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am going on to advise noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to be patient. The week is young—it is Monday—and Saturday is the 22nd. There may be events between now and then; there may not be. But there certainly will not be events unless we are satisfied that the questions asked in this debate have been answered satisfactorily from a British point of view. The last thing that we are going to do is to send our troops somewhere when we do not know the answers to a number of questions.
A number of difficult and complex issues have to be worked through. They include the mandate and the length of time that any force would be there, and the way in which it would operate in relation to other foreign forces asked for by the Afghans. There are other questions too. We accept that 22nd December is an important date in all this.
For these reasons, we and our partners agreed to send a small international reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul over the weekend. Led by Major-General John McColl, the team included representatives from the United States, Canada and Italy. It built upon our already friendly and constructive relations with the interim authority in its discussions about the role, size and relationship with the interim authority of an ISAF.
102
General McColl has provided our partners and ourselves with an invaluable insight into the conditions in which an ISAF would operate. We are in the midst of incorporating that advice into our plans now. There is, of course, a great deal of interest in this potential deployment. But once again I counsel patience. We can make no announcement until our plans are finalised. This House will be informed as soon as we are able to do so.
Why are we thinking of doing this? The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked that question, adding the point: even though we are the most capable. That is certainly one of the factors in our reasons for considering such an operation. We do consider that we are among the most capable. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked about clarity. Unless we have clarity as regards rules of engagement and our role there, we shall not undertake this task.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the humanitarian crisis. Of course, it remains severe, but there are some grounds for hope. In November, the World Food Programme delivered some 56,000 metric tonnes of food aid—4,000 metric tonnes more than its target. The Friendship Bridge over the River Oxus has been reopened. Last week the coalition stopped its air drops of emergency aid to the Afghan people because there are now secure air heads to deliver food and other aid instead. Some have criticised those air drops but no one has proposed realistic alternatives. The Taliban was already attacking aid organisations well before 11th September. It is worth saying that it was a magnificent effort by the United States. More than 2.4 million ration packs were dropped.
The events on 11th September raised the threshold for terrorism. Today's operations, and those that we are considering for the near future are but the first response that we must make. We must look at the structure and shape of our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked questions and made strong comments about the possibility of what was described as a new Strategic Defence Review. There is no intention to have a new SDR. We are right to consider—and there is no need to fear that consideration—whether we ought to make changes, given what happened on 11th September. It would add an extra chapter to the 1998 review, but that should not worry your Lordships. It will not be as wide-ranging as the review of 1998.
Surely it is legitimate for the Government to ask questions such as what are the threats we face, and what are their causes? What are our vulnerabilities, and how can we manage risk? What is the role of the Armed Forces and the right balance between homeland defence and overseas operations? What are the implications for international organisations and our regional and bilateral relationships? Those are important questions.
The noble and gallant Lord made some fun of the fact that it had been said that the Treasury would be involved at the start. It is arguable that it is better for the Treasury to be involved at the start than just at the finish. In a sense, one is damned if one does, and

103
damned if one does not. In our judgment it is better to take the Treasury along with us. I notice the smiles on the faces of noble Lords who have been senior Ministers, or even Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It is important to take the Treasury with us because the case is so overwhelming.
I hope that your Lordships will give a fair ride to this enterprise. We are seeking the views of not only noble Lords but other experts on this important new chapter. Time is almost up. We have had an excellent debate, like all the others before it. There has been an increase in scope this time because of the many expert military contributions. Noble Lords hold many different views and have expressed them clearly, but the view of all noble Lords who have spoken in every debate is the abiding excellence of the British Armed Forces. The huge debt that we owe them, and which we shall continue to owe them has been expressed from all sides of the House. We know that we can depend on our Armed Forces; we must make sure that they can depend on us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Middle East
8.54 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to help achieve peace in the Middle East.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it seems appropriate that we should now focus on a related area of the world to which we owe much and yet whose problems have defeated our statesmen for more than half a century. Every time we discuss the Middle East we are clutching at straws. The situation is now much more serious. We have had not only the events of 11th September but an alarming escalation of violence not only by terrorists and settlers but by those who claim to offer leadership. I am grateful to the many distinguished noble Lords who have agreed to take part, and we all look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kilclooney.
The question is intended to encourage the Government to sharpen their policies towards Israel-Palestine, in particular, in the wider context of anti-terrorism. We rightly condemn terrorists, whether they are suicide bombers or anyone else. Those who inspire terror are not always men in masks behind the scenes. They can be helicopter pilots or tank commanders. The Israeli army has acquired a reputation for ruthless efficiency. But it was a little different at the Lutheran orphanage in Beit Jala last August when 50 children and teachers watched a tank draw up. The soldiers shut them all in one room, took over the building and started firing at Palestinians from the church roof, tearing out new floor tiles and flinging them into the street. One said, "If the kids play outside we will shoot them". That happened because someone in the illegal settlement of Gilo had convinced himself that the whole of Jerusalem was under attack.
104
There have been many less visible incidents recently in the so-called defence of settlements—a doctrine of security that is highly developed in Israel and is now a convenient echo of international anti-terrorism. I have personal experience of young Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and road blocks which is contrary to the international image. Most are inexperienced, uneducated and trained to cause the maximum harassment, delay and misery.
I am not denying that those qualities may also apply to Palestinian Authority soldiers. I am not qualified to judge them, as fortunately they did not search me. The weaknesses of the PA are well known from the tragic encounters of the past few weeks. The PA is a sitting target for General Sharon, which Palestinians know all too well. They cannot control Hamas; they are fragmented and lack resources.
Dr Haider Abdel Shafi, the respected veteran Palestinian leader, told me in September that he was embarrassed to ask his friends to do things that Palestinians could not do. In other words, there is a frank admission that Palestine has had to rely on so much help from abroad—from Jordan, Egypt and the EU—to build institutions such as the police, air strips and ports, only to see them destroyed by Israel. Unless Arab states and Europe take more positive action to help them to return to the negotiating table, they will remain the victims.
Your Lordships will not expect me to offer a quick fix to the Middle East crisis. In focusing more on Israel, I suggest that our Government have a duty to look beyond today's violence and push the United States more firmly and urgently towards an agreement.
To those who doubt that the UK can do that, I offer three reasons. First, we have a historic responsibility to Palestinians, partly based on our eastern Christian experience, from the crusades to colonial rule. St George, for example, is much more than a patriotic symbol. He is recognised and revered by Muslim Arabs alongside Christians near his shrine near Bethlehem, which is a reminder of the possibility and the actuality of greater religious tolerance. No one needs reminding that under the Balfour Declaration we have powerful obligations to Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, as well as to the Jewish community.
The second reason is our close friendship with the US, which has been much strengthened by the recent tragedies. I do not underestimate the ties that bind the US and Israel. The Jewish contribution to both our societies is inestimable. Israel today includes many different immigrant communities, but US influence remains strongest. When it is in a mood of isolation, such as its mood today, it is to the US that Israel looks for investment, political and logistical support
Thirdly, we owe it to our own considerable Jewish and Muslim minorities. The latter have been more in the news, but over the years we have built up a close partnership with Israel based on cultural and commercial ties. We welcomed refugees in the East End long before Hitler's persecution and the

105
Holocaust that followed. We have benefited from Jewish scientific knowledge, music and literature. We have a strong Jewish presence in the City and other financial centres and many of our British families belong equally to Israel and travel there regularly. The UK is now Israel's fifth largest export market and its third largest source of imports. With its total trade approaching £3 billion, Israel has been designated by the DTI as a Middle East target market. We know that that market includes the occupied Palestinian territories.
