Sitting of 18 December 2001

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Cable Companies (Road Disruption)
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to minimise the disruption to road users by cable companies. [21556]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(Ms Sally Keeble): We are taking various measures to reduce unnecessary disruption from works carried out by utilities, including cable companies. Since April this year local authorities can charge utilities when their works overrun an agreed deadline. We are also launching pilot schemes early in the new year in Camden and Middlesbrough under which utilities will have to pay lane rental, which is a daily charge each time they dig up the roads.
    Ms Drown: I thank the Minister for that reply and I appreciate that the fine and charging system will give an incentive to companies to stop dilly-dallying while they are on the roads. However, it will not stop the farcical situation that we have seen in Swindon and elsewhere in which one cable company digs up the roads, causing major disruption, and finishes, only for another company to start again 10 days later. Will the Minister agree to meet me and local government representatives to discuss how to insist on co-operation between companies, so that road disruption is minimised for our constituents?
    Ms Keeble: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and her local authority representatives to take up the problems that she has had with cable companies and their works in Swindon, which she has highlighted repeatedly. Local authorities already have a duty under the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 to co-ordinate their street
    130
    works, and the Government recognise the real problems caused by repeated digging up of the roads. Our proposals are intended exactly to address that problem.
    Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) is right to raise that important point about street works. In fact, I had just commented to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench that Constitution hill seems to be being dug up for the third time this year. While we would welcome the institution of charges on cable companies or anybody else who decides to dig up the roads, does the Minister agree that under current rules nothing would prevent the companies from forwarding those charges on to their customers? Therefore, it would be no penalty and it would be the poor customers who would suffer. Will she consider changing the rules so that the penalties are real penalties for the companies, not for those using the companies' services?
    Ms Keeble: At present, the main mechanism that local authorities use is charging for overrunning the deadline—109 local authorities opt for that method. The pilot schemes have not started yet and we will have to see how they work. Even if the lane rental scheme were introduced nationally immediately, the estimated cost across the country would be £109 million or more, and the regulator would wish to consider that. We also must consider the £2.5 billion—a much bigger sum—that congestion problems caused by street works cost the country.
    John Cryer: Such activities by utility and cable companies cause chaos in my constituency, in the borough that I represent and across London. One has only to drive into London to see that happening, day in and day out. I welcome the system of charging that the Government have introduced, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said—the problem is that one company digging up the street is followed by another and then another. We need new powers so that local authorities can say to those companies, "No, you cannot dig up that section of street." Is there any possibility that the Government could introduce such powers?
    Ms Keeble: Under the 1991 Act, local authorities already have a duty to co-ordinate street works and we have issued best practice guidelines to encourage that to happen. It is a real issue, and the charging scheme to be introduced in Camden and Middlesbrough will help to ensure that utilities are more economic in the way in which they dig up the roads.

    Cambrian Coast Line
    Hywel Williams: If he will make a statement on future investment on the Cambrian coast line. [21557]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): The Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will set out its plans for investment across the network to deliver the key rail targets in the 10-year plan. The strategic plan will be published on 14 January.
    Hywel Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply. I suspected that he might refer to the SRA. Can he assure

    131
    me that spending on the Cambrian line is not being held back by priority being given to spending on other parts of the rail network?
    Mr. Jamieson: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration and many of my hon. Friends have made representations to me on that important matter. The project was put on hold by Railtrack, before it went into administration. I know that the case for the importance of the line to the local economy and the university at Aberystwyth has been made very strongly. He will be aware that one of the reasons for the delay was the shortage of skilled signalling designers. To tackle that problem, the SRA is considering establishing a national rail academy to cover a wide range of training needs. I assure him that the scheme that he has in mind will be given due priority in the plans that we have afoot.
    Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is responsible for regional airport development, so what plans does he have to ensure that the Welsh rail network, including the Cambrian line, is linked directly to Cardiff international airport by a spur from the Vale of Glamorgan coastal line? That line will open to passengers next year.
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend raises an important matter in connection with integrated transport, and I assure him that that is the type of issue that the SRA will consider in due course.

    Integrated Transport Network
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing his integrated transport network. [21558]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): We are making good progress in implementing our integrated transport strategy, through our 10-year plan for transport. We are already delivering: for example, £8.4 billion is pledged over five years to fund local transport plans, nine light rail lines are under development, and we have our targeted programme of road improvements to the trunk road network. There will be much more to follow.
    Mr. Swayne: The 10-year plan calls for £34 billion for the rail network alone from private sources. How will the Minister guarantee that, given that the plug was pulled on Railtrack despite its ambitious investment record and plans?
    Mr. Spellar: Unfortunately, Railtrack's investment record is that it bid £2.3 billion for the west coast main line and its cost overruns now amount to some £7 billion. Such a record might not give the necessary level of confidence. The hon. Gentleman will also know of the channel tunnel rail link, which is an enormously successful programme that is running to time and to budget. I initiated work on the second phase only a couple of months ago. To take that work forward, the Department is therefore looking at special purpose vehicles. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were
    132
    recently out in east London to see the work being done on the east London line. The real progress being made with transport suggests real confidence in the future.
    David Wright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that high-performing rail companies are central to a good integrated service? Is he aware that Central Trains, Wales and West Passenger Trains and the company serving the borders are failing to collect fares even on peak-time services, even though they complain about under-investment? Is not it time that they got their house in order?
    Mr. Spellar: The new chairman of the SRA is looking fairly closely at the management of train operating companies across the network. We look forward to his strategic plan, which will be launched on 14 January.
    Chris Grayling: The Government's 10-year plan for transport will depend heavily on the successful completion of the rail franchising process. Why is the process so delayed, and when is it likely to be completed?
    Mr. Spellar: The announcement on the franchising process will be made very soon. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long, and I am sure that he will welcome the announcement when it is made.
    Mr. David Clelland: Will the plans include proposals to help relieve congestion on the Gateshead western bypass? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government office of the north-east recently announced proposals that revived the prospect of a bypass to the bypass—a proposal rejected under the previous Government, after a huge protest from local people, MPs and the council? Millions of pounds of public money were wasted when properties that had been bought had to be sold back to the sellers, or sold on. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter urgently, and make it clear that the proposal will not receive the Government's support?
    Mr. Spellar: I certainly undertake to look at the matter, and to take into account my hon. Friend's remarks, as well as the views of the local authorities involved, and of the local passenger transport executive.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: To return to the railways part of the 10-year plan, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there are two principal lessons to be learned from Railtrack's interim profits, announced today? First, it is inconceivable that the chairman of Railtrack could have told him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the company was insolvent. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has rightly pointed out, the level of investment in the railways has been £3 billion a year under Railtrack, while under British Rail it was just £750 million. Can the Minister give a better explanation than he gave my hon. Friend about where the bulk of the future investment will come from, given that it came from the private sector before? Will it involve a cut in railway

    133
    investment or will there be a guarantee from the Treasury? Or, as is more likely, is the Government's indecisiveness still final?
    Mr. Spellar: It was a guarantee from the Treasury—or, rather, the Government—that Railtrack was seeking. The hon. Gentleman must explain why Railtrack was, as it has admitted, asking for relief from the Rail Regulator or, at another stage, saying that it might have wanted to go to the regulator, in both cases because it claimed that it needed extra funding. Although he is right to draw attention to the paper profit made by Railtrack and announced today, it is surprising that he did not also draw attention to the £2 billion extra in debt carried by the company during the past year. He must also explain why, if Railtrack believed that its position was so sound, it did not, even though it was present in court, contest the petition that we put and which the judge decided required a declaration of insolvency and for the company to be put into administration.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What representations he has received from passengers and passenger organisations regarding his decision to put Railtrack into receivership. [21559]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): I have met passenger representatives several times since the High Court granted the order placing Railtrack plc into administration. They have reacted positively to the Government's decision not to provide additional funding to Railtrack plc. They agree that Railtrack plc's role as network operator should be transferred as soon as possible to a robust successor company capable of delivering the quality of service that rail passengers need and have wanted for years.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taxpayer is aware that from time to time Railtrack has come to the Government with a begging bowl? Does he also agree that rail passengers will be astounded to learn that in the first six months of this year, Railtrack made a larger profit than it did last year?
    Mr. Byers: The information that has been disclosed today by Railtrack shows the difficulty that Railtrack plc had. Effectively, it was trying to serve two masters: it had the desire to meet the needs of shareholders as well as a responsibility to the travelling public. In the end, whenever there was a conflict between the demands of shareholders and the travelling public, Railtrack, as a publicly quoted company, always came down on the side of its shareholders. There is no surprise in that—that was its legal obligation, and the directors had no alternative. However, that highlights the difficulties and contradiction at the heart of Railtrack plc.
    There should be no surprise at the profits announced today. That does not affect the view that we took, endorsed by the High Court on 7 October, that Railtrack
    134
    Plc—the body in administration, not the separate company, Railtrack Group, which has declared profits today—should go into administration.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State tell us his estimated budget in advisory fees and capital injection to get a company limited by guarantee, a not-for-profit company, off the ground? It is about time the House was told what the budget is; I think that a very large sum will be needed for such a proposal.
    Mr. Byers: We have made the position clear in terms of the financial commitment that we will give to ensure that the needs of the rail passengers are put first. I welcome the fact that the SRA is acting as sponsor for the bid team which is headed by Ian McAllister. That is good news, because it will ensure that a robust proposition is put to the administrator. The Conservative party would of course have done nothing.
    I was interested to note that, as a result of the current debate about the future of railways, an informative and thoughtful article was published in the Financial Times on 12 December. It made a clear statement:
    "An early return to the private sector is the best option for the traveller as well as for the taxpayer."
    That was written by the real shadow transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Does the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) support that approach?
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I was interested in my right hon. Friend's last answer. May I go on from that to suggest that we look at continental railway systems, which are much more successful than ours—indeed, light years ahead? Those systems are generally state owned, coherent and integrated with other forms of transport.
    Mr. Byers: As a result of the decisive action that we took on Railtrack, a number of opportunities and options that were not previously available are now accessible. The approach adopted in some continental railway systems—where there is a far greater degree of integration than we see in the United Kingdom—is something on which we shall need to reflect. Ultimately, it will be for the administrator to make a recommendation for my approval in relation to the transfer of the company. I hope that the Tories will come off the fence at some stage, and will say—the hon. Member for Maidenhead now has an opportunity to do so—whether they will privatise Railtrack and put it back into the private sector, as recommended by her right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Will she tell the House today?
    Mrs. Theresa May: Before the Secretary of State decided to put Railtrack into administration, did he ask the company for its expected interim results?
    Mr. Byers: As the hon. Lady will know, we petitioned the High Court based on the information available to us. The most important point was that the company came to the Government asking for more money. That was the situation.
    Mrs. May: It is quite obvious from that reply that the answer to my question is no. The Secretary of State was

    135
    preparing to go to court to put Railtrack into administration and he could not even be bothered to find out whether it was making a profit. Does he still think that a company with increased profits is one facing "financial meltdown"? It is now clear that the £1.7 billion deficit that he claims that the company faced was in fact an increase in private sector lending. Did not he realise that, far from being a deficit, that was money for investment in projects such as the west coast main line? Will he tell the House how much of that investment now has to be paid by the taxpayer? Will he answer the question: how much capital will the Government be injecting to set up the not- for-profit company that he wants to see taking over from Railtrack? With train delays up 45 per cent. since administration, with shareholders threatening to sue the Government, with Railtrack threatening to sue the Government—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has asked the questions. Now, she must have an answer.
    Mr. Byers: Let us get some facts out into the open. Railtrack had a £1 billion credit facility on which the banks would not let it draw down. Why? Because they knew Railtrack's financial situation. A company that came to the Government with a begging bowl paid out £88 million in dividends to shareholders at the beginning of October. Our evidence to the High Court—of the £700 million deficit in December and a £1.7 billion deficit in March next year—was not challenged or contradicted by Railtrack. Railtrack's representatives were in court. Railtrack had counsel in court, but they sat like Trappist monks and did not say a word. Even more important, the company waived its right to have two days' notice of the petition. It could have delayed the proceedings until Wednesday of that week, but failed to do so. The company knew the situation; it knew its financial situation. Let us be clear on this point: the Tory party and Railtrack directors say that because I refused to bail them out in October—because I am refusing to give £1 billion of taxpayers' money—I am abusing my position. I have used my power as Secretary of State to put taxpayers and rail passengers first and will continue to do so.

    Cyclists
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the level of accidents involving cyclists without lights on their bikes over the past five years. [21561]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): We do not record the number of accidents involving cyclists without lights. However, it is an offence to use a pedal cycle on the road without lights between sunset and sunrise, or in conditions of reduced visibility.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I hope that, from now on, we will keep statistics on the injuries and deaths that occur where the lack of lights was a contributory factor to the accident. Does the Minister understand that, although riding without lights is an offence, it is not enforced by the police or other agencies? Will he consider taking an early legislative opportunity to create a civil offence, whereby
    136
    a bike can be impounded and only returned to the owner on payment of a fixed-penalty fine to abate what must be the very considerable number of deaths caused by a lack of lights, as well as the trauma and anxiety caused to the diligent motorists who cannot see the offending cyclists? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) have a complaint?
    Mrs. May: No.
    Mr. Jamieson: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), which he raises with his usual vigour. People who ride bicycles in the dark without lights put themselves and others, particularly pedestrians, at risk. He may be interested to know that, last year, there were 21,000 accidents involving cycles, although the trend is generally downwards. A fifth of those accidents occurred in the dark and 34 involved fatalities. I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be born in mind if a legislative opportunity arises. Information is not currently collected on whether cyclists involved in accidents have lights, but a review team is currently considering this issue, and I shall ensure that the important matter that he raises is drawn to the team's attention.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I tell the Minister of a very sad case in my constituency, where a young man died this summer while delivering papers, when he was knocked over while cycling? Clearly, we send our condolences to his parents this Christmas, as they will feel the effects deeply. Will the Minister pay tribute to one of our local bobbies, PC Twentyman, who, since then, has tried to ensure that all young people have access to crash helmets while riding their bikes on their paper rounds? In the context of the review that the Minister has just announced, are the Government considering whether people should be required to wear helmets while riding bicycles on the public highway?
    Mr. Jamieson: First, I ask the hon. Lady to convey my condolences to her constituents—I know how terrible such events are. She will be aware that schools run many programmes to give such advice to children, and I hope that such events will spur the local schools to refresh that advice. I hope also that the newsagents and others who employ children—particularly, those who work in the early mornings and in the evenings in the dark—will also be mindful as to whether those children wear helmets, carry reflective bags or have the appropriate lights on their bicycles. We have certainly considered making helmets compulsory—the issue has been mentioned to us a number of times—but people, particularly parents, need to be mindful of the dangers to children and of the fact that helmets can assist considerably in lessening that risk. I am sure that the hon. Lady's suggestion will be borne in mind if a legislative opportunity arises.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Clive Soley: If he will make a statement on the reform of local government. [21562]
    The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers): Last Tuesday, the Government published their White Paper on local government, setting out a radical programme of reform and modernisation based on new freedoms and greater accountability. In addition, I can inform the House that, in the light of representations received from some hon. Members and some shire districts as part of the on-going consultation on the 2002–03 financial settlement, I shall introduce an alternative baseline for 2001–02, which, in effect, adjusts only for the transfers of service for which shire districts are responsible. In order to guarantee a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for shire districts, I will give each district whichever increase is greater—2.3 per cent. on the original baseline, or 2.3 per cent. on the alternative. I believe that that will meet their concerns.
    Mr. Soley: I very much welcome that reply, but I urge my right hon. Friend to keep going with the reform of local government. Many people in all parties want local authorities to be returned the power and responsibility that was whittled away in the 1980s and 1990s. We must return that power and responsibility to locally elected people. As we do that, will my right hon. Friend consider giving more financial power to local authorities which must, at the same time, be held responsible by the electorate? I know of no better way of ensuring greater interest in local democracy than by linking financial responsibility with accountability to the electorate for how the money is spent.
    Mr. Byers: I strongly endorse the principles that underpin my hon. Friend's comments. That is why we have always stressed that the White Paper that we published last week is about modernisation and reform. It is also, however, about greater freedoms based on accountability, which must be at the heart of effective local government.
    When we published the White Paper, I tried to make it clear that it represented a change in direction in terms of central and local government relations. The interface between local authorities and central Government is never easy, but we must accept that we in this place and the Government do not have to control everything and that we have to believe in the strengths of local democracy. That is why we want to give new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. The White Paper outlines how we can do precisely that.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: In the Secretary of State's attempt to decentralise power from the centre to local government, will he guarantee that the future of county councils is safe in his hands?
    Mr. Byers: Yes. The Government have no intention of proposing the imposition of the abolition of county councils. I can give that assurance.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals for the reform of local government finance have been welcomed in my constituency? They are certainly more welcome than the actions of the Conservative Government in the 1990s which led to an unfair and inequitable system of distribution. However, will he ensure that when he
    138
    implements the proposals, the transitional arrangements do not adversely affect those councils—particularly my county council—that are at the bottom of the heap for funding? I am sure that he will agree that we do not want to wait another 10 years to have an equitable distribution of the funding.
    Mr. Byers: I am aware that Cambridgeshire county council has, for a long period, argued for a change in the regime by which we allocate funding to local authorities. It will welcome the fact that we will abolish the standard spending assessment that bears no relation whatever to the levels of services provided or to the needs of a local authority. It was, of course, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government and it affects Conservative-controlled county councils and many other local authorities.
    We shall see the end of the standard spending assessment regime and, instead, we shall have a system of distribution based on needs and the levels of services provided. There will be dramatic changes as a result of that, and it is only right and proper that we have a system of transitional arrangements to make sure that we do not adversely affect the provision of services and to ensure that those areas, such as Cambridgeshire, that may benefit will receive the benefit of the changes as soon as we can possibly introduce them.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Last year, three quarters of local authorities spent above their SSA for social services, with a total overspend of £183 million. Based on this year's financial settlement, local government bodies are already saying that the overspend could be nearly £1 billion. No amount of tinkering with local government reform will substitute for the proper funding of local authorities to provide the necessary level of social services to the old, vulnerable and weakest in their societies. Does not the Secretary of State have any shame that his Government are presiding over the near collapse of social services, over bed blocking on a massively debilitating scale and over a cruel and insulting level of services for elderly people?
    Mr. Byers: Well, this is the party that introduced the poll tax into local government and that decimated council services year after year by cutting spending. This is the party that, when electors voted for Labour councils, abolished those councils because it could not tolerate real local democracy.
    The reality is that this settlement gives 6.4 per cent. to personal social services, which is way above the rate of inflation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is providing an extra £200 million specifically to deal with bed blocking in the national health service, from which many local authorities will benefit. That is what the Government are doing, and we will continue to deliver good services, whether it be for the elderly or children at risk who know that for too long they have been denied the level of service that should be theirs. This Government are delivering. The people out there know that we believe in local democracy and local government, which is why we are providing the resources to ensure that services are delivered at last to those in greatest need.

    Local Government Allocation (Deprivation)
    Richard Burden: What assessment his Department has made of the need for a deprivation factor in the formula used to distribute central Government finance to local authorities. [21563]
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Deprivation indicators are included in a number of the standard spending assessment formulae used to distribute grant to local authorities. For example, the education formula includes indicators of lone parents and income support. However, we do not believe that the SSA system adequately reflects needs. That is why we introduced the neighbourhood renewal fund, from which Birmingham has received £11 million in the current financial year. It is also why we are currently reviewing the grant distribution formulae, with a view to creating a fairer system in which, among other considerations, deprivation is properly reflected. The work is still in its early stages, and we have not yet reached any conclusions.
    Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. An accurate reflection of deprivation is obviously important to ensure that local authorities receive a fair allocation. However, does he agree that all too often the problem is that deprivation is assessed across broad areas, which averages those areas out? Pockets of deprivation may exist alongside areas of relative affluence and often do not get the attention that they deserve. Does he also agree that there are two solutions? The first is for the formula to reflect local circumstances much more exactly. The second is to ensure that local authorities, especially larger bodies, devolve their management so that local circumstances are adequately reflected. Further, does he welcome the moves that Birmingham recently made to achieve such devolution?
    Mr. Raynsford: There are three points to make. The first is that our review of the grant distribution formulae for local government should help to ensure that we pay proper regard to deprivation as part of the general process of allocating funds to local government. Secondly, our neighbourhood renewal programme has been geared towards ensuring that additional funding helps the most deprived areas. My hon. Friend knows that Birmingham qualifies as one of the 88 authorities that are in that programme. The third point is that it is important to consider initiatives that help to establish more effective responses to particular communities. In proposing a framework to devolve more say to local areas, Birmingham city council is developing an interesting initiative that will be considered by many other authorities. I suspect that a great deal will be learned from that valuable experiment.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: As part of the review, will the Minister consider pockets of rural deprivation, in particular in those parts of North Yorkshire that have suffered from a dreadful downturn in the agricultural economy? Does he accept that there is social exclusion in areas that do not have an advanced network of public transport, and that factors of rurality and sparsity of population should be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Raynsford: The answer is yes: there are pockets of deprivation in rural as well as urban areas, and factors
    140
    that lead to deprivation and social exclusion apply in rural areas, although they are different from those in urban areas. Our review will attempt to take a fair view across the country and take account of the factors that apply to rural areas as well as those that are specific to urban areas.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the taskforce report on the disturbances in Burnley in June this year identified that deprivation and housing were the two biggest factors? Does he recognise that the report also states that although Burnley has inner-city problems, it is a shire district council and does not have the finance to tackle the problems that it faces, and that it needs Government help urgently?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the particular needs of his community in Burnley. He will know that, having visited the area a year or so ago, I am familiar with the problems that he mentioned, including the housing problems. He may be interested to know that I have just come from a round table discussion at the Local Government Association which looked specifically at the lessons to be learned from the reports on the disturbances in Burnley and other cities. We take those reports very seriously indeed, and we want to ensure that we learn from the conclusions, to help authorities such as Burnley respond more effectively to the serious challenges that they face.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On the subject of housing, which featured in the Minister's reply, does he accept that some Government policies are making it very difficult for those on low incomes to rent property, particularly in affluent areas that traditionally have high rents? Even in affluent areas, there are people on low incomes. Does he agree that there is a problem, and will he turn his considerable energies to doing something about it?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that I am now responsible for local government, and my noble Friend Lord Falconer is responsible for housing, along with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Having said that, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we take very seriously issues of need, and the Government have been putting substantial additional investment into the provision of affordable housing in many areas, including his own. We are committed to expanding opportunities for people who currently have difficulty in securing housing, after years and years in which the housing budget was remorselessly cut by the party that he represents in the House.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister accept that the experience of deprivation in a number of areas is not properly reflected in their financing? For example, Slough is in the top 10 areas in the country for deaths from heart attacks and in the top 20 local authorities for ethnic minority populations, but that is not reflected in the resources that we get. Can he please consider those authorities where there seems to be a mismatch between need and resource, to see whether the sums are being done correctly?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the perception of almost every Member of the House is that

    141
    the current funding system does not adequately meet the needs of their local authority. We therefore face an obvious difficulty in conducting reform because it will not be possible to satisfy everyone. We want to review the arrangements to ensure that the formulae reflect, as accurately and comprehensibly as possible, the needs that most people would want them to reflect.
    There is a tension, however, between fairness and simplicity, and if one tries to take into account too many factors in order to create a fairer system, there is a risk that one will end up with a system that is opaque and incomprehensible, and no one will know how it works. That is the situation that we got into with the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. We know that we can do better, and our review will seek to improve on that system.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Despite what the Secretary of State said a moment ago, does not last week's announcement on the change in the local government finance formula amount to a huge centralisation by Government over local authorities? Or is it a new departmental policy of endorsing failure—a reward for the failure to run a proper railways policy, a reward for the failure to sort out the muddle in the tube and, above all, a reward for failing Labour councils? Or is it just the Secretary of State himself who is failing?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to say that the test of the electorate shows that the Conservative party has failed—twice running. Last week, we announced that we are giving local government a generous settlement, with real-terms increases, guaranteeing increases between two and three times the rate of inflation for all education and social services authorities, and with a minimum 2.3 per cent. increase for all authorities.
    That should be contrasted with the experience of the years in which the Conservative party was in government, when local government faced real-terms cuts in its allocations year after year. There has been a sea change under this Government—we are offering freedom, more money, greater responsibility and greater opportunity to local government, and local government knows which party has its interests at heart.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. David Crausby: If he will make a statement on his policy on traffic speed cameras. [21564]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Correctly deployed speed enforcement cameras reduce road deaths and serious injuries. A successful trial of a new funding system for cameras is now available nationally. To improve effectiveness and fairness, I announced on 3 December new conspicuity, visibility and signing rules for cameras placed in areas that are participating in the netting-off scheme.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say something about the public perception that the siting of those cameras is far too often motivated by revenue collection rather than road safety?
    Mr. Spellar: That is precisely why we announced that we want much greater visibility of those cameras and why
    142
    we suggested that in most cases yellow is the preferred colour for them. We require them not to be sited behind trees or signs because the purpose is not to collect revenue but to change behaviour to deal with accident-prone stretches of road. In areas with cameras we are already seeing success; we now want to roll the programme out across the country and collect fewer fines because people are reducing their speed, thus reducing the number of accidents.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that there is a particular problem with drivers in 20 mph-zones? Why are police forces throughout the country extremely reluctant to use speed cameras in those zones?
    Mr. Spellar: That is something that the hon. Gentleman needs to take up with the Home Office, which is responsible for police forces. We are creating a system whereby they can put in cameras, then apply for money to pay for them so that they can become operational. With that money come the visibility conditions that I have described. He needs to take the matter up with his local police authority and chief constable. At the same time, it would be useful if the Norfolk constabulary repainted its cameras in a more visible colour; I think that he is already dealing with that.
    Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that traffic regulations are meant to be complied with—especially speed limits, which save lives? Will he try to make sure that firm guidelines and opportunities are offered to local authorities and police so that cameras are used to ensure compliance with traffic regulations like bus lanes, bus gates and public transport priorities, which the police are often reluctant to enforce at all?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend. The schemes that I have described are based on local authorities and police working in partnership. We are also piloting schemes in the London area, looking at the enforcement of bus lanes. They must be applied with discretion because, obviously, a vehicle parked in them at the height of the rush hour is far more of a problem than one whose driver has temporarily stopped to pop to the shops mid-morning. Discretion is therefore needed so that traffic can flow but motorists are not persecuted.
    My hon. Friend is right; we need to look across the board. Although we have the safest roads in Europe, along with Sweden, we can still do better; we are already making progress and intend to make more.
    Angus Robertson: The Minister will be aware that officials have argued that speed cameras cannot effectively differentiate between Scottish European number plates. Will he confirm that that and all other arguments against Scottish European number plates are bogus, and that the Government are about to reverse their decision on them? Will he take the opportunity to

    143
    apologise to Scottish motorists for threatening fines for displaying our national flag on our national number plates?
    Mr. Spellar: The matter has been raised with me by Members of Parliament from all parts of the United Kingdom. We have been reviewing it and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Home Office local campaigns such as those in Mawdesley and other areas in the Chorley constituency, where residents want speed cameras to be introduced to reduce speed, and use his good offices to ensure that those voices are listened to?
    Mr. Spellar: Such representations should be addressed to the local partnership between the local authority—which, in my hon. Friend's case, I assume is Lancashire county council—and the Lancashire police. I hope that his representations will be taken seriously in the interests of his constituents, whom he always represents so assiduously.

    Rail Safety
    John Barrett: If he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of recommendations made on rail safety by recent reports from the Health and Safety Commission. [21565]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): The Government have asked the Health and Safety Commission, the regulator for rail safety, to ensure that action is taken on all the recommendations from the four recent public inquiry reports. The commission's progress reports on recommendations from the Southall and the train protection inquiries are in the House Library. Progress reports on the two Cullen reports are due in the spring.
    John Barrett: Following the Southall train crash and Professor Uff's subsequent recommendations, can the Minister confirm that by February this year, 81 of the recommendations should have been implemented, yet only 15 had been? By February next year, all 93 recommendations should have been implemented. Does he expect that they will be, and if not, why not?
    Dr. Whitehead: Through the offices of the Health and Safety Executive, the Government are ensuring that the reports that have been produced on rail safety are implemented progressively. It is anticipated that those reports will be fully implemented in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister recall that following the Paddington rail crash and Lord Cullen's first report, the Secretary of State specifically required the Health and Safety Executive to produce a report on implementation of those recommendations within six months—that is, by tomorrow? Can the Minister explain why that report has been delayed until spring next year? As 41 of the 89 recommendations were due to be implemented by tomorrow, including those on improved
    144
    signal arrangements in the Paddington area and improved signal siting, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether they have been implemented, and if not, why not?
    Dr. Whitehead: I will look at the details of the hon. Gentleman's question and write to him. He should be aware that the progress reports on recommendations from all the inquiries are either in the Library now or will be made available in the early spring next year. Those reports will demonstrate, I understand, that good progress has been made in implementing all the recommendations of those inquiries.
    Hugh Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the four years prior to the privatisation of Railtrack, the number of passenger deaths on the railways decreased from 30 in 1991–92 to eight the year before privatisation, and that in the four years after privatisation, the number rose from eight to 43 in the latest year for which we have figures? Despite the claim from the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that Railtrack made the railways safer, does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show a worrying trend? Will he tell the House what the new regime for managing the track and signalling will do to improve rail safety and reduce fatalities?
    Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes an important point concerning some of the perceived consequences of Railtrack privatisation, but he should be aware that rail remains one of the safest forms of transport—seven times safer than travelling by car. The Government are working hard with Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety on the railways is maintained. A formal direction was issued to Railtrack plc on 8 October for it to bring forward a new railway safety case after administration. That has recently been accepted by HSE. HSE has doubled the number of railway inspectors actively inspecting railway safety since 1999, and intends to double the number of inspectors again by next year.
    Mr. John Taylor: Is the Minister still actively in favour of road to rail in the overall context of safety? If so, will he comment on the proposal to construct a rail link between Land Rover in my constituency and the west coast main line?
    Dr. Whitehead: The proposal is actively being considered, but obviously the question of ensuring that transport can move around the country in the most efficient way in terms of industrial productivity and safety is a very important part of any overall transport plan.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that the HSE does a fantastic job on rail safety, but is he satisfied that it has a sufficient number of trained engineers and inspectors? Is he even more satisfied that it has a sufficiently large budget to perform its necessary functions?
    Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is aware that a review was undertaken by the HSE—it was supported strongly by the Government—to look at the number of rail safety inspectors that it employed. She will be aware that, since 1999, the HSE has doubled the number of railway inspectors—there are currently just over 100—and that

    145
    the proposal is to increase that number to 200 by next year. She will also be aware that the HSE is undertaking to do that within the budget limits set under the spending review for the last period. If it considers that it should receive an increase for this particular work, it is up to it to make a case for that. It is undertaking this increased safety regulation within the resources that it currently has, and, in my view, it is doing so very effectively.

    Rail Regulation
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the roles of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator. [21566]
    The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The purposes and functions of the Strategic Rail Authority are set out in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000. The Rail Regulator's functions and duties are set out in a number of Acts, including the Railways Act 1993, the Transport Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that illuminating reply, but is he aware that passengers are more concerned about whether their trains are going to arrive on time and whether they can travel in reasonable comfort? Is either of the bodies continuing to collect information about time keeping, in which there has been a serious decline since October this year? Will the Minister publish regular reports on time keeping in the rail network?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman recognises a problem that is part of the great difficulties of the system that we inherited from the Government whom he supported. The Opposition should recognise that it is that fundamentally flawed model that has created the difficulties. Notwithstanding that, there is, obviously, still a need to run the system. He will be extremely pleased with the progress that the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Richard Bowker, has already made in starting to set new leadership in the industry. He will shortly be announcing the franchising proposals and will announce next month his strategic plan for the industry. That is the way in which leadership should be taken forward, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
    Mr. Michael Jack: In a recent parliamentary answer, the Minister confirmed to me that he was still in discussions with Railtrack about matters concerning the completion of phase 1 of the west coast main line modernisation; no mention was made of phase 2. What information has he provided to the Strategic Rail Authority about the matters that are outstanding, how will that outstanding work be financed and when will the project be completed?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the problems with the west coast main line,
    146
    which demonstrate exactly the reason why we had to take action with regard to Railtrack. It priced the project at £2.3 billion, but it was then going to cost £7 billion and rising. I was absolutely astonished that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) tried to brush that to one side as an insignificant item in its accounts. The matter requires discussion between the Department, the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and Virgin Rail, precisely so that they can work their way out of the horrendous difficulties that the abject failure of Railtrack has placed with the authority, the Government and the train operating company. As he would expect, we are involved in very active discussions on the matter, because of the complexities and difficulties that we were left with.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the working of the area cost adjustment. [21568]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): The area cost adjustment consists of two elements: a labour cost adjustment and a rates cost adjustment. The labour cost adjustment is by far the most important. It is based on comparisons of average wages in London, the south-east and the rest of the country. Average wages are derived from the new earnings survey for a range of occupations considered to be relevant to local authority employment.
    The rates cost adjustment is based on rateable values per square metre for commercial office space. There is a slightly different approach for schools buildings.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister know that the area cost adjustment costs Gloucestershire £4.648 million a year? I understand that the Government are to review the area cost adjustment. Does he agree that it is wrong for Gloucestershire to lose out by such an amount? Does he further agree that the basis for the formula—that it costs more to run services in, for example, neighbouring Oxfordshire—is wrong, and will he therefore guarantee that Gloucestershire will not lose out unfairly after the review?
    Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the current ACA methodology was developed under the Conservatives in the early 1990s. If there are serious problems, perhaps he should consult the history books to ascertain how they arose. At the time, Conservative Ministers did not believe that there was strong evidence to show that average wages varied much between authorities outside the south-east. That may have changed by now, and the Government are therefore reviewing the matter.
    Various options, including an ACA that is more specifically associated with individual authorities, are being discussed with the Local Government Association. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know how openly the review is being conducted, he can look at the LGA website, where the different options are displayed.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I want to clarify a point about this afternoon's debate on the motion on the facilities of the House.
Some years ago, I referred to Mr. Gerry Adams as the dishonourable Member for Belfast, West. The then Deputy Speaker ruled that such unparliamentary language was permissible because our rules protect only Members who have taken the Oath or affirmed. Will you confirm that the ruling continues to apply? Although I accept the need for moderate language in an emotional debate such as this afternoon's, is it still in order to describe someone who has not affirmed or taken the Oath as a supporter of terrorism or to refer to any other unpleasant facts that the evidence suggests?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, which gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I recognise that strong feelings exist on the issue, but let us conduct our debate in a civilised manner. The Chair will not tolerate unparliamentary language or behaviour.

BILL PRESENTED
  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Jim Fitzpatrick presented a Bill to make provision about the judiciary in Northern Ireland and to amend section 6 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876; to make provision about the law officers and other legal officers and the courts in Northern Ireland; to establish a Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, a Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland and a Northern Ireland Law Commission; to amend the law of youth justice in Northern Ireland; to make provision for making available to victims of crime information about the release of offenders in Northern Ireland; to make provision about community safety in Northern Ireland; to amend the law of legal aid in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 75].

  Elections (Entitlement to Vote At Age 16)
  3.33 pm
  Matthew Green: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that a person aged 16 years or over is entitled to vote in a parliamentary or local government election.
  The Bill is an attempt to use common sense to tackle civil rights and the health of our democracy head on. I am sure that no hon. Members consider marriage, a full-time job or having children to be lesser responsibilities than voting, yet that is what successive Governments have effectively told us by failing to tackle the voting rights of 16 to 18-year-olds. We expect young people who work to contribute taxes, so why cannot they have a say in who spends their hard-earned money at local and national level? We treat them like adults one minute and children the next.
  Let us be consistent. If we expect young people to be accountable and responsible, we must afford them responsibilities and respect. Young people under 18 can die fighting for their country, so is it not madness that they cannot elect the very people who send them to war? Respect and equality are at the heart of the Bill: giving 16-year-olds the vote is a fundamental right.
  Why bother, some may ask? After all, we have all heard in the news about the increasing apathy of young people towards politics. I am sure that some will say, "What is the point of giving young people the vote if they are not going to use it?" Giving young people the chance to vote can only benefit society. It will empower young people and give them a greater sense of responsibility in society. We will make politics more relevant to the young and encourage personal responsibility by giving them a stake in the future.
  We cannot deny someone their rights simply because they choose not to use them. If we played that game, we would have to forfeit the rights of almost half the population in the UK, given the results of the last general election—some democracy we would have if we did that.
  Unlike some adults, young people are interested. A research poll carried out following the general election for Charter 88 and the YMCA came up with some surprising results. It seems that young people are still interested and have faith in the political system. Some 62 per cent. believe that voting is an important way to defend the public interest, and 61 per cent. believe it makes the Government responsible for their actions. More than half believe that voting is instrumental in getting the right people elected who will represent their views.
  We cannot take young people for granted. As the research also shows, if we fail to nurture young people's interest in politics, we lose it. As many as 47 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds said that voting could have a lot of influence; that dropped to only 35 per cent. once they reached their early twenties—a 12 per cent. drop in just five years. How can we tell young people that we are interested in their views, yet at the same time not let them have the vote? Young people are judged old enough to

  149
  start a family and contribute taxes. We should now allow them to elect the Government who will spend their taxes and provide the hospitals in which their children are born.
  The change has the support of the Electoral Reform Society, the British Youth Council, the YMCA, the National Youth Agency, the UK Youth Parliament, the Children's Rights Alliance, the National Black Youth Forum and the Care Leavers Alliance.
  The last time that the voting age was lowered was under the Representation of the People Act 1969, which came into force for the 1970 general election and allowed 18 to 20-year-olds to vote for the first time. I understand that a total of 81 Members of this House had the opportunity to vote that year, which they would not have had otherwise. Without giving anyone's exact age away, I shall mention a few of them, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I understand that he insisted on using his vote, with his father driving him from Hereford, where they had moved to, to north Wales to make sure that his vote counted at the age of 19.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Moms) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), were also able to vote for the first time in 1970 thanks to the lowering of the voting age. They could not have done so if the voting age had not been lowered the previous year.
  We all know how quickly youthful passion and idealism can fall victim to cynicism and apathy. How many more Ministers, Chancellors or perhaps even Prime Ministers will be encouraged if we foster young people's interest in politics early on?
  The citizenship curriculum that is being made compulsory in September 2002 will teach all young people about the political process: 16 and 17-year-olds will be better informed about politics than ever before, and probably better informed than most adults. Young people are the future. We want to encourage their interest in the community in which we live as well as the world around them. We must motivate young people before they lose interest, and there is only one way to do that—give them the vote.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Matthew Green, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Jane Griffiths, Angus Robertson, Lembit Öpik, Dr. John Pugh, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. Alan Reid, Adam Price and Mr. Roger Williams.

  ELECTIONS (ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE AT AGE 16)
  Matthew Green accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide that a person aged 16 years or over is entitled to vote in a parliamentary or local government election: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 76].
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  TAXES
  That the Variation of Stamp Duties Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3746), dated 27th November 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No.89) (HC415) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 2000–01 and 2001–02, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick]
  Question agreed to.

  SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Before we come to the main motion, I have a short statement to make about the debate on facilities of the House. A list of amendments that have been selected has been circulated. I propose to allow a broad general debate on the motion, at the end of which there will be an opportunity for amendments to be proposed formally and divided on before the Question is put on the main motion.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2001

  Facilities of the House
  3.43 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move,
  That, with effect from 8th January 2002, those Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House, and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance &c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.
  The motion relates to the facilities of the House, but I fully recognise that most Members come to the debate with views mainly shaped by events in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who I understand will respond to my opening remarks, informed us this morning, courtesy of The Daily Telegraph, of the views that he brings to the debate. He said that the Conservative party is withdrawing bipartisan support in Northern Ireland over this issue. [Interruption.] I observe that he has the support of the Conservative party.
  It is of course the right of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to end the principle of a bipartisan approach in Northern Ireland. We gave them bipartisan support on Northern Ireland when they were in government.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that, in opposition, the Labour party voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act?
  Mr. Cook: No, I am not saying that. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that Act raised a number of concerns about the treatment of people on the mainland who were not necessarily connected with the IRA. I am sure that he will also acknowledge, as he is a fair-minded gentleman, that we gave the Government full support for every effort that they made to get a peace process going in Northern Ireland.
  I am not surprised that, in opposition, the hon. Gentleman does not feel bound to give us the support that we gave his party when it was in government. What does surprise me is that he has ended bipartisanship over access to the House of Commons. Never once in their 18 years of government did the Conservatives withdraw the right of access from Sinn Fein. Throughout the decade in which Gerry Adams was an elected Member of Parliament, a Conservative Government left him the right to enter the precincts and the right of access to any services provided. Indeed, in every month of his membership Gerry Adams was mailed his allocation of tickets to the Public Gallery, and occasionally used them. Not once in those years did the hon. Gentleman try to stop him.
  I assume from the bewildered look on the hon. Gentleman's face that he was totally unaware of his Government's policy throughout that decade in which Gerry Adams was entitled to come into this place.
  At that time, the right of access to Westminster for Members who had not taken the Oath was of long standing. For more than 100 years, there was nothing to bar from the precincts a Member who had refused to take the Oath. Indeed, in the 19th century, Members who had
  152
  not taken the Oath on religious grounds attended Westminster regularly, and even listened to debates from beyond the Bar of the House.
  It will be interesting to discover, when the hon. Gentleman makes his speech, whether he can clarify whether he was aware that that was the position throughout the time for which his Government were in office. He supported that Government. but he is not prepared to support us when we restore the position that existed when they were in power.
  Not until a ruling by Madam Speaker Boothroyd after the 1997 general election was access to the precincts and the services of any of the Departments of the House withdrawn from Members who did not take the Oath. At that time, the IRA had repudiated its ceasefire and the peace process had foundered. In those circumstances, the ruling was understandable. Since then, however, we have witnessed historic developments in Northern Ireland. Three years ago, the Good Friday agreement committed the parties to it to pursue their different perspectives through politics and not through violence. Two years ago, power was devolved to an Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
  It was against the background of those developments that in January 2000 the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), wrote to the leaders of all political parties in Northern Ireland proposing that Sinn Fein MPs be granted access to Westminster and the ability to claim constituency allowances. At the same time, the Prime Minister consulted the leaders of the Opposition parties. In the event, the Government decided that the time was not right, as further progress was required on the peace process.
  We have now had that further progress. After a difficult few months, the existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been stabilised. General de Chastelain has confirmed that he has witnessed the first ever act of decommissioning by the republican movement in its history. He described it as significant, and he has confirmed that the material included arms, ammunition and explosives.
  David Burnside: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard what was done in my constituency yesterday, on behalf of Sinn Fein, as evidence of progress in the peace process in support of the police? Posters were put up reading "Don't Join RUC/PSNI"—"PSNI" stands for "Police Service of Northern Ireland"—and listing "plastic bullets", "shoot to kill", "abuse of human rights", "sectarian intimidation", "collusion", "obstruction of enquiries" and "torturers". Does that constitute progress in support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the peace process?
  Mr. Cook: What I said to the House, and what I stand by, was that there had been progress in the peace process. As I pointed out, part of that progress is represented by the fact that we have an elected Northern Ireland Assembly in which 18 members of Sinn Fein sit, and in which the hon. Gentleman's party participates. His party has sat in 2,000 committee meetings with members of Sinn Fein in Belfast. I think that he should explain why he is willing

  153
  to take part in 2,000 committee meetings in Belfast, but will not even allow Sinn Fein Members access to the Travel Office or the Vote Office here.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
  Mr. John Gummer: Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands that those who are engaged in the committee meetings in Belfast have agreed the same terms under which committee meetings take place, whereas he is suggesting that there shall be a special kind of Member of Parliament who shall take what he wants and not what he does not want. Those of us who do not take the Unionist Whip are for the first time driven into a position of saying that this House must insist that Members of Parliament either take the whole thing or nothing at all.
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Good Friday agreement applies only to parties in Northern Ireland. It does not. The British Government are also a party to that agreement. He must explain why it is permissible for members of Sinn Fein to take a full part in the democratic process of Northern Ireland, to attend the Assembly and to sit in the Executive Committee, but not to have access even to the precincts of Westminster. That seems a double standard, which would not be welcome in Northern Ireland.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: If hon. Members will allow me, I will return to my speech.
  Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Cook: I will.
  Kate Hoey: Can the Leader of the House point out exactly which page and paragraph of the Belfast agreement talk about giving Sinn Fein Members who had not taken the Oath entry to the House of Commons?
  Mr. Cook: The Good Friday agreement commits us to a parity of esteem for both traditions in Northern Ireland. It sets us out on a process. If my hon. Friend wants that process to succeed, she must recognise that it will involve different steps along the way, whether or not they are specifically written down in the document of three years ago.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will continue with my speech.
  All four of the Sinn Fein Members elected to the House are full Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They regularly attend that body without any problems of security in the Assembly. There is no logic in saying to them that as a result of the peace process, to which we are party, they can attend, speak and vote in Belfast, but in Westminster they cannot get past the door.
  154
  One of their number, Martin McGuinness, is the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland. He has a pledge of office, which committed him to using only democratic, non-violent means. He sits in the Executive Committee with representatives of other parties, including the Unionists. He not uncommonly meets my colleagues in the United Kingdom Government. The House has initiated a peace process that involves him and his colleagues in the peaceful administration of public services in Northern Ireland. The question now is whether the House is willing to play its part in engaging Sinn Fein in political activity.
  Mr. David Wilshire: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about Martin McGuinness committing himself to purely democratic means, presumably the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendments tabled today to require such an undertaking from those four people before they are allowed in here.
  Mr. Cook: The position that I am putting before the House, which is clear within the motion, is that those Members who have not taken the Oath should be entitled to access to the precincts, in the same way as they were before 1997 and before progress had not been made on the peace process.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Can the right hon. Gentleman try to explain to my constituents in Eastbourne, who saw one of their previous MPs murdered by the IRA, why we are now proposing to give the benefits, privileges and facilities of this place to some of the people responsible for his murder?
  Mr. Cook: Ian Gow was tragically and appallingly murdered during the year in which Gerry Adams was a Member of this House and had precisely the access to the precincts for which the motion provides. The whole point of the peace process is to prevent future murders of that kind and to ensure that we proceed by political activity, not by violent confrontation. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman imagines that we can draw Sinn Fein into political activity if he will not even allow it anywhere near Westminster.
  Simon Hughes: The Leader of the House referred to the pledge of office that people have to take to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there are similar new pledges in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Will he help the House by saying whether, as part of his welcome modernisation programme, it is in his mind that we should amend the law on the Oath, which not only is of interest to people elected from Northern Ireland, but would be widely welcomed in many parts of the House and would facilitate many people living with their consciences as well as serving their constituents?
  Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman and any other substantial body of opinion in the House wish to raise the question of the Oath that Members take, that is a matter that we can explore at another time.
  Andrew Mackinlay: A majority does.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having his finger on the pulse and his assurance on that point,

  155
  but at present I do not anticipate that giving a commitment to changing the Oath would assist me in the present debate. As I was saying, the peace process is a process, not a single event. A process requires parallel progress on both sides.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not.
  Amendment (q) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition would prevent any part of this motion from being implemented until all of the decommissioning has been completed. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) confirms that point.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the specific point of decommissioning?
  Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman lets me get a word in edgeways, I will talk about decommissioning. Both sides of the Chamber want to secure more decommissioning and want it to continue until it is completed. There is no difference between us about the need for further decommissioning by the IRA, but we are more likely to secure further decommissioning if we demonstrate that we are willing to maintain momentum on our side. I would ask all of those in the House who want more decommissioning, including the right hon. Gentleman, whether they really believe that they would make it more likely by voting down this motion tonight. I will happily hear the right hon. Gentleman's answer now.
  Mr. MacKay: The answer to the question is simply that the very limited decommissioning that we have had so far resulted entirely from our taking a strong stance, and not from appeasing in the way that the Leader of the House is today. He attempts to pray in aid the limited amount of decommissioning as the reason for this dreadful motion. Will he remind the House just what the terms of the Belfast agreement were on decommissioning, and will he tell us when all decommissioning was supposed to have been completed?
  Mr. Cook: The Belfast agreement committed all parties to use their best endeavours and the right hon. Gentleman is right that the original timeframe provided was two years. He is also right that it is only very recently that we have received what General de Chastelain—whose judgment I trust possibly more than that of the right hon. Gentleman—described as a significant event. I find it strange that he should say that that happened when we played tough and stood our ground, because I do not remember him saying before the October act of decommissioning that the Government deserved praise for standing firm and refusing concessions. We secured decommissioning because we have a peace process in being, and we will secure further progress only if we keep that process alive.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Cook: I wish to make some progress.
  156
  The step that the House is being asked to take is a limited one. It will restore access to the precincts and Commons services that existed before the election in May 1997. It will not confer any right to take part in proceedings or to vote. It will not provide a salary or pension for Sinn Fein Members. It will not provide any Short money for Sinn Fein as a party. [Interruption.] Yes, it will extend the entitlement to constituency allowances to Sinn Fein Members on the same basis as any other elected Member. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As I said last week, this is a sensitive matter, but it does not help when hon. Gentlemen shout across the Chamber.
  Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
  Mr. Cook: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Duncan: The only person who could possibly have claimed allowances in the past was Gerry Adams, because the others who did not take their seats were disqualified. He did not claim. Since then, the allowances have dramatically increased from near zero to about £100,000. In addition, there is a legislative Assembly in a devolved Ulster, whose Members also get about £50,000. Given that dramatic change, how can the Leader of the House argue that his motion today is a return to the status quo ante?
  Mr. Cook: In respect of the access to the precincts and services, it is precisely that. [Interruption.] If I may say so, and if the hon. Gentleman is listening, that is precisely what I said and have just conceded. In respect of the allowances, the motion introduces a new situation.
  Mr. Duncan: New?
  Mr. Cook: Yes, it is new. I have never sought to disguise that. It will provide constituency allowances to the four Sinn Fein Members, and any other hon. Member who does not take the Oath, on the same basis as to any other elected Member.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to continue, I give him an undertaking that I shall give way to him next.
  I concede that the motion would reduce the extent to which there is a distinction between Sinn Fein Members and other hon. Members. It is not my motion, but amendment (m), tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), that would perpetuate two classes of MPs—those of us who are entitled to support in our work for constituents, and those who are denied it.
  Some amendments have been tabled that would introduce a new version of the two classes of MPs. They would divide us into those who would get constituency allowances under the same rules as everyone else, and those who would get them under special rules invented specifically for the four Sinn Fein MPs. If the motion is approved and constituency allowances are to be extended

  157
  to Sinn Fein Members, they should receive it on the same basis, for the same purposes and with the same regulations as any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Leader of the House say how we are to police the allowances? One of the House's sanctions is that it can prevent hon. Members from sitting in the House if they have acted improperly. The Sinn Fein Members will not be sitting in the House, as they decline to do so. In those circumstances, how will the expenditure and allocation of the allowances be properly policed when no sanctions can be exercised against Sinn Fein Members?
  Mr. Cook: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that suspension from the House also involves being barred from the precincts of the premises. Any motion carried in the House to suspend any of the four Sinn Fein MPs would reverse the position set out in the motion today, and those MPs would lose access to the House and its facilities.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked how the allowances would be policed, as he put it. The Sinn Fein MPs could claim the allowances only on the same basis as any other hon. Member can—namely, that they are spent "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" on constituency duties. The four Sinn Fein MPs would have to observe the same rules as everyone else. If Conservative Members do not believe that the rules are properly policed, they should, by all means, come forward with proposals to tighten the rules for every hon. Member.
  If any of the Sinn Fein MPs' staff apply for a pass to the House's precincts, they will be required to satisfy the same security test as the staff of any other hon. Member. Those rules are common to all hon. Members. If they are unsatisfactory, they should be amended for all hon. Members, not just for four hon. Members.
  Mr. Frank Field: The members of staff employed by hon. Members in furtherance of their parliamentary duties have to satisfy the office of the Serjeant-at-Arms that they are not a security risk. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to lay in the Library of the House the advice that he has been given by the Serjeant-at-Arms' office in connection with the changes that he proposes?
  Mr. Cook: I have discussed the matter with the Serjeant-at-Arms. The advice that I have given to the Serjeant-at-Arms is that we cannot change the rules, the process of vetting or the tests for Sinn Fein Members' staff. They must be subject to the same test as the staff of any other hon. Member. I assure my right hon. Friend that no separate advice to the contrary has been tendered to me. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he was seeking: the security tests will be the same for Sinn Fein Members' staff as for the staff of any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. My question was not about the advice that my right hon. Friend had given to the
  158
  Serjeant-at-Arms, but about the advice that the Serjeant-at-Arms gave to him. Could that advice be made available to hon. Members in the Library?
  Mr. Cook: I have received no such advice, but I assure the House that, if I do, I shall make it public.
  Helen Jackson: The Register of Members' Interests was published recently. If the facilities of the House are being extended to these four elected Members, should not those hon. Members be expected to register their interests?
  Mr. Cook: The motion will enable the four Sinn Fein Members to make an entry in the register. They are not required to do so under the rules, which provide that Members shall be obliged to make an entry only within three months of taking their seat. If that disappoints Opposition Members, I can give them the assurance that the motion will bring the four Sinn Fein Members within the scope of the remit of Mrs. Filkin, who will be able to apply the code of conduct. [Laughter.]
  This place is an expression of the electoral process. Whatever our individual views of the politics of Sinn Fein, each of us must accept that the Sinn Fein MPs were elected to this House and were elected by their constituents.
  Our constituents approach us with a wide range of issues, from their tax liability to their pension entitlement. It is because of that demand from our constituents that the House has approved allowances for all Members to provide a professional service to their constituents. We should not deny the same service to 250,000 United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland by refusing their MPs the same constituency allowances.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that Conservative Members see a very real difference between constituency MPs who are prepared to take the Oath and represent their constituents in this Chamber and those who are prepared to take the money but not take the Oath and cannot properly represent their constituents in this Chamber?
  Mr. Cook: The Sinn Fein MPs will continue not to get any salary until such time as they take the Oath. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he really regards his constituency allowances as money for himself. Does he not rather regard them as money to enable him to provide a service for his constituents? Most of those who voted in those four constituencies did not vote for the Sinn Fein candidate. Why should they be denied the same constituency services that we demand for ourselves and our constituents?
  I began my speech by referring to the momentous developments that we have seen in Northern Ireland: I shall also end with them. The peace process has made it possible to contemplate the changes proposed in the motion, but it also makes it necessary to adopt these changes. The aim of many years of dialogue with republicans has been to persuade them to give up violence and engage instead in the political process.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way again.

  159
  In Belfast, republicans have engaged in the political process on everything from child welfare to care of the elderly. We cannot demand that process of engagement in Northern Ireland if we at Westminster keep the door firmly barred in case Sinn Fein MPs even put their foot across it.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Cook: I know that for some Members this is a difficult step. I respect the sincerity of those who feel that they cannot take it. However, I ask them to respect the sincerity of those of us who believe that the time has come to take this step to help the peace process.
  We all—both sides of the House, I presume—welcome the ceasefire, which, for four years, has stopped IRA bombs and attacks on the security services. Most of us welcome the development of an elected Assembly in place of direct rule. If we want the ceasefire to become permanent and if we want the new democratic institutions of Northern Ireland to grow in strength, the House should also be prepared to contribute to the process of political engagement. The motion before us is one small contribution that the House can make, and I invite the House to support it.
  4.9 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment (q), in line 1, leave out "8th January 2002" and insert—
  "the completion of decommissioning, as verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning".
  This is a worrying day for the House. It could turn out to be a very sad day—a memorable day in an unfortunate sense—for the House. Let me first say that I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for intervening on the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman should be particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving him the opportunity to salvage something of his reputation this afternoon. It was only after taking my hon. Friend's intervention that the right hon. Gentleman disclosed to the House a point that is blatantly clear from the Government's proposal: there is indeed a very real distinction between the regime that the Government are proposing for the Sinn Fein-IRA MPs and the status quo ante before the ruling in 1997 of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker.
  During the earlier part of the speech of the Leader of the House, I was being given the clear impression—and I was not alone—that he was arguing that all that was happening was that the Government were restoring the status quo ante. The most charitable construction that one could have put upon that was that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to read his own motion, which states:
  "and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance &c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff".
  Those allowances were never available to Members who did not take their seat. That was explicitly set out in the statement made on 14 May 1997 by your illustrious
  160
  predecessor, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] Far from forgetting it, I have had a copy of it before me since the beginning of the debate. Madam Speaker said:
  "In 1924, one of my predecessors ruled that any such Member"—
  that is, Members who did not take their seats—
  "could not receive a salary, and this regulation also applies to allowances."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
  At that time, Madam Speaker made an authoritative statement of the position before she tightened the rules.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The Leader of the House pointed out that we were reinstating the situation pre-1997. Notwithstanding the fact that none of those Members availed themselves of the facilities, immediately before 1997 they could have done so. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he objects to the principle, or merely to the fact that the increased value of the office costs allowance is available to them? That is not a matter of principle, but it casts aspersions on the ability of the Fees Office properly to police the spending of that money.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady invites me to give her a preview of my speech. I should be happy to summarise it in one minute so that she can leave the Chamber if she wants to do so. Although I shall demonstrate—I hope, persuasively—the validity of two points, the focus of my remarks will be limited to those points.
  The first point is that the Conservatives object very much to the whole concept of the creation of two-tier membership of the House, with the distortions that would flow from that. The second point is that we object fundamentally to the idea of making more unreciprocated concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—especially treating the rules of the House of Commons as the currency for such concessions.
  Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid)rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman in turn—that is fair.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Opposition spokesman for giving way. Will he consider the democratic argument? Four constituencies elected Members of Parliament on the clear understanding that those Members would not partake in parliamentary proceedings—as they had made clear during the election campaign. What business is it of the hon. Gentleman or of the House to deny the constituents of those MPs facilities at Westminster that would enable the MPs better to represent individuals of all parties in their constituencies? Is that not a fundamental democratic argument that seems to have entirely escaped the Conservative party?
  Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman advancing the extraordinary argument that anybody who stands for election in this country—on however absurd a programme as regards the parliamentary rules that he or she will or will not accept if elected—should, once elected, compel

  161
  the rest of the House to change its rules to accommodate whatever bizarre demands they set out in their manifesto? That position is utterly unreasonable.
  Dr. Reid rose rose—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the Secretary of State, but then I want to make some progress.
  Dr. Reid: I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman answered the extremely important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey); it is important that we know on what basis the Conservative party has decided to end its bipartisan approach of 30 years. Does he object to the principle relating to the facilities involved or does he object to the money? If he objects to the principle, will he explain why the Conservative Government found no objection to the principle of providing the facilities for nine years while the IRA were bombing and not on ceasefire? Can we have a very straight answer to that fundamental question, because a political position that has lasted 30 years seems to have been broken? I repeat: does the hon. Gentleman's objection relate to the principle, or to the money? If it relates to the principle, why have Conservative Members changed their minds since past decades of Conservative Government?
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman also asks me for a preview of much of my speech, but I do not need to give him another preview because he, by parliamentary convention, is rather compelled—unlike the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—to remain in the Chamber to hear my speech, so he will hear exactly what I have to say on this subject. I assume that the Government want to hear my speech, or indeed that of any Opposition Member on this subject, but perhaps they are too ashamed of themselves and do not want to hear anything that we may have to say.
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will consider the fact that we are elected as Members of Parliament not just to deal with people's tax problems and the like; we are primarily elected to take decisions in this House about the future of this nation in the world in which we live, and we are given the allowances for that purpose as a whole. Does he agree, therefore, that at the very least there ought to be a different understanding for those who are not prepared to shoulder the main job of being a Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Davies: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The allowances are, of course, given to those hon. Members who wish to do a full job here and to enable them to do so.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not take any more interventions for the moment; otherwise we shall not make progress—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.
  Mr. Davies: I am conscious of the fact that a great many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in
  162
  this debate, and rightly so because it touches the integrity of House of Commons, so I do not want to take up too much time.
  I must, however, deal with two extraordinary distortions—I can only politely call them that because I am conscious of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, that I must keep to parliamentary language—that emerged from the speech made by the Leader of the House, the first of which was the comparison of the anomaly that would be produced by agreeing to the motion with the situation in Stormont. There is in fact no comparison at all between the position in Stormont and that in the House, because Sinn Fein-IRA have agreed to take their seats in the Assembly at Stormont and in the Executive there; they are playing a full part in those two new devolved institutions. For my part, I am delighted that they are playing a full part in those institutions, and we would welcome it if they decided to take a full part in the proceedings of the House of Commons and took their seats here.
  We have no illusions about Sinn Fein-IRA, unlike the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, in last night's debate on Northern Ireland, compared the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA to that between the Labour party and the trade union movement. We have no such illusions about them or their record, but we respect the rules of democracy. Those four persons have been democratically duly elected to their seats in this House and the doors here are open; they are welcome to take their seats. If they take their seats, they are, of course, welcome to all the facilities and allowances that go with that.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hogg: rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, then to my right hon. and learned Friend, and then I shall proceed with my speech.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Although there are many differences between Members in the House and Sinn Fein—and we disapprove of Sinn Fein—does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is one honourable difference? Many Members on both sides are republicans but not a single one of them was elected as a republican. Because of the Oath that the House sets, a Member who is a republican and who was elected as such needs to deny the platform that he was elected on before he can take his seat in the House. How does the hon. Gentleman defend that?
  Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended to make a helpful intervention, but he is simply misinformed about the facts. Sinn Fein-IRA have made statements recently—one appeared in the Irish Times on 14 December and, although I did not hear it myself, colleagues heard Pat Doherty make a similar one on the radio this morning—and they have made it clear that, even if the Oath were abolished, they would not take their seats in what Mr. Doherty apparently described as a foreign Parliament.
  Mr. Hogg: To build on my hon. Friend's point, once it is accepted that it is right to allow former terrorists or

  163
  supporters of terrorists to become Members of the House—that is my view—should we not resolutely confront the problem of the Oath? I am a constitutional monarchist, but I do not see why my duties as a Member of the House should be defined with reference to the Crown. Should we not, in fact, re-examine the Oath, so that we have either no oath or an oath that does not strain the consciences of loyal republicans? I refer not to the IRA but to others who are loyal and committed republicans.
  Mr. Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend is a very distinguished lawyer and he takes a considerable theoretical interest in all these matters. He raises enormously important subjects that are not at all germane to today's debate. If anyone in the House seriously wants to abolish the concept of the Loyal Oath, I suggest that he or she take the opportunity to table a separate motion so that the House can pronounce on the subject. I have a very clear view as to how the House would pronounce in such an eventuality. However, that is not the issue that has been raised today.
  The issue before us is not a suggestion that we should change our rules for everyone—that would mean that everyone would still be subject to the same rules on the same terms—but the suggestion that we should distort our rules to produce two sets of rules: one for one type of Member of Parliament and one for another type of Member. Conservative Members will certainly decide—and I hope that the whole House will—that that is a thoroughly unacceptable course to take.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Oath of Allegiance is not germane to the debate. However, amendment (t)—which is in his name and which you have selected, Mr. Speaker—makes specific reference to the "oath of allegiance". If therefore the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Conservative party, he has the duty to answer the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The present rules, which the Government are trying to change, deal with elected Members taking or not taking their seats. The suggestion is that there should be one regime for Members taking their seats and another for Members who do not. The extent to which taking their seat is conditional or should no longer be conditional on taking an oath is a separate matter. I shall not be drawn any further down that road.
  I have dealt with two entirely gratuitous distortions that the Government have made this afternoon. The first is the suggestion that there is an analogy with Stormont. There is no such analogy. In Stormont, Sinn Fein-IRA accept the same rules as everyone else and they are welcome here on the basis that they accept the same rules as everyone else.
  The second distortion is the suggestion that we are trying to bar Sinn Fein-IRA Members from taking the seats here to which they have been elected. I have explained that that is not at all the case. They themselves have precluded themselves—most recently in a statement
  164
  on the radio only this morning—from taking their seats in Parliament, whatever we do about the Loyal Oath or about anything else.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I heard Pat Doherty on the "Today" programme this morning as, I am sure, did other hon. Members. He described this place as a foreign Parliament. The problem is not the Oath of Allegiance, but his complete contempt for this place. Why should we allow someone who holds this place in such contempt, and who does not play a part in it and has no wish to, any access to public money in this country?
  Mr. Davies: I share my hon. Friend's immediate response. There are two issues to consider. The first is whether we should create a distorted regime with a two-tier categorisation of Members of Parliament. The second is that if we create a specially privileged category of Members of Parliament who can access facilities, money and so forth without taking their seats, we must consider whether it is bizarre—
  Mr. Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, not for the time being.
  We have to consider whether it is perverse and bizarre to allow the beneficiaries of such a special regime to be people to whom we owe so little by way of favours—I am trying to make my point as mildly as I can—as we do to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Why have the Government made this proposal? We all know—they have not attempted to deny this—that they would not have attempted to create a special regime for special types of MPs in any other context. If any one of us had formed up to the right hon. Gentleman in his role as Leader of the House and said, "Look, it would rather suit us after the next election, if we get elected, not actually to take up our seats, but to have the offices, money and travel allowances. Would that be all right? Would the Government like to use their vast majority—their pay-roll vote—to help us get that through?", we would have got a dusty answer. We all know that the Government are providing a specific and direct privilege that is to be handed over to one category of Members of Parliament who have been elected on a Sinn Fein-IRA ticket.
  The great question that the Leader of the House has to answer is: why are we doing this? What are we getting in return? We know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland discussed the matter with Sinn Fein-IRA, because he told us so last night. As that has been the subject of negotiation, what is the other side offering? The Government have promised to change—indeed, I repeat, to distort—our rules in the House of Commons, but what are they receiving in return?
  I shall be delighted to give way to the Leader of the House if he wants to answer my question, but he shakes his head and does not intend to respond. That goes to the heart of the trouble that we have with supporting the Government on Northern Ireland. They introduce such one-sided measures without consulting the Opposition or giving a public response in the House of Commons to our questions,