It follows from all that that we have a close association with Israel and with Palestine. The plight of the Palestinians is well known and I have referred to it in previous debates, but we easily forget that Israel too is a victim as well as an oppressor. Its security is a neglected area of the peace process. The international community, engaged in anti-terrorism, has to provide the necessary guarantees to release Israel from its aggressive self-defence. That is where new thinking is needed in the Foreign Office.
That may explain why so many of our Jewish families and friends and many Members of this House feel so powerless. In some cases, they feel that it is not their concern. It is a problem for Israelis and Zionists, but not Jews. Seen from Tel Aviv, the Palestinians who live only kilometres away sometimes belong to another world. The large minority in Israel—perhaps 50 per cent or more; who knows?—who genuinely want peace and who in many cases enjoy liberal personal lifestyles, including Labour Members of the Knesset, are impotent against the fragility of their own coalition and the armour of the Sharon Government.
Another reason for helplessness is now neatly described in the word "terrorism". It is said that there cannot be peace or progress while there is terrorism. We have debated that many times. That explains the need for Israel's self-defence, although hardly the use of tanks and shells against innocent civilians. However, it should not become an excuse for our inaction. Even our Government are mouthing the anti-terrorism jargon that, since the death of Mr Ze'evi, has become the Israeli Cabinet's life support machine. The Government must not regard it as a reason, as seems to be the case at the moment, for giving up on the peace process before Christmas, in the manner of President Bush. I was glad to see that the Foreign Office has a new initiative in Lebanon and has made contacts with Hezbollah independently of the United States.
Another reason for delay is that we have a thriving trade partnership with Israel, but that can work both ways. Included in the UK's imports are goods produced by Palestinians in the occupied territories, but for how long? Is it not a basic human right for Palestinians to be recognised as the source of those goods?
The recent EU declaration did not bring us much nearer. Unless we in Europe and the United States can find new reasons to bring the parties together, the conflict will go on and there will never be a settlement.
Finally, I have given the Government notice of the following questions, which I shall summarise. How can Israel be dissuaded from acts of oppression against
106
Palestinian civilians? Will the Government at least urge the United States to arrange an early meeting of the Mitchell committee? Is the Minister aware of the rapid population increase in the settlements? Will the Government urge the United States and Israel not only to freeze settlements but to accept that there are other means of guaranteeing the country's security? Does the Minister agree that Jerusalem should be a central issue in any peace negotiations? Lastly, can he please explain why the United Kingdom refused to invoke the rules of origin and the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement at the ministerial meeting in Brussels on 20th November?
9.4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I am one of those who deeply cares what happens to Israel and the Palestinians. I have spoken about the issue before. Everybody who participates in the debate has a duty to ask how best they can help to advance the cause of peace between those peoples.
It is a two-way process. Each party has to be fully committed to an enduring peace. It is no good just talking about it. It has to be reflected in what we do and say about the issue. One will not do without the other.
It is no good dreaming, as some do, that Israel did not exist. I have news for those people: they had better get used to it. There may be genuine differences of opinion, but there is none in Israel about the country's right to exist.
One may ask why Arab children are fed with hate about Israeli Jews. Why are the speeches of so many Arab leaders marred with that commodity? Why is so little said by both sides about Ehud Barak's proposals to end the international stalemate and the intifada? Why is there no possibility today of seriously arguing about peace?
Surely there was a basis for discussing a shared Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and 95 per cent of the West Bank for the Palestinians. Why was the process terminated so abruptly, not by the Jews, but by the Palestinians? I think that there was a lack of leadership. It was not an intransigent Israel that blew up the twin towers or blasted the Pentagon.
The present situation calls for more dialogue before the curtain of peace comes down for the last time. It cannot go like this for ever. We have no more time. So little time is left. One hopes and prays that common sense will prevail; that Sharon and Arafat will sit down at a table and talk. At present, there is no such possibility. Why not? The stakes are high for Arafat, the Palestinians that he leads and Israel. I pray that there will be a breakthrough and I pray for peace.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate.

107
I agree with a good deal of what said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but he has accepted the myth surrounding what happened at Camp David. If the noble Lord reads Robert Malley, who was President Clinton's assistant at Camp David, in the International Herald Tribune or the New York Review of Books, he will find that there was no great offer. Nothing was on the table. Whatever was suggested was totally unacceptable. Nothing was said about water and what was offered on Jerusalem was unacceptable. Although American newspaper columnists are dutifully spiking Israeli propaganda, it is all untrue.
That said, Barak went further than any Israeli had done before and the Palestinians did not handle it at all well. Nor did the Americans.
The Palestinian children are filled with hatred, as the noble Lord said, because they are suffering under a brutal, racist and illegal occupation. The Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against that occupation. In doing so, they have committed some unspeakable atrocities that nobody could dream of defending. Nevertheless, their violence is of a different order from that of the occupying power, whose violence is out of order altogether. The Israelis should not he occupying the places they are. They are still building illegal roads and settlements. As the foremost Israeli commentator has said, they have only one objective—to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, saw the conditions under which Palestinians are living and the dreadful oppression and discrimination that they are suffering, he would not be at all surprised by the hatred. He would only be surprised that there are not more terrorist atrocities than there are. I assure the noble Lord that the conditions are appalling.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The Americans, who purport to be the judges in this matter, are entirely one side. They purport to be sitting on the Bench but they ought to be in the dock. They have been supporting, subsidising and arming that illegal occupation for 20 years. The Americans have never put forward impartial proposals. They are entirely on one side, because of the innate corruption of American politics.
The Americans treat Mr Sharon as a benevolent, serious statesman, and as a respectable politician who is committed to the peace process. He has never been anything of the sort. He has always been against the peace process. He is a man of blood and crimes. The Americans made the same mistake in 1982. They gave Sharon a free hand then and the green light to invade Lebanon. Many more innocent civilians lost their lives in the bombing of Beirut than were killed on September 11th—quite apart from the massacres at Sabra and Chatila. For the Americans to let Sharon do what he wants is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.
108
It is vitally important, as the noble Earl said, that Britain and Europe must differ and show their dissent from America. They are more concerned with justice rather than with appeasing the Israeli lobby in the United States—which is what has been keeping the conflict going for the past 15 to 20 years. The corruption of American politics is at fault. It is vital that the Palestinians should not be the only people who are denied freedom and self-determination, and they should be treated like other people—not only for their good but for that of the coalition.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, there are times when big problems become so intractable that it is almost impossible to think of a realistic solution. At this time the Middle East is a case in point. In such circumstances there are few ways to avoid despair. One is hoping against hope. Some of my friends in the region say that the Middle East is always capable of surprises. One approach is to leave the big picture on one side and look for small signs of hope that may become building blocks for a better future.
I have in mind, for example, signs that members of the different communities can live and work together in peace, and above all that examples are set in Israel that could be harbingers of a tolerant plural society. In that context, I should like to mention the New Israel Fund, which is an organisation that supports initiatives designed to promote,
"justice, tolerance, and mutual respect between all the groups that make up Israeli society".
In doing so, I declare an interest in that my wife chairs the UK board of the New Israel Fund.