  165
  and then expect us to support them. What an extraordinary state of affairs it is that a Government in those circumstances seriously think that they deserve support.
  Mr. Salter rose—
  David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Davies: I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) because he has a long-standing interest in Irish matters and has played a distinguished role in those in the House. After that, I do not intend to give way for a while because I must make progress.
  David Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those words. Does he remember that, at the height of IRA terror, his Government constantly denied that there was any contact between them and the IRA, yet on 29 November 1993 the Secretary of State admitted to the House that there had been a means of contact between the IRA and the British Government over many years? The Opposition could have made great play of that. We could have said that the Government were hypocritical and the rest, but we did not. That was not out of sympathy for the IRA—we loathed its crimes and atrocities—but because we believed that if the Conservative Government were having contact with the IRA, they were doing so for the national interest.
  Mr. Davies: If that is an invitation to launch into a seminar on Irish history, now is not the time or the place, much as I would find it fascinating to do so. If, on the other hand, it is an attempt to throw me off my stride or to help the Leader of the House by protecting him from some of my strictures, I have to tell him that it simply will not work, because I do not intend to be thrown off my stride.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Does the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) want to give way?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I told the House what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and the House threw me out because I told the truth.
  Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman told the truth in his own inimitable way. I am sorry that I was not here at that time to hear what he said or to witness the reaction; it sounds as though it was rather traumatic.
  We have established that this measure, which was brought forward as a change to the rules of the House of Commons, has nothing to do with the interests of the House. In no sense at all is the Leader of the House making this proposal as part of his responsibility to improve and modernise our procedures. It is simply part of the Government's policy of endless concessions to,
  166
  and appeasement of, Sinn Fein-IRA. Hardly a week goes by—this week, hardly a day goes by—without the announcement of a further concession.
  I spoke about this last night. It is a deplorable situation for two reasons. First, these endless concessions are unreciprocated. They are being given away in exchange for precisely nothing. Let no one say that they are being made in exchange for decommissioning. Decommissioning was part of the Belfast agreement and should have been completed two years after the agreement was made. Against that, various things had to be done by the other parties concerned, including the British and Irish Governments. The British Government made a major concession to paramilitaries by releasing all terrorist prisoners. They released those prisoners unaccountably and extraordinarily, even though it was not necessary to do so within the terms of the agreement, and without any progress having been made on the other side or any decommissioning having taken place. That was a catastrophic mistake. It meant that decommissioning did not happen within two years; nor did it happen within three years.
  The Government then completely panicked and decided that they had better make more concessions, which were not even in the Belfast agreement. In other words, they proposed to increase the price but were still receiving nothing at all. They went to Weston Park and made a whole new raft of concessions, but what happened? They did not get decommissioning. A week or so later, Sinn Fein-IRA withdrew from the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning which they had negotiated with General de Chastelain at the time of the Weston Park meeting. As I said last night, that was a real blow to the Government and indeed to the peace process.
  The tragic events of 11 September and the public exposure of the IRA's involvement with FARC in Colombia meant that we had a new international situation, which could not possibly have been predicted by the Government or anyone else. It was not until then that new pressures could be exerted on Sinn Fein-IRA and we had the first act of decommissioning in October, and very welcome it was. However, it was simply the first act in what ought to be a process, and one in which the Government should be doing everything possible to make rapid progress. It is vital for the stability of Northern Ireland and for everyone's confidence in its new institutions that decommissioning be completed at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Against that background, I am sorry to say that the Government have fallen back, with a vengeance, into their bad habit of throwing out concession after concession without receiving anything in return. We have had dramatic evidence of that today. We all know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not slow to intervene in the House. He loves to jump up when he thinks that he can gain a point. The Government have brought this measure forward as a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. That has been established beyond any doubt in the debate this afternoon. I asked the Secretary of State a simple question: what was received in return? I said that I would give way to him and am prepared to do so now if he will answer that simple question. No answer. Shall I

  167
  wait? Shall I observe a five-second silence while the right hon. Gentleman gathers his thoughts? It is clear that nothing—
  Dr. John Reid: Although the hon. Gentleman with his much vaunted history of Ireland is too blind to see it, one of the gains that we get is a compromise from republicans on engaging in dialogue in the House, as I shall point out later. Now that I have told him the gain, will he tell me the answer to a fundamental question that he promised 20 minutes ago, and explain the foundation of Conservative Members' opposition? Do they object in principle to what is being done on facilities or is it the money? If they object in principle to extending the facilities now that the IRA have decommissioned, why did his Government not object in principle when they were blowing up ordinary civilians throughout the country?
  Mr. Davies: I will not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away without taking up the absurdity of his remarks at the beginning of his intervention. I distinctly heard him say that it was necessary to pass the motion to give us opportunities for dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA. He has an opportunity, as do I or any one of us, to engage in dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA in Belfast or anywhere else, including London, if they came here. They can come to the House of Commons—
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will sit down for a moment and let me finish my sentence. We have every opportunity for dialogue with Sinn Fein-IRA, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase; they can come to his office in the House of Commons any time they choose. The idea that we have to pay them money, travel expenses and an office cost allowance to have a dialogue is absurd. Does he think that whenever he wants to have a dialogue with someone he has to pay them money in advance?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is proving himself not only blind but deaf. I did not say that that was necessary to have a dialogue. I said that one of the gains that we all got from the move was to bring Sinn Fein into dialogue in the House. Now that I have clarified that again, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question. Is he objecting in principle or to the money?
  Mr. Davies: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's question frankly. The proposal is objectionable and problematic in principle, but life consists of making difficult choices. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know that, let me tell him it now.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Davies: No, no, no. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask me a question and not even allow me to finish one sentence before he tries to get in again. I am sorry—he will have to sit there until I have finished answering his question.
  Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman again that life consists of difficult choices. Politics and much of human life consist of defending what is essential and being
  168
  prepared if necessary to give away the less essential and the non-essential. I shall explain frankly to him the views of my colleagues and me on the matter. We would not lightly change the rules of the House; above all, we would be extremely reluctant to produce a regime for Members of Parliament that is not universal, does not apply equally to all Members and does not give them the same obligations and rights. Even more essential to the national interest is fulfilling the Belfast process and achieving complete decommissioning, which the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do. We are therefore prepared to contemplate such an arrangement, anomalous and objectionable as it is, if it is the price of full and complete decommissioning. Under no circumstances—
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Davies: Let me finish; this is important. Under no circumstances are we prepared to contemplate it simply as a kind of goodwill gesture or unilateral concession. Above all, the arrangement is not necessary or—if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to correct my earlier quotation of his remarks—desirable to help to promote dialogue. That is utterly absurd and he knows it full well.
  Dr. Reid: Now we have it. There is an objection in principle to the facilities of the House being extended to Sinn Fein after the IRA have gone on ceasefire, after Sinn Fein has Ministers and Members of the Assembly, and the IRA have decommissioned. [Interruption.] Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there was no objection in principle from the Tory Government to the facilities being made available when the IRA were not on ceasefire, Sinn Fein was not participating in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the IRA were bombing and blasting their way through this country?
  Mr. Davies: I have already explained exhaustively to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no analogy between the position in Stormont and the position at Westminster. Surely I need not repeat myself a third time on that subject. I have also explained exhaustively that, contrary to what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House implied at the beginning of his speech, it is certainly not true that the motion would restore the status quo ante. That impression would have been extremely deceptive, had the right hon. Gentleman continued to sustain it. I am glad that he corrected himself and the point has been made clear.
  Before I conclude my remarks, I must set out, first, what we find particularly objectionable about the Government's approach to Northern Ireland, and secondly, how the Opposition could do a great deal more to protect this country's interests and facilitate decommissioning.
  We object to the Government's policy of endless unilateral concession. We object to the lack of reciprocity, discipline and any sense of how to conduct a businesslike negotiation. We have seen that again and again. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, in which there are further unilateral concessions, had its First Reading today. We saw another example last night, when the regime for

  169
  decommissioning was extended by five years, whereas we had all hoped that the extension would be for just a few months or a year at most. What an appalling signal to send to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Far from maximising the leverage that they have on Sinn Fein-IRA, the Government are continually relaxing the pressure. They are continually making concessions and demanding nothing in return.
  Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Davies: I am not giving way at this stage. The hon. Gentleman will have to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
  The Government's approach is disastrous. Sinn Fein-IRA do not take it seriously. They know that they have merely to whine, and the Government will keep them happy with some new concession. That has been the story all along.
  Our second great objection to Government policy is the extraordinary mind set with which they approach the problem. They seem to think that of all those with whom they might be negotiating in a hard world, Sinn Fein-IRA alone are soft people who will respond generously and sentimentally to concessions. The lack of realism is amazing. It was most graphically represented the other day when the House debated the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
  As originally drafted, the Bill contained an extraordinary clause whereby the powers taken against terrorism in the Bill—understandably taken, in the present circumstances—would not apply to terrorism directed against a part of this country. Of course, we objected to that, and the Government accepted the error of their ways and withdrew that pernicious distinction. However, the Government seemed prepared to introduce an anti-terrorism Bill which perversely discriminated against this country—in other words, a Bill that provided a less severe regime for terrorist threats directed against our own citizens than for terrorist threats directed elsewhere. It is difficult to speculate on the mind set that could produce such a distortion.
  Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I said that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Did he not hear me the first time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry that I cannot give way, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that many hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I accept that it is necessary for Front Benchers to take as many interventions as possible and I appreciate that that is what Parliament is about, but there comes a point when one must move on. I am within a few minutes of letting everybody else take part in the debate, if I am allowed do so.
  Against the background of completely uncontrolled concessions, the Government's seemingly complete failure to appreciate the need to maintain some balance in their dealings with Sinn Fein-IRA, and an extraordinary tendency to believe that terrorist threats in this country are not as real as those in the rest of the world, it is not surprising that we in the Conservative party have had to review very seriously our policy towards supporting the Government. We would love to get back to a greater
  170
  degree of bipartisanship and I hope and trust that we may do so. We remain utterly committed to the Belfast agreement, the peace process and the success of devolved democracy in Northern Ireland. We simply do not believe that the Government are going about things in a sensible way if they wish to reinforce those institutions.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: Of course I shall have to make an exception in favour of my right hon. Friend.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He rightly reminded the House that, when the Conservatives were in government, the Labour Opposition from time to time did not support measures that we introduced. The bipartisan approach never implied total agreement or accord, but it was the pillar on which the Belfast process was built and moved forward, and it was also of great succour to our fighting men and women who were putting their lives on the line for this nation. Can I say to him that, while he is right to criticise individual aspects of Government policy, especially tonight, many of us are still wedded to the concept of the importance, both historically and in the future, of a bipartisan approach?
  Mr. Davies: I am one of those people. I am very much committed to the idea of bipartisanship in this field, as I have said. I agree entirely that we have jointly supported the Belfast agreement. Indeed, I continue to hope—perhaps against hope—that we can get back to a bipartisan approach, but we will not do so on the basis of the tactics adopted by the Government. Neither will we do so, I must tell the Leader of the House, on the basis of the Government's attitude to the House of Commons as he represents it. He cannot get away with neither answering questions to the House nor consulting us in private and still expecting us to support his policies. That does not make any sense.
  Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Davies: I am very sorry; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I had to make an exception in favour of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who has great experience of Northern Ireland.
  The Opposition's view, which I have reiterated several times—I can see that I shall have to return to it on future occasions, as I do not think that the Government have taken it on board—is that it is very important, if we are going to maximise pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to decommission and get decommissioning from other paramilitaries, that a slightly more robust stance be taken. I have proposed that the Government should at least attempt to negotiate a full package—I have called it a programmed process—leading to full decommissioning, so that all parties concerned, including the British Government, know what needs to be done by whom, when and in what order, and so that we have a clear, linked and co-ordinated agreement leading to the completion of decommissioning. Until and unless such a package is negotiated, there should be no further unilateral concessions, least of all if they involve throwing away the integrity of this House. That is what we are deeply concerned about.

  171
  As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that he has an absolute responsibility before the House and before history to ensure that we do not lightly treat our rules and procedures, lightly create different rules for different people, or play ducks and drakes with the constitution of the House of Commons. Above all, he must recognise that we do not sell our rules and procedures, least of all if we receive nothing in return.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope that all hon. Members recognise that I have a record of strenuous opposition to Sinn Fein and that I would never wish us to be soft on it. However, I support the motion so that we can engage with Sinn Fein and express views that its members would find uncomfortable but would have to try to tackle.
  My assistant chairs a group called New Dialogue, which has often disputed Sinn Fein's ideas. I have supplied access to the House to people such as Sean O'Callaghan, who was the southern organiser of the Provisional IRA, but changed his position and became an informer on that organisation. There would therefore be some difficulties for me, and people who work for me, or are associated with me, if Sinn Fein had access to the House. Nevertheless, the motion could lead to substantial gains, and it should be supported.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman know that Mr. O'Callaghan's successor as southern commander of the Provisional IRA is now Member of Parliament for West Tyrone? The motion would give him full access to the House's facilities.
  Mr. Barnes: That already happens in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and there are no problems there. Indeed, the Opposition have said that they would not worry if Sinn Fein Members took their seats as long as they took the Oath and thus became full Members. However, there is a difficulty about rubbing shoulders, which must also exist in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that we should bear it and try to deal with it. We should be aware of it but respond to it strongly.
  Mr. Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman know that as recently as 20 November, Republican News, the Sinn Fein newspaper, republished an article entitled "IRA Strike Hard"? It referred to a hard-hitting IRA operation, which succeeded in "executing" someone whom it described as the "loyalist extremist Robert Bradford", a former Member of Parliament. Given the contempt of Sinn Fein and the IRA for democracy as represented by the House and its Members, is it the right time to admit the four people whom we are considering to the facilities of this place?
  Mr. Barnes: It is the right time. I do not doubt what the hon. Gentleman says about the positions that Sinn Fein adopts in Republican News. I have been attacked on its front pages for lines that I have taken. However, changes are happening. A sea change is beginning that allows us to start to draw Sinn Fein into the political
  172
  process and to put alternative viewpoints, which, I hope, will drive it from having any standing or position in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
  We cannot get rid of Sinn Fein's political viewpoint by trying to distance ourselves from it. At one time, we tried to deny Sinn Fein the oxygen of publicity. Sinn Fein Members were seen on television, but their voices were not heard, because their words were spoken by actors. We were told that if that system were changed, the news media might engage in proper discussions with Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, when the change occurred, that full and fearless discussion did not take place. Sinn Fein gets away with murder on television, and perhaps elsewhere, in terms of their position. We should be capable of taking on Sinn Fein and we should have sufficient strength in our position to be prepared fearlessly to argue those points.
  The fact that Sinn Fein Members would be around and about within the Palace of Westminster has advantages for the rest of us in taking on board their position. I would sooner that means were found—perhaps getting rid of the Oath—to allow them to sit on these Benches. It would then be easier to take on their arguments, because they are not unanswerable.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: If there were to be an opportunity to debate the abhorrent policies of Sinn Fein-IRA as a result of those Members taking their seats, the hon. Gentleman's argument would stand up. However, we know that the Sinn Fein Members said in their election addresses—and repeated it on the "Today" programme this morning—that they were not prepared to take part in any democratic debates in this Chamber. It is not a matter of the Oath, important though that is. They abhor democracy and have referred to this place as a foreign Parliament. How can we allow these terrorists into this democratic debate? They are not democrats.
  Mr. Barnes: Abhorring democracy and seeing this place as foreign are not tied together. The loyalty of those Members may be seen to be more towards the Republic of Ireland than the UK, but the Republic has a democratic system. Those Members have some problems in dealing with the argument within the institutions of the Republic. I would like to see the day when they are taken fully on board within the Republic of Ireland.
  Jeremy Corbyn: May I take my hon. Friend back to the Oath? The general understanding of the Sinn Fein position is that its Members do not wish to take their seats in the British Parliament because they want a united Ireland and a Parliament there in which they could take part. The argument on this motion is fundamentally a democratic one about the rights of those Members to represent their constituents in the best way that they can. By denying them access to this building, we deny their constituents access to democratic representation.
  Mr. Barnes: They should be here, but not just because of the rights that that would give them and those on whose behalf they speak. It is about the rights that we are given to deal with their position—a position that we should be capable of responding to.
  David Winnick: Did not the Provisional IRA come into existence not to achieve democratic reforms in Northern Ireland, but for one reason and one reason only:

  173
  to bring about a united Ireland, against the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland? Where is this united Ireland? Is it not as remote as it was 30 years ago? Why on earth do some people give the impression that the IRA has won a remarkable victory?
  Mr. Barnes: Yes. The Belfast agreement essentially guarantees Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, unless the people agree in a referendum to change it, and that is light years away. Unionism should recognise that it has gained a tremendous advantage from the situation. The Opposition continually argue that concession after concession has been made to Sinn Fein, but that is not the case. An overall position advantageous to Unionism has emerged from the agreement, and that must be recognised.
  On occasion, attempts are made to push back Sinn Fein. For example, in my speech last night, I discussed the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, a Bill that is directed fundamentally against Sinn Fein, which manipulates and manoeuvres the electorate to get seats. It has not been ruled against by electoral courts, so its members still hold legitimate positions, but, in the end, if the issue is dealt with fully and properly in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will win fewer seats.
  If we take on the politics that I have described, I believe that we will overrun Sinn Fein so that constitutional nationalism, through the Social Democratic and Labour party, for instance, would be in a prominent position. The Labour party should be willing to organise in Northern Ireland to take those issues on and we should take the debate on measures that the House considers into the Province to argue the case.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I agree totally with my hon. Friend on that count—for many years, I have advocated restoring the Northern Ireland Labour party—but may I ask about another matter? I assume that he regards himself as my equal. Like me, he was elected by adult franchise and by a majority in his constituency according to an electoral system that he and I recognise. If he arrived in the House of Commons and found that, unfortunately, he was subject to one set of basic rules while another Member operated under a second and totally different set that offered some privileges without the work having to be done, what would be his response?
  Mr. Barnes: Any elected Member is subject to the provisions that are being agreed to tonight and that are established generally. In some future situation, someone else, apart from Sinn Fein Members, might decide that he wants to operate in that peculiar way, but it is not a matter of fundamental constitutional or parliamentary principle that what is proposed should not occur.
  I return to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Traditionally, Sinn Fein would not take seats in the Republic of Ireland or in Stormont, but the situation has changed. The distorted principles that it held in the past have been influenced and altered, and it is willing to act to try to maximise its political advantage or to minimise disadvantages. Owing to that, it agreed to the position on putting some arms beyond use. It was under tremendous pressure and liable to lose very much financially and
  174
  politically, so it has altered its views and attitudes. It is on the slippery slope over its past position and we should encourage that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his shadow had an argument about whether the motion is a matter of principle or of money. The shadow Secretary of State said that, in the end, it is a matter of principle, although it sounded to me as though it is about the money.
  If it is about the money, I do not know what Sinn Fein is after. It is the richest political party in western Europe, and it has obtained its money by all sorts of devious and other means. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) that Sinn Fein Members should be obliged to make an entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  A number of Members have registered the fact that 25 per cent. or more of their election expenses came from certain organisations, such as trade unions in the case of various Labour Members. Where did 25 per cent. of Sinn Fein's money come from when its members stood for election? If Sinn Fein Members had to register such details, they should be subject to investigation, especially if—for all Members—we made investigation of such matters more rigorous. If we began to take account of some of the manoeuvres and manipulations in which the organisation has been involved, that would be a healthy development.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Did I mishear, or did the Leader of the House indeed say that no registration would be required because the Members had not taken their seats, and that although they were engaging in constituency advocacy and representation, they would not be subject to the same rules as other Members?
  Mr. Barnes: Perhaps that could be clarified. I understood that those who had taken the Oath and had been Members for more than three months must then be included in the register. If that excludes Sinn Fein, the provision should be altered.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Let me clear up this point. The provision does not exclude Sinn Fein, although my hon. Friend is right about the requirement for registration within three months of a Member's taking his seat. If registration were required of Sinn Fein Members, or indeed any other Members who did not take the Oath, it would have to take place three months after their election.
  In response to an earlier intervention, let me add that those who do not take the Oath are bound by the same code of conduct as those who do, and are therefore required to accept investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Not all the consequences of the motion might be equally welcome to the four Sinn Fein MPs.
  Mr. Barnes: Some Members laughed during that intervention, but I think that such points about standards and arrangements are very important. Even if there is no general willingness to obey the rules, they will take on a new significance: they will begin to alter the shape of the activities in which the Members have been involved. That has already begun to happen in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. If we can encourage it to happen here, we should take the chance.
  Mr. Michael Mates: Not for the first time, I fully agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman

  175
  is saying. He makes an important point which, with respect, the Leader of the House has not properly answered. Nothing in the motion will change the current position whereby a Member who has not taken his seat is not required to make an entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I confirmed that today—Members may not know that the new register was published today. Under "Adams, Gerry" we see only
  "Mr. Adams has not taken his seat."
  If the hon. Gentleman is trying to press the Leader of the House to change that as well—if the House passes the motion giving Sinn Fein Members these allowances—I am right behind him, and I think that most of the House will be as well.
  Mr. Barnes: That matter should be taken on board. If it is not covered by the current arrangements, it should be. We are not doing it on this occasion because it might not be procedurally possible. If some of us had known of this debate a little earlier, we could have tabled the appropriate amendments. Nevertheless, it should be done as soon as possible. The measure on registration should apply to Sinn Fein Members as much as it applies to anyone else.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I admire the hon. Gentleman's hope and optimism. He may be aware that the Electoral Commission has already published the expenses of the parties at the last general election, including the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but the figure for Sinn Fein accepted by the Electoral Commission is £8,000 or £9,000. How will the commission discover what was spent by Sinn Fein and bring that out into the open? Is it not time that we stopped pussyfooting around in the whole business?
  Mr. Barnes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in favour of the finances of Sinn Fein, the IRA, other paramilitary bodies and the parties linked to them being thoroughly investigated and seeing the light of day, and of taking action that flows from that against those organisations, but that is not the only tactic that we should be engaged in. We should not always engage in the tactic of pressure to get concessions, as it were. We should also be for pulling them into the political process.
  The analogy between how the Labour party came out of the trade unions and how Sinn Fein as a political body came out of the IRA has some relevance. The Labour party started to change over time. It distanced itself from the trade unions—too much, some of us think. We want Sinn Fein, because it has been pulled into the political process, to begin to detach itself from what remains of the IRA. I suspect that the IRA will still be strong and involved in racketeering and mafia-type activity. Action will have to be taken at that time. We could reach a situation in which the organisations begin to be distinct and not inextricably interlinked, as they happen to be at the moment.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I am a Liverpool, Irish, cradle Catholic. I happen to be inclined towards republicanism. I also aspire to a united Ireland, but I knew when I came in here that I would have to take an Oath of Allegiance. I also knew that the honour of
  176
  being an MP was about representing not just Westminster in the constituency but the constituency in Westminster. Does it not denigrate hon. Members to suggest that there is an honourable role for people to act just as glorified social workers in their constituency, without their being held to account in this Chamber, with all the rules that go with it?
  Mr. Barnes: Sinn Fein should be here and should be held to account. On a past occasion, I acted on behalf of a constituent in Belfast, West. I finished up getting what seemed to be a letter of safe conduct from Gerry Adams in connection with that, saying that it was okay to go ahead. I argued about that because he should be here doing his work, and checking and responding to the Executive, but it is a matter of how we achieve that situation. It will not occur dramatically.
  It is all right for people such as me. I have reservations about the Oath and about the religious prayers that take place here each day, but I involve myself in them. I am not one of those people who sits down during prayers to show that I have a principled position. I will be a hypocrite, pray and turn around with everyone else even though I might not share those views. The Oath to the Crown is perhaps like that, but there are far more important and significant things to do. I wish that Northern Ireland politics was not so hung up on ideas, views and strict principles that can never be invaded, even though those views are sometimes despicable.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the point that I made to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)? Is there not a difference between holding republican or atheistic views, such as those that my hon. Friend expressed, and standing for election and being elected on them, and then being asked to deny them to take a seat in this House?
  Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend's point was well put, and that is a particular problem. If principles, whatever they are, are writ large, people have difficulty moving beyond them. I believe in many different principles that all rub up against each other. On some occasions, I have to make difficult choices between them. I wish that that were the case for Sinn Fein and many other politicians in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hogg: Building on the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is not the way forward not to create two separate classes of Member, but to remove the Oath, either entirely or in the form in which it stands in the way of loyal, committed republicans honestly taking it? If we remove the Oath in its present form, Sinn Fein has no possible excuse for not sitting here, and its members can take up all their rights and obligations or none of them. What they cannot do is say that we are standing in their way.
  Mr. Barnes: I have much sympathy for that point of view, because if not having the Oath made it easier for Members to take their seats, everybody would be on an equal footing. The argument of Sinn Fein Members would then be weakened. One could ask why they had taken their seats in the Republic of Ireland Parliament in a divided Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but refused to take their seats in the UK Parliament.

  177
  They would, in time, take their seats here. If we accept the motion, we will make progress in that direction. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to press for that change, I would support it, but it could build on the motion before us today.
  Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend said that we should make it easy for people to take an Oath and enter the Commons. Surely we should have an Oath that concentrates on the essentials, which concern the way in which political affairs should be conducted in this country. That might be difficult for some people to take, but it would be essential for us to hold to. We need to put aside some aspects of the Oath that are not essential but that may be barriers to people taking it, and concentrate on what is essential. We should not make the test one of whether it is easy for people to take the Oath, but of whether the Oath is meaningful and reflects the democratic way of life that this Chamber represents.
  Mr. Barnes: Either we need an Oath that relates to democracy and parliamentary activities or, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), no Oath at all. Why have an Oath if people have been elected to the House through due procedure? Such people would have been elected by the majority of the electorate in their constituencies, and we should proceed on that basis.
  It would have been possible to make a speech even if I had had no notes, because I have taken so many interventions. They have carried me along and made me think on my feet.
  In conclusion, I shall describe my general political position, as it affects my attitude to the motion. It is sometimes argued that people who adopt my position are really Orangemen or Unionists. That is not the case. I happen to believe that there are many honourable and decent Unionists. We should be very concerned about the Unionist working class, and we should not parody Unionists as people in bowler hats walking in parades. We should understand the reality of their culture.
  However, I am not green either. In the long run, the commercial and economic links between the north and south of Ireland might grow and people might decide to change the constitutional arrangements. That is up to them. I have neither a green agenda, nor an orange one. I feel that all the stuff about the border is trivial, and has been blown up into a great issue. It prevents us from discussing the bread-and-butter political issues that affect people's lives in working-class areas.
  In different territories of Belfast, the streets are either red, white and blue or green, orange and white. Yet the people in those areas have much more in common with each other than they have in opposition to each other. Therefore, my colour is red, not green or orange. My position is that of the traditional democrat socialist: I believe in the essential unity of people, and especially of working-class people. I believe that their position in society should be raised, and that working-class Catholics and Protestants should live together.
  In 1906, the Labour party—formerly the Labour Representation Committee—held its first conference in Belfast. The problem is that the party does not even organise in the city now. That is something to which we should return.
  5.22 pm
  Lembit Öpik: It is clear that the key question is whether it is acceptable to agree with the Government and provide office space and costs to Sinn Fein Members, or whether the idea is such a bad one that it justifies the Conservative party walking away from the bipartisan arrangement.
  I and many other hon. Members accept that this is a vexed issue. Many hon. Members whom I respect—such as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and others among my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—have significant concerns about the principle involved in giving Sinn Fein Members these facilities when they are not required to take the Oath, and all that that entails.
  The vote at the end of the debate will be free, and I suggest that the balance is in favour of approving the motion. The concerns about principle, valid though they may be, are outweighed by the benefit that would be done to the peace process. Crucially, they are outweighed by the fact that, at every stage in the negotiation of the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland, similar leaps of faith have had to be taken, and by parties of more than one colour.
  Mr. Hawkins: Should not the hon. Gentleman be a little more realistic? He is the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland matters, and I am one of the security spokesmen for the Conservative party. We both know that the reality is that, even though tonight's vote may technically be described as free for members of other parties, the Government intend to insure that their payroll vote will force the matter through in a way that is wholly unconscionable. Will not the hon. Gentleman speak about the reality of the position in this House on this important matter?
  Lembit Öpik: The reality is that it is not for me to pronounce on the internal organisation of the Labour party. I assure the hon. Gentleman that tonight's vote will be genuinely free for Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that my colleagues, when they make their decision, take into account my comments, as well as those of others. However, as an aside, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is curious that, although the motion is subject to a free vote among Conservative Members, it nevertheless has sufficient policy implications that the party feels able to walk away from the bipartisan agreement. I fail to understand how those two factors can coincide.
  Mr. Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the official Opposition—the Conservative and Unionist party—might demur from the bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland peace process as a result of understandable principles on such issues as the release of prisoners or lack of progress on decommissioning? Does he accept how inexplicable people over here and in Northern Ireland will find the fact that 30 years of bipartisan work is being torn up over the principle of a desk, an office space and access to a photocopier?
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman and I take the same position. There is a fundamental contradiction, however, in the Conservative spokespeople on Northern Ireland

  179
  pretending that their party has a free vote and yet pronouncing, hours before the debate is even held and before they have seen how their colleagues vote, that they will walk away from the bipartisan agreement.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The explanation is simple. Much to our regret, we have found it impossible to support or, often, even to understand Government policy in recent weeks. They have made no attempt to explain it to us either privately or in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has heard me ask questions that go to the heart of this and other proposals for Northern Ireland to which we have not had responses. It is not the case that we have walked away from bipartisanship because of this issue, or, indeed, that we have walked away from bipartisanship at all. The Government have made it impossible for us to be bipartisan. This is just one of a series of endless and apparently uncontrolled concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Conservative Members always have a free vote on House of Commons issues, and this is essentially a House of Commons issue. It is, however, one of the many contexts in which the Government have given us great grounds for anxiety about the course on which they are launched in negotiating the completion of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
  Lembit Öpik: That serves to confirm that either the hon. Gentleman is not aware of his pronouncements in the press or that he is choosing to redefine what a free vote means. He specifically stated in the press that Conservative Members were walking away from the bipartisan agreement explicitly because of the decision that they anticipated would be made tonight.
  The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say that he speaks for the Conservative party. As I am a Liberal and enjoy an eclectic political approach, perhaps I should join the Conservative party. It seems that a free vote is not a free vote and that Front-Bench Members can say whatever they like because the free vote really belongs to them.
  Mr. Davies: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is quoting, but he is not quoting me. If he had listened to what I just said, he would understand what our policy is. If he has some other quotation, let him put it to me. There may be some speculation about my position, but whatever has been said is not a direct quote from me.
  Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) tells me that he heard the hon. Gentleman on the radio.
  I think that I have made my point, and Members can draw their own conclusion.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. On its front page, The Daily Telegraph—which is daily reading for me-says:
  "the Tories said they were pulling the plug on the principle of cross-party support".
  That appears to be in the context of what The Daily Telegraph helpfully says is an interview with
  "the shadow Northern Ireland secretary".
  180
  Either the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made what I am sure was an error in misleading The Daily Telegraph as to what the Conservative party was doing or he has had second thoughts since that interview.
  Lembit Öpik: I can see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to say something. If he wishes to intervene on me, I am happy to give way again.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct what the Leader of the House has said. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote my words, which are quite properly quoted—except for one wrong word—on page 4 of The Daily Telegraph. The words in inverted commas are properly attributed to me, except for one, and I stand by them. I am not responsible for any press comment on that interview or anything else.
  Lembit Öpik: I knew that the anti-terrorism legislation was pernicious, but if it is so powerful that the Government have managed to win over the heart and mind of The Daily Telegraph, that is indeed worrying. I have made my point, the hon. Gentleman has tried to respond and the House can draw its own conclusions.
  I assume that to walk away from bipartisanship does not mean walking away from the shared goal of peace. I hope to convince hon. Members—on the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere—that, at heart, the judgment that we should make tonight is whether the motion will so help peace and improve the chances for a sustained and normalised political environment that it is worth the risks and the emotional costs involved. The real debate is thus whether such a precedent—it is indeed a precedent—is acceptable in the context of the big picture in Northern Ireland that we must always bear in mind.
  I hope that the House will accept the following point in the spirit in which it is intended. The debate has thrown into sharp focus for the entire House a matter that is often debated by a small and experienced number of Members—perhaps 20 or 30—who are often in the Chamber. We are really discussing a snapshot of the point that we have reached in the peace process. The discussion of the need to do things in a new way is not a new principle.
  Having criticised the Conservatives for walking away from bipartisanship, I now offer the House three examples of momentous precedents set by the Conservative party in the pursuit of peace. Hon. Members will remember the stress and the history of the Anglo-Irish agreement. Although we all accept the strength of the relationship that now exists between Dublin and Westminster, let us not forget that it was almost non-existent before the advent of that agreement.
  The Anglo-Irish agreement was instituted at a time when the Dublin Government claimed a constitutional hold over Northern Ireland—that they had a constitutional mandate to reunify Ireland. Who was the person who pushed through that agreement? It was Margaret Thatcher—not regarded as a republican icon in any quarter. Why did she promote the agreement? Because in her judgment—and to her credit—and in the judgment of her Government, the potential loss of popularity was more than outweighed by the benefits to the peace process.