Examples of the fund's work are many and often very moving. There is a food co-operative for Jewish and Arab residents of low-income neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, described by one of its Arab members as "a model for co-existence". There is a Bookmobile for Bedouin children cut off from educational material. There is support for the Personal Status Coalition, which campaigns for laws granting civil rights to members—above all women—of both Jewish and Muslim communities. There is also education of members of all communities about their housing rights. The list of small but important projects is long.
Fortunately, the New Israel Fund is not alone in promoting such ventures; there are others. For example, the organisation called Physicians for Human Rights has found volunteers to provide medical care for deprived communities on the West Bank. It has also looked after prisoners in detention. Its chairman has said:
"Peace is impossible as long as cancer patients needing chemotherapy are prevented from entering Israel via Erez Crossing in order to undergo outpatient treatment".
When one talks about government action in the Middle East, the first objective that comes to mind is a sustainable end to terrorism and armed conflict. The next stage, whenever it is reached, will be for the countries of the region to engage in major projects of common benefit, such as those of the water economy

109
long promoted by Shimon Peres of Israel and Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. Beyond that, however, it is the hundreds of small initiatives in what may one day be a true civil society that deserve moral and financial support. Again to quote the chairman of Physicians for Human Rights, Dr. Ilan Gal, such work,
"brings hope: a belief that, despite everything, things could be different".
I wish to echo his thanks to all those working to make that come true.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. I should like immediately to express my appreciation to your Lordships for the way in which I have been received and made to feel at home, and to underline my thanks to the staff for they way in which they have assisted me in the past few weeks, since I arrived in this place.
Unbelievably, this is my 11th maiden speech. My first one was in 1965, in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. In the intervening 35 or so years, I have spoken in all six Northern Ireland institutions, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I currently represent a Northern Ireland constituency. I have also made two maiden speeches in Strasbourg, at the European Parliament and at the Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have also made a maiden speech at the Western European Union Assembly, as I have of course done in another place. Indeed, on the latter occasion, I spoke at 8.00 a.m. in Strasbourg, at 2.30 p.m. at Stormont, and I then made my maiden speech in the other place, at 8 p.m. I survived that exercise, but I have not sought to repeat it.
The Middle East has always fascinated me. I suppose that I first came across the subject when I was a child at Sunday school. At the back of the Bible, we had all those wonderful maps of Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt, Israel, the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, among others. They introduced me not only to religion but to politics and geography, all of which probably come together especially for me as an Ulsterman.
My fascination with the subject continued. One day more than 40 years ago, as a university student in applied science and technology, I read that there was a competition about how to solve the problems of the Middle East. I entered the competition—which was chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh and the late King Hussein of Jordan—and to my amazement I was one of the 20 United Kingdom students chosen as winners. Although we spent a wonderful month in Jordan as guests of King Hussein, I am sorry to say that the advice that I gave in my essay was not followed. Consequently, 40 years on, we still have an increasing problem in the Middle East.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not simply a Jewish-Muslim one; after all, 10 per cent of Palestinians are Christian, most of whom are Orthodox although some are Latin and some are Lutheran. I have visited Christian homes which have been shelled by the Israelis—the homes of innocent Christians, thrown out of their houses because they were Palestinians not because they were Christians.
110
Some recommendations have to be made in the short time available. One is, of course, that Arafat must stop the terrorism. I am glad that he made such a strong speech at the weekend. What a disappointment that today the Israelis replied by yet again assassinating a Palestinian. Israel must stop the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. Imagine 200 or 300 Orangemen planted in the centre of Dublin. That would be a provocation, but there are 400 or 500 Jews planted in the city of Hebron with 120,000 Arabs. That is a provocation. The settlement provocation must be brought to an end. Israel must stop the shoot to kill policy of people who have not been found guilty in law. Syria must accept United Nations border designations in northern Israel; otherwise, there is an excuse for Hezbollah terrorism to continue.
Palestinians should drop the demand for 4 million refugees to return to Israel as their return would destabilise Israel. It is an unrealistic proposal. Israel should publicly confirm its support for a Palestinian state, as the United States and the United Kingdom have done recently. The Palestinian Authority should underline its recognition of and support for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel and, of course, Jerusalem will have to be shared as a capital of both states.
Today there is great economic decline in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. In Jerusalem the restaurants are empty. In Bethlehem tourism is dead. In the Palestinian territories there is 40 per cent unemployment. All of that breeds more extremism on both sides. The United Kingdom must be even-handed and not take the attitude of the United States which supports only Sharon. That in itself offends other Arab nations and could bring about a wider conflict.
I conclude by saying that the United Kingdom must pursue a policy for the Middle East which brings about dialogue and talks. That must be done through the European Union so that both sides are brought together, but the talks must not—I say this from my experience in Northern Ireland—include active terrorists. No one can he required to settle at the end of a terrorist gun. Dialogue will be painful for both sides, but it is greater to suffer pain than for the innocents—Jews, Christians and Muslims—to continue to be killed.
9.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and to congratulate him on his excellent, highly appropriate and focused 11th maiden speech. As noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord has had a distinguished career both in Stormont and in the other place. During that time he has led on trade and industry, foreign and Commonwealth affairs and many other issues. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that his interests are listed as Irish politics, the European Union, regional policy and agriculture, all of which are clearly major interests of this House. We greatly look forward to further distinguished contributions from the noble Lord in the future.

111
To celebrate the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ my diocese of Gloucester organised three diocesan pilgrimages to visit the people and places of the Holy Land in the millennium year. I had the privilege of leading the first of those in May 2000. Our party consisted of over 40 Christian pilgrims who had a rewarding, happy and deeply spiritual experience.
One of the most powerful memories had nothing to do with the holy sites at all and happened during one of our coach journeys, when our guide, Oliver, picked up the microphone and announced, "Have a look at those two police cars stopped by the side of the road". We did but it hardly seemed worth his mentioning. There were two cars, one behind the other, with the occupants—it was difficult to tell whether they were police or soldiers—chatting, joking and smoking cigarettes as one happy group of friends. "Ah", said Oliver. "one of those groups is Palestinian and the other is Israeli. I have never seen such a sight as that before. It is the most hopeful sign of a lasting peace that I have seen for a long time". The remainder of our pilgrimage was similarly happy and hopeful and we returned feeling positive about the future for a lasting peace.
It was a bitter blow, therefore, to all those hopes when at the end of September of that year Mr Sharon felt it necessary to visit the highly sensitive Muslim compound of the Haram-al-Sharif on Jerusalem's Temple Mountain, which was the catalyst of what has become known as the Al-Aqsa intifada. Life in the Holy Land became so dangerous and precarious that the third of our diocesan pilgrimages, with 70 pilgrims, which my colleague the Bishop of Tewkesbury was leading had to be cancelled at very short notice. The situation in the year which followed, and up to today, has remained so risky that it has never been possible to rearrange that pilgrimage.
It is sad, of course, for the diocese of Gloucester, equally sad for many other planned pilgrimages since and sad for the considerable pilgrimage economy, the tour companies and the local tour guides. It is devastating for the indigenous Church in Palestine and for Bishop Riah, who with his clergy and lay Christians struggle, with increasing difficulty and marginalisation, to keep alive the important concepts of Christians in that land, being living stones, and caring as well as they can for the ancient stones of the holy sites.