  181
  The second precedent was created by another former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major. He picked up the phone and spoke to the IRA at a time when they were not even on a ceasefire. When he was holding those conversations, which had been—as we have already heard—going on for some time, the IRA were bombing, maiming and killing, and destroying property as part of what they considered a war.
  Was John Major an apologist for the IRA? Absolutely not. The reason that he took what turned out to be a courageous and laudable decision was that, in his judgment, it was the right one to secure the ultimate goal of peace. I said during our debate last night—as I have said many times in the Chamber—that John Major's great contribution to the House was the series of decisions that he took, initially in private, which he then made public, to negotiate with individuals who had never been involved in the decision-making process.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I am most impressed by his argument. However, can he offer me a single instance—just one—of evidence that the important change that we propose to make tonight will produce the kind of result that he is talking about?
  Lembit Öpik: I am describing unique and unprecedented incidents and arguing that the proposal falls into the same category: it is a new and unique opportunity to set a further precedent. I fully accept the hon. Lady's implication: a risk is involved—as there was on those previous occasions. However, I want to show the House that whenever we have taken such risks—although they may not have been justifiable at the time—they were worth it in the longer term.
  David Winnick: When a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement regarding contacts with the IRA, I do not recall that any Conservative Member objected to what was being proposed—perhaps hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would care to listen to my remarks. Is not it true that the only Conservative who resigned from a Government position over the Anglo-Irish agreement was Ian Gow, who was to be foully murdered by the IRA? No other Minister considered it appropriate to resign.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's intervention simply serves to show that, to the credit of the Conservative party and others in the House, it was decided that the interests of Northern Ireland exceeded the party political gain to be made from taking an opportunistic shot at the then Government. Furthermore, they were vindicated in taking that decision.
  The third example closely relates to what happened last night. In 1997, when John Major was still the Prime Minister and Conservative Members occupied the Government Benches, they passed an amnesty on handing in weapons under which paramilitary organisations and terrorists would not be prosecuted for handing in their guns. Let us remember that that took place in a political vacuum—there was no Good Friday agreement, nor any guarantee that there would be any lasting ceasefire, yet, once again, John Major set a precedent in Northern Ireland's recent history. He did so because he believed that the risk of setting that precedent—letting people off
  182
  the hook and, by implication, letting people off the principle of being prosecuted for being terrorists—was more than outweighed by the benefit.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument carefully, and I agree with much of it, but does he not agree that it would be much to the benefit of the House if some of the issues raised so far in the debate were taken forward by the Leader of the House, particularly those relating to the Oath, Members' interests and the possible reimposition of the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 on the financing and management of Northern Ireland parties?
  Lembit Öpik: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Minister would be advised to respond to it in his summation at the end of the debate. Some very important issues have been raised—for example, by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—and I shall say a few words about them in a little while.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there has been no reciprocation, but those three examples provide evidence to show that the risks that the Conservative Government took were paid back in clear and definitive results. I am sure that the Anglo-Irish agreement was the forerunner to the decision by the south of Ireland to abandon, eventually by referendum, its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland. That momentous decision would not have been taken if the Conservative Government and Margaret Thatcher had not driven forward that decision at an earlier stage.
  On the secret talks on terrorism, I am pretty certain that the Good Friday agreement would not have been reached if the former Conservative Government had not had the courage to make progress, first in secret and then in public. Once again, there is clear evidence—albeit circumstantial—that that was justified.
  I am absolutely certain that the limited movement on arms in October 2001, which has led to the first important, albeit symbolic, act of decommissioning by the IRA would not have occurred without the amnesty which was launched in 1997. If the risk is tested against the result in each of those three examples, we can put a tick in the box and say that the risk was vindicated on all three occasions.
  The process is not new. It is a little known fact that in 1972 Gerry Adams and other republican prisoners—
  Mr. David Trimble: Internees.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sorry. Internees were flown to London for secret talks with Secretary of State Whitelaw to find out whether progress could be made. I hope that I have clearly shown that such precedents often produce results in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that a strong stance leads to progress, but on what basis? Each of those three events was an act of good faith, and each produced howls of protest in the Chamber, uncertainty among Northern Ireland's politicians for very good reasons and discomfort within the Government, yet each event led to breakthroughs that have brought us very close to peace.
  The issue is not whether this proposal is a precedent but whether this precedent conforms to the criteria that caused previous Governments to take comparable risks.

  183
  I would argue that it does and that the points raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford do not stand up to scrutiny when they are compared with the earlier practical precedents. Furthermore, the claim that that view has a basis of principle was clearly undermined by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who pointed out that, in large part, we are returning to circumstances that prevailed for half the entire term of the previous Conservative Administrations—for nine years—without being amended. Therefore, in fairness to those on the Conservative Front Bench, I must assume that they are willing to listen to arguments about practicality.
  To return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), certain issues need to be resolved. There is confusion as to whether Elizabeth Filkin will have a binding power to scrutinise the new Members. Will the Minister respond on that point and, if she does not have that power, will he assure us that the position will be amended in due course? However, as Unionist Members have pointed out, some fear that Mrs. Filkin risks being put verifiably beyond use.
  The issue of confidence-building measures on both sides came up in the debate last night. Those who have most justification for being deeply concerned by the proposal are those on the Unionist Benches. They are on the front-line of Northern Ireland politics and they—not us—have had to put up with many concessions, perceived concessions and reconciliation and so forth.
  By taking some of the heat ourselves, we are, to some extent, making amends for the enormous pressures that we have put on Northern Ireland's politicians. This proposal is not a new concept for Northern Ireland or for Stormont and, if we feel some discomfort, it is only a fraction of that felt in Northern Ireland as we caused a political settlement to take place that mandatorily required cross-party support and cross-party alliance. It is telling that that cross-party alliance led 100 per cent. of the nationalists and republicans in Stormont to vote to maintain the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—a Unionist—in the post of First Minister. [Interruption.] I can hear the delight and joy as hon. Members behind me recall that wonderful occasion, but the achievement of Stormont is that it has achieved some form of reconciliation. I suggest that we are now taking on a small share of that process.
  The amendments to the motion can be categorised in three classes: requirements about the Oath, requirements about renouncing violence and requirements about decommissioning. On the first class, Liberal Democrats feel that there is a strong case to move forward on the Oath, and I have heard other Members also express that view. I seek guidance from the Minister on what plans there might be to tackle that issue. However, I doubt whether simply changing the Oath will overcome the strong principled objection to the republicans sitting in the House. However, let us remember that history shows us that they have been here before.
  On the second class of amendments, no one wants individuals who celebrate violence in this place. However, this proposal is hardly a green light for anyone coming here to use it as a base to promote violent activities. I doubt whether anyone in their right mind would
  184
  seriously suggest that a terrorist organisation would have the audacity or even the stupidity to do that from within the curtilage of the House.
  On the point about decommissioning, I believe that this proposal will be a driver to decommissioning. One of the tests of success is whether decommissioning proceeds, and we will be sorely let down by the republican movement if it fails to deliver arms on the basis of such concessions.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman mentions three classes of amendment, but is there not a fourth class? It tries, perhaps unsuccessfully, to make the important point that being a Member of Parliament is not just about doing the things that we all want to do, and care about doing, on behalf of our constituents as we look after their taxation needs and the like, but about playing a part in the House. The allowances are provided for both those activities. To apply them specifically to one activity makes a statement about the nature of the House that many of us, who are not known to be supporters of the extreme Unionist position, find distasteful.
  Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly respect on many issues, rightly outlines the principal objection. If hon. Members believe that that objection is so great that they cannot go along with the motion, despite the perceived benefits that I suggest will accrue for the peace process, it would be principled for them to vote against it. I am simply saying that that is not where I stand, and I encourage my hon. Friends to take the same view. It is unarguable that the right hon. Gentleman raises an important consideration; if it were not, the debate would not be so charged.
  If Sinn Fein Members were totally cynical, they could take the Oath now and receive all the benefits, together with the salary. The fact is that they have not. I believe that we are discussing a halfway house that might one day lead them to take their places here. More than anything, however, it will stitch them closely into the parliamentary procedures of the Chamber, which will cause them to moderate their behaviour and to recognise that any return to violence will be hugely damaging to their public image both on the mainland and among the electorate to whom they are attempting to appeal.
  Let us also recognise that an enormous bitterness surrounds Northern Ireland politics. As human beings, we have human feelings about, for example, Airey Neave, the 300-plus police who have been killed in Northern Ireland and the thousands of casualties. The House would be a worse place if we did not have those feelings. However, we are at the juncture at which we should draw a line between the past and the future, and this measure is a watershed in that process. The emotional pressure that many people feel is understandable. The frustration about where we might be heading is genuine and we must make judgments accordingly. However, reconciliation is a "doing" word. It is a mutual act that is hard precisely because it begins with one side negotiating with those whom it hates and who, ultimately, have to reciprocate.
  We could demonise Sinn Fein and the leaders of the republican movement, although every time that we have done so we have caused a retrenchment and sometimes a recruitment drive in those organisations. Alternatively, we could subjugate our feelings to our values and ask whether

  185
  this is another opportunity to build on the precedents set by the Conservative Government and this Government. I do not suggest that the world will end if we do not do that; nor do I suggest that peace and decommissioning will be secured tomorrow if we do. However, I ask hon. Members to consider whether the principal objection that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) outlined is so great that it precludes us from taking a further risk. If hon. Members think that, there is not much more that I can say to them, because the alternative is to take that risk in this free vote.
  Incidentally, unlike the Conservatives, we will not pull out of the agreement even if the Liberal Democrat vote goes against my recommendation. We will continue to play a positive and proactive part with all sides and all players, whatever the outcome tonight. Ironically, the debate has occurred simply because we have not had an opportunity to discuss the subject before, but it was inevitable that we would have to face it. This degree of cynicism is no longer appropriate.
  That is all I want to say. I shall respect what my colleagues do, but I sincerely hope that we prove, in our vote tonight, that reconciliation is not something that we force on the politicians and people of Northern Ireland and then leave at the door of the House when we come here to debate the very same matters.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) suggested, the debate has two broad strands—the rights of Members who stood for election on the basis of not taking their seat in this place, and the Northern Ireland peace process. Although I regard the first factor as important and deserving of careful debate and scrutiny, the second overrides it by far. On that basis, I shall urge all my hon. Friends to vote for the motion.
  There is a long history to the debate into which, obviously, it would not be appropriate to go, but I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that the fundamental flaw at the heart of his argument is one that the Conservative party has made a number of times, and it concerns the political judgment to be made. That judgment is about whether we want the peace process to go forward. The flaw in his argument led him into difficulty when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland asked him about the principle versus the money. The Conservative party has at times taken a view of the whole problem instead of a single part of it. Every now and then, it lurches back into looking at a small part, which is what it is doing today.
  I remember my earliest involvement in Northern Ireland issues in the House in the early 1980s, after the horrors of the dirty protest and the hunger strike. Jim Prior, now Lord Prior, was in my judgment probably the best Secretary of State that Northern Ireland had under that Government, or indeed under previous Governments. He made dramatic progress because he recognised, as a number of us had been arguing for many years, that neither the Unionists nor the republicans could overturn what was desired by both the British and Irish Governments acting in union, and that what was required to sort out the complex problems of Northern Ireland was a joint agreement between Ireland and Britain.
  It was Lord Prior who achieved that agreement. He sat on the Government Front Bench, and I on the Opposition Front Bench, late into the night, night after night, and he
  186
  was being driven to the wall by the late Enoch Powell and all the Unionists. I would rally what few troops I had—there were usually only one or two of us about at 3 o'clock in the morning—to support the Conservative Government when it came to a vote. We did that because we knew that the process was going in the right direction, even though we might have had individual disagreements about the way in which it was achieved.
  I knew early on that, quite apart from the horrors of the hunger strike and the dirty protest, not only would those events be a publicity disaster for Britain but they would not help Sinn Fein in the long run. The way out of the trap was to achieve the classic British fudge, which I and others had been suggesting for some time, of refusing to give the prisoners political status, which would have been utterly wrong, while making certain concessions, such as allowing them to wear civilian clothes, which we had already given prisoners on this side of the water regardless of why they had committed their offence.
  We might describe the proposal tonight as a British fudge—I do not care whether we do or not. The principle that we are concerned with here, of sorting out the nightmarish problems of Northern Ireland, is more important than whether there are slight inconsistencies in the use of the allowances paid to Members of the House.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Why, then, does not the motion make it clear that we are talking not about the House of Commons but about a concession for the House that has political implications way beyond our shores, and which should be regarded not as something that affects the House but as a matter relating to Irish politics? There is no indication of that anywhere on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are two strands to this matter. I shall turn in a moment to the second strand, which might satisfy her, but only to a limited extent. We cannot approach the motion without bearing in mind the overall political context. I make to my hon. Friend the same point that I made to the Conservative party: if we make that mistake again, we will lurch back into the problems that the Conservative Government got into several times when dealing with Northern Ireland. They got stuck on a detail, instead of looking to the long term.
  Some of those problems have been referred to already. I remember the Conservative Government having secret talks with the IRA, never mind Sinn Fein. I supported them in that because in my view the talks were necessary and a good idea. The Government were in difficulty with their own side partly because they were reliant for their survival, at that stage, on Unionist votes, and because they could not themselves, as a party, face the difficulty of crossing that bridge. It was a difficult bridge to cross, just as the release of prisoners was difficult. No one should doubt the difficulty of these issues.
  There is something else that we in this House, rather than people in Northern Ireland, need to remember: that both Unionists and republicans have made incredible concessions. We ought to respect that. The concessions that they have made could not have been predicted 20 years ago. They became a little more predictable recently. I turn now to some of those concessions because they return us to the core of the motion.

  187
  There is a process whereby Sinn Fein, in particular, and some Unionist paramilitary groups, are moving, hesitantly and at times in contradictory ways, towards accepting the democratic process and rejecting violence. There are very few examples in history of such organisations renouncing violence overnight and sticking with that promise. It is almost always a messy, unpleasant, inconsistent and dishonest process, but it is a process, and that is why the phrase "peace process" is so important and why I tell people to keep that in mind.
  Mr. Stunell: I am following what the hon. Gentleman says, and I agree with him very much. Does he agree, however, that the peace process can go forward or backward, but that it cannot remain stationary, which is one good reason for moving it forward tonight?
  Mr. Soley: I was going to say that the one thing that Northern Ireland cannot afford to do is to stand still. It stood still for hundreds of years, which did it nothing but damage. At times, we all look across the water at Northern Ireland and think, "This couldn't possibly be Britain." As I used to point out to Sinn Fein, 10 or 15 years ago, nor could it be southern Ireland, because southern Ireland had changed. Britain had changed too, but the idea that Northern Ireland, whether Unionist or republican, was like Britain or Ireland was becoming a nonsense. The more that Northern Ireland dug itself into the violence and hatred, the more different it got. One of the core problems was that we had to pull Northern Ireland out of that process.
  I turn now to the second strand of the issue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. If I were pushed, I would say that there is a difficulty about how far we make concessions about the facilities that MPs can use, even if they got themselves elected on the basis of not taking their seats. There is no great point of principle. This is an argument about where the line should be drawn. More importantly, rather than getting bogged down on the question of whether Members are representing their constituents—a fair point made in an intervention—we should address a different argument that links the matter straight back into the peace process. That argument is that Sinn Fein will move.
  In the past, I have made certain predictions about where the Unionists will end up and where the republicans will end up. I have been wrong on both scores at times, but I have also been right on several occasions. I make another prediction tonight: that within about four years, Sinn Fein Members will be taking their seats on those Benches. [Interruption.] Let me tell the House why I say that. I have seen statements from Sinn Fein saying that its Members will not take their seats even if we change the Oath, and I shall return to the Oath. When members of Sinn Fein told me that, they did so with the same intensity that they told me they would never take seats in the Stormont Assembly—that they would never accept the idea of a united Ireland by consent because that would mean a Unionist veto. They said that they would stay with the bullet and the ballot box, or the Armalite and the ballot box, until the British were driven out of Ireland. That did not happen and they accepted the present situation.
  188
  In saying all those things, I do not wish to underestimate or understate the concessions made by the Unionists. I recognise how far they have moved, especially in recent years. People on the ground in Northern Ireland—the Unionist population—are changing. Seeing them used to make me sad because they seemed to be trapped in the past. Now, however, they are emerging from that and, although their progress is slow and painful, they are moving, and we must help them with that.
  The issue of the Oath is important. When I served on the Modernisation Committee three or four years ago, I put it to members of the Committee that we ought to change the Oath. I proposed not that we get rid of the existing one, but that alongside it should run an oath that would enable Members to swear allegiance to the democratic process of Parliament.
  Many countries have accepted such an oath. In fact, we have drawn up such oaths for them—it is not the first example of our writing other constitutions rather better than we wrote our own. People ought to have a choice. When I served on the Modernisation Committee I made the point—I think that Baroness Boothroyd refers to it in her book—that such an oath would assist in getting Sinn Fein into the House. I said so because wider issues were involved; it was daft that people such as the late Willie Hamilton should come to the House, take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, then stand up in the Chamber and denounce every aspect of the British royal family. That is a contradiction for many Scottish nationalists; it is anomalous that many Members on both sides of the House should have to take the Oath in that way.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to separate the issue of the Oath from today's debate and vote, it would be a mistake to lose sight of the underlying argument.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it may be better to have no oath at all? We would simply be elected to Parliament and declared elected by the returning officer. That would be the end of it; we would then get on with the job.
  Mr. Soley: That is possible, although there may be value in showing a commitment to the parliamentary and democratic process.
  Jeremy Corbyn: We could be nominated, then.
  Mr. Soley: That might be enough, but dictators have emerged in Parliament; it might be a little easier for them to take over if people have not signed up to the democratic process. One can argue about whether or not such an oath is important; most of us who believe in a democratic process should not have any difficulty in taking it. Sinn Fein argues that it is in favour of the democratic process. One can question whether or not it—or, indeed, many Unionist paramilitary groups—has been in favour of it over the years, but it is moving towards that position. The fact that members of Sinn Fein are taking their seats in Stormont, when they said that they would not, and are serving as Ministers, when they said that they would not, indicates that that is happening.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: First, would it not be more intellectually honest of the Government to debate

  189
  the Oath or whatever affirmation is required of Members of Parliament, and then come to the debate that we are now having? Secondly, would it not be more intellectually honest of them to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and refer not to the facilities of the House but step 54 of the peace process?
  Mr. Soley: It would have been more intellectually honest of former Prime Minister John Major to say that he was having secret talks with the IRA. At the beginning of my speech I said that two things were being held up for judgment: the process by which people take their seats and receive support, and the question of Northern Ireland. I made it clear that although there may be problems with people taking their seats, taxpayers' support and so on, in such a situation we should do something that the British are good at. We should say, "In these circumstances, certain inconsistencies are involved, but there is a greater political gain because we are engaged in a peace process that is helping the people of Northern Ireland enormously."
  That is profoundly important. If one sets the issue in that context, it is a mistake to get hung up on the absolutes of black and white, putting things in little boxes and insisting that they stay there. The issue could, by all means, be blurred; if one tries to run politics by logic alone, one inevitably ends up fighting, not least because one person's logic is another person's contradiction.
  Mr. Gummer: I subscribed very much to the case that the hon. Gentleman has been arguing until he came to the question of how to solve the problem. If there is a genuine problem with the Oath, it should be addressed; otherwise, the issue is about dual Members of Parliament. We are talking about something serious; the wrong issue has been addressed to take the peace process further forward.
  Mr. Soley: First, the issue is not big enough to get in the way of the wider interests of the Northern Ireland peace process. Moreover, the question of how to move on that is not critically important to the Oath. If members of Sinn Fein were here now and I asked them whether they would take their seats in the House of Commons if we changed the Oath so that they did not swear allegiance to the British Crown, they would say, "No, we will not, because we want to be part of a united Ireland, and this is the wrong place." They would say that, just as a relatively short time ago—perhaps four, five or six years ago—they told me that they would not take their seats in a Stormont Assembly set up by the British. Well, we set up the Assembly and they took their seats; they do their job, some of them are Ministers, and they work with the Unionists.
  We must keep things in perspective. One cannot run politics by logic alone—at the end of the day, one has to make judgments about what is best. I shall leave my judgment with the House. We ought to change the Oath, because that would help to keep the process moving and would help us to put more pressure on Sinn Fein Members to take their seats, as I predict they will in a few years' time. We should change it because that is the right thing to do for the peace process in Northern Ireland and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, there is no great principle at stake. I accept that there is a difficult question about the right thing to
  190
  do with people who have stood for election on the basis that they will not take their seats. Although there is a messy argument about that, frankly, the problem is not big enough to justify great displays of opposition, breaking cross-party agreements and so on. I am not totally opposed to parties at times expressing opposition on Northern Ireland—it is sometimes necessary to do so, and I have done so myself—but we should not do so on an issue of such insignificance.
  6.8 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I made my maiden speech in a debate on Northern Ireland. In the succeeding twenty-two and a half years, I have had the privilege of attending more Northern Ireland debates than most people in the House.
  Virtually all those debates were characterised by the way in which the word "principle" came to dominate the discussion. Seldom do Members want to elevate their views to a matter of principle on virtually anything that we talk about in the House—except in Northern Ireland debates. We quickly got into matters of principle this afternoon; I should like to back out of that cul-de-sac as quickly as possible. I remind the House—I have no delusions of grandeur, so it will need reminding—that I was the first Minister involved in the peace process. On Valentine's day 1989, Tom King gave a speech in Belfast in which he said that he would ask me to initiate discussions with the political parties to see if there was any way forward. That was the start of the process. if I had stood up the following day in Belfast and said, "In 12 years, there will be a Northern Ireland Assembly, there will be an Executive, an Ulster Unionist will be the First Minister, an SDLP member will be the Deputy First Minister and Sinn Fein Members will serve—perhaps uncomfortably, but serve—in that Executive", the Secretary of State would have withdrawn me from the process the day afterwards and put somebody else in my place, and both sides of the House would have acclaimed his wisdom.
  Here we are, 12 years and two Governments later, with that process—that achievement—in place. That achievement necessitated the taking of risk. Most, if not all, of the parties in the House can legitimately put up their hands and say, "We played our part. We took risks in that process." Some of those risks worked and some did not, but more worked than did not, which is why we are where we are today. I played my small part in that process.
  It helps to underline for the House why in opposition I have maintained my consistent support for the peace process and the Belfast agreement. I did so because of the bipartisan approach. It was enormously important that the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland should understand that it did not matter who was in government at Westminster; there was a commitment to them and for them.
  That is why I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to say that that principle seems to me—I have used the word, and I intend to use it only once—to be still of paramount importance. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was right. He did criticise us when we were in government. He sat on the Opposition Front Bench and I sat on the

  191
  Government Front Bench, and from time to time he was aggressive in his bipartisanship. We had a good healthy debate, but I did not call into question his fundamental commitment, and I hope that he does not call mine into question today.
  I shall not vote in support of the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. There are problems associated with it. Had the Government wanted to move forward in the spirit that I outlined at the beginning of my speech, they could have done so, but they chose not to. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford is right. I have not taken many opportunities in the House to be critical of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but had he initiated some dialogue around the issues and offered some explanation, that would have helped the House immeasurably to come to a calmer judgment than is likely to be the case by 10 o'clock tonight or whenever we vote. However, the right hon. Gentleman chose not to do that.
  The Government have made an even more fundamental mistake. There is no doubt that the subject of the debate is one of a number of issues that have arisen out of secret discussions between the Government and Sinn Fein. The Government are perfectly entitled—indeed, in my judgment it is right—to have secret discussions from time to time with political parties, particularly Sinn Fein. I have no problem with the fact that secret discussions have taken place. The problem arises from the fact that the Government have not told anybody what emerged from those secret discussions, much less tried to explain it.
  Instead, the Government have adopted a salami approach to policy. They produce one measure which they know that the House will not much like, and they argue, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush has just argued, that that is not big enough to put the whole peace process at risk, so the House must support it. Just as the House holds its nose and supports the measure, along come the Government with another one—no explanation, no justification and no indication of whether it is No. 2 on a list of two, five, 10 or 20.
  We go through the same motions. Hon. Members on both sides, but particularly on the Government side, say that the measure is not worth putting the whole peace process at risk, so the House is invited to support it. Blow me, before we get through that, the next one comes. It is rather like buses—one waits for ages and nothing happens, then they come one after another.
  The Government have got themselves into difficulty this evening in part because they have not been willing to be straightforward and honest with the House. The House does not know what the Government's agenda is or what Sinn Fein's agenda is. If I may respectfully say so to the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench—even worse, the House does not know what the combined agenda is. That contributes to the sense of alienation produced by motions like the one before us.
  We have had much debate this evening about the Oath. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to participate in that debate. I am just a simple Belfast boy. We have an Oath; it is a requirement for membership of the House. What may or may not happen in the future is, for the purposes of the motion, totally irrelevant. The Oath exists in its present form. I swore it,
  192
  the Leader of the House swore it, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland swore it, my hon. Friend the shadow spokesman swore it—we all swore it.
  Mr. Hogg: Is not my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) right, and am I not right in my suggestion to those on the Government Front Bench, that one of the chief criticisms of the Government's approach to the motion is that they failed to address the question of the Oath first? For many of us, the problem of the Oath should be addressed before there is any ad hominem disapplication of rules in the case of Sinn Fein.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I hold both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in high regard and I have frequently benefited from their wisdom. I shall not get into that debate tonight, because whatever the Government should or should not have done, we are faced with the Oath in its present form, and it will not change between now and 10 o'clock. If it does, that will be the story for the "Today" programme.
  It has already been said that that constitutes a major problem for Sinn Fein. To it, this is a foreign Parliament. Given that it is a foreign Parliament, I am not entirely clear why Sinn Fein wants to be a part of it, but it alleges that it does. The Leader of the House—I think it was the Leader of the House—drew attention to its focus on abstention and absenteeism. Sinn Fein did not wish to be part of anything. When it said "ourselves alone", boy, did it mean it! Now, Sinn Fein is involved in the Dail, it is involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it would like to be involved in the Westminster Parliament. The difference is that it wants to change the rules to be involved here, as compared with the rules in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hold the Leader of the House in much higher regard than to believe for one moment that he does not understand that. I hope, therefore, that he will take in a spirit of generosity the suggestion that that is one of a number of points in his speech on which he was, at best, disingenuous. However, we ought not to be disingenuous; we should face up to the reality, which is that that is the issue.
  Why, then, is so much heat generated by the motion? It seems of no little significance that the thread of violence has run through this debate from its inception and will continue until its conclusion. For what we are talking about is welcoming into this Chamber or Palace people whose hands are dirty with the blood of others. Three Members of this House were killed by the IRA. Some of us have been the focus of personalised and determined assassination attempts. I still recall the evening when I sat in Londonderry and, to my surprise, saw my photograph on the evening news while the newsreader said that the IRA had announced a few minutes before that it had decided not to assassinate the Education Minister during his visit to Londonderry, on the grounds that innocent passers-by would be injured. This debate cannot be separated from that thread of violence.
  David Winnick: The record of the IRA is known to all of us and to their numerous victims, of whom there are hundreds, if not thousands; but if the yardstick is the record of murderous violence, surely the issue would be the same if the Members in question were to take the

  193
  Oath. Whether they have office facilities without coming into the Chamber or otherwise, the issue would be the same. Surely the point is that, whether we like it or not, they were elected as Members of Parliament and that is a fact of life.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in regard on Northern Ireland matters, in the middle of making my point. Perhaps it might have been more helpful if I had waited until I had finished doing so. I wanted to establish that when we debate these matters, the issue of violence is not far from the surface, but I was about to say that if that issue were the only criterion, there would not be a Northern Ireland Assembly today. It is not the only criterion, and it is not a sufficient criterion, given the progress that has been made in the past few years. I think that he will also accept, however, that human beings find it very difficult to switch off from issues of violence.
  Before I entered the Chamber this afternoon, I was approached—it was completely unsought—by a number of secretaries who had been working in this Palace when the bomb went off. Their message was, "We don't know, Brian, whether you intend to speak, but if you do, would you tell your colleagues that a number of us who work here are extremely nervous, concerned and unhappy about the prospect of the motion being agreed to this evening, because we have had contact with these people in the past?" I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that violence is not of itself a sufficient criterion—so what is sufficient?
  What this debate should be about is whether this House is willing to countenance a two-tier Member system. In my time on the Government Front Bench, I had the privilege of being a Minister of State in the Department of Health. I see some Labour Members who used to upbraid me because Conservative health policy, as they saw it, led to a two-tier health service—of course, they were quite wrong—which was anathema to them. I find it difficult to understand why two-tier representation in this Chamber is not even more of an anathema than an allegedly two-tier health service.
  Northern Ireland is the background to this debate, but the issue is simple: should all Members be equal in terms of their responsibility, the facilities that they enjoy and the influence that they can exert, or should some be more equal than others?
  Mr. Eric Joyce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, I have almost finished, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so.
  Let me refer to what the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush said; this is a parliamentary debate, so I am responding to the last speech made before mine. I think that I wrote down his comments correctly. He said that the issue tonight was not big enough to endanger the peace process and that we should therefore vote with the Government so as not to put the process at risk. Where have I heard that before? I want to tell the House that this issue is not big enough to put the peace process at risk and Sinn Fein will not put it at risk if it does not get this motion. It is for that reason and on that analysis, and on
  194
  the basis of reaffirming the importance of a bipartisan approach in general but with scope specifically to disagree from time to time, that I disagree with the Government on the motion and will not support them in the Lobby.
  6.20 pm
  Helen Jackson: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). Indeed, I am also pleased to be unmuzzled, as this is the first time that I have spoken on Northern Ireland since Labour was in opposition, because of my duties as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the last Parliament.
  Mr. Hogg: Freedom.
  Helen Jackson: Yes—freedom to speak in a debate that has been thoughtful and interesting, and significant in the context of the many debates in the House to which I listened during the last Parliament.
  I have considerable reservations and questions about the issue with which the motion deals, but I am determined to look at it, as I am a good constitutionalist who believes in the democracy that we enjoy here in this House and in its value to all of us here. I do so primarily from two points of view. First, I am not terribly interested in the people who represent the people of Northern Ireland, but I am very interested in the responsibility that we all have as Members of the House of Commons for the life, peace, political process and economic well-being of the people who live in that part of the United Kingdom, so I think that it is their interests that we have to consider first. My second guiding principle in addressing the matter is that of whether voting for the motion will ensure political progress and a continuation of the unsatisfactory but relative peace and ceasefires that that part of the United Kingdom has now enjoyed for some time.
  It angers me that the media have characterised the debate on the motion as, "Shall we offer these four Members the benefits of the House of Commons?" They ask whether the four Members should enjoy the "benefits" of having a cup of tea in the Tea Room or entering the Palace. I have great sympathy for the views of hon. Members who have bucked against that interpretation of our debate. They have explained that we are being asked to say to Sinn Fein Members, "If you are legitimately elected by the constituents of West Tyrone, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and Belfast, West, you have a place in this House." I believe that. They were democratically elected to represent 250,000 people.
  If we accept that premise, those Members should take up their responsibilities, step by step. It is therefore important to make it clear that being a Member of Parliament does not simply mean enjoying some sort of benefit. We use our office allowances for our constituents. Being a Member of Parliament requires responsibility and public accountability. I agree with the stress that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) placed on the four Sinn Fein Members being as accountable to the public as any other Member of Parliament.
  I looked at the new Register of Members' Interests this morning, and read the four Sinn Fein Members' entries, which were nil because they have not taken their seats.
  Mr. Mates: I want to correct the hon. Lady. The entries are not nil, which would tell people that hon. Members

  195
  have no interests. Many hon. Members put nil. The entries simply state that the Sinn Fein Members have not taken their seats. That is a fundamental difference.
  Helen Jackson: Yes, but the entries are nil in the sense that a member of the public who reads the register has no idea whether those Members receive any benefits from organisations. That is not right. Perhaps a change should be effected so that declaring interests is a requirement, not a request, on being elected rather than on taking one's seat. Let us ascertain whether we can do that. I do not say that it should be done today; I would be happy to do it next week or next year. The matter cannot be left as it is.
  I shall go along with the motion, but if it is accepted, we must be sure that the use of the allowances is properly scrutinised. There were some stupid, jeering comments such as, "Money for guns" from Opposition Members. The office allowances of the four Sinn Fein Members should be subject to no less scrutiny than ours. That also applies to the use of their staff's time.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: First, how will the allowances be scrutinised? Secondly, the motion creates a two-tier system of Members of Parliament. That may not be important to some hon. Members to whom Parliament appears increasingly to act as a rubber stamp, but we are dealing with a fundamental description of rights and responsibilities.
  Helen Jackson: I had started to respond to that point by saying that the same scrutiny should be applied to the four Sinn Fein Members. We should begin by ensuring that we know what their interests are. The next step is to ask about their use of free telephones and headed notepaper in the House. We must ensure that they are used for constituency purposes.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The people whom we are considering have not taken their seats and are therefore not Members; because they are not Members, no sanctions can be applied against them. How can they be held to account if they cannot face the same scrutiny as Members who have taken their seats?
  Helen Jackson: They have not taken their seats and their inability to sit in the Chamber cannot therefore be questioned. However, their ability to use facilities and office allowances can be questioned and sanctioned—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] If there is any evidence that the allowances are being used for party or other purposes, sanctions can be applied.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Helen Jackson: I shall, but I want to proceed because we must consider the point from another angle.
  Mr. Field: Let us reflect on the times when hon. Members' conduct has been found unsuitable. The House debates the conduct and applies the sanction of suspension for a period of time. If people do not take their seats in
  196
  the Chamber, what sanctions does my hon. Friend propose for bringing them to order in the same way as other Members for breaking the rules of the House?
  Helen Jackson: With respect, my right hon. Friend makes the same point as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is a bit rattled.
  Helen Jackson: No. The sanction is clear: if the facilities are misused, we withdraw them.
  I believe that the whole approach should be slightly different. We must put ourselves in the position of residents of Mid-Ulster, Belfast, West, Fermanagh and South Tyrone or West Tyrone. If the motion is accepted, they will know that their elected representatives will come to the House of Commons and use the facilities. If I were such a constituent, I would ask, "What are they doing on our behalf in the House of Commons?" The democratic process would begin to take its course. When that happens, as the Conservative party found to its sorrow in the last two general elections, the result is the transfer of power to someone from another party, and perhaps the beginning of real politics in Northern Ireland.
  We must consider the significance of the motion in a wider context. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing and Acton—
  Mr. Soley: And Shepherd's Bush.
  Helen Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that we must not believe that the motion itself constitutes the overriding principle. We must reflect that we have come a long way down the road of promoting politics over violence in Northern Ireland. The motion may lead to strengthening the genuine democratic process in the areas of Northern Ireland that we are considering and other constituencies. If so, even though we do not like it, we must make a difficult decision, which will affect us as Members of Parliament. In the same way, many aspects of the Good Friday agreement have been extremely difficult for Unionists and members of Sinn Fein to stomach. However, this matter comes closer to our sensitivities in this Chamber than some other aspects of the agreement.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Can the hon. Lady think of any other self-respecting institution that would be so crass as to pay to have itself boycotted?
  Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman describes this as one single issue and does not recognise that we have a responsibility to the wider public in Northern Ireland and to the peace process that has been negotiated satisfactorily over the past few years.
  Mr. Soley: The points made have been fair, but it should not be forgotten that, whether we like it or not, there was a decision of the electorate.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: They knew that these men were not going to come here.
  Mr. Soley: I understand the lecturing from my hon. Friend. I am simply making the point that if somebody

  197
  who stands says, "I will not take my seat", the electorate know what they can do. My guess is that many vote for such people because they are on the path to peace. If they went back to the path of violence, they would lose a lot of votes.
  Helen Jackson: We have to decide whether we are taking it on trust that Sinn Fein signed up to the Good Friday agreement and has pursued a policy—by no means on a united basis within the party—to move into the political system and the political process and away from achieving its goals by violence.
  For me, that was what the bipartisan arrangement in this Parliament was about. I agree with others who have said that this is not an issue that is bigger than the importance of the bipartisan approach. It is clear that Sinn Fein is eager to participate in a major way in the general election in the Irish Republic next year. Its members will take their seats in the Dail and, as Members of Parliament, we should be asking what interests they will register and how the party is scrutinised there. I am sure that the other parties in the Dail will be watching that closely.
  Trust is the key issue. Is there trust that we can move forward? Is there trust that the Unionists will share power? Is there trust that the republicans will continue to work within the political system? I listened to the debate yesterday and it was clear that we have a long way to go. Although some of the democratic and constitutional issues are on the way to being solved, there is still a culture of blame and bitterness.
  I have felt for many months that the Opposition's insistence on decommissioning as the touchstone was the wrong issue. The touchstone that affects the people on the street is the obscene level of violence that still exists in both loyalist and republican communities, with acts of grievous bodily harm usually going undetected and unpunished. The key issue for me is the establishment of a civil police service in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is an issue, but people can go and buy guns the next day. If one stands for Government within a constitutional situation, one goes along with the rule of law. If so, one accepts a police service.
  David Burnside: The hon. Lady refers to accepting the rule of law and to a civil police service. I have referred to a printed statement from Sinn Fein on posters that are going up in my constituency in Glengormley—a troubled area next to north Belfast—that tells people not to join the RUC or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and attacks the police as "torturers". How can she say that Sinn Fein is now taking part in a process and recognises as a civil police force the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which has a policing board with representation from all the democratic political parties, but not Sinn Fein? She does not seem to be facing reality; she has left Northern Ireland.
  Helen Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. My argument is that we need to agree the motion precisely because we need to bind Sinn Fein as tightly as we can into the political system and the political process in this House. This is our opportunity to do that.
  The first reason that I will vote for the motion is that we have to bind Sinn Fein closely into the political process. The second reason—some colleagues will be
  198
  surprised to hear this—is that the Government's Front Benchers have made the point strongly and, on this occasion, it is absolutely right to go along with the recommendation of the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House. I am very proud, as is most of the parliamentary Labour party, to have been part of a Government who have carried through the peace process over the last five or six years, following on from what the Conservative party started before we came into power.
  This is a difficult issue for this Parliament, but one we should go along with tonight. The final reason for doing that is that the politics of Northern Ireland have become problematical when they have become polemical, and that people have started to find the answer when they looked at what works, what works best and what is the most pragmatic way forward. This is a pragmatic step that may take us one step further and may help in the future.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) touched on an important point when she gave one of her primary reasons for supporting the motion—loyalty to her party and her Front Benchers. In saying that, she uttered a truth about the nature of the debate and tonight's supposedly free vote in that the vote is not free and the debate is not what it should be—namely, a debate on a House of Commons matter treated seriously as such. I am afraid that the Government's approach from the outset showed a failure to engage with the seriousness of the issues and the occasion.
  In drawing up the list of speakers, Mr. Speaker was wise to decide that the first Government Member to speak after the Leader of the House would be the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Members will have gathered from my comments last night that I have a high regard for him and he produced an argument for the motion, which the Leader of the House did not. The hon. Gentleman's argument, with which I shall engage in a few moments, was made at some length and with great seriousness. In an exchange with Members on both sides of the House, he set out his view sincerely and it deserves to be addressed.
  When I came to the debate, I thought that we might hear the Leader of the House's explanation of why the motion has been introduced at this particular moment and the reasons for addressing the matter that were absent in 1997 and 1999, which, so far as we know, was the last time the Government considered it. We did not get that. Instead, the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State, who came to his rescue several times, produced a series of red herrings.
  I hope that I have noted the first red herring correctly, but if I do not get the language precisely, we can always correct it later. The Leader of the House suggested that the former Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd, made her ruling in 1997 partly because the ceasefire had collapsed, but that is unfair to Baroness Boothroyd and it is in no way accurate.
  It is worth placing on record what Baroness Boothroyd said on the radio this morning when she discussed the issue and referred to her 1997 ruling. She said:
  "My concern when I was Speaker and it still is, is not so much the politics of the situation because on that issue when I was Speaker … I was totally neutral. My concern then and now was to

  199
  protect the rules of the House of Commons and to uphold the rule of law. And the rule of law of course, is the Parliamentary Oaths Act. And I wasn't discriminatory at all when I met with the Sinn Fein members, I explained the position to them, that they either had to take the Oath of Allegiance or they could not take up their full membership of the House of Commons."
  I have no doubt that that is precisely what motivated Baroness Boothroyd in 1997 and the Leader of the House may regret his suggestion that other factors influenced her.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the question whether we should have an Oath that many hon. Members who are perfectly honourable about their republicanism—I am not referring to IRA members—cannot honestly take?
  Mr. Trimble: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a point that he made earlier. I shall deal with it if I manage to get through all my notes, but I must describe some other red herrings that Ministers dragged across the debate at the outset.
  The Leader of the House also said that the motion restores the position that pertained before the 1997 ruling. Of course, he had to withdraw that and acknowledge that it does not restore the pre-1997 status quo. It puts in place a completely different and novel regime, which, as a number of Members have said, would create two classes of Member of Parliament and, in so doing, open up important issues.
  Mr. Frank Field: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, an aspect of the briefing that we were given is that the move being made today is part of the agreement that led up to the Belfast agreement. Was he party to that aspect of the agreement? Are there other parts of the agreement that the House does not know about, but which he knows about, that we shall be asked to approve following an ambush at the end of the Session?
  Mr. Trimble: The right hon. Gentleman repeats a point made during the debate, which I shall touch on again, but he is right to say that the matter is not in the agreement. People should realise that. It was never raised as an issue on any occasion during the negotiations leading up to the agreement. As far as I am aware, it never arose.
  I shall repeat the point shortly, but to those who say that this step is necessary to promote or implement the agreement, I say sorry, but please read it. Occasionally, when people make comments, I have to re-read the agreement to try to find the basis for them and often I cannot find it. That is an important point.
  Another red herring was introduced when the Secretary of State repeatedly asked what was the position before 1997. Of course, we should not forget that the issue simply did not arise before then. In two Parliaments, the person elected to represent West Belfast did not take his seat, did not come anywhere near the place and did not seek any facilities, and I dare say that most Members, whatever Bench they sat on, did not turn their mind to the issue, because it did not arise.
  The issue arose after the 1997 general election, however, because the two Sinn Fein Members elected made it clear that they would come here and use the facility whereby people enter the Palace before taking their Oath. Necessarily we all do so, and they wanted to
  200
  use that foothold as a basis to establish a substantial bridgehead and put themselves in a position to conduct God knows what operations, whether of a political or other nature. Of course the Speaker had to consider that matter according to the law and according to practice, and she produced the ruling. The question of what happened pre-1997 is irrelevant.
  Another red herring, which is also irrelevant, is the fact that Sinn Fein Members sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They participate in the administration of Northern Ireland and do so alongside me and other Members who sit on this Bench. That happens, but again it is not relevant. That takes us to a key point: historically, Sinn Fein was an abstentionist party. It was abstentionist because it did not believe in politics. It was part of a republican movement that wanted to achieve its objectives not politically, but purely by violence.
  Consequently, Sinn Fein did not participate in elected bodies and refused to take its seats either in elected bodies in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Parliament or this place, but over the past number of years the republican movement has retreated from abstentionism. Indeed, it has also retreated from republicanism. Although some Members have introduced republicanism to the debate, in no real sense is the modern Sinn Fein membership republican, but that is another issue. Whatever arguments there may be on that point, Sinn Fein has clearly shifted its position on abstentionism.
  Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case. Surely the logic of it is that he should welcome the fact that Sinn Fein wants representation in the Palace of Westminster and therefore support the motion.
  Mr. Trimble: I am well aware of the logic of that argument, and I will deal with it shortly—along with the points made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, who presented what I considered to be the only coherent case for the motion.
  As I have said, Sinn Fein and the republican movement are clearly moving away from abstentionism. The Sinn Fein Members took their seats in the Dail, and also came into the Assembly, which was a very significant act. Coming in, and accepting partition and the consent principle, were massive concessions by republicans, when viewed from a republican position. That raises a question I touched on earlier—are they really republicans? —but it is a peripheral issue, floating around in the background.
  The argument that can be presented in favour of the motion constituted the burden of the intervention by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. It is that we are dealing with a process of transition, and that it is therefore desirable to draw people who have hitherto been involved in violence but whom we hope and believe are now turning to the normal democratic political process into that process, and bind them into it. If that involves their coming into the Palace of Westminster, it is a good thing.
  Members may have various views. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said that violence was an undertone, and spoke of the difficulties that that presented to those who must deal with these arrangements. Again, however, I

  201
  suggest that we consider the republican perspective. It is difficult for Sinn Fein Members to represent walking into this building as a step in the direction of a united Ireland; geographically, it is clearly a step in a different direction. In that sense, it could be argued that it is a good idea to involve them in the process—a point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough. The crucial question is this. If the Sinn Fein Members are to be involved in the process, on what terms do they enter it? Herein lies the flaw in the Government' s approach. Like others who have spoken, I think it will be a good day when Sinn Fein representatives sit on these Benches and participate in debate. I dare say that if the motion is passed it will be only a short time before we see a certain bearded figure disporting himself on the Bench just beyond the Bar of the House, knowing that he can return to Belfast, West and tell people there that he is still abstaining; but I nevertheless think that it will be a good day when the republicans take their seats, thus involving themselves in an aspect of our British democratic process—as long as it is done on a proper, clear basis.
  Let me now touch on not just the motion, but what could be described as the process generally. As was said last night during our debate on decommissioning, it is crucial for us to be clear about the principles on which we proceed. It is crucial for us to make it absolutely plain that there must be a demonstrated move away from violence, and an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I know that this is a transition period, but we must be clear about the principles involved.
  It would be fatal to our hopes of bringing about a peaceful and democratic future to allow those who have been involved in violence in the past to think that the rules will be waived or adjusted so that they need make no hard choices—to think that they can sneak into the process, and that no one will confront them with such choices. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said, it would be very nice if questions were to be put to them about the use of their allowances and so forth; but will such questions be put? Will any rigour be exercised? Who can believe that it will, when the Government are bending the rules—distorting the rules—and taking unprecedented action in allowing these Members to enter the House? By all means let us make it clear that they are welcome to take their seats, but let us also make it clear that they must do so on a coherent basis.
  Mr. Gummer: Is this not wrong ab initio? Let us leave aside the rigour. The whole allowance will be available to people who will be doing only part of the job, which will suggest to those who come here on those terms that the rest of the job is not important—but it is, in fact, the real reason why we are all here.
  Mr. Trimble: That is a valuable point, with which I agree. If my comments seemed to point in a different direction, I misled the right hon. Gentleman. When I spoke of sticking to the rules, I included Madam Speaker's ruling in 1997, which I think is right and should be adhered to.
  If we are to proceed along the Government's desired path, the question of the Oath of Allegiance becomes the relevant one, and I understand why the right hon. Gentleman raised it earlier. It too has entered the debate as, in some respects, a bit of a red herring, in that it has been discussed in connection with the monarch. Although that aspect is important, there is more to the Oath.
  202
  The best context in which to view the Oath is perhaps to be found in a judgment delivered recently by the European Court of Human Rights on the application by one of the gentlemen concerned. I refer to the gentleman who was returned to serve as Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, but has not yet done so. The court said that the requirement for elected representatives to take an Oath of Allegiance to the monarch
  "forms part of the constitutional system of the respondent State, which, it is to be observed, is based on a monarchical model of government. For the Court, the requirement that elected representatives to the House of Commons take an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch can be reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support, inter alia, the workings of representative democracy in the respondent State … In the Court's view it must be open to the respondent State to attach such a condition, which is an integral part of its constitutional order, to membership of Parliament and to make access to the institution's facilities dependent on compliance with the condition. "
  I think that that view of the Oath is right. It refers to the person of Her Majesty, but it goes beyond that: it is an acceptance of the established constitutional order, our democratic principles, and the idea that things must be done in accordance with those principles. There is no difficulty here for a republican—an honest republican.
  Mr. Hogg: I well understand that a reasonable person could arrive at that interpretation, but given that interpretation there is no argument, in principle, for not reformulating the Oath to make it say more precisely what the court described as a reasonable interpretation.
  Mr. Trimble: Indeed. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Government, if they wished, to reformulate the Oath so that it spelt out all the things implicit in it. It should not present an obstacle to any honest republican, because at its heart is a statement that the person concerned accepts the existing legal order and democratic process and that, if he or she seeks change, it must be done peacefully, democratically and legitimately.
  That, of course, is precisely what we want the republican movement to do. We want it to make plain, not just implicitly but in all its actions, that it will pursue its objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Here again the Government have made a mistake. Rather than maintaining a position that would nudge the republicans towards acting coherently and honestly, they are conniving at a dishonest fudge that will carry serious long-term dangers in encouraging among republicans the belief that they can bend the law and get away with it. Who knows where that might take them?
  Let me repeat what I said earlier. If we want the political process in Northern Ireland to proceed, we should certainly support the Belfast agreement and seek its full implementation; but we should stick to that agreement. Let us not have little add-ons that suddenly come out of nowhere. It is not the first time that that has happened. It happened with the legislation to allow people to sit in this House and simultaneously to sit and hold office elsewhere. That was never part of the agreement. That was never part of a negotiation.
  We believe that that earlier provision came from—I am sorry that the Leader of the House is unable to be here; he dropped me a note apologising for his unavoidable absence—a series of moves by Sinn Fein in the last moments of the negotiation, when it saw that an

  203
  agreement was emerging that was uncomfortable for Sinn Fein. It sought desperately to try to get some added advantage and made approaches to the Irish Government. The Irish Government were open about that because they published a letter, but it is reasonable to believe that Sinn Fein may have made approaches at the same time to the British Government.
  Sinn Fein raised a number of issues. Among them was that of dual membership: of being simultaneously in the Dail and elsewhere. Alternatively, it also asked the Irish Government whether Sinn Fein Members elected to serve for constituencies in Northern Ireland could have facilities available to them at the Dail in Dublin. I have no doubt that they would have liked to sit and to debate in the Dail but they were willing simply to be in the place—the position that will be produced by the Government's motion.
  To my knowledge—correct me if I am wrong—the Irish Government have resisted and refused that. That quest for a novel status within Parliament has been turned down by the Irish Government, who have been more rigorous and honest than our own Government on this issue. It shames me to have to say that.
  Dr. John Reid: I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that his reference to dishonesty was a group reference and not a reference to me individually. In all fairness, before I make my winding-up speech, I should ask him if he expressed a view when my predecessor consulted him on the extension of facilities to Sinn Fein.
  Mr. Trimble: I find the question curious because I have no recollection of saying anything other than that I opposed that. If there is anything to the contrary, I would be willing to say so. I am sorry to say that I have stood here before and heard Governments misrepresent my position. I hope that that will not happen this evening as well.
  Dr. Reid: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that I am misrepresenting his position. I am talking about a consultation that took place in January 2000. I may have misinterpreted his position in that, but I ask him to reflect before making the imputation that we gave no consideration to it.
  Mr. Trimble: It would be much better if the Secretary of State, instead of playing with the House, gave us the detail.
  Dr. Reid: I quote:
  "I am writing with reference to your letter of the 12 inst. proposing the granting of access to facilities at Westminster for Sinn Fein MPs who do not wish to take up their seats.
  Our views on this matter were clearly voiced to the Prime Minister and yourself at our meeting yesterday. It is the view of my Party that the action Government is proposing is premature. While you are correct in your assessment that political progress has been made that progress has been facilitated by this Party agreeing a sequence of events with Sinn Fein to implement in full the Belfast Agreement. This Party"—
  that is, the right hon. Gentleman's party—
  "has honoured its obligations under the Mitchell Review but it has yet to be seen if Sinn Fein is to honour its obligations.
  204
  I would therefore urge Government to postpone tabling any Motion with regard to this matter until such time as actual decommissioning has commenced and been verified by the International Commission on Decommissioning. It is that action and the continuing decommissioning of weapons which will demonstrate Sinn Fein's true commitment to their obligations to peace and democracy contained in the Belfast Agreement".
  I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman should not now be able to reach a different decision. He may have his own views on the process and the pace of that, but I think that there was an imputation throughout what he said that we had disregarded and acted without considering the positions that would be taken by his own party and the various other parties in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) replies, as there has been a full quotation from that document, it would be helpful to the House if the Secretary of State agreed that it should be placed in the Library.
  Dr. John Reid indicated assent.
  Mr. Trimble: I would have appreciated it more if the Secretary of State had, prior to tabling the motion, consulted us about that motion. Had he done so, I would have expressed a view, which would have been precisely the view that I have expressed this evening. If there is a development in thought and greater clarity in what I am saying tonight compared with the contents of the letter then, I ascribe it to further reflection and perhaps the diplomatic nature of the letter on that date, but what I am saying now is what I think this Government should do. Had they consulted, they would have received that advice.
  Mr. Garnier: Is it not indicative of the regrettable attitude that the Government appear to take on this serious issue that the Secretary of State was willing well into the course of this debate to produce a document out of his pocket and then to seek to trip up the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of looking after himself, but it strikes me as deeply regrettable that documents come whipping out of back pockets. The Government should have laid their case out fully at the outset this afternoon.
  Mr. Trimble: I might be tempted to say something about it being partisanship, but not preceded by any other phrase or term. It is a rather partisan approach, but well and good. The Secretary of State is entitled to do it. I hope that we have dealt with it.
  I remind the House of the point that I was making because we took a detour from it. We should stick to the agreement. We should not have these add-ons. I gave the background of one add-on that came from discussions at the tail-end of the agreement between the Government and Sinn Fein. I suspect that the origins of this measure lie there, too. The question arises: if the origins of this measure lie in the dying moments of 10 April 1998, why has it suddenly come up without prior consultation? There was prior notice perhaps—last Thursday, I received notice—but no consultation. Why has it suddenly come at the last moment, at this time? What special reasons have led the Government to introduce the motion? Please would the Secretary of State

  205
  not just trot out in response the fact that we have had a beginning of decommissioning. If that were the reason, I would have expected to hear about the motion earlier.
  Dr. John Reid: It has happened at this time precisely because of the conditionality of the right hon. Gentleman's initial response, that condition having been met.
  Mr. Trimble: The one thing that I am confident of is that the motion has not been caused by anything that I have said. The Secretary of State is wrong to suggest that. If he wants to say that the Government have brought this forward because of a beginning of decommissioning, let him say that, rather than imputing it to me.
  Dr. Reid indicated assent.
  Mr. Trimble: Well, there are ways and ways of saying it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Trimble: No. I am not going to take more interventions on that point, even ones intended helpfully.
  I do not want to labour the point, but we should stick to the agreement. This motion is not part of the agreement. Let the Government explain why they are introducing something that is not part of the agreement, that will damage the process that we are engaged in, that will not be helpful and that will not achieve the laudable objective of bringing the republican movement fully into the democratic process, which we can do only on the basis of an exclusive commitment to peaceful and democratic means.
  That commitment has not yet been fully apparent. That is demonstrated by the poster on policing that my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) read out and by the fact that only a few weeks ago, the republican movement decided to republish without any further commentary an article that it wrote exulting in the murder of a Member of the House. That conjunction of events is most regrettable. I am sorry that the Government are proceeding in this way, at this time.
  7.19 pm
  Kate Hoey: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and to hear him confirm a point that I made in an intervention—that tonight's motion formed no part of the Belfast agreement.
  I wish to oppose what my Government propose tonight. I do not doubt their motives, but I doubt greatly their judgment of what led to the motion. I also question why it has been introduced at this stage. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked why it has been introduced now, just before Christmas, without proper consultation. Why is it being slipped through just before we rise for Christmas? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not answered those questions. If the motion is about decommissioning, as he confirmed from a sedentary position a few moments ago, why was that not made clear as soon as the so-called decommissioning took place?
  206
  Several hon. Members have made good speeches with which I agree, especially the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who spoke hardly a word with which I disagreed. It is important to point out to all the people watching our debate in Northern Ireland that although the motion has been portrayed as a matter for the House and as a free vote, there will not be a free vote tonight. Ministers have been called back and there will be a Whip on all the payroll vote, which exceeds 100. When the vote is called, I hope that many of those right hon. and hon. Members might still exercise their consciences and vote against the Government; but if the motion passes, people should know that it was not as the result of a free vote.
  Some hon. Members have said that the motion will move the peace process forward. They have implied that it will ensure, somehow, that IRA-Sinn Fein are moved forward. My concern is with the perceptions of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland and how it is feeling tonight. I am especially sad, given the speech made recently by the Secretary of State in which he drew attention to the alienation that the pro-Union community feels, that he is pushing the motion tonight, when nothing appears to suggest that the peace process will collapse if it does not pass.
  There have been historic developments in Northern Ireland in the past few years, and I supported the Belfast agreement. I welcomed the setting up of the Assembly and the fact that IRA-Sinn Fein took their seats under the same agreement as the other parties. That was an attempt to bring some normality to politics in Northern Ireland, but it is important to point out that IRA-Sinn Fein recognise the centrality of Westminster. They say that they want to come here, even if they do not want to come into the Chamber. They also said that they would never go to Stormont, but they are now in Stormont. They also said that they would refuse to give up the claim to Northern Ireland, but they have had to accept that.
  The Belfast agreement has had many positive effects. It is especially sad, therefore, that the motion, rather than moving the peace process forward for IRA-Sinn Fein, will move it back for the pro-Union community, which already feels that small extra concessions beyond the Belfast agreement have been made to the nationalist community, including dual membership and Northern Ireland's exemption from the introduction of party funding rules. Those issues had nothing to do with the Belfast agreement and were additional to everything else that the pro-Union community—and all people who believe in law and order—found difficult to accept, such as the release of terrorists from prison with little being given in return.
  Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Lady include in the list of concessions made to Sinn Fein-IRA that are not part of the agreement the recent amnesty that the Government offered to IRA terrorists on the run from justice who have never faced the courts in Northern Ireland or in any other jurisdiction? They will be permitted to return home to their families without facing justice, which is a gross injustice to the innocent victims of terrorist violence.
  Kate Hoey: I share those views and it is a real shame that that will happen, but all those people who have had to leave Northern Ireland under the threat of violence and knee-capping have no amnesty. They will not be able to go back home and spend Christmas with their families.

  207
  Although I disagree completely with what the Government are trying to do tonight, something may be gained from recalling that IRA-Sinn Fein has moved away from classic Irish republicanism and adopted almost a John Redmond position. That will not go down very well with the members of IRA-Sinn Fein. It is unfortunate that one of the leading members of Sinn Fein will not be able to watch this debate tonight on television, because I am not sure that Cuba—where he is enlisting the support of Fidel Castro—has the parliamentary channel.
  On the question of finance, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that IRA-Sinn Fein were rich and did not need the money. It is worth pointing out that since 11 September the funds sent to IRA-Sinn Fein from America have not flowed as quickly and, taking into account the visit to Cuba as well, that might mean that they need the extra £70,000.
  There are many reasons why I do not think that the motion is right politically, but the fundamental issue is the question of a two-tier Parliament with two types of Members of Parliament. We should not allow people to use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster, such as the Members' dining facilities, the Library and the Members' Lobby, without being Members of Parliament. I have been told that they would even be able to come into the House and stand behind the Bar. We cannot have two types of Members of Parliament.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that we face is that the motion might send a message to people outside the House of Commons that Back Benchers are of so little import that they can be treated as the lower of the two tiers of Members of Parliament when it suits the Government?
  Kate Hoey: Many people outside the Palace of Westminster are very cynical about politics and politicians from all parties, and that will be precisely what they will take from the motion tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) made a good intervention about Members of Parliament being here to serve their constituents in Parliament as well representing Parliament in their constituencies. It was suggested that those who voted for IRA-Sinn Fein Members knew that they would not take their seats, but what about all the people who did not vote for them and now have no representative? They will now see public funds being made available for members of IRA-Sinn Fein to come here and use all the facilities without representing the voters in any way. That is undemocratic and wrong. Every Member of this House should be equal and, if the House supports the motion, it will be saying that we can break the rules when it suits us. It will not ruin the peace process if we reject the motion and I urge all decent, ordinary Members to vote against it tonight and give a vote for democracy.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). The House listened so attentively to all that she had to say because she has immense practical experience of Northern Ireland, and I agreed with every single word that she said.
  208
  Many hon. Members want to contribute, so I shall be brief in explaining to the Government why Conservative Members feel such anger and annoyance at this motion. The same sentiments were clear in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
  The Government have acted in a shabby manner. The timing is disgraceful. The exercise reminds me of Jo Moore. The Government have sought a way to slip out something embarrassing, nasty and expensive in terms of votes, and they have decided to do it just before Christmas. They hope that the press and the public are thinking of other things, and that hon. Members will not be around. The process has been very shabby, quick and short.
  The official Opposition first heard of the Government's intention last Thursday, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that his party first heard about it on the same day. There has been very little time to table amendments or to consider the motion. This is an absolutely classic bounce.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that doing something to help the peace process just before Christmas is a very good thing?
  Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall explain why I think that the Government's action is counterproductive to the peace process, and why it will not help the peace process one iota.
  The second shabby element is the role of the payroll vote tonight. This is not a free vote for Labour Members. The Leader of the House made it clear when he was extensively cross-examined last Thursday during business questions that he expected Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and others on the payroll to be here tonight to vote. Therefore, any suggestion in Northern Ireland or elsewhere that this debate shows the House of Commons at its best, and that Labour Members will have a free and independent vote, is entirely wrong.
  I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who confirmed that Liberal Democrat Members will have a free vote. The same is true of Conservative Members, but not of Labour Members.
  Mr. Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the Government's actions? After all, the motion would admit to the House of Commons the ideal Member of Parliament as far as Labour party is concerned—someone who can be in the House but who can never either vote or speak against the Government.
  Mr. MacKay: That is a probably a perfect illustration of the sort of hon. Member that the Prime Minister would like on the Labour Benches. However, the more serious point is that the Government fear that they will not get the motion through if they do not whip the payroll. That is why Ministers have been brought back from abroad. There will be a full payroll vote tonight to force the motion through.
  Lembit Öpik: If a vote that requires Conservative Front Benchers to withdraw from the bipartisan agreement

  209
  is considered to be free, will the right hon. Gentleman say what does not constitute a free vote for the Conservative party these days?
  Mr. MacKay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members have been whipped to be here because this is important business, but we have been given a completely free vote. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the Opposition deputy Chief Whip, is in his place. I am sure that he would confirm that if he cared to come to the Dispatch Box.
  The second reason for anger is that there is an easy solution to the problem. If Sinn Fein Members were to take their seats after taking the Oath, we would not need this motion. If those hon. Members are serious about representing their constituents, playing a full role in our parliamentary democracy and even influencing events here, that is the logical way for them to proceed. It is deeply regrettable that we have not insisted on that course of action.
  Instead, we are going to have a two-tier system of MPs, as the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Vauxhall, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), pointed out. That is reprehensible and unacceptable. No good reason has been given from the Dispatch Box as to why that is being allowed to happen.
  Equally, the motion is an insult to constitutional nationalists in the House. I refer to those hon. Members who belong to Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and the Social Democratic and Labour party. All those hon. Members have deeply held views about being part of an independent Wales or Scotland, or of a united Ireland. However, they can take the Oath because they do not feel that it undermines their positions in any way.
  If those hon. Members can all take the Oath, I see no reason why Sinn Fein Members cannot—apart from the fact that they have secured a wonderful publicity coup in being given a different tier of membership of the House. I am afraid that the Government have fallen into the trap completely, and that they have given Sinn Fein that publicity coup, at the expense of the SDLP, the constitutional nationalists and other democratic parties represented in this House. That is another example of shabbiness.
  The third reason for our anger was well illustrated by what Baroness Boothroyd said on the BBC's "Today" programme this morning. I shall not repeat what she said about why the motion was wrong, or about why she believes that circumstances have not changed since she made her original ruling. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has already explained all that very fully and correctly. However, I remind Ministers that Baroness Boothroyd went on to say that she could not understand why, in the four intervening years, the Government had not consulted members of other parties in the House to see whether the Oath could be amended, or whether there was a way to allow Sinn Fein Members to take their seats. There has been no consultation at all. I find that strange and unfortunate, and it makes me very cross.
  Several hon. Members have posed a perfectly legitimate question and asked why the Government have tabled the motion now. The hon. Member for Vauxhall was right to point out that, if the Government are responding to
  210
  decommissioning, the original decommissioning verified by General de Chastelain took place some months ago. The hon. Lady asked why it has taken so long to bring the motion forward.
  So far, only initial decommissioning has taken place. Most hon. Members were appalled when the Secretary of State said earlier today that there "has been decommissioning", as if that meant that all arms had been decommissioned. I remind the House once more that the Belfast agreement—which the Opposition strongly support—requires the so-called loyalist and republican paramilitaries who are signatories to decommission all illegally held arms and explosives over a two-year period. We all know that they have singularly failed to do so. Only now, very belatedly and after much pressure from the First Minister and others, has there been some limited decommissioning.
  I hope that all hon. Members want further decommissioning to take place. However, in the wake of 11 September and the unfortunate incident with the FARC terrorists in Colombia, further pressure must be brought to bear on Sinn Fein-IRA and the so-called loyalist paramilitaries who have not decommissioned a single weapon. We have had more than enough carrots and we now want a little more stick.
  Mr. Hopkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does not he agree that the process has undergone a quantum leap that should be welcomed in the interests of peace throughout Ireland?
  Mr. MacKay: I think that there has been a modest move, belatedly, in the right direction—I do not define it as a quantum leap. We do not know how many illegally held arms and explosives have been decommissioned. I suspect that not many have been yet; I do not quibble with that, provided that there is more to come. However, there is no sign of more decommissioning. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this sop to Sinn Fein-IRA—this further carrot, this further undermining of democratic politicians in the Province—makes it less rather than more likely that further decommissioning will take place, and will therefore be counterproductive to the peace process. That is another reason why the motion is mistaken.
  Recently, the process has been virtually all take by Sinn Fein-IRA and very little give. That puts great pressure on the Ulster Unionist community as well as on the constitutional nationalists and others in the Province. Whereas the Ulster Unionist community and the constitutional nationalists have stuck rigidly to the Belfast agreement and fulfilled all their obligations under it, the paramilitaries have not fulfilled their commitments, particularly on decommissioning. The suggestion that Sinn Fein Members could take up facilities and use taxpayers' money for office allowances in this House was no part of the Belfast agreement. That has been accepted in this House after debate, albeit with reluctance from the Government Dispatch Box.
  Does the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is on duty at the Dispatch Box, understand how undermining it is if one side fulfils all its obligations under the Belfast agreement, which underpins the peace process, and the other side cherry picks and is then given even more cherries to chew, which is the effect of the motion before us? It is counterproductive, demoralising and wrong.