I do not have to make decisions in these matters which affect the lives of others. However, I assure those who do that they have the sympathy and prayers of us all. I have a small plaque at the window of my study at home which says simply, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem"; and I do so every day. Every Sunday of this year when I have been participating in worship in parish churches throughout my diocese, I cannot remember one service in which we did not remember in our prayers the people of the Holy Land—the Israelis and the Palestinians, Christians, Jews and Muslims—and prayed earnestly for peace with justice. Those of us who believe in the power of prayer must continue to do so. We pray that all possible steps will
112
be taken to end the violence, resume serious dialogue now, as many noble Lords have reminded us, and bring about a full implementation of the recommendations of the Mitchell committee.
A letter published recently in the Independent Review, signed by members of the three faiths principally represented in the Holy Land, ended with these words:
"We call on responsible members of our 3 faiths to set a lead in demanding that Palestinians and Israelis should respect the God-given sanctity of human life, and at the same time to give public expression to our solidarity with all those in the Holy Land who in the face of mounting hatred and violence continue to strive for mutual understanding and peace".
I gladly express my solidarity with those sentiments.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, as the first Member of the House from these Benches to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, perhaps I may say how delighted I am to have come to this House with him. I congratulate the noble Lord on a fine maiden speech, of which he has due experience. Nevertheless it was fine because it was balanced. His interests go way beyond the island of Ireland and the onerous responsibilities that he has held there. I have travelled with him and we have shared many of those interests. It is fair to say that we get on famously together—I like to think that he considers me a friend—as long as we do not discuss the island of Ireland.
I wish to address a somewhat wider issue than simply Arab-Israel. When debating foreign affairs in another place or in this Chamber, one always has this feeling that the speech is better made on Capitol Hill. One always gets dragged back to that factor on these issues.
While my remarks will include matters concerning the Americans, I wish to address them to Her Majesty's Government and to representations which I hope are being made privately, and increasingly will have to be made, to Washington when the next chapters of these vital events for world peace are unfolding.
My central point—here I go wider than the Arab-Israeli situation—is that if we are to make any sense of these matters, we must separate Arab-Israeli problems in dealing with terrorism from peace in the Middle East. They are obviously closely connected but there are different perceptions of terrorism in the Middle East. It is important for noble Lords to take that on board.
I shall deal with the two main heads of perception in the Middle East. First, there is a perception concerning the terrorism of Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That terrorism might have invoked the Almighty to a certain extent—I should have thought that He is quite horrified—but it is politically motivated terrorism. It is directed as much, if not more so, against existing Middle East regimes as against the United States and the West. That involves not only the obvious Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and others but also the more secular countries that are leaning towards the West or are pro-West such as Egypt. They are all within the

113
target area. Therefore, in the Middle East as a whole such terrorism is seen as terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and any necessary—I stress that word—follow up which may involve Sudan, Somalia or Yemen would be more or less accepted in the Middle East.
The second head of perception involves terrorism that is directed against Israel. That still involves terrorism and it is still abominable and horrible. However, perceptions of it, particularly in the light of recent events, are different. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the potential in that region to be seen as freedom fighters. Israel's aggressive reaction time and again—I refer to the tit-for-tat killings and assassinations, the tanks and bulldozers and the use of F16s in domestic situations—makes it more difficult for moderates in the region to be pro-American. Moreover, it blunts the support that the Middle East can give to the wider struggle against Al'Qaeda—such support could be better and stronger than it currently is. It also occurs at a time when at least most countries in the region accept the existence of the state of Israel within its legal boundaries.
Finally, I make two points about where our influence should go. First, we must try to ensure that the United States does not get carried away. Having spent most of last week in Washington, I can say that there is a serious threat of that. To bomb Iraq without the clearest evidence of a connection with Al'Qaeda would, first, set the whole of the Middle East alight; secondly, it would seriously destabilise friendly regimes; thirdly, it would guarantee that terrorism would continue and increase in a very big way; and, fourthly, it would separate Europe from the United States and, very regrettably—I should very much regret this personally—it would separate the United Kingdom from the United States.
My wider point is that the United States must be seen to be conducting an inclusive policy in the region that is its own policy, not one that is seen, with some cause—this is the universal perception in the region—to he the policy of Israel.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I have visited Israel twice this year in my role as chairman of the board of governors of the University of Haifa. That university, incidentally, has 20 per cent Israeli Arab students, including Muslims, Christians and Druze.
My first visit was on Friday, 1st June. That evening, a suicide bomb exploded in a discotheque in Tel Aviv which murdered 21 youngsters and injured more than 100. Israel was shocked; indeed, the world was shocked. I clearly remember saying that if Israel could just resist any form of retaliation that could help to restart the peace process.
There was no retaliation, and for two weeks everything was quiet between the Palestinians and Israelis. I was told, however, that that is normal after any outrage and that the intifada would commence in about three weeks' time. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. By then, Palestinians had carried out
114
nearly 20 successful suicide bomb attempts and approaching 100 unsuccessful suicide bomb attempts. Why did this suicide bomb attack differ from nearly 20 earlier attacks? Until that moment there had been Israeli retaliation after each event. Israelis soon realised, however, that non-retaliation did nothing to stop the violence.
Following that outrage, support for targeted retaliations rapidly increased. Such retaliations were seen as the only means of preventing Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other organisations supporting and directing suicide bombers and other terrorist activities.
I visited Israel again on 20th November, staying incidentally in Haifa and Jerusalem. One week later, there were three more successful suicide bomb outrages—two in Jerusalem and one in Haifa, murdering 31 people, many of whom were teenagers.
With the encouragement of the United States, Israel had sought to persuade Arafat that so many of the terrorists who had been imprisoned by the Palestinians and who were now released should be rearrested. Israel presented Arafat with a list of 100 terrorists. This was subsequently reduced to 20 and, finally, to just 10. Eventually, Arafat rearrested only four.
The Israelis cannot understand how people equate targeted killing against those who direct and support suicide bombers with the suicide bombers' intention to slaughter the maximum number of innocent civilians and, in particular, to kill children, as happened on 1st June and 26th November. Israelis today are wholly disillusioned with the peace process, especially those who strongly supported it when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.
In July 2000 the proposals by Israel at Camp David were far more generous than most Israelis had thought possible. Indeed, the general assumption was that Barak gave 110 per cent of what Israel could afford to give. The Americans were astonished that the proposals were rejected. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, about those agreements, perhaps I may add that I know for a fact that a significant number of the key advisers to Yasser Arafat advised him to accept the proposals. It was his single decision not to accept them.
Before Arafat's rejection, at least 70 per cent of Israel was wholeheartedly in favour of a peace agreement which would include full recognition of a Palestinian state. After the rejection, practically all Israelis believe that Arafat is not prepared to sign any peace agreement. Dennis Ross, the former US Middle East negotiator, recently expressed the view that his experience with Arafat demonstrated clearly that Arafat had extreme difficulties in making decisions. Israel may, indeed, be right that Arafat is unable or unwilling to be a responsive leader so far as concerns the peace process. I believe that Israelis and Palestinians are willing to make peace, but perhaps not both leaders.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I also express thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating

115
this debate this evening. It comes at an appropriately crucial turning point in the tragic history of the peace process—a moment aptly described this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth as Kairos: a moment of change.
The past 14 months have seen an appalling deterioration in the security situation in Israel and the occupied territories—a cycle of terror and counter-terror, fuelled on one side by the deplorable succession of suicide bombings and violence from Palestinian organisations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and, on the other, by the illegal and expanding occupation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements and by Prime Minister Sharon's policy of targeted assassinations and attempts to humiliate and isolate the Palestinian population and, in particular, their elected leader, Yasser Arafat.