  211
  I hope that when we come to the vote there will be enough Labour and Liberal Democrat Members to ensure that it is a free vote, to take the motion on its merit and throw it out where it belongs.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The official Opposition have indicated their extreme distaste for making special provision for Sinn Fein. In his speech, which was, as ever, thoughtful and thought-provoking, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed similar reservations. I, too, feel extreme distaste for making special provision for Sinn Fein. However, I see a solution to the anomalies different from the one suggested by Conservative Front Benchers.
  I also feel extreme distaste for many of the compromises that have had to be made in relation to the Good Friday agreement, particularly on prisoner releases. That hardly needs explaining at a time when we are involved in an international campaign against terrorism. But when I compare the Good Friday agreement with the decades of violence that came before it, I am certain which is the lesser of two evils. I would go further—I am certain that it is a positive good. Of course, it needs to be improved on, and we must work to improve on it. Of course, Sinn Fein in particular must do much more, especially on decommissioning and on ceasing all the remaining violence in which it is involved, as must all the paramilitaries. When I listen to some Sinn Fein spokesmen, I could wish for fewer demands and more in the way of delivery.
  I was disappointed to hear Conservative Front Benchers talk about deserting bipartisanship. In response to the pertinent intervention of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), they seemed to imply that they might edge away from saying that they would give up bipartisanship. I hope that that is the case, because bipartisanship remains fundamentally important.
  Even so, I have been disappointed over the past few years that Conservative Front-Bench Members have on occasion given the impression of being prepared to support all the popular bits of the Good Friday agreement but of opposing all the difficult bits. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there are difficult choices. One gets the impression that on occasion those on the Conservative Front Bench have been dodging the difficult choices. If we are going to talk about cherry-picking, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did, it sometimes seems that Conservative Front Benchers have been guilty of that.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is hard to see what might change if the Conservatives abandoned that bipartisanship? They seem to have been happy to vote against a raft of legislation that has gone through in previous months, and I am at a loss to know what they mean by abandoning bipartisanship.
  Mr. Savidge: I would be happy to have guidance from Conservative Members on what they mean.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: This party has supported the Belfast agreement but has, for a considerable time,
  212
  reserved the right to criticise its implementation when things go badly wrong or are handled badly. I refer in particular to prisoner releases and the absence of any reciprocal concessions in terms of decommissioning from Sinn Fein.
  The press has decided that we are walking away from bipartisanship; we are not. The Government have walked away from bipartisanship because of the way in which they are carrying out the process. It is perfectly proper for us to do our duty in this place and criticise the Government when they deserve it.
  Mr. Savidge: I think that it has been accepted in earlier exchanges that bipartisanship has always involved the possibility of some criticism. However, I thought that it was agreed that we would leave the decisions on decommissioning to General de Chastelain. He has made his decisions; decommissioning has started, and we wish to see it progress rapidly.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Given that the motion is not part of the Good Friday agreement and that there has been no consultation—it was simply imposed on the House when it was announced last Wednesday or Thursday—how can the actions of the Labour party be described as bipartisan?
  Mr. Savidge: Whatever our disagreements on this issue, my request to the official Opposition is that they try to maintain basic bipartisanship on as many issues as possible.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on one point. He drew a distinction between not taking the Oath and not taking seats. He made the point that Sinn Fein Members say that, irrespective of any change to the Oath, they do not intend to take their seats. However, it is perfectly proper to say that, although the motion refers to not taking seats, not taking the Oath is central to the debate. The 1997 ruling by Speaker Boothroyd specifically referred not to whether Members took their seats but to whether they took the Oath.
  I wish to concentrate on the Oath. I believe that we should review the Oath without regard to Sinn Fein. Indeed, I would go further—I believe that the House might have reviewed the Oath if it had not been for sensitivities over Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As that is not what my hon. Friend is being asked to decide, will he tell us whether he intends to support the Government or not?
  Mr. Savidge: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I shall come to that point in due course. To sustain interest, I shall try to leave the point until later in my speech.
  It should be remembered that the Oath of Allegiance does not, as most of the public probably believe, derive from the old feudal oaths of fealty of the House of Lords. The excellent research document in the Library shows that it derives from three oaths, all of which stem from the reformation. They are the Oath of Supremacy of 1534, the Oath of Allegiance of 1605 and 1609 and the Oath of Abjuration of 1701. All those oaths related to the maintenance of the Protestant monarchy and the

  213
  Protestant succession. At various stages, they also included other disqualifications or discriminations on religious grounds.
  During the 19th century, those disqualifications were gradually reduced to permit Catholics, Jews and members of other religions to become Members of Parliament without difficulty. Then, of course, after the famous case of Charles Bradlaugh, those of no religion were permitted to become Members of Parliament. Until 1997—as the Leader of the House pointed out—that did not mean that people who were fully and properly elected were refused other things. They were allowed to sit below the Bar of the House, although not to speak or vote.
  Although the 1997 ruling took account in one respect of a previous decision in 1924, it was in effect a new ruling and was understandable in the circumstances. There was no ceasefire and it was judged that there was a real terrorist threat. There were valid reasons for the fears expressed at the time by members of staff—fears described earlier by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. Those fears persist to this day. The ruling was understandable at the time, but in some ways, it was temporary and unusual. It was made before the Good Friday agreement and the ceasefire.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that, in the light of continuing republican extremist terrorist activity, there is no threat at present? Is he really prepared to tell the House tonight that there is no terrorist threat anywhere on the mainland?
  Mr. Savidge: There is a terrorist threat from those bodies that are not party to the Good Friday agreement. Most people would agree that there is a threat from the Real IRA and various dissident groups.
  I repeat that, in some ways, Sinn Fein and Northern Ireland have delayed the whole issue of review of the Oath. The Oath is an anachronism: it grew wholly and solely out of the European wars of religion—the wars between Catholics and Protestants that disfigured Europe for two and a half centuries, but which have been over for more than two centuries.
  Some of us have the impression that the House sometimes takes a while to respond to change—just as some of us have the impression that its lifts take a while to respond to the button. However, it might not be unreasonable—after two centuries—to start thinking about changing our rules. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made eloquent and perceptive interventions earlier—one is always inclined to flatter people who make an intervention that is almost exactly the same as one had planned to make, but who express it better. He asked whether, if a Member—not necessarily from Northern Ireland, but from any part of the country—who is properly elected to the House happens not to be a monarchist but a republican, it would be proper for us to say that they should not be allowed to take their seat.
  I have a clear view on that question. Indeed, I should go further: in our population, there are a certain number of cranks, oddballs and nutters. They have a right to be
  214
  represented—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] No doubt many people would say that they are over-represented in the House.
  Jeremy Corbyn: They are certainly well represented.
  Mr. Savidge: As a brief aside, the new Leader of the Opposition has not been paid sufficient credit for one of his first great achievements: at a stroke he managed radically to reduce the number of bizarre extremists on the Conservative Back Benches. However, I digress.
  If an eccentric were to be properly elected to this place—for example, someone who was a passionate Jacobite or someone who, for some other reason, did not agree with the present succession to the monarchy—surely he should have a right to be here. I go further: even for those of us who, as democrats, believe that we should remain a constitutional monarchy for as long as that is the wish of the majority of the population, it can still seem strange that one's first duty here should be to declare—or appear to do so—that one will look after the interests of the monarch rather than those of one's constituents and of the common good of the whole population.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Most of the public think that the eccentrics have already been elected to this place.
  Surely the hon. Gentleman is arguing for no oath. Should not the election of a Member to the House—by whatever system we decide—determine whether they take their seat?
  Mr. Savidge: I shall leave the hon. Member in suspense as to precisely what I shall recommend, but he may not be far wrong.
  I respect the fact that for some elected Members the monarchy is a symbol of the nation, and that for them the Oath of Allegiance is deeply meaningful. However, I also respect the fact that for other Members the monarchy may seem to be a symbol of wealth, power and privilege. They may feel that the greatest responsibility of the House is to look after those who are weak, poor and powerless. We should respect both views. We should also respect the feelings of—I suspect—a considerable number of Members who feel that the current wording of the Oath is meaningless and that what it asks them to do when they first arrive here is not completely honest. That needs to be considered.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is not the purpose of the Oath that Members should undertake to owe allegiance to their country, and that Her Majesty the Queen happens to be the sovereign of this country? Other countries have presidents and perhaps we, too, are going down that road—I hope not. However, that is the purpose of the Oath. Mr. Doherty made it clear on the radio this morning that he does not owe allegiance to this country because he believes ours to be a foreign Parliament.
  Mr. Savidge: The point that I have been making, based on the history outlined in the Library research document, is that the Oath had nothing to do with constitutional democracy—as suggested by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—or with general loyalty to the country. The Oath derived simply and solely from issues relating to the Protestant succession to the throne—that is all.

  215
  Should we adopt alternative forms of oath and attestation, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)? Should we have no oath or attestation, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others? Should membership be by right of election, as it is in the European Parliament and as I would favour?
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out that when we set up the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, we created a further inconsistency by demanding the Oath of Allegiance in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Some of the charades that went on during the establishment of the Scottish Parliament brought both that Parliament and the monarchy into disrepute. I hope that we can reconsider some of those matters.
  I take the point that—as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann pointed out—the European Court of Human Rights did not rule against our Oath, but I still believe that the Oath goes against modern democratic principles. The matter is not merely one of abstract theory; it has practical consequences—and not only for Sinn Fein Members who do not want to sit in the Chamber at present in any case.
  There was a disgraceful example when my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Father of the House—suffered an injury to his Achilles tendon. Despite that, he gallantly came to the House for the election of the Speaker, but was then incapacitated and warned that he should not attend the House as the injury might become permanent. The 1997 ruling made allowance for that, so he was still allowed to enjoy the facilities, but because he had been unable to take the Oath, he was not allowed to support early-day motions or to take part in other activities. If a Member happens to be hospitalised immediately after an election, it is wrong that his or her electors should be effectively disfranchised unnecessarily.
  I repeat that I am not saying this in response to those in Sinn Fein who do not want to take their seats at present, although I hope, with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, that they will gradually do so. I am saying that, in voting for the motion tonight, I will be asking the Leader of the House and the Modernisation Committee to consider oaths of allegiance and attestations of allegiance in general. I hope that, as many hon. Members have said, it will be made absolutely clear that the Register of Members' Interests should apply to all elected Members, irrespective of whether they have taken the Oath or their seats. I hope not only that the paramilitaries will make progress towards peaceful, democratic politics, but that Parliament will make progress towards modern, democratic politics.
  Mr. Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervened on me earlier and read out part of a letter that I had written. My recollection is that he stopped immediately after the phrase
  "until such time as actual decommissioning has commenced".
  216
  That recollection is correct, and it is particularly unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not quote the next sentence, which refers to the need for
  "the continuing decommissioning of weapons",
  or the point towards the end of the letter where it states:
  "In addition to these points until such time as the total commitment to peace and democracy is evidenced".
  It was unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not read the entire letter, especially as hon. Members were asking him to do so, so that people could assess it in the round.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that that is a matter of debate, not a point of order. I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, as I suggested, made the letter available to hon. Members by placing a copy in the Library. As I said before, it is for the benefit of the House that a document that has been extensively relied on should be made available, and I express the hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that it is now laid upon the Table.
  Dr. John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no hesitation in acceding to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which relates, in particular, to the reference to
  "the continuing decommissioning of weapons".
  In fact, I did read out that section, although he is correct to say that I did not read out the second paragraph. My point was not to try to pretend that he had agreed to something in Stormont—[Interruption.] As I said, I did read it out, as hansard will show. I read out the words "continuing process" as well. I was contesting the implication that we had acted dishonestly by never asking people for their views on this matter, but I am more than happy to accept fully that the words that I read out give the implication which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to give to them, which is that it was not just the first act of decommissioning, but the continuing process of decommissioning that he, no doubt, would wish to examine and make his judgment on. That is precisely why I said that he was perfectly consistent in taking a different view now from the one expressed in the first section, and hansard will show that as well.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That contribution is also more a point of debate than a point of order, but I am grateful to the Secretary of State for making the letter available. It is now up to right hon. and hon. Members to judge the issues for themselves, as the document is now available to the House, and it would be better if it were laid on the Table officially.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The letter refers to other correspondence. The better to enable hon. Members to make a judgment, could you ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to place all the correspondence in the Library?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The ruling that I gave relates to a document that, in itself, was relied on to a substantial extent in debate by the Secretary of State. Other documents that flow from that must be pursued by hon. Members in the other ways available to them.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House is grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indication that the document should be placed in the Library. As one of those hon. Members who heard the whole exchange, I am bound to say that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did a serious injustice to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and I am glad to think that that injustice will be put right.
  This has been a distinguished debate, although I do not think that the House was holding its breath when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) was explaining how he was likely to vote—I and all other hon. Members knew in advance.
  The motion has undoubtedly aroused a great deal of emotion on both sides of the House because many of us feel intensely about it. We are being asked to make concessions to those to whom we owe nothing at all—indeed, in respect of whom we have a deep sense of contempt and, dare I say it, loathing. Many of us knew the three hon. Members who were murdered. Ian Gow and Tony Berry are two who come to mind, and they are but a tiny number of those who have been murdered in the Province and elsewhere by those for whom the Sinn Fein Members are apologists. It is in no sense surprising that this debate has engendered the emotion and disgust that has been manifest on both sides of the House.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to three Members, but there were four, and I look forward to the day when the House will remember them properly and place their coats of arms alongside that of Airey Neave. I am here today because Robert Bradford was murdered, and we have already seen Sinn Fein, through An Phoblacht, glorying in that, yet it is said that it is going down the road of peace.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wholly right. What I meant to say, and I apologise to him, is that I knew three Members. I did not know Mr. Airey Neave, but I did know the three other Members. I made the observation in that context, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  We start, therefore, with a proposition on which most hon. Members can agree: there is deep revulsion at making concessions to those who, in a democratic state, have chosen a career of terrorism, intimidation and murder. That is extraordinarily difficult for us to accept.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the coat of arms of Airey Neave, whom I knew, although not as a fellow hon. Member. I knew Ian Gow, and I knew Tony Berry slightly. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any hon. Member who wishes to vote for the motion tabled by the Leader of the House should take a moment to look up at the coat of arms that commemorates Airey Neave and consider whether it would be right, in the light of that appalling murder within the precincts of the House, to support the motion tonight?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, that would be a perfectly proper thing for right hon. and hon. Members to do, and they should reflect on the names of the other three hon. Members who have died and perhaps, even more importantly, on the
  218
  thousands of people who have died in the Province and elsewhere. Those are very important issues, but revulsion, which I share, is not conclusive of the issues before the House.
  The first question that we should address is simple: whether it is right, and in what circumstances it could be right, for us as a House to substitute our own judgment as to who should or should not be representative of any constituency. My opinion is that it must be a general proposition, to which I admit of almost no exception, that it can never be right to deny to the constituency that may have elected a person, however unworthy that person may be, the right to be represented in the House by that person. I have three reasons for that.
  First, as a general proposition, it is for the electorate in a democracy to choose its Members even if they are bad and wicked people. That is an essential part of democracy. Secondly and rather differently, I come to a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and by others. If one excludes a person who is chosen by the electorate, one deprives all the electors in that constituency of representation. That is an extremely undesirable state of affairs.
  The third reason was provided by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I agree with him on this point. If one encourages people, such as Sinn Fein Members, to be present in the House, one draws them out of the political ghetto in which they have existed for many years and exposes them to contrary views that are held strongly and vigorously by other people. That is part of the process whereby one may procure change on the part of those drawn into the House.
  Mr. Garnier: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know from personal experience in relation to his late father and to Mr. Tony Benn, this House used to exclude peers who stood for election and those who were already Members of this House but who succeeded to peerages. That exclusion was acceptable because it applied across the board. My problem with the motion has been mentioned many times. The Government are attempting to create a different kind of membership of the House. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will come to that point with vigour, but I hope that he will undertake to express to the Government our concerns about a two-tier system of membership.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In fact, I shall vote against the motion for the very reason that he has identified. However, I want to establish the groundwork, because I believe that we shall have to make some important changes.
  As a general proposition, to which I admit of very few—in fact, no—exceptions, I argue that, when a constituency chooses a Member, that Member should be admitted to the House. We may thereafter disqualify that person if, for example, he or she becomes a felon or convicted criminal and thus incapable of performing his or her function. The general point is that any Member elected should be admitted to the House.
  Another issue follows from that. Are there exceptions to that general proposition if, for example, a Member is a terrorist or refuses to take the Oath? I shall deal with both those points. If a Member is a terrorist, it is perfectly respectable to argue—I have heard this point in the past—

  219
  that one should never deal with terrorists. They have chosen a career of murder, intimidation and terrorism and should be outwith the law. I have some sympathy with that perfectly respectable view, but it is not what we have been doing for the past 10 years.
  For the past 10 years—in the House and elsewhere—we have been trying to reach an accommodation with Sinn Fein-IRA and, although I do not suggest that there is a total parallel, we have been urging dialogue and accommodation on countries such as South Africa, the Lebanon and other countries in the middle east. Although the examples are not the same, there are some parallels on which one can usefully draw.
  In Northern Ireland, we have admitted into the Executive Mr. McGuinness, whom I understand to be very close to policies of murder. Therefore, it seems to be late in the day to draw back and say that, as a matter of principle, we cannot have such people in the House. Their presence here is the inevitable consequence of the processes that most of us have supported—I honourably except the Ulster Unionists—for the past 10 years or so.
  We are entitled to say that Sinn Fein and its associates have not fully performed all that was asked of them and that we should exclude them on those grounds. However, that is not a matter of principle, but of detail and not a firm foundation on which to stand. Therefore, odd though it may be—and I have every cause to abominate terrorism—I wish to see Sinn Fein Members in the House and exposed to the democratic debate that is the ordinary currency of our life in this place.
  That brings me to a different question that must be confronted. Are we right to stand on the Oath as a reason for excluding such people? We must return to first principles. If it is wholly wrong to exclude from the House those who have been elected, it must surely be wrong to erect an oath as an obstacle to their presence here, because that is to negate the purpose of the election.
  I am not, in any sense, a republican; I am a constitutional monarchist and I value the Crown and the person of the sovereign. They are an important part of our constitutional settlement. However, if I ask myself whether I define my obligations and duties as a Member of Parliament with reference to the Crown, the answer is no. My duty as a Member of Parliament is to the constitution as it is settled, changed only in accordance with the law. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann read the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights and he was right. My other duty as a Member of Parliament is to speak and vote in accordance with my opinion and my settled judgment, and not otherwise.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the other problem with which he has to deal is that the nature of the Oath can mean that there is one belief that a person may not hold if he wishes to become a Member of the House of Commons? In today's world, it is difficult to suggest that there is one thing that one must not believe if one wants to be a Member of Parliament. I find that very hard to accept.
  Mr. Hogg: I think that I agree with my right hon. Friend and that we come at the issue from the same direction.
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Lady wish to intervene?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, because I might not come at the issue from the same direction. The problem is not that people are excluded because we decide that they must take the Oath, but that they have decided to exclude themselves because they do not wish to take the Oath. What then is the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument?
  Mr. Hogg: I am going to come to that; it is a fair question. Although this point does not apply directly to the hon. Lady's argument, it is pertinent to it. Let us consider the position of Mr. Tony Benn, a distinguished former Member of the House, or even of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). They are republicans and I suspect that they have great difficulty in honestly taking the Oath as couched in its present language. I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman took the Oath with his fingers crossed, and I do not wish to create a situation in which honest and honourable republicans—and people are perfectly entitled in this state to be republicans—have to strain their consciences in the way that I have described.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are both Queen's counsel. When we became Queen's counsel, we took an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Does he extend his argument to our position then? Is it his view that republicans should be entitled to become Queen's counsel without taking it?
  Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course it is. I do not want to create constraints that stand in the way of honest and honourable people who work within the framework of the constitution and wish to change it in accordance with the law. I do not wish to establish an oath that prevents them from holding an occupation or that obliges them to lie. That is not a proper thing for us to do. We should either have no oath at all or one that honourable people can honestly take without straining their consciences. I very much hope that the House will be willing to consider the structure of the Oath and will either abolish it altogether or move forward in the way that I have described.
  Mr. Hawkins: While my right hon. and learned Friend advances an argument that I understand, but with which I respectfully disagree, will he at least consider the possibility that the four Sinn Fein Members decline to take the Oath not for an honest and constitutional reason, for which he gives others credit, and not because they want to change our arrangements by law? The real reason, as opposed to the ostensible and public reason, why they will not take the Oath is because they wish to change our arrangements by force as terrorists, by the bomb and the bullet.
  Mr. Hogg: I do not know what the real reason is, but I am in favour of putting those people on the spot, and I was coming to that.
  I am trying to set out the propositions on which I stand and that cause me to take a view different from that expressed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Do they cause me to vote for or against the Government? In the end, I will vote against the motion, very much for the

  221
  reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. If we are going to make a change, it should not be for the benefit of four individuals who deserve nothing of us. Furthermore, we should not make a change for their benefit when we know that they have not properly performed their part of the deal and when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is part of a secret compromise about which we know almost nothing. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said—in this respect, we are as one, and very nice it is, too—we would create two classes of Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke eloquently on that.
  It is my belief that we should be willing to accept Sinn Fein Members in this place. We should not allow the Oath, in its present structure and form, to be an obstacle to that. We should be ready to change the Oath, or to abolish it. Then they can choose what they want to do. They can become Members of the House and conform to the obligations and take the benefits, or they can decline to become Members of the House and refuse the benefits. In that way, we can be certain of one thing: no one would be able to say that the rules and practices of the House have stood in the way of them being able to take their seats. Ultimately, that is a matter for their constituents, not for us.
  8.22 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As this seems to be the evening for truisms, I hope you that will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I begin with one or two short statements. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament, and I am proud to be British and a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a fashionable attitude, but it bears repetition from time to time. One of the sad things about the debate is that we have not so far received any of the answers to which the House of Commons is entitled on such basic and important matters.
  We have heard some interesting speeches but there is a singular lack of clarity. I want to know why Her Majesty's Government think it necessary to introduce a motion that will radically change the status of Members of Parliament in such a way that there will be a two-tier system, with two completely different types of Member present within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I want to know why this matter has not been fully debated before the motion was placed on the Table and why Members of Parliament were not given a full explanation.
  I am extremely fond of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but he did himself and the House of Commons no favours by partially quoting from a letter, which seemed to imply that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is taking a different line from that which he took at the beginning of the argument. Even listening to the part of the letter that was read out, it appeared to me that the right hon. Gentleman was simply saying politely what he has said consistently all along. Indeed, it added neither light nor information to the debate.
  We come back to something that is tremendously important. One hundred years ago, I would not have been welcome in the Chamber because my father did not own property until he was well into his 50s—and then only courtesy of a libel action—and as a woman, I would not
  222
  have had a vote. When I speak here, I am conscious of the fact not only that Parliament consistently changes, but that it changes its rules and procedures and improves, and sometimes does not improve, the way in which it behaves. It does all that with the consent of its Members not just in one House, but in two.
  Those changes are brought about because there is a clear public interest. It does not mean to say that we always come up with the right answers or that the general public have the faintest idea how we propose to change procedure, but we are duty bound in this House of Commons to represent the important aspects of democracy for which we were sent here. That means that we cannot, of ourselves, suddenly decide for political reasons—some of which owe a great deal more to the intransigence of certain groups than they do to the genuine political interests of the people of the United Kingdom—that there will be two different types of Members of Parliament.
  The Members of Parliament who are excluded from this place are not excluded because they were not honest with their electorate. They said that, if elected, they would not come here. Whatever happens between them and their constituents, their constituents cannot say that they did not know on what terms they were electing a particular Member. Those Members of Parliament are not excluded because they will not swear the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath has been greatly debated tonight, but it does not seem to have occurred to hon. Members that it is an oath to the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It should be very important to us. Those Members are excluded because they choose, for political reasons, to exclude themselves.
  I have no problem with that. If I choose to exclude myself from political organisations to which I am elected, who is to say me nay; I still have the vestiges of a brain even after many years in this place.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady represents her constituents who do not vote for her. She is a doughty champion of their rights. The problem with her argument is that the electors who did not vote for the Sinn Fein Members of Parliament are also unrepresented here. That is a serious problem.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If I thought that I was not representing the whole of the constituency of Crewe and Nantwich, I would not come here. I do not see myself as simply a representative of one group, nor have I ever said so. The debate about the Oath is a side issue and it takes us away from the real burden of the debate.
  The Government tabled the motion. They did not tell us why and they have not yet given an explanation. They tried to suggest that it is a matter of minor importance—a mild rearrangement of the rules of no real value. If that is so, why did the Members of Parliament concerned need to go as far as the European Court of Human Rights to get a definition of the way in which we operate in the House of Commons? They did that because they know that not only is it constitutionally important but it matters to the role of a Member of Parliament.
  I had no idea that a Labour Government would make what is, if I may say so, the unacceptable and indeed shameful suggestion that Members of Parliament can be

  223
  divided in a way that would be totally unacceptable to the electorate if they were aware of what we were doing. That suggestion demeans the role that we are elected to fulfil.
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I will not give way because I have taken too long. I have been sitting here since half-past two because I have a fundamental belief that when I vote against the motion tonight, I will be voting not against a small political rearrangement that is convenient for members of Her Majesty's Government but against a motion that demeans the House of Commons, and I am deeply angry that it should have been brought forward in this way.
  8.29 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I rise to oppose this attempt to change the rules to allow IRA-Sinn Fein Members to enjoy the privileges of this place while abdicating their responsibilities. The House is being asked to create two types of Members: those who uphold the rules of the House and take the Oath, and those who refuse to do so, but who will be allowed to enjoy certain benefits of the House, while abdicating their responsibilities.
  As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is Sinn Fein Members' own fault that they do not enjoy those privileges. I have lived through many elections, and I have heard those men and that woman advocate their particular political philosophy. They said, "We will not go to the House of Commons. We will not swear an oath to a foreign Parliament. We will not sit there and represent our constituents." SDLP Members have attacked them for that, asking why people would vote for candidates who will not even go to Parliament. They have made their choice.
  The serious question that I must ask is, what is the reason for this motion? Why, at the end of this year, are we to be found debating this matter? There is another side to this coin, and I should like to see it. I should like to know what the deal really is. Before 1997, Sinn Fein never used its resources for the benefit of anyone because it was so busy bombing and killing Protestant and Roman Catholic constituents that it had no time to represent them. Suddenly, it seems to have time.
  The House should remember that we have devolved powers to Northern Ireland. Those four Members are already Members of the Stormont Assembly, and one is a Minister in the Stormont Cabinet. He does not need to worry about the education of his constituents because education is a devolved matter and he is the Minister of Education. This talk about Sinn Fein having a real desire to help people by coming to the House is false. They want a platform on which to meet the people who come to the House and to forward their aims, and they want the House to finance that.
  The previous Speaker of the House, on 14 May 1997, said:
  "I feel certain that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the many benefits and facilities that are now available in the House without also taking up their responsibilities as Members."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 35.]
  224
  I agree. The present Speaker has also advocated that view. But what has happened? The motion discriminates against Members such as myself who have taken the Oath and who sit in the House. It says, "You, who have done what you are told, taken the Oath and obeyed the laws of the House, don't have a full say." It will create a category that contains four people, which is strange when one considers who those people are and what they have done.
  I was amazed last Thursday when I heard the Leader of the House say:
  "I make no apology for having a peace process that provides a relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland did not know beforehand. If we want that peace process to continue and we want to avoid murders in the future, we have to show our willingness to enter into that process."—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1018.]
  Does anyone here really think that if we allow these Members into the House, the bombing, the killing and the beatings that still go on will stop?
  The Leader of the House said that he was glad about the relative peace in Northern Ireland. Last Friday, the Belfast Telegraph, which is a strong supporter of the agreement and all that it stands for, carried an article stating that bombing by all republicans had returned to pre-ceasefire levels. What do Members think about that? We are told that, to help advance the cause of peace, we should pass the motion tonight.
  The Members who want to come here include, of course, Mr. McGuinness, who remains a member of the IRA army council and was promoted to become its chief of staff. He retains his position on the council along with Thomas Murphy, Brian Keenan, Gerard Adams, Martin Ferris, Patrick Doherty—another Sinn Fein member who wants to come here—and Brian Gillen. Let us look at Mr. McGuinness's history. He was in charge of operations during the trouble in Londonderry. In the McGuinness era of IRA control in Londonderry, there were 87 murders. Five of the victims were innocent children: Kathryn Eakin, a Protestant and nine-year-old child; Gordon Gallagher, a Roman Catholic and nine-year-old child; Bernadette McCool, a Roman Catholic, another nine-year-old child; Carol Ann McCool, a Roman Catholic and four-year-old child; and Kathleen Feeny, a Roman Catholic and 14-year-old child.
  I have never heard Mr. McGuinness at any time utter one word of regret for the murder of those children; he is completely silent. A journalist questioning him on television about the Omagh atrocity asked, "If one of your constituents came to you and said that they had information about who was responsible for Omagh, what would you advise them to do?" He said, "I would certainly not advise them to go to the police." That is in the public domain.
  We have established that Martin McGuinness was to all effects leading the IRA army council and was busy in Londonderry. Members should know for what type of people they are proposing to bend the rules. One of the saddest calamities in Londonderry was the death of Frank Hegarty, who was murdered on the instructions of Mr. McGuinness. Mr. Hegarty had worked for military intelligence and knew where some of the IRA's most important arms and explosives were hidden in the Irish Republic. When the Irish police raided them the Army, fearing that Mr. Hegarty's cover would be blown, pushed him away to England. Mr. McGuinness then arrived on the doorstep of Rose Hegarty, and told her that he wanted to talk about her son and how he could return.