There are some glimmers of hope. The European Union declaration of 10th December calling on Israel to end the extrajudicial killings and on Arafat to end the intifada and the succession of suicide bombings may have contributed to Arafat's welcome statement yesterday ordering the complete and immediate cessation of all military action. It remains to be seen whether his orders will or can be obeyed. I fear that too many such orders and assurances have come to nothing. The degree of humiliation, resentment, deprivation and despair built up in the occupied territories over the years will have made such assurances difficult for him to honour, particularly if, as the maiden speaker said, Israelis continue their attacks even after those assurances by Arafat. Let us remember, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has reminded the House, that the latest intifada was sparked by Sharon's deliberately provocative electoral gimmick of entering Al-Aqsa 14 months ago—14 months that have witnessed more than 200 Israeli and over 800 Palestinian deaths.
The cycle of terror and counter-terror achieves nothing, and certainly not the security of the Israeli people that Sharon claims is his main objective and which is, indeed, their right. Let us also hope that the attempt to humiliate and to isolate Arafat, if not worse, will now cease. Surely, any alternative Palestinian interlocutor in the present climate of violence and suffering could only be worse. However much credibility Arafat has lost, Israel still needs a dialogue partner, a partner for peace and a partner for security.
Although nothing can justify the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it is significant that most of the incidents of violence and suicide bombings by Palestinians have in some way involved Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Surely it is time not just for a freeze on settlement activity, as Senator Mitchell and the EU have called for, but for Israel to start withdrawing from the existing settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Not only are they an infringement of the Geneva conventions, but their very existence is a constant provocation to the Palestinians whose land they have illegally occupied.
116
We should have no illusions that very difficult decisions are now needed from both sides. The time for claims and counter-claims of responsibility is over. European Union declarations are welcome, but we should be under no illusions that only swift, determined and even-handed American intervention can hope to rescue the peace process now. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House something of the talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell that took place in London on 11th December, and that he can also give the House an assurance, in response to the question posed by the noble Earl, that we and our European partners are continuing to press the case in Washington for urgent and effective American intervention at the highest level. It would be tragic if the success of the military operations in Afghanistan were now undermined by a failure to address what I believe should be our highest foreign policy priority: the need to tackle the real and underlying problems facing Israel and the Palestinians.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on his wise and authoritative maiden speech. As other noble Lords have emphasised, the people in many of the countries of the Middle East, especially Israel, Palestine and the Lebanon, suffer from the effects of conflict. In others they suffer the effects of tyrannical regimes. Perhaps even more painfully for those countries, there is not much hope of early improvement of the situation. However, I believe that there are some small practical measures that the UK Government can take in concert with other countries in Europe that would help the situation.
Anyone who has visited Israel, as I have on several occasions, must be enormously impressed by the achievements of that country in creating a thriving economy based on desert agriculture, technology and entrepreneurial brilliance and aided by generous US funds and brain-power from all over the world. However, one is depressed by the fact that one sees nothing like that development in the West Bank areas of the Palestine Authority and by the great hostility felt on both sides between Israelis and Arabs. Usually academic and cultural contacts survive in some form even the bleakest enmity between states and communities, as experienced during the Cold War and during many ethnic and religious conflicts around the world, but they need nurturing.
Recently, we heard in your Lordships' House a report of a British Council visit to Palestine and how it is very difficult to maintain any kind of exchange programme when the Palestinian buildings are being destroyed by the Israeli forces. Indeed, UK educational charities, such as UNIPAL, which I have supported for 25 years, are now unable to operate in Palestine.
At the same time, the UK and other European governments are finding many excellent scientific and cultural programmes involving Israeli individuals and

117
groups. I heard today to my pleasure that, with my Dutch colleagues, I shall be involved with one over the forthcoming years.
But all the literature that I have seen excludes any mention of the Palestinian institutions that may also he involved. I believe that the Government can really do something about that. They must make enormous efforts to be even-handed in their approach to these two communities and to ensure that no Israeli cultural visitors can come to the UK while visa and other restrictions are applied to bona fide Palestinian visitors and while academic and cultural institutions in Palestine are being destroyed or prevented from operating by Israeli forces. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and how the Government will be addressing the question of even-handedness in concert with their EU colleagues.
An equally important but wider injustice which British academic colleagues have mentioned is the difficulty raised by the UK in admitting scholars from Middle Eastern countries. That difficulty has been particularly marked for visitors from Iraq who are able, I understand, to visit other European countries much more easily than the UK. Surely, we can keep open communications with all the countries of the Middle East for all political, economic and cultural benefits.
A much longer-term connection between the interests of the UK and the Middle East relates to something which again I am interested in—oil and climate change. As the current issue of the Economist explains, the present dependence of the world on Middle East oil leads to very skewed economies and excessive powers in the hands of authoritarian regimes. However, the world will slowly turn from the oil economy during this century. Indeed, the Government are working hard to pursue this long-term policy. That is important for the UK because it will help us eventually to meet the problems of the rising sea levels. But in the long term this will also help the Middle East to return to a better balanced society.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, in four minutes apportioning blame is a waste of time and the current vile and vicious violence is best addressed through the Mitchell and Tenet reports. I wish only to urge our Government to take an active role, together with other European leaders, to help Israel and Palestine to agree a long-term strategy and then to help see it through. The only workable strategy is a two state solution whereby those who live in Israel and Palestine are given a reasonable dream of a viable secure state for each and each other and can see this actualised in their lifetimes.
Israel almost fulfilled its dream in less than two generations. It became a state when I was six years old. When I was 16, in 1959, I visited it for the first time. I saw that the people there, with very little resource, had transformed what was an odd-shaped strip of land—two-thirds desert and one-third swamp—into a blossoming agricultural state. A few decades later it
118
had missed out an industrialised phase and has become a highly efficient, high-tech, modern, prosperous country. It has taken half a century.
So what about across the border? As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, what about their dream? Last month I spent some time in Gaza. I have been in the West Bank and I know it. We see the devastation in these areas in the media but actually Gaza has great beauty and viable resources; a long Mediterranean coast of white beaches and date palms; and natural gas already found in large quantities off its coast. The West Bank is a fertile Jordan valley with its rich soil and the possibility of sweet water available. When it has an open wide transport link across Israel to Gaza and the entrepreneurial and industrious Palestinian people are able to work with, and within all those countries around it, it will have great potential.
Moderate people who live in Israel and Palestine want a stable two-state solution. They know that the compromises needed are huge and laden with difficult, historical and emotional baggage. But these reasonable people would live with the following: two states along the pre-1967 borders; Jerusalem to remain one city but become two capitals; settlement frozen; a "right of return" for Palestinians, and Jews from Arab lands, resolved through international agreements that preserves the demographic integrity of both states. All of those are difficult but negotiable.
What both peoples lack now is leadership with a positive, not a negative vision. Each needs leaders who are reasonable enough to do such a deal but at the same time credible enough to both sides to see it through. Unfortunately, Israel's cock-eyed system of democracy never gives sufficient strong, long-term support to its peacemakers. As is often the case when state terror has been used, the Palestinian people have gangsters in their leadership.
Israel and Palestine are obviously not in the same situation as Afghanistan, but, in Palestine, those who are opposed to terror and corruption are being put down in horrible ways. The international community should protect them and put resources behind their cause. Those in Israel's coalition who have a positive, progressive, peaceful plan also need support and encouragement from outside.