  225
  Twice a week for 13 weeks, Mr. McGuinness dropped by, the family met him and they drank tea together. He assured the mother, Rose, that if Frank came home, he could sort the matter out and all would be well; a firm assurance for a mother's heart torn about her son. She persuaded her boy to come home. A rendezvous was arranged by Mr. McGuinness; afterwards the body was found in a roadway in Tyrone, a bullet through the head. That is in the public domain. Many journalists, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, have written moving stories about that murder.
  Mr. Adams has blood on his hands. As recently as this September, he has threatened young nationalists who have dared to suggest that they would join the new Police Service. This is what he said:
  "I think they"—
  that is, officers drawn from the nationalist community—
  "will be accorded exactly the same treatment the republican movement accorded to the RUC. No more, no less."
  What was that? The murder of more than 300 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Gerry Adams was a member of the first Provisional IRA delegation that came to London to negotiate with the Conservative Government. He was released with other members of the IRA to do that. When he returned, he carried out what is known as Bloody Friday, when 22 bombs were set off in Belfast with no warning, killing 11 people, including a child.
  Jean McConville, another victim whose name ought to be familiar to the House, was executed by the IRA because she was a Roman Catholic who helped a dying Army man. Like any other woman, she went and put his head on her lap, wept over him and helped to comfort him. She was executed on the command of Gerry Adams. Her body has never been found.
  David Winnick: As someone who is very far removed from the Christian tradition, I look upon Jean McConville—whether I should do so is another matter, because, as I said, I am not of that faith—as one of the finest Christians whom I could imagine. She was a true Christian. I believe—possibly unlike the hon. Gentleman—that if it had been an IRA man who was dying, she would have done the same.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I quite agree. As I have always said, there is no difference between the tears of a Roman Catholic mother and the tears of a Protestant mother. They are both mothers, and they both have the same feeling and the same love.
  Every hon. Member knows that we are dealing with ruthless men. They are interested not in peace, but in getting their way. As Martin McGuinness said:
  "I apologise to no one for saying that we support and admire the freedom fighters of the IRA."
  He has not changed. Now we are asked by the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House to allow those people to be brought into the House and given a special privilege. That is wrong. No matter who they are, there should be no special privileges in the House. There are hon. Members who have legitimate views about the Oath and about the Protestant ascendancy and other matters. However, when we enter the Chamber, we all stand on a common platform.
  226
  One of my friends from Belfast, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), recalled his maiden speech. I was present on that occasion. He said that he had not expected things to happen the way they did. Neither did I. I did not think that I would be leading five Members of Parliament in the House, just one less than the official Unionists. That, my friend, is perhaps the biggest miracle that has happened in Northern Ireland during these sad days.
  I trust that hon. Members will think hard. Reference was made to the Rev. Robert Bradford, who was shot dead by the IRA. That Saturday morning, I was to have been shot dead, too. The police found in the house adjacent to my home everything ready to assassinate me that day. Fortunately for me, I had an early morning prayer meeting, which is common in the Church to which I belong. I was out of bed at six o'clock and away to prayer. The gunmen did not get me, but when I looked upon the body of Robert, I said to myself, "The bullet could have been for me." Sometimes politicians in Northern Ireland are severely criticised, but they can always answer—an Ulsterman can always answer and fight his corner—but the House should remember that there is a cost to be paid in trying to serve the people of Northern Ireland. Some of us are trying to do that as best we can, but this proposal does not help us in our efforts.
  8.45 pm
  David Winnick: I hope that, in expressing my support for the motion, there is no need for me to emphasise how I loathe the murders and violence of the IRA. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), whose viewpoint is very different from mine on the Good Friday agreement and other matters in Northern Ireland, read out a list of some victims. I completely agree with his sentiments. As we have been in the House for many years and have been involved in many Northern Ireland debates—obviously, he has been much more involved than I could be—I hope that he is aware that I demonstrated time and again during the years of violence that I was completely opposed to the IRA and to the loyalist murder gangs on the other side. Indeed, during the early 1980s, I opposed the current Mayor of London when he argued as leader of the Greater London council that there should be negotiations with the IRA. I could see no reason for such negotiations, as the only item on the table for that organisation would be Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom.
  During the years of violence, it was made clear that it was legitimate to argue for a united Ireland. Ministers in the previous Government made it perfectly clear that it was legitimate to have the unification of Ireland as one's political objective, but illegitimate to try to bring about that aim with violence and terror. As I said in an intervention—this returns to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim—if the yardstick in respect of Commons office facilities is to be the background of all or some of the four Sinn Fein Members, the same would apply if they were willing to come into the House and take the Oath. I assume from the remarks that he made when he listed the victims that he would be as opposed to such Members coming into the Chamber as he would be to their having office facilities.
  As I understand it, however, that is not the view of the Opposition, who say that if the four Members, who were elected in the same way as we all were—there is no doubt

  227
  that they are elected Members of Parliament—were willing to come into the Chamber and take the Oath, they would have no objections at all. Indeed, I would not expect them to have any objections.
  The argument and division is about whether there should be what has been described in this debate as a sort of two-tier membership. I would not describe it in those terms, but I am willing to concede the point. I am also willing to concede that it is a messy arrangement. It is not one that I particularly like—of course not; why should I? I would prefer all those who are elected as Members of Parliament, be they on the mainland or in Northern Ireland, to take the Oath, so this is not the sort of compromise that I particularly like and neither do I believe that the Government like it. Obviously, they would take the same view as the rest of us—or at least most of us, with the exception of the Democratic Unionist party—in saying that these Members should take their seats. In the interests of the peace process, however, I am willing for such a compromise, however messy, to be reached.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman says that he is willing for a compromise to be reached. If he had stated in his election address that he would vote for giving £500,000 of taxpayers' money to four Sinn Fein Members of Parliament, is he confident that he would have been re-elected?
  David Winnick: I shall defend my viewpoint in my constituency, as the hon. Gentleman will defend his view in his. I believe that my constituents know of my loathing of IRA violence. If the issue is raised at the next general election, it is my responsibility as the candidate to defend my position. People can then make up their minds in the usual democratic way.
  Sinn Fein Members' attitude to taking their seats in what they describe as a foreign Parliament is not unique. For a time, Sinn Fein refused to participate in a Northern Ireland Parliament; being part of a partitioned Northern Ireland was out of the question. It argued time and again that it would never be involved, yet now some of its members are Members of the Legislative Assembly. Some are Ministers and are therefore involved in the Executive. Sinn Fein has obviously changed its mind.
  We should also not forget that Sinn Fein refused to recognise the Republic of Ireland. It was recognised throughout the world, and I therefore do not expect that it was unduly worried about Sinn Fein recognition. However, Sinn Fein recognised the Irish Republic only in 1986 after much internal debate, which led to a split at the time. Now it has one member in the Dail and hopes to have a few more; we shall see after the Irish general election.
  As I said in an intervention, I do not believe that the IRA has secured victory. It was not defeated militarily; it can take whatever pride it likes from that. If we had been in a position over 30 years to defeat the IRA militarily, we would have done that. We were not involved in a game; enough British soldiers died in the process. It was obvious that the IRA could not be defeated militarily. However, it has been defeated politically for the reasons that I explained earlier. It came into existence in 1970
  228
  with one aim in mind: to bring about the unification of Ireland through terror and violence regardless of the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That has not happened, and it is not likely to happen until a majority in Northern Ireland supports unification.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman said that one member of Sinn Fein had been elected to the Dail. Does that member take part in the Dail's proceedings under different terms from other Members of the Dail?
  David Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the answer. There is no oath in the Dail such as the one that is taken here. Since 1986, Sinn Fein has recognised the Irish Republic and it must therefore recognise its Parliament. Sinn Fein currently chooses to describe the UK Parliament as a foreign Parliament. However, if we agree to the motion and the Sinn Fein Members take the office facilities, is not it possible that they will change their minds in due course? I would welcome that.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear his views about the Oath. He believes that it could be changed. I made the same point during business questions on 2 December 1999. With the possibility that Sinn Fein Members might wish to take their seats in mind, I asked the then Leader of the House:
  "Will she consider the possibility of a change of wording that would allow Sinn Fein MPs to take their seats?"—[Official Report, 2 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 434.]
  It appears that Sinn Fein Members are not willing to take their seats, regardless of the Oath. However, if they were, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I should be prepared to reconsider it. I believe that those who are elected should have every opportunity to take their seats.
  In previous times, this House was involved in a great deal of controversy about Members who wanted to take their seats but could not do so. It was not until 1829 that Catholics were allowed to come here. It was a long time from the Reformation until 1829, and it was likely—although I have not read the debates of the time—that there was a great deal of controversy and discussion about that. It was not until 1860 that orthodox Jews—who could not take the Christian oath—were allowed to come here. Prior to 1860, such a measure was debated but defeated in the Lords. It took some 15 or 20 years before it was finally agreed to, when Baron Rothschild could take his seat as an orthodox Jew.
  The position of Charles Bradlaugh was even more controversial. Despite being a non-believer, he was willing to come here and take the Oath but the House came to the conclusion that it would be hypocrisy to do so. He was refused admission four times. I agree that these were Members who wanted to take their seats; obviously, Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, wanted to do so. But we must look at the controversy that occurred and the number of Members at the time who said that it would be quite wrong for a Christian country to allow a professed atheist into this House. At the end of the day, the law was changed. Indeed, Charles Bradlaugh lived long enough for an apology to be given to him. While we are debating a different matter—those Members who do not want to take their seats—I would say that the controversies of the past have some relationship to what we are discussing at the moment.

  229
  The hon. Member for North Antrim is not in favour of the Good Friday agreement; he believes it to be wrong, inappropriate and a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland, but that is not the position of the Conservative Opposition. This proposal may help the peace process—perhaps it will not—or consolidate what was agreed at the time; a new Government for Northern Ireland and fairness in governing on behalf of both communities. If it helps the process, I see no reason why I should not vote for the motion, and I shall do so at the appropriate time tonight.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Throughout my 14 years in this House, I have taken a close interest in the affairs of the Province. Whoever has been in government during those 14 years, I have spoken up without fear or favour for a principle that I hold dear and continue to hold dear: that appeasing evil is wrong and doomed to failure.
  For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it clear that my views are my own, and mine alone. All members of my party tonight have the ability to speak as we will and vote as we will. What we do later this evening is entirely a matter of conscience for each and every one of us.
  Before I get to the substance of my speech, I suppose that I must declare an interest of a sort. Some years ago, the views that I hold got me on to a Sinn Fein-IRA assassin's death list. I have always assumed that at least two of the four people whom we are seeking to help tonight approved of my being put on that list. I therefore readily accept that I need to approach this subject in a calm and rational way, rather than with personal feeling and emotion.
  Whatever approach I adopt, I come to the same conclusion—that I am implacably opposed to this motion, whatever the arguments that are used and whatever the justifications that are attempted. I am against it for three reasons. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, this motion demeans democracy; this motion allows armed terrorists into the Palace of Westminster; and this motion creates two classes of Member of Parliament, when we should all be equal.
  As I said, the motion demeans democracy. If democracy means anything, it is about governance and change exclusively via the ballot box. Yet the motion will help those who support using violence to overthrow the state. Neither the motion nor the Leader of the House has set out the official line as "They must renounce violence first and give up their guns and explosives."
  The Government want us to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are different. They are not. I had wanted to make it clear why I consider them to be the same, but I do not need to do so, because the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) achieved that far more eloquently than I can. He told the House that three of the four whom the Government want to help are believed to be members not of the Sinn Fein Council, but of the IRA army council—they are one and the same. He also said that at least two of the four have blood on their hands: they have not only authorised and instructed the killing of others, but have been involved. The four whom the Government want us to help are terrorists. They should be treated accordingly, instead of being welcomed into the heart of British democracy.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend and I tabled an amendment that, sadly, was not selected for debate, so he
  230
  knows that I agree with each and every word he has said—and I am sure that I shall agree with the rest of his speech. Does he agree that much of the debate has shown that the emperor has no clothes? Many speakers consider the people whom the Government want to help to be democrats who wish to participate in our processes, but as he rightly says, they spat in the face of democracy time after time through all their terrorist activities.
  Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; of course they are not democrats. They are armed terrorists who keep their weapons and explosives for a simple reason: if they cannot get their way, they will use them. If they are not like that, why do they keep guns and why would they need Semtex, save to undermine democracy as we know it? By demeaning democracy, the motion will not only let those armed terrorists—the four Members of Parliament who have never renounced terrorism or denounced violence—into the Palace of Westminster, but will make staff passes available to them.
  Sinn Fein-IRA have twice got bombs into this building without passes, so one can only speculate about how much more murder and mayhem may be achieved if we give those people passes to enable them to pass through the security screens with whatever they like. The motion will also leave those on Sinn Fein-IRA death lists open to attack within the precincts, but I have yet to hear the Government offer any suggestions on their plans for extra security and extra protection.
  The third matter of principle is that the motion will create two classes of MP—an issue that has generated much concern and much debate. There are 655 of us who believe in democracy, although we may have different views on it, but another four hold us, the House and our country in contempt. The Leader of the House claims that those of us who oppose the motion are trying to create two classes of MP, but that is utter rubbish. It hardly warrants being taken seriously as an argument.
  Currently, all Members of the House, whatever their views, are the same. The Sinn Fein-IRA four are deliberately putting themselves at a disadvantage. We are not doing that; they are doing it themselves, and it is unnecessary. Consider the position of the Social Democratic and Labour party. It wants a republic in the north of Ireland. It wants out of the House of Commons. It wants a united Ireland. I may not agree with those policies, but they are all perfectly honourable if pursued solely via the ballot box. Those who do not agree with them can vote against them, but I defend the right to believe in them.
  If members of the SDLP can pursue the dream, as they see it, of a united Ireland through this place, why cannot Sinn Fein-IRA? There can be only one conclusion: that the SDLP has renounced violence, and Sinn Fein-IRA have not.
  Sadly, the Government have a majority which they intend to use to force the motion through. I suspect that the best that we can hope to achieve is the passing of some amendments. On the Order Paper is a group of amendments that seek to do four things; I think they should be touched on briefly before the end of the debate.
  The first of the amendments deals with the question of when the new arrangements should be brought into effect. The Government say that it should happen as soon as we return from the Christmas recess. There is a raft of

  231
  amendments suggesting other times, but there is a common theme: all the amendments suggest in one way or another that if the House is determined to make the proposed arrangements, it should not bring them into effect until the terrorists have disarmed and renounced violence. If the House is determined to follow a route that I oppose, I beg it to do that only when dealing with democrats rather than with armed terrorists.
  The Leader of the House tried to suggest that amendments of this sort presented obstacles—by supporting amendments requiring decommissioning and a renunciation of violence, we were somehow placing an obstacle in the way of four Members of Parliament. There is an easy answer to that: all 659 of us should be required to renounce violence, and say that we will not hold guns and explosives. I doubt that any Member would not agree to such a requirement; only the four who are setting themselves apart consider it unreasonable.
  Amendment (m), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), would prevent the payment of allowances. If we do our arithmetic correctly, we see that the motion will give armed terrorists some £400,000 a year to further their campaign to overthrow the state. Moreover, they will not even have to account for themselves: the Leader of the House confirmed that they would not be required to complete the register. That is a disgrace.
  I am glad that the Leader of the House has now returned to the Chamber. If he will not listen to anything else said by anyone here, I hope that if he gets his way tonight he will immediately give some thought to requiring all MPs, regardless of whether they take their seats, to complete the register and be subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
  Amendment (p), tabled by me, seeks to prevent Sinn Fein-IRA staff from having access to the services and facilities of this building. As I said earlier, issuing passes to those staff will allow unchecked and unrestricted access. It will allow free access of guns and explosives to the Palace. It will also do something else which I find utterly objectionable: it will require staff of the House to assist people in their avowed intent to undermine this state. I think it dreadful to put loyal servants of the House in a position in which they are required to assist terrorists, and assist subversion.
  If the Government will not listen to the argument about staff passes, I urge them to do a number of things. If they are determined to have Sinn Fein-IRA terrorists in here wearing staff passes, they should require them to go through the security screens every time they enter the building. They should make certain that none of those people—none of our staff, in fact—can use the facilities of the House to further terrorism. We must ensure that no one in this building is required to help Sinn Fein-IRA to undermine the state.
  Amendment (ii) seeks to put some restrictions on whom Sinn Fein-IRA can choose as members of staff. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who tabled the amendment, would agree that we could happily put that restriction on every Member of Parliament, so that we would all continue to be equal. Anyone who has a pass to this place should not be, or should never have been, a member of a proscribed
  232
  organisation and should never have been convicted of an imprisonable offence. I do not see why we cannot have that requirement, even if the Government insist on their motion.
  The motion is not about enabling duly elected Members of Parliament to do their job. It is not even, as we discovered earlier, about implementing the Good Friday agreement; there is nothing in the agreement about such a measure. The motion is about surrendering to murderers, trying to appease those who have guns pointed at us and who are willing to use them, handing over millions of pounds to terrorists to help them to do their work, and forcing the staff of the House to help people of violence. Those who are in favour of the motion demean democracy. Those who support the motion are bowing down to armed killers and creating two types of MP. In my book, that amounts to appeasement. It will not work. It never has done and it never will.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) but I wish to begin by disabusing him of one point. Much of the debate has been about whether we will create two tiers of Members of Parliament. We have two-tier membership of Parliament already: those who represent seats in Northern Ireland and the rest of us. It is clear from many debates over the years in the House that Northern Ireland Members run special risks and face particular horrors that the rest of us do not. I therefore wish to recast the debate and discuss whether we should create another tier of Members, and not by levelling up our actions, beliefs and aspirations to meet those of Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, but by lowering them to allow people to come in without buying the full package.
  It has been noticeable that although the Government sensibly deployed their best speaker and most able advocate to open the debate, it has run away from them. I hope that I cause no offence to those hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the motion when I say that they in their hearts probably know that they are not winning the argument.
  I have been here about 20 years. About 15 years ago, the media began one of its regular crazes, saying that no one in the House of Commons could put two words together, let alone two sentences. The Leader of the House, as he did on many occasions, led for the Opposition then and, as always, slaughtered all those before him. My normal seat, in all those barren years, was four up from the Front Bench next to the Gangway. Enoch Powell sat just the other side of the Gangway and he commented to me, after my right hon. Friend had finished, to the effect that we heard much about the lack of orators in the House of Commons, but that anybody who had ever heard my right hon. Friend speak would know that that was untrue. Although the Government were right to put their most able speaker up to try to convince the House of the wisdom of the motion, even his skills have failed to convince a large proportion of Members.
  Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Leader of the House signally failed to convince the majority of those who have been in the Chamber all afternoon. From his sadly brief experience of being in the Government, does the right hon. Gentleman hold out any

  233
  hope that the Government may see some sense, listen to the voices of those who have spoken tonight and withdraw the motion?
  Mr. Field: What happens when the vote comes is up to us. We are sent here as free agents, albeit with party loyalties, and at the end of our stewardship we have to account for how we spend our time. I would hope, given that the argument has gone against the Government tonight, that if they put the motion to a vote, they will lose. Other issues have arisen from the debate that suggest that any Government who wished to appear wise and considerate of views expressed here would bring other motions before us, shortly after Christmas, so that we can attend to those matters.
  Lembit Öpik: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I am sure that his position is sincerely held. Will he accept that many of us of the opposing view genuinely and sincerely feel that it is in the interest of the peace process, on a cost-benefit analysis, to support the motion?
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend, for I call him that, took half an hour of the House's time. I am more than prepared for Members on both sides to judge whether he convinced them on the argument and the quality of his judgment.
  We have spent two whole days debating issues that affect one part of this kingdom, Northern Ireland. I sat through yesterday's debate, not wishing to speak. I have sat through this debate and, happily, I have been called to speak. Unfortunately, I missed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but as she will understand, there are times when, after one has been in the Chamber for seven hours, it is necessary to leave.
  One of the themes of both debates has been the view that history somehow progresses in a line. It has been said that our job here is to push it forward and that history shows that events always move forward. I suggest that that is a mistaken view of how human events unfold before us. Indeed, if we were having this debate in the 1930s, some people would have lost the argument about the Government's line then on Nazi Germany. Some would have suggested that even though we had made a series of concessions that had not worked, we needed to make some more. On this issue, too, I caution the House to stand back for a moment from the contributions that we have heard, because underlying them is the belief that the peace process is heading in the one direction that all of us wish to support. It is suggested that the only thing that we need to do to keep the show on the road is to make more and more concessions. That might be true, but there may come a time when people would doubt that.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) set the debate alight when he said that we should not get bogged down in principle. That was a wonderful wheeze on his part, and typically British. It relaxed us all, because none of us likes to speak from points of principle. However, those who attended to his speech will have understood that it was notable for its point of high principle. The single theme that ran through it was picked up by other hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
  234
  That theme is that this is not a simple little motion about whether we believe in the peace process but a crucial test of how hon. Members regard the House of Commons, and of our role in it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that the motion was a "limited" measure. I beg to disagree. I believe that we are discussing a most fundamental measure.
  A similar matter arose in the first Parliament to which I was elected. The then Government faced the question of whether to bring the trade unions within the law as the House of Commons defined it, or whether the unions could define the law within which they were prepared to operate. The House of Commons decided that hon. Members would set the framework within which organisations and people in this kingdom should work. I believe that the Government were right then to do that, and that today's Government are wrong to try to suggest that we should behave differently.
  Hon. Members have already noted that the House of Commons is regularly ambushed by the Government. We often hear on the radio news at 7 or 8 am that later that day the Government will announce another stage in the peace process. Such announcements always mean that the House has to make major changes to the organisation of its affairs. The House has already approved the extraordinary proposition that a person can belong to two Parliaments, even though those Parliaments have different loyalties and programmes.
  The House was given only a couple of days' notice of the motion before it today. My argument is that it changes the fundamental nature of the House of Commons, where we have the privilege to work. Hon. Members must decide whether this motion is the final throw in the concessions needed to keep the peace treaty alive, or whether we will be faced with other concessions later on, in the new year.
  The Belfast agreement used to be called the Good Friday agreement, but the name was changed when things got more difficult. The change had substance, as religion and the symbolism that goes with it were removed. An Easter agreement has extraordinary connotations, especially to people in Northern Ireland, about the resurrection and so on. Before hon. Members vote tonight, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will tell us, when he winds up for the Government, whether the Belfast agreement contained other elements that were neither made public nor debated. If so, will we be asked to approve them at some later stage?
  I am told—and I regret that I did not hear her—that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich brought us back to the centre of the debate. How do we see the role of an MP? The Government are standing on their head when they answer that question. They seem to believe that our job here is to answer letters from our constituents and do the other good works that the majority wish us to undertake. Our constituents do not send us here for that function; they send us here to be their representatives in this Chamber. Sometimes we try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can make our contributions, however inadequate, to the debate and be full members of the committee.
  We undertake our work in our constituencies because human sympathy makes us want to help people who are less well placed than we are. By doing so, we learn about the process of government—about what is wrong and

  235
  what needs to be changed—and use that experience to shape our amendments and help guide our debate. It is not the essence of our work as Members of Parliament, although it is an important part. We are not here to act as very well paid social workers but to represent the views of our constituents.
  I was asked earlier whether I thought that the Government would withdraw the motion. One can but hope. As for whether the Government will pick up messages from the debate that will be valuable to their long-term survival and the well-being of our nation, the answer is yes.
  Although it is not central to this debate, many of us must have been surprised to have heard the views expressed on both sides of the Chamber about the Oath and whether its wording is appropriate. Our constitution continually and continuously evolves. The words of the Oath, which at one time might have summed up what the Oath really represented, may not necessarily be appropriate now. I suggest that loyalty to the Crown in times past would have unified us and made it easy for most of us to gain admittance to the House of Commons. Now it may be a barrier. If that is so, our constituents will want us to think about the essence of the Oath and what it is supposed to encapsulate—not in a hurried, end-of-term debate, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) said, in a considered and careful way. As I tried to suggest in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the Oath sums up our commitment to a way of life as democrats, and the House would be well advised to look at it carefully.
  For much of the time that I have spent in Parliament, the Labour party excited itself with the wonders of what it was proposing, as Labour voters walked away. They did not walk away because of a particular policy but because they thought that we were breaking what they regarded as the common decencies that sum up a wisdom that nations acquire over time. Although our constituents will probably not be particularly interested in the minutiae of the debate that we have necessarily had tonight, they will know that the Government's motion asks us to cross and break those common decencies. There is enormous danger for any political party that does that once—let alone more than once. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, in a proper Christmas spirit, to take what the Whips tell us is a free vote and act as though we believe it by throwing out the motion and asking the Government to come back with a much more considered programme of reform—which we need—when we return from the Christmas recess.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who is acknowledged by colleagues on both sides of the House as a Member of high principle.
  This is a sad day for the House of Commons. The case presented by the Leader of the House was uncharacteristically poor; he did not produce a convincing argument to support a motion that has clearly exposed the Government's willingness further to appease Sinn Fein-IRA.
  236
  What makes this place so special is its history—as the mother of Parliaments and of democracy. Since the awful events of 11 September, we have seen countless ceremonies in the United States at which American patriotism was to the fore. Millions of grieving citizens found enormous comfort in a shared love of their great nation and its illustrious history. I admire them for that.
  I am always struck by the sense of envy exhibited by American citizens who are in awe of our British history. For more than 700 years our parliamentary democracy has stood against those who sought to undermine it. When our forefathers in the House of Commons were challenged, they fought back.
  I fully supportMr. Speaker's ruling and, indeed, that of his predecessor, now Baroness Boothroyd. They sought to uphold and defend the rights of each and all of us. Today, however, we are being asked to roll over and accommodate Sinn Fein-IRA. If we accept the motion, it will afford privileges to four individuals who have no respect for this House, for the proud history of our nation, for our Queen or indeed for anything that can be regarded as British—apart, of course, from British banknotes.
  Those individuals have spent their whole adult lives trying to undermine our nation. Three of them have done so through acts of murder and violence and, indeed, all three remain key figures on the IRA's army council. Despite that, Her Majesty's Government want us to accept those people into this building with open arms and to hand them several hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers' money. For what? To do good? To benefit this nation? To enhance our democracy? Not a bit of it. We all know that that access and money will be used by those people—and their henchmen—to further seek to undermine our nation. Who knows for what purpose some of the finance might be used?
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beggs: I am sorry I cannot do so—I have only a few minutes for my speech.
  I am well aware that my party and representatives of other Unionist parties sit with Sinn Fein representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also fully aware that we sit with them in district councils throughout the Province. However, the difference is that Sinn Fein members entered those forums under the same rules as everyone else—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Today, however, the Government are proposing to allow Sinn Fein MPs and their staff access to this place and to their allowances on a different basis from the rest of us. That is what I find most objectionable.
  Why are the Government asking us to do that? The answer is, of course, so that they can continue their policy of appeasement towards Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government are determined to feed the hungry republican tiger, no matter what the consequences are for anyone else.
  Last night, we discussed a five-year extension to the deadlines for decommissioning, despite the fact that, as we all know, that process should have been completed more than 18 months ago. Before that, there had been a conveyor belt of concessions to the terrorists with which we are all familiar—prisoner releases, reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, promised amnesty for terrorists on the run from the law of the land and a review of criminal justice. The list goes on. Why? To keep terrorists happy.

  237
  Have the Government not a prior duty to keep their law-abiding citizens and law-abiding Members of Parliament happy? The Government fail to understand that Sinn Fein-IRA will never be satisfied. No matter what they get, they will simply ask for more, and the Government, to date, have always been keen to oblige. The motion is yet further evidence of that. Christmas is almost upon us, but, when it comes to Sinn Fein-IRA, the Government are happy to play Santa Claus 12 months of the year.
  Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have lost friends at the hands of Irish republican terrorists. We in the House remember Robert Bradford, Tony Berry, Ian Gow, Airey Neave and many others. Those distinguished Members of this House were murdered by Irish republican terrorists—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Including McGuinness and the other fellow, Adams.
  Mr. Beggs: Indeed, and they are still unrepentant. Let us imagine what the great men who have been murdered would think if they knew what we were being asked to do today—or, to be more precise, what the Government intend to do to us today. The Government are forcing through the motion; there is no free vote. Those on the payroll vote have been leaning on others, and those who vote for the motion, if it is carried, will bring shame and embarrassment on themselves.
  I shall conclude as I began. This is a sad day for the House of Commons. Parliament should not be abused in this way. Gerry Adams has said openly that what the House is likely to agree to today has come about as a result of an agreement with the Prime Minister. A secret, dirty little deal has been done, disregarding long-established custom and practice in the House. I find it insulting to the House that the Prime Minister is seeking to sell out centuries of democratic history by introducing this motion, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will oppose it.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I have only a few minutes in which to speak in the debate—I had hoped to be called earlier—so I shall not rehearse the speech that I wanted to make. Having listened to the debate, I have to tell the Government that they must answer some serious outstanding questions before they can have my vote tonight. I had intended to vote for the motion, but much has been said about two-tier membership—a concept with which I do not agree.
  A two-tier membership is possible if Members can have their office costs and allowances in this place—we may argue about that—but do not have to register in the Register of Members' Interests. It was clear from the opening speech made by the Leader of the House that Members have to register their interests within three months of taking their seats. If Members do not take their seats, they do not enter their interests on the register. All Members should have the right to carry out advocacy work on behalf of their constituents, regardless of whether they have taken the Oath. If they cannot represent their constituents and are not treated the same way as all other Members, we shall create a two-tier membership. I could not vote for a proposition that allowed that to happen
  238
  given the fact that, correctly, we are all under the most intense scrutiny. When we deal with public funds, the public want us to be subject to even more scrutiny and they want to be aware of our interests when we speak in the House or carry out business on behalf of our constituents.
  If the motion is carried, it will present a great dilemma for Sinn Fein. It will take the Queen's shilling and it will cross the great divide between its open advocacy of republicanism and using the assets of, and taking a place in, what it sees as this foreign Parliament. That dilemma for Sinn Fein is just as great as the one before those on the Unionist Benches who do not believe that Sinn Fein Members should be allowed to come here under any circumstances.
  I shall not make the speech that I had hoped to make, but I hope that the Government will answer those questions because I am seriously in doubt as to whether I can give them my support.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has well illustrated the difficulty that the Government have brought upon themselves in this debate and with this issue. He is not the only Government Back Bencher to have voiced unease and disquiet about the motion. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and even—if I can put it that way—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who started her speech by saying that she had considerable reservations about the motion, have seen the difficulties that this ill considered motion will cause.
  In the brief time available to me, I want to touch on two or three salient issues that have arisen in the debate. The first and very obvious one is the matter of timing and the matter of concessions. Opposition Members have repeatedly asked—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) illustrated this point as well as or better than most—what point there is to premature concession. What on earth is the point in what is called a peace process of making such an important concession to people with whom one is supposed to be in dialogue and whom one is supposed to be persuading further to disarm and to move towards peace? We see no sense at all in making such a concession and it is perfectly obvious that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side do not see the sense of it either.
  We have yet to receive a proper explanation from the Government as to why Ministers have felt the necessity to come to the House at this stage and offer this highly contentious concession to Sinn Fein-IRA when the Government have apparently—unless we are told otherwise by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—received no undertaking of any kind that it will give rise to further progress.
  Another issue has risen time and again in the debate, and I shall categorise it as the two classes of MP. The phrase has been used by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, my hon.