We should encourage and facilitate dialogue between the moderates on both sides. Israel nearly has its dream; Palestine can have its, too. I know of individuals, businesses and banks waiting in the wings ready to help. They already have plans to build power stations in Gaza and the West Bank and then to buy the power generated. People are ready to set up factories, housing complexes and shopping centres jointly owned and run with Palestinians. I know of infrastructure projects of road and rail, oil pipelines and schools, universities and hospitals waiting to begin.
Our Government could play a pivotal role. America is not acceptable to the Palestinians, and many Arab states have not even recognised Israel. I should like the Minister to tell me—if not tonight, by letter—exactly how many Middle Eastern and Gulf countries have

119
stated that they agree to Israel's right to exist? They must also be made to stop terror. So it is left to our Government to work together with European states to help both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
But Europe must not try to balance America's bias. We should support and back those individuals within the ranks of both leaderships who have the courage and conviction to be generous and reasonable and to work towards a two-state solution. Europe is unique in having countries with different histories and, therefore, varying shades of opinion about the area. The pay-off for Europe's positive involvement would be the Mediterranean being encircled by a wondrous array of people living in peace who, together with Europe, could be mutually beneficial.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, which is extremely important. As all of your Lordships have said, it is extremely difficult to find a real solution. It appears that everyone is concerned with either the people who live in Israel or the lot of the Palestinians, which is terrible. But the truth is that most people are interested in and concerned about both.
The Question asks: what can the British Government do to try to help the peace process? Without the peace process there will never be a proper solution. The noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, touched on the point that, truthfully, our Government could persuade or use their influence to suggest to the Arab countries that they should recognise Israel's right to exist. If we are to look to a two-state solution, we cannot ask anyone to sit side by side with someone who is determined to get rid of him.
I say that because if we are to talk about history—although it does not teach us everything, it teaches us a fair bit—in 1948, within 48 hours of the state being declared, six Arab armies attacked that tiny democracy. Israel has had to fight for its very existence and life for years. Today we face the problem of the suicide bombers.
Many noble Lords talked about what Israel has achieved since 1948, and I do not want to waste time by repeating that. It has a thriving economy; it has universities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said, it has hospitals and schools and it looks after its people. Many people do not realise that since the early 1950s, Israel has absorbed between 600,000 and 700,000 Jewish refugees who were either turfed out of Arab countries or left of their own volition. Those refugees have been settled in Israel, have been accepted and have had a good life. In contrast, we see the horror of the Palestinian refugees who live in poverty.
No Arab country—and many are wealthy—has offered to take them in and house them. It seemed politically easier to leave them as a sore so that everyone could talk about how terrible is the lot of the Palestinian Arabs. It is, but the problem could be dealt with by those Arab countries if they wanted to do so.
120
I turn to the second area in which the Government could use their influence. They could suggest that the Arab leaders tell their own people the truth about the situation. After the awful events of 11th September, it is no good to hear that the problem was as a result of Israel. Such language is bad in the long-term interests of peace. Children in Arab schools are taught about the glory of being a suicide bomber and about the terrible things which the Israelis do. They are told that they are rapists, murderers and thieves. I am sure that many noble Lords who, like me, read the report in today's Daily Telegraph were as upset as I was to realise that people can make such remarks.
I do not want to say any more. I have mentioned two steps that our Government can take. I accept that people who have views different from mine also want peace, as do I. I believe that together we could all try to use our influence and ensure that that happens.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, want to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and congratulate him on making his maiden speech. He said many wise words. In particular, he pointed to the many parallels which can be drawn with the situation in Northern Ireland.
I also want to declare that I have an interest similar to that declared by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. My wife is also involved in the New Israel Fund. Many of us from the Jewish community feel passionately not only about Israel but also about what is happening in Palestine. We see the same pictures on our television screens. We see Palestinian children being killed and we hate and loathe it and we want it to stop.
I want to quote what President Clinton said yesterday in London when he gave the annual Dimbleby lecture. He said:
"Before I left office I recommended and Israel accepted, hut the PLO rejected, the most dramatic peace proposal for a comprehensive fair peace in the Middle East to give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. It would have protected Muslim and Palestinian religious and political equities on the Temple Mount, the Haram al-Sharif".
As noble Lords will recall, Chairman Arafat walked out of those negotiations. So although I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, my reluctant conclusion is that so long as Chairman Arafat is around, the peace process will remain a stalemate.
The question is: why did Arafat spurn a deal that offered him almost everything he had asked for? My opinion is that there really are two Yassir Arafats. The first Arafat speaks in English and addresses the West. He is statesmanlike. He talks of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in harmony side by side. That Arafat receives the Nobel prize for peace and is seen in the company of the great and the good all over the world.
But there is another Arafat. This one speaks in Arabic and speaks to his Arab constituency both in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. This Arafat is bellicose and talks not in terms of Israel retreating to

121
the 1967 borders but of a Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. This one entertains no state of Israel.
This Arafat allows his schools and his media to demonise Jews. He closes his eyes to terrorism and until yesterday had done little to rein in the suicide bombers. This Arafat runs his fiefdom like a Mafia boss: corrupt, nepotistic, autocratic and responsible to no one.
When Barak made his sensational offer this time last year, Arafat found himself on the horns of a dilemma. It was his moment of reckoning—both Arafats would have to mouth the same words. So what did he do? He upped and bolted.
In our lifetimes we have seen many men who, in their youths, were described as dangerous terrorists, but who, in middle age, matured into statesmen. Yesterday's freedom fighters emerged to become the fathers of their nations. The tragedy in this situation is that, whatever metamorphis effects such a transformation, in Yasser Arafat's case it never happened.
10 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this short debate has made the case for a longer debate in government time in this House on this extremely important problem. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am a glutton for punishment—I have been here for both debates today. In a sense, this is a continuation of the previous debate, in which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that the Arab/Israel conflict is as important a priority for the United States—and, indeed, for Western Europe—as is a settlement in Afghanistan. That is the degree of importance this crisis has for us. It has implications for the whole of the Middle East, for relations with Iraq and for the West, which depends on oil.
I agree strongly with those who have said that part of the tragedy of the situation is the declining quality of leadership on both sides. Arafat has clearly been there too long. He appears not to be personally corrupt, but many of his friends are clearly part of a very corrupt system. Sharon is not the best or most constructive Prime Minister that Israel could have, and, sadly, the divisions in Israeli politics and society are themselves an obstacle to peace. We have, therefore, severe problems.
The Israeli attempt to replace Arafat by force is a further mistake. If we find that Arafat has been replaced by Hamas, we will be in a worse situation than we are now. There has to be a legitimate authority with which the Israelis can deal. I was very distressed when I was talking to various representatives of Israel in the past week in an attempt to get some sense; I cannot find a constructive Israeli strategy at the moment. The only thing we have is retaliation for each act of terrorism or, as the Palestinians would put it, resistance.
We need to remind the current Israeli Government that European support for Israel was always based on the presupposition that Israel was a more open, liberal
122
society than its Arab opponents, and that its Government would continue to behave in a qualitatively more civilised fashion. That presupposition is now, to some extent, in jeopardy.
We have to address the question of the settlements. They are illegal; they were placed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to provoke; and, for the fundamentalists who occupy some of them, they are intended to occupy the land of Eretz Israel and eventually to drive the Palestinians out of the whole of the land of Israel. That is what it looks like to Palestinians. That is a part of what drives the politics of despair which fuel suicide bombers.
Israel has to tackle its own fundamentalists and its own inability to observe UN resolutions if it is to maintain any kind of policy towards peace. I was sorry to see in the Israeli Embassy briefing a reference to the Palestine Authority's failure to fulfil its commitments and undertakings because Israel, too, has failed to fulfil its commitments and undertakings, and to recognise UN resolutions.
I wish to make two more points. The United States is also a part of the problem. I was also in the United States two weeks ago, where I was shaken rigid by the number of congressmen who are now saying, "And Iraq comes next", and refusing to recognise that the Iraq and Israeli problems go together. I was even more shaken, as were a number of other European politicians who were there, to hear a Democratic congressman say, "You Europeans ought to learn more about Israel. I have been on a very well balanced tour of Israel and of Palestine, sponsored by AIPAC, which gave me a very thorough impression of what was there". That is part of the problem. The American political elite sees a different set of issues from those we see over here.
My last point, therefore, is what do Europeans do? What does Britain do as a European state? The answer has to be that we revive more active European involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, sketched out as a settlement. There was one occasion on which EU member governments, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he was the British Foreign Secretary, attempted in the Venice Declaration a European initiative in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Americans immediately protested and we backtracked.
A very substantial proportion of EU external assistance goes to the Palestinian Authority and to the others in the region. Part of what is now being bombed and destroyed has been paid for by the Europeans. What we have to see, I suggest, is a much more active European role if we are to avoid the situation deteriorating further.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for having initiated this debate. It has been most informative, with many diverse contributions.

123
This debate is as important in its way as the earlier one on the current situation in Afghanistan. These two geographically different areas are in today's global but shrunken world beset by so many similar problems. My Lords, why? And why are we discussing these two areas? The answer is surely terrorism. The chronic instability in both of these areas undermines vital Western economic interests and threatens world peace and security. The terrorist outrage on 11th September shocked the complacency of the West.
We on this side have been horrified and outraged by the recent bombings in Israel. Only last week 10 more innocent Israeli citizens were shot dead on a bus at a Jewish settlement. Our thoughts are with the families of those who have lost loved ones and with those people who every day fear for their security. Sadly, this is only the latest terrorist attack in the region.
In the light of this, it should come as no surprise to us that Israel has broken off all contact with Chairman Arafat. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in an admirable maiden speech. We welcome the swift action taken earlier this month by the United States to freeze the assets of three groups linked with funding Hamas. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups of their ilk are terrorists. They are not militants. Their only objective is to spread misery and human suffering. As President Bush has said, it is now time for those who want peace to rise up and fight terror. This fight must be conducted wherever incontrovertible evidence of terrorism exists.
It is difficult to be an optimist about the Middle East peace prospects. Windows of opportunity stay open for only a short time, until we settle down to the usual drift. But this does not absolve us from trying. In dealing with this problem we should take to heart Gramsci's credo, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will".
First, such is the resolve of the world against terrorism at this time that those who commit terrorist attacks only set back their cause. Secondly, there are structures in place through which peace can be achieved in the Middle East. Even though the situation today looks bleak and depressing, the only viable solution for both Israelis and Palestinians is to return to the negotiating table, keeping in mind the outline of the deal brokered at Camp David and Taba, and to implement the Tenant-Mitchell plans. It is from this basis that we must work.
In his proposals George Mitchell urges Israel and the Palestinians to "reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements"; calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; calls on Palestinians to crack down on terrorism; and calls on Israel to freeze all new construction of settlements.
In US Envoys Zinni and Burns we have two prominent diplomats to guide this process on the ground. Israel has signed peace treaties with two of its major neighbours—Egypt and Jordan. It has withdrawn its troops from the territories of a third neighbour, Lebanon. Most of the Arab world has expressed a desire to live in peace with Israel if it
124
resolves its dispute with two of its remaining neighbours—Syria and the Palestinians. Such a peace can be achieved only in line with international resolutions adopted by the Security Council.
The fresh outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, especially over the past few days, threatens to bring the area back to a dead end. That would be disastrous for Israelis, Arabs and the rest of the world. Yet a few facts remain constant and important for any future road map for peace in the Middle East.
The Palestinians and the Arab world will never be able to impose a solution on Israel by force. Israel is already a superpower in the region. The world community considers its existence and safety to be of vital concern. There can be no logical or moral ground for continued confrontation with Israel once peace is achieved. Equally, however, Israel, despite its military power, will never be able to resolve its dispute with the Palestinians (and Arabs) by force alone.
Peace in the Middle East is an important part of the jigsaw in the fight against terrorism. Yasser Arafat should continue to be pressed to act swiftly. All measures must be taken to pursue and apprehend those responsible for terrorism anywhere in the world.
I was reminded the other day by a colleague that Goethe wrote that God had sent mankind the Devil in order to stir him out of his accustomed sloth. Perhaps we shall look back on bin Laden as the devil from whose evil acts of terrorism good was able to come to the Middle East.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, like other speakers, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate. I was about to say that it is a timely debate, but the sad truth is that almost any debate on any day, in any year, in respect of the Middle East could be described as "timely". It would be wonderful if we could have a debate on the Middle East that did not respond to immediate points of crisis.
My job is to respond to 15 speeches, to summarise some of the problems of the Middle East and to point the way forward, and in only 12 minutes—which will take a bit of doing. By way of a brief summary to begin with, this has been a moving debate, given the number of different perspectives that speakers have brought to it—nearly all of them in one form or another calling for a return to the negotiating table and passionately wanting peace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, in many ways this debate is as important as our earlier debate on Afghanistan. It certainly relates to a problem which the international community has found even more intractable and long-standing.
Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I find it odd to be describing him as making his maiden speech, having heard him, as he has heard me, on numerous occasions in the other place. As ever, he brings knowledge, expertise and fluency to this subject, as he has done to so many others.

125
The Government are greatly concerned by the cycle of violence in the region and the tragic deaths on both sides. It is tragic to reflect on the phenomenal optimism which existed at the time of the Oslo accords just eight years ago and the frightening degree to which it seems to have dissipated.
We condemned the appalling suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa and we shared the outrage felt in Israel at these and other recent atrocities—which were referred to specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. As my noble friend Lady Symons said when she repeated a Statement in this House on 5th December, such attacks,
"have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives".—[Official Report, 5/12/01; col. 889.]
These attacks must stop. They hinder the recognition of legitimate Palestinian aspirations. They are self-defeating.
At the same time, Palestinians are suffering fear, injury and death as a result of Israeli actions. We were shocked by the deaths of two young children in an Israeli attempted assassination on 10th December. Too often children and innocent bystanders have been killed and injured in this conflict. My noble friend Lord Mitchell put it eloquently when he said that we hate it; we loathe it; we want it to stop. It is clear that the cycle of violence benefits no one. It is time for action on both sides to end it.
Both parties have responsibility to break the current impasse, to end the violence and to resume substantive dialogue immediately. We made it clear to President Arafat that he must now deliver on his promises to detain terrorist suspects and to remove the threat that terrorists pose to the stability of the region. It hardly needs emphasising that terrorist violence will not help to secure a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, President Arafat called the Jerusalem and Haifa suicide bombings an attack on the Palestinians. Your Lordships will know that yesterday he called publicly for all terrorist operations to end. We very much welcome and support him in that appeal, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Wright of Richmond.
President Arafat should also take immediate steps to end the incitement that sours the atmosphere still further. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to President Arafat on 5th December and reinforced the message that he must act quickly and take the first step.
Of course, the Israelis also have responsibilities. We recognise that they are entitled to ensure their security, but their actions must be restrained and proportionate to the threat. The Israelis must recognise that peace can be secured only by negotiation. The only figure with whom Israel can negotiate peace is President Arafat. He is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and it serves no one's interests to undermine his position. We therefore reject any description of the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist entity. Some of those points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond.
126
There is a recognised route back to the negotiating table, which we and our European Union partners support. Despite the setbacks of recent weeks, it remains the best option. Both parties have accepted the recommendations of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell committee report. They should be implemented without delay. My noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath emphasised the importance of a moderate opinion in all these negotiations.
The Tenet plan outlines a timetable for parallel action by the parties to end the violence, resume security co-operation and implement confidence-building measures. The Mitchell report charts a way out of the violence. It includes the Palestinian Authority making a 100 per cent effort to prevent terrorist operations and discouraging incitement. It also calls on Israel to freeze all settlement activity, lift closures and end the destruction of Palestinian property. Ultimately peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, to implement land for peace, deliver security for Israel within recognised borders—a point emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—bring an end to occupation and allow the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. That was restated as recently as today in the Statement on the summit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place.
Resolution of the conflict may seem a long way off. Not surprisingly the mood was sombre in a number of the contributions of noble Lords. I emphasise that the Government are fully engaged with the United States and our European Union partners in diplomatic efforts to move the peace process forward. The general affairs council decided to send EU High Representative Solana to the region on 10th December. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the importance of European involvement. Mr Solana reported back to the Laeken European Council on 14th December. The statement from that council is well worth reading. It is a reaffirmation of the package approach, calling on the Palestinians to deliver on their commitments to end violence and to make arrests, and on Israel to cease actions such as the attacks on Palestinian infrastructure that undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to deliver.
Our efforts run in parallel with those of the US envoys General Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State Burns to secure a ceasefire. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, peace is a two-way process.
A number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris, have stressed the importance of encouraging the United States to continue its engagement in the region. We welcome the recent comments of President Bush, recognising President Arafat as the elected representative of the Palestinians. The Government will remain in close contact with all the players in the peace process.
We have also taken our own action against Palestinian terrorism. We took action to freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation on

127
6th December—an organisation suspected of funding Hamas. We will consider any further evidence presented to us by other governments about organisations supporting terrorists and will take action where appropriate.
We, the US and our EU partners believe that third party monitors could help overcome obstacles to the implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations. That point was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. For monitors to be successful, both parties would have to agree to their presence.
We are under no illusion about the enormously difficult issues that need to be resolved in negotiations, but the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also made important contributions concerning the importance of small steps in the right direction and small confidence-building measures. I re-emphasise that we have repeatedly called for a freeze on Israeli activity in the occupied territories, including natural growth, under the terms of the Mitchell report. The noble Lords, Lord Gilmour, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all stressed the importance of that. I remind the House of my earlier comment that the Mitchell report has been accepted by both parties. We have said that settlements are illegal under international law and are a real obstacle to peace.
We also recognise that Israeli closures in the occupied territories cause severe economic hardship and unemployment, which can only fuel hatred and violence and make a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve. We have repeatedly raised our concerns to the Israeli Government on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. We did so again with our EU partners at the EU-Israel Association council on 20th November in Brussels. We have also called on Israel to end its policy of incursions and assassinations. Assassinations are illegal under international law and serve to provoke tension on the ground, which, I am sure that we all agree, is not in Israel's long-term interests. Under the terms of the Tenet plan, Israel is required to end proactive security operations in the Palestinian Authority.
128
I said earlier that there were a number of issues to be discussed in final status negotiations, leading to a settlement that allows the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and provides security for Israel. Those are obviously the two pillars of any solution. The issues still to be resolved are many, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees and the questions of borders and natural resources.
This has been a sombre and serious debate, as befits the deadly seriousness of the issues that we have been discussing. Whenever I find myself listening to or participating in such debates, I think that in our domestic politics we use words such as "emergency" or "crisis" rather too easily, compared with the difficulties encountered by people trying to solve the problems of violence in the Middle East. The Palestinian and Israeli people have suffered from violence and fear for far too long. Sooner or later they must return to the negotiating table. That is the only means of creating peace in the region and ending the terrible violence that blights lives but guarantees that generation after generation will grow up with a sense and feeling of hatred.
During Prime Minister's Question Time in another place last week, my right honourable friend said that,
"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".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/2001; col. 831.]
We can find a way of bringing peace to the region. We will continue to work with the US and our European Union partners to bring the peace that the people of the region so desperately need.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

CORRECTION
Due to a printers' error, the speech of the Lord MacKenzie of Culkein at col. 1509 on 13 December should have continued: "The noble Lord. Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to that legislation and its run-up …"; instead, the Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts is wrongly shown as making a speech.
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers
  Sri Lankan Asylum Seekers
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Red Diesel
  Red Diesel
  Single-parent Families
  Single-parent Families
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Consolidated Fund Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Consolidated Fund Bill: Human Rights Act Statement
  Armed Forces Aircrew Retention
  Armed Forces Aircrew Retention
  European Union
  European Union
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Railtrack
  Railtrack
  Local Authority Contracts
  Local Authority Contracts
  Council Tax
  Council Tax
  Business Tenancies
  Business Tenancies
  Channel Tunnel: Rail Freight Facilities
  Channel Tunnel: Rail Freight Facilities
  London Underground
  London Underground
  Infrastructure Projects
  Infrastructure Projects
  National Tree Week
  National Tree Week
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughter Policy
  Foot and Mouth: Slaughter Policy
  Foot and Mouth Restrictions
  Foot and Mouth Restrictions
  Environmental Management Systems
  Environmental Management Systems
  Defra Logo
  Defra Logo
  Norwegian Salmon
  Norwegian Salmon
  Refrigerators: Disposal
  Refrigerators: Disposal
  Countryside Stewardship Payments
  Countryside Stewardship Payments
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency
  Fisheries: Economic Link
  Fisheries: Economic Link
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Group
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Group
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD
  Haemophilia Patients: vCJD
  Health Expenditure and GDP
  Health Expenditure and GDP
  Breast Cancer
  Breast Cancer
  Podiatry Services
  Podiatry Services
  Nurses from Abroad: UKCC Registration
  Nurses from Abroad: UKCC Registration
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  Embryonic Stem Cell Research
  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Sports Tourism
  Sports Tourism
  BBC3 Television Service
  BBC3 Television Service
  Hospitality Industry: Work/Life Balance
  Hospitality Industry: Work/Life Balance
  Tourism: Impact of Terrorist Attacks
  Tourism: Impact of Terrorist Attacks
  Lottery Funds: Isle of Gigha
  Lottery Funds: Isle of Gigha
  DCMS: Freedom of Information Act
  DCMS: Freedom of Information Act
  Osborne House
  Osborne House
  Individual Learning Accounts
  Individual Learning Accounts
  Investors in People
  Investors in People
  DfES: Education Initiatives
  DfES: Education Initiatives
  DfES: Staffing
  DfES: Staffing
  Education Budget
  Education Budget
  Citizenship, Parenting and Relationship Education
  Citizenship, Parenting and Relationship Education
  Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates
  Equality of Treatment: Election Candidates