  239
  Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and by many others. The issue is simple and it highlights starkly what the debate has turned out to be about. It is the unease and unhappiness that Members feel when a measure, such as the one before us, effectively creates two different categories of Member of Parliament.
  The Members present have chosen to take their seats and to do their job in the fullest sense of the word. They do not just represent their constituents and help them with problems but exercise their judgment in the House on issues such as those that affect Northern Ireland. However, we are now being asked to accept into the House—along with families and staff—those Members who have chosen of their own accord not to take their seats in the House. We must assume that their electorate elected them on that basis, so we cannot be told that those voters are somehow deprived by the fact that their Members of Parliament have chosen not to take their seat. The voters knew about that at the time.
  Mr. Joyce: As I understand it, a minority of voters in those constituencies—90,000 out of 250,000—voted for Sinn Fein, so the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts should surely be with those who did not vote Sinn Fein in those constituencies.
  Mr. Forth: I am an old-fashioned believer in the first past the post system and acknowledge its results in constituencies both in Northern Ireland and throughout the land. I was referring to the relationship between the majority who voted for the Sinn Fein Members and sent them here knowing that they would not take their seats.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne touched on the security issue. There is a distinct feeling of unease among hon. Members and, in particular, officers and staff in these buildings and precincts about who we may be inviting into our midst. In that context, the green form that we expect all staff to complete is of great relevance. It starts by saying:
  "It is the Government's policy that the departments and agency will carry out a Counter Terrorist Check … the interest of national security before anyone can be: authorised to take up posts which involve proximity to public figures at particular risk of attack by terrorist organisations".
  It goes on to say:
  "The purpose of such checks is to prevent those who may have connections with terrorist organisations, or who may be vulnerable to pressure from such organisations, from gaining access to … premises, where there is a risk that they could exploit that position".
  Nothing could better sum up the risk that everyone in the precinct believes that they run if we allow on to the premises families, staff and so on of the Members who are referred to in the motion. Those people will be asked to answer the questions on the green form, including:
  "Have you ever been involved in: espionage? terrorism? sabotage? … Have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?"
  That sounds to me like a thumbnail sketch of Sinn Fein-IRA.
  The question arises—it will ultimately perhaps be for you, Mr. Speaker, and certainly for the Serjeant-at-Arms, to determine—as to how we can be satisfied that sufficient measures will be taken to guarantee that anyone who fills
  240
  in the form and who is associated with the Members covered by the motion will not come under that description on the green form.
  The questions on the form continue:
  "Have you ever been a member of, or supported a group or groups involved in any of the above activities?",
  and so on. The message is clear. How will we be given a guarantee that will work and hold water so that we feel secure against the possibility of such people coming on to our premises?
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forth: No. I am about to finish.
  My final point relates to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said. Others also touched on the issue, and it will require some thought. What relationship will the Members who have chosen not to take their seats, whose families and staff will be able to roam the premises, have with our code of conduct and Register of Members' Interests? Will they be obliged to fill out the Register, like the rest of us? It would appear not. If they do not, will there be sanctions against them? It would appear not. We are creating another class of Member who will not be subject to the same rules and codes of conduct that rightly cover other hon. Members.
  The measure is unnecessary. The Government have given no cogent reason why we are being asked to support it now. It is dangerous because it introduces the concept of two completely different types of Members of Parliament, something that I am sure that all of us in any other circumstances would resist stoutly and definitely. In addition, the proposal raises serious security issues. I hope that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will tell us, at the very least, how the Government will liaise with the House authorities to give every guarantee that security checks and measures will be applied to the families and staff of the Members concerned if they are allowed in under the terms of the motion. We need a guarantee that they have not, and will not have, any connection with any organisation that seeks to undermine our constitutional arrangements.
  The measure is bad, unnecessary and divisive. It will not promote the peace process and we should not support it.
  9.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I shall start by giving a direct answer to a direct question. The staff of any Member who uses the facilities will be vetted in the normal fashion.
  Mr. Forth: That is what we are worried about.
  Dr. Reid: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman need not worry. Decisions will be put to Mr. Speaker in the normal fashion and made in the normal fashion.
  Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of heat in tonight's debate. There has also been a great deal of light, not least in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick), both of whom are consistent contributors to debates on Northern Ireland.

  241
  [Interruption.]They may not be regarded by some on the Opposition Front Bench as people to be listened to, but most Members of the House would agree that they make a major contribution to the debate, particularly by alerting us to what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire called the beginnings of a possibility of a sea change that assists in drawing Sinn Fein further into the political process. They both pointed to the republican movement's gradual but perceptible shift over the decades into political engagement, first, in the Dail, then in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive and now in the precincts of this House.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) also displayed a broad and deep knowledge of the peace process, highlighting in particular the risks taken by the previous Tory Government. I fully accord them the accolade that they deserve for the role that they played in getting the peace process under way. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that although there was a great deal of controversy about those measures at the time, they were undoubtedly the building blocks for the peace that we have now. Despite all its imperfections, that peace is light years ahead of any situation that previously held in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), asked whether Sinn Fein Members will be subject to the same scrutiny as other Members. As I said, the answer is yes.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Dr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will continue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said that it is important to remember that we have a process by which paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, are hesitantly and reluctantly moving—but nevertheless moving—away from violence. Part of that process was the Conservatives' efforts to engage, at one stage even in secret, in talks with the Provisional IRA. That was another risk taken by a Conservative Government, and one of which we are now all the beneficiaries.
  A number of standard objections were made that I want to address very briefly. One is that the motion will create two classes of Member. Let me make it absolutely plain that the two classes of MP were created by the 1997 decision. In response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I shall read from the 1989 edition of "Erskine May". I realise that I have been in trouble for reading from documents tonight, but this one might be more enlightening. It says that
  "although until he has taken the oath a Member may not sit and vote, he may vacate his seat by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds and is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member (but not to his salary), being regarded, both by the House and by the law, as qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to exist."
  That was the position up to 1997. Far from creating two classes of MP, we are reducing the differences between the two classes that were created by the 1997 decision.
  It galls me tremendously to hear Conservative Front Benchers, who have spent the past four years demanding that we create two, three or four classes of MP in the House by limiting the voting rights of Scottish and Welsh MPs and possibly those of London MPs, suddenly
  242
  discover their crocodile teeth beneath their crocodile tears and their allegiance to one class of MP when it suits them. It is nothing but a camouflage for what they were doing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) cannot stand away from his seat. If he wants the Minister to give way, he stands in his place; he does not move across the Chamber.
  Dr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I give way, it will be claimed that I have not addressed the arguments that were made in our debate.
  We heard the argument that Sinn Fein Members stood on an abstentionist ticket, and that constituents knew what they were getting before they voted for them. That overlooks two things—[Interruption.] I am trying to respond to the debate.
  Mr. William Cash rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State is obliged to give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am chairing the proceedings. Does the Secretary of State wish to give way?
  Dr. Reid: I am attempting to respond to Members who were present during our debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Secretary of State wish to give way?
  Dr. Reid: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker; I wish to respond to Members who advanced arguments during our debate.
  The argument about Sinn Fein standing on an abstentionist ticket overlooks two things. In the four constituencies where 90,000 people voted for Sinn Fein, nearly 100,000 people voted for other parties. Like all elected Members, Sinn Fein MPs have a responsibility to represent their entire constituency, including those who did not vote for them.
  Another line of argument, in much of what has been said, is that it would be fine if only Sinn Fein came here, accepted the Oath and entered the Chamber. That is rather like saying that the problem with Irish republicans is that they are Irish republicans. Of course, that creates a problem, but we are trying to grapple with it.
  David Burnside rose—
  Dr. Reid: Let me just turn to Opposition Front Benchers—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to confirm that the debate is

  243
  open ended and does not necessarily need to end at 10 o'clock? The Secretary of State therefore has plenty of time to take interventions, should he wish to do so.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the debate is open ended.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Secretary of State sit down for a moment? Giving way is at the discretion of any hon. Member who is addressing the House. The Secretary of State indicated where he is going on the question of giving way.
  Dr. Reid: There are three reasons why the House should support the motion. First, the House should support anything that moves people who have previously been in conflict into dialogue and democratic entrenchment. We cannot solve decades and centuries of conflict by choosing to deal with other people. The only way to end a war, guerrilla or otherwise, is by agreement with those who have been involved in it.
  David Burnside rose—
  Dr. Reid: The second reason is that there are constituents who should be supported—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Dr. Reid: There are constituents to whom we should extend the franchise and the right to have representation in the House.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall end with two quotes. First:
  "The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy"—[Interruption.]
  This is a marvellous display of democracy. I repeat:
  "The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy." —[Official Report, 8 February 2000; Vol. 344. c. 145.]
  Those are not my words; they are the words of former Prime Minister John Major. What a pity there are not more Members of his mettle on the Opposition Benches tonight. "Making peace," he said, "is a messy business." However, it is necessary and it leads to enormous benefits for all the people in this kingdom
  Keith Hill (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 112.

  Division No. 117]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  David, Wayne

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Banks, Tony

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barron, Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Beard, Nigel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bell, Stuart

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David

  Benton, Joe

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Farrelly, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Flint, Caroline

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foulkes, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Galloway, George

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Havard, Dai

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Healey, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Hepburn, Stephen

  (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Holmes, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cruddas. Jon

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  245

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Morley, Elliot

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kelly, Ruth

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Linda

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lamb, Norman

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laws, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purnell, James

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lucas, Ian

  Robertson, John

  Lyons, John

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCafferty, Chris

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ross, Ernie

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacDougall, John

  Ryan, Joan

  McFall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mann, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marris, Rob

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Martlew, Eric

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mole, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tami, Mark

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  246

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wilson, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Wood, Mike

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wray, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Tom

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Watts, David

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Baldry, Tony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baron, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barrett, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Beggs, Roy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bellingham, Henry

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Mates, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Mercer, Patrick

  Brake, Tom

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnside, David

  Page, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Butterlfill, John

  Price, Adam

  Cameron, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Rendel, David

  (Ne Fife)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Conway, Derek

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Cran, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Dodds, Nigel

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Salmond, Alex

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Doughty, Sue

  Selous, Andrew

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Simmons, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Spink, Bob

  Flook, Adrian

  Steen, Anthony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Swire, Hugo

  Francois, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Garnier, Edward

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Goodman, Paul

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Tyler, Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Vigers, Peter

  Heath, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hermon, Lady

  Webb, Steve

  Hoban, Mark

  Weir, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Horam, John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  247

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Wintprton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wishart, Pete

  Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Richard Bacon.

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 357.

  Division No. 118]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Goodman, Paul

  Amess, David

  Gray, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bacon, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Barker, Gregory

  Hammond, Philip

  Baron, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Hayes, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hermon, Lady

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoban, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burnside, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cameron, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chope, Christopher

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Lidington, David

  Cran, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Dodds, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Norman, Archie

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  248

  Prisk, Mark

  Swayne, Desmond

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Swire, Hugo

  Robathan, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangfond)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Selous, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilkinson, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Willetts, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spink, Bob

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Dr. Julian Lewis and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  Streeter, Gary

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Casale, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caton, Martin

  Austin, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bailey, Adrian

  Challen, Colin

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Battle, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Begg, Miss Anne

  (Norwich S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Berry, Roger

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coleman, Iain

  Blackman, Liz

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Connarty, Michael

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Jean

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cousins, Jim

  Brake, Tom

  Cox, Tom

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cranston, Ross

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Crausby, David

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bryant Chris

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Burden, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burnham, Andy

  David, Wayne

  Burstow, Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Cairns, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dismore, Andrew

  249

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Drew, David

  Joyce, Eric

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ruth

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lamb, Norman

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Laws, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony

  Gidley, Sandra

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gilroy, Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lucas, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Lyons, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Grogan, John

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hancock, Mike

  MacDougall, John

  Hanson, David

  McFall, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKechin, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Havard, Dai

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Healey, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heath, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Mann, John

  Heyes, David

  Marris, Rob

  Hill, Keith

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Holmes, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miliband, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Beveriey (Stretford)

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  lllsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  250

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Owen, Albert

  Stevenson, George

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Perham, Linda

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter

  Stringer, Graham

  Plaskitt, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pond, Chris

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Tami, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Price, Adam

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pumell, James

  Todd, Mark

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Touhig, Don

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tyler, Paul

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tynan, Bill

  Rendel, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Robertson, John

  Ward, Ms Claire

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson Tom

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Watte David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Webb, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  Weir, Michael

  Ross, Emie

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ryan, Joan

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wilson, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wishart, Pete

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wood, Mike

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Woodward, Shaun

  Simon, Siôn

  Woolas, Phil

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

  Southworth, Helen

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Robin Cook and Mr. Secretary Reid may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  Question agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: (t), in line 1, leave out
  "chosen not to take their seats"
  and insert
  "not affirmed or sworn the oath of allegiance".—[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 350.

  Division No.119]

  [10.27 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John

  Amess, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hendry, Charles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hermon, Lady

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hoban, Mark

  Bacon, Richard

  Horam, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Baron, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bercow, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Key, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Burnside, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Loughton, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Luff, Peter

  Cameron, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clappison, James

  Mates, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Conway, Derek

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cran, James

  Mercer, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Norman, Archie

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Prisk, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Francois, Mark

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Garnier, Edward

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  Salmond, Alex

  Grayling, Chris

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Selous, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hancock, Mike

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  252

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Spink, Bob

  Weir, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Bill

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wilkinson, John

  Swire, Hugo

  Willetts, David

  Syms, Robert

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Dr. Julian Lewis and Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  Walter, Robert

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chaytor, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Allen, Graham

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Austin, John

  (Norwich S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barrett, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Colman, Tony

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Hilary

  Cotter, Brian

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Berry, Roger

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Borrow, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brennan, Kevin

  David, Wayne

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Browne, Desmond

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bryant, Chris

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Burnham, Andy

  Doughty, Sue

  Burstow, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Drew, David

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Ennis, Jeff

  (NE Fife)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flynn, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  253

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Wan (Bury S)

  Galloway, George

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gidley, Sandra

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lucas, Ian

  Godsitf, Roger

  Luke, Iain

  Goggins, Paul

  Lyons, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacDougall, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McFall, John

  Hanson, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McKechin, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Harvey, Nick

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Havard, Dai

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mann, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marris, Rob

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Holmes, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  O'Hara Eward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Joyce, Eric

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kelly, Ruth

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Linda

  Kidney, David

  Picking, Anne

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pike, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Lamb, Norman

  Pound, Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laws, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Price, Adam

  254

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stunell, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pumell, James

  Tami, Mark

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Timms, Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rendel, David

  Todd, Mark

  Robertson, John

  Touhig, Don

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tynan, Bill

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vaz, Keith

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ryan, Joan

  Ward Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sawford, Phil

  Watson Tom

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watts, David

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Watts Steve

  Simon, Siôn

  White, Brian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, Phil

  Southworth, Helen

  Wray, James

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

  Stringer, Graham

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: (x), in line 7 at end, add:
  "but all such facilities will be withdrawn if the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland confirms that any organization with which such Members are associated has been involved in any act of terrorism.".—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 347.

  Division No. 120]

  [10.39 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bacon, Richard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baldry, Tony

  Brady, Graham

  Barker, Gregory

  Brazier, Julian

  Baron, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Beggs, Roy

  Burns, Simon

  Bell, Stuart

  Burnside, David

  255

  Butt, Alistair

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cameron, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Maples, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Mates, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clappison, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Collins, Tim

  Mercer, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Cran, James

  Norman, Archie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Prisk, Mark

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Reid, Mark (Cities of London)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Flook, Adrian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Goodman, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gray, James

  Simmonds, Mark

  Grayling, Chris

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spink, Bob

  Hancock, Mike

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swire, Hugo

  Hendry, Charles

  Syms, Robert

  Hermon, Lady

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hoey, Kate

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Viggers, Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Walter, Robert

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Watkinson, Angela

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wiggin, Bill

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilshire, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Luff, Peter

  Mr. Nigel Dodds and Mr. Gregory Campbell.

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  256

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Austin, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Banks, Tony

  David, Wayne

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barrett, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barron, Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Beard, Nigel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Doughty, Sue

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Berry, Roger

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Brake, Tom

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  (Newcastle E& Wallsend)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burnham, Andy

  Galloway, George

  Burstow, Paul

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Godsiff, Roger

  (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Havard, Dai

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hodge, Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Holmes, Paul

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  257

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Owen, Albert

  Joyce, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Linda

  Kelly, Ruth

  Picking, Anne

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pond, Chris

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pope, Greg

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pound, Stephen

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lamb, Norman

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lammy, David

  Price, Adam

  Laws, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pumell, James

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lucas, Ian

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Luke, Iain

  Rendel, David

  Lyons, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooney, Terry

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan

  McKechin, Ann

  Salmond, Alex

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sawford, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  MacShane, Denis

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simon, Siôn

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mann, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marris, Rob

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Merron, Gillian

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

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Miliband, David

  Southworth, Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mole, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stevenson, George

  258

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watson, Tom

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Weir, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  White, Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tami, Mark

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wishart, Pete

  Timms, Stephen

  Wood, Mike

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woodward, Shaun

  Todd, Mark

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Tynan, Bill

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put: —
  The House Divided: Ayes 322, Noes 189.

  Division No. 121]

  [10.51 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cawsey, Ian

  Austin, John

  Challen, Colin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Battle, John

  (Edinburgh PenVands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Brake, Tom

  Crausby, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Browne, Desmond

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  David, Wayne

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burnham, Andy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Cairns, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  259

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kelly, Ruth

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Drew, David

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lammy, David

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Laxton, Bob

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fisher, Mark

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  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

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Havard, Dai

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mann, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marris, Rob

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heyes, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hill Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hodge, Margaret

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Margaret

  Morgan Julie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morley Elliot

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Oaten, Mark

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Perham, Linda

  260

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Stunell, Andrew

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pumell, James

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Timms, Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rammell, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhig, Don

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rendel, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tynan, Bill

  Robertson, John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watson, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Weir, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ryan, Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wilson, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

  Simon, Siôn

  Wishart, Pete

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wood, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. John Heppell.

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnside, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cameron, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Barker, Gregory

  (NE Fife)

  Baron, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Cash, William

  Beggs, Roy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Bell, Stuart

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brady, Graham

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  261

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Norman, Archie

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Francois, Mark

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Picking, Anne

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gidley, Sandra

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Goodman, Paul

  Prisk, Mark

  Gray, James

  Pugh, Dr John

  Grayling, Chris

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangfoid)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hammond, Philip

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hayes, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heath, David

  Selous, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hendry, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hermon, Lady

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hoban, Mark

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hoey, Kate

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hood, Jimmy

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spink, Bob

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo

  Key, Robert

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Tredinnick, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Laws, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Viggers, Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Luff, Peter

  Wiggin, Bill

  Luke, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willetts, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilshire, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  262

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, with effect from 8th January 2002, those Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament may use the facilities within the precincts of the House and the services of departments of the House, and may claim support for their costs as set out in the Resolution of 5th July 2001, relating to Members' Allowances, Insurance &c., and the allowances relating to travel within the United Kingdom for Members, their families and staff.

Orders of the Day
  International Development Bill [Lords]
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be considered tomorrow.—[Angela Smith.]
PETITIONS

  Rural Petrol Stations
  11.3 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I wish to present two petitions. The first is to the House of Commons from the rural residents of the United Kingdom and it declares that
  rural petrol filling stations provide essential services for the motorists living in rural areas, and to rural communities as a whole; that such businesses are subject to predatory competition from large oil companies; and that such competition should not be allowed to deprive rural residents of the services provided by rural filling stations.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to investigate the practices of large oil companies to take such action as is appropriate to prevent further large-scale and widespread closure of rural petrol forecourts, and to set minimum requirements for forecourt services.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mrs. Browning: The second petition is to the House of Commons from the petrol retailers and motorists of the United Kingdom. It declares that
  major oil companies in the United Kingdom are alleged to set the prices of their own petrol and diesel products at selected forecourts with the aim of forcing competitors out of business; and that motorists should not have to pay more for their essential fuel purchases because of where they choose to live.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to control the powers of major United Kingdom oil companies to engage in predatory pricing.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Secondary Schools (Kent)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Angela Smith.]
  11.4 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is of huge concern to my—
  Mr. David Clelland: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What about the other petition?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have a record of only two petitions on the order of business in front of me.
  Mr. Clelland: Only one was presented.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Two were presented. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman may not have followed the detail. They were related, but two separate petitions were presented.
  Joyce Quin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I expected to present a petition and understood that it was part of our order of business this evening.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We appear to have no record of that fact. It was certainly not on the agenda that I saw earlier in the day. If there has been a misunderstanding, I am sure that that can be remedied at an early date, but the order of business to which I am working refers only to the two petitions that were presented by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I apologise to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), but I am sure that the problem can be put right very soon.
  Miss Widdecombe: Before that unexpected diversion, I was saying that the issue is of massive concern to many of my constituents in Kent. It comes up every year when the time comes round for parents to indicate their order of choice for schools in Kent.
  Kent is in many ways exceptionally fortunate. It has a wide variety of schools between which, theoretically, parents can choose. Kent has grammar schools, single-sex grammar schools, mixed ability schools, high schools and quite a wide range of specialist schools. On the face of it, parents have a fortunate choice, but in reality the opposite is true. Too many parents find that the system militates against being able to choose a school for their child and to have confidence that that choice will be respected.
  It used to be the case that two separate lists ran for grammar schools and high schools. Parents could indicate an order of preference for grammar schools and then an order of preference for high schools. The adjudicator ruled, however, that the lists must be combined. If the children of parents who want them to take the 11-plus and who put down a grammar school first fail, those children are classified as late entrants to the high school that they have listed second and go to the bottom of the heap for
  264
  consideration. If the high school is popular, successful and over-subscribed, they have no hope of getting in. Is that a covert way of discriminating against grammar schools?
  There was a major campaign in Kent to get enough signatures to trigger a ballot. That campaign failed abjectly because most people in Kent want to keep grammar schools. It seems to me that the arrangement now in place is another way of deterring children from taking the 11-plus.
  The wider issue of parents in rural areas applies to all parents, in particular to those who seek their child's admission to mixed ability schools or high schools. Every year, one or two villages are told right at the start that their children will not be admitted to big successful schools such as the Cornwallis school and Angley school, both of which are in my constituency and are heavily over-subscribed year on year. Every year, children are being told that they will not be considered simply because they live a certain distance from the school.
  I want to ask the Minister very specific questions. Heads say that they more or less have to apply the criterion of distance. Although, theoretically, they can set their own criteria for foundation schools, in reality those would be capable of legal challenge because the local education authority sets in stone, for its own schools, the requirement to use distance as the criterion. That idea comes, in turn, from the Department, so there is a general view that distance is a must. If, instead of rejecting everybody outside a certain radius because there were already too many applicants from inside that radius, a school turned the situation round and simply asked whether it was the nearest school to the child—which is also about distance, but a different sort of criterion—would that practice be sustainable?
  We have the ludicrous situation that there are children in outlying villages who cannot get into their nearest school because nearness is a comparative and, every time, they are discriminated against in favour of children who more or less live on top of the school. If one lives in a town, one has a choice of schools, but if one lives in an outlying area, that choice is restricted so long as distance is used as a criterion. Parents in villages in my constituency—in Staplehurst and East Farleigh in previous years and in Marden this year—have had inflicted on them the anguish of being told from the start that their children will not be able to go to the large, popular schools of their first choice.
  Because the grammar schools proceed to cream off a certain percentage of the applicants, however, places become available, so parents are put through all the anguish of thinking that places will not be available, only to find that they are. Kent has put forward a solution to that, and asked that parents be allowed to indicate preferences after the 11-plus has been taken and the creaming-off has been done, when the schools know how many of the children who have applied to them will go to a different school.
  Apart from those questions, there is the issue of free transport. Nonsensically, in some parts of my constituency parents will put down as first choice a school that is not their first choice. They do that so that they will qualify for free transport, because if the school rejects them, the county will supply free transport to the school of second choice, even if it is outside the distance criterion used for assessing eligibility for free transport. Parents have to play a game of bluff. They put down as first choice a school

  265
  that they do not want so that they get their second choice, which they do want, and qualify for free transport. Ingenious as that may be to politicians who like playing such games, it seems to me a rather strange thing to ask parents to go through every year.
  The solution to all those problems would be to free schools to set their own admissions criteria, and not to place artificial constraints on them. It should be made extremely clear that schools can reject children who live close to them and accept those who live further away if that leads to greater parental choice across the area as a whole.
  It is not only parents and children who suffer through the present unsatisfactory arrangements: the schools themselves do too. Every year, there is the same sort of uncertainty for the schools as there is for the children. There is also public opprobrium, which stems from schools appearing to have turned their back on whole villages when, in reality, they are restricted by the criteria that they have to apply.
  I therefore hope that, first, the Minister will say that schools are completely free to set their own criteria, which would do away with the argument that enables schools to say that they have no choice but to act in that way. Secondly, will she reconsider Kent's request for parents to indicate preferences after the 11-plus has been taken? Thirdly, will she reconsider making the rules on transport more flexible? I have been on about that for many years; when I was first in opposition, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which made no progress—such Bills do not—to alter those rules. When a parent indicates a first choice, it should not be part of an elaborate game of chess but a first choice that they want to prevail over all the other choices on the list.
  11.16 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing the debate. I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to outline what the Government propose to do in the Education Bill and how that will affect parents and children in Kent. We are committed to maximising parental preference while raising standards of education for all children, which will make parents' preferences more meaningful.
  As the right hon. Lady knows, the supply of school places is a necessary element in parental choice. Each local education authority must ensure that there are sufficient school places for children of compulsory school age in its area through its school organisation plan. LEAs are required to review the position annually, and take steps to ensure that they provide sufficient school places to meet demand. The plan must be made available for local consultation and show the projected demand for places and the LEA' s proposals for meeting that demand, for example, by expanding existing schools or opening new schools. She will know that in her constituency in Maidstone, the LEA plans to meet the projected increase in demand by adding 680 secondary school places by 2005–06
  As hon. Members know, legislation gives parents the right to express a preference for the school at which they wish their children to be educated. There is a duty on LEAs and school governing bodies to comply with that
  266
  parental preference except in specified circumstances. The most common reason why parents cannot get a place at their preferred school is over-subscription. Schools must publish details in their prospectus of how the available places will be allocated if there is too much demand. The LEA must publish a composite prospectus giving a summary of admission policies for all maintained schools in its area. In large areas such as Kent, there may be more than one composite prospectus. Admission arrangements are set following an annual statutory consultation involving the LEA and schools. Any admission authority consulted may object to the schools adjudicator if it has concerns about any aspect of the determined admission arrangements.
  In the case of some partially selective admission arrangements, local parents can also object. The adjudicator who takes the decisions when there is an objection is, of course, independent of the Government; we have no input to his decisions, which can be overturned only by the courts. If we followed the right hon. Lady's suggestion that schools set their own admissions criteria, it would add to the problems that I know that her constituents and families in Kent face. It would add to the chaos, produce greater differences, and there would be even less uniformity and more distress to parents and families, which I accept is what has given rise to this debate.
  This year, the adjudicator in Kent made decisions which, judging by representations to the Department, seem to have resulted in much misunderstanding and confusion among parents and schools alike. It may be helpful if I clarify their main effects. This year, Kent LEA decided to introduce county-wide secondary transfer arrangements whereby children sat the grammar school selection tests before parents stated their preferences for schools, an arrangement that had previously operated only in one area of Kent. As the right hon. Lady knows, opinion is split among Kent schools and parents over whether it is fairer to test children before or after preferences are made. She came down on one side of that argument.
  The argument has been the subject of much heated debate in the county, and some of Kent's own-admission authority schools objected to the adjudicator about the change. That was why the adjudicator became involved. In July, the adjudicator considered the objections and a counter-objection from the LEA to the arrangements of some own-admission authority schools.
  The most significant of the adjudicator's determinations on the objections were that parents must now be asked to express their school preference before entering their child for the grammar school selective test, and that all schools must adhere to the admissions timetable set by the LEA. The adjudicator took the view that, in effect, testing before preferences gave some parents two first preferences, putting them at an advantage over parents who wanted a place only at a non-selective school. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept the validity of that argument.
  The LEA then made a number of changes to its admission arrangements to implement the adjudicator's decision, but that resulted in complaints from selective schools, which considered that the LEA was introducing more changes than were necessary. The most controversial was the LEA's decision that only those children whose parents had named a grammar school as

  267
  their first preference school should be permitted to sit the selective test. As a result of those complaints, the LEA referred details of its proposed changes back to the schools adjudicator for consideration. I sympathise with the confusion that that must have caused to parents in the area that the right hon. Lady represents.
  In October, the adjudicator made a decision on Kent's proposed changes, ruling that any child whose parent had named a grammar school as one of their preferred schools should be allowed to sit the 11-plus, regardless of whether a selective school was their first preference. A closing date of 30 November was set for the expression of preferences, as was a common date—20 December—for notification of allocation of places at non-selective schools.
  Although this decision seems to have recognised the concerns of most parents and the selective schools that complained about the original decision, many non-selective schools are now unhappy. My officials have had complaints from parents of schools choosing to interpret the adjudicator's decision in their own way, or simply ignoring it. We are investigating the complaints on a case-by-case basis and, even at this late stage, the adjudicator has considered an application from an own-admission authority school to vary its admission arrangements to take account of the October determination.
  In the Education Bill, we are proposing changes to legislation that I hope will be helpful. LEAs will be required to co-ordinate the admissions process for their areas. That does not prevent aided and foundation schools from applying their own admission policies; it recognises the need to simplify the process for parents. That was highlighted by the research that we commissioned jointly from Sheffield Hallam university and the Office for National Statistics, which was published in June. We consulted on our proposals for changes to the admissions framework, and had substantial agreement to that recommendation—88 per cent. of respondents were in favour of an LEA co-ordinated approach.
  What we have proposed allows a scheme for co-ordinating the allocation of school places to be agreed locally. I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that agreeing these matters locally is the best way to proceed. Parents will complete a single, common application form naming their preferred school or schools and return it initially to a central point. On a locally agreed date, LEAs will make one offer of a school place to the parents of each child living in their area. That has the advantage of dispensing with the unfair situation that we have often seen in which some parents hold multiple offers of school places and other parents have none.
  The system will also require greater sharing of information between admission authorities and their LEAs and between neighbouring local education authorities. That will give LEAs the information that they need to identify children who have not been placed and enable them to intervene at an earlier stage where it is necessary to do so. The new system that will be introduced if the Education Bill is enacted by the House will not deal with all the issues that the right hon. Lady raised unless the schools in the area that she represents are willing to co-operate in the best interests of parents and children, so that the confusion that they are currently experiencing in
  268
  respect of the fact that there are different admission arrangements in the different schools can be lessened. Parental preference can work well only if parents have a choice between equally good schools, as I hope she will accept. That is why we have put raising standards in all schools for all children at the forefront of our agenda.
  Although GCSE results have improved and the number of children leaving school without qualifications has fallen, there is still a great deal to be done on that agenda. Part of our solution is to extend diversity in secondary schools—I hope that the right hon. Lady welcomes this also—so that every secondary school can develop its own unique ethos. We are expanding the successful specialist schools programme, with every school ready for specialist status being encouraged to seek it and support being given to those who are working towards that status. By 2005, we would expect to see at least 1,500 specialist schools. We are giving successful schools greater freedom, which I also hope that she welcomes, to take full responsibility for their mission to raise standards. They will be encouraged to excel and innovate, with the best schools gaining greater freedom, for example, to take new approaches to staffing or accelerated learning.
  We want to spread good practice and are establishing a schools innovation unit that will work with teachers and heads to help to stimulate and disseminate new ideas, especially in relation to catering better for pupils' different requirements and aspirations. Governing bodies will also be able to work together to create families of local schools, sharing problems and pooling resources in everyone's best interests.
  We are already encouraging selective and non-selective schools to work together by inviting partnerships of such schools to apply for new funding of up to £20,000 per partnership to develop collaborative projects. We hope that that will help to break down the perceived barriers between the two sectors and raise standards in teaching and learning. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the fact that, of the 28 partnerships that have been approved so far, six are within Kent. The type of project in which they are engaged ranges from collaboration on post-16 courses to staff exchanges. I have some hope that, by establishing these new partnerships, there will be greater collaboration on admission arrangements, so that life can be made easier for parents when they come to choose a secondary school for their children.
  We also support greater innovation and excellence in creating new schools. If a new maintained school is required, the local education authority will advertise so that an interested party can put forward proposals and have them considered on their merits by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Any proposed new school will have to be covered by one of the existing categories, or be an academy, and will have to meet the usual statutory requirements concerning, for example, the national curriculum and teacher employment.
  We are responding to the wishes of many parents in trying to ensure that successful and popular schools can expand more easily. Perhaps that will also help the right hon. Lady. The governing bodies of successful schools will be able to appeal to the adjudicator if their proposals for expansion are turned down by the school organisation committee.

  269
  We recognise the need to tackle low standards in schools, and we have therefore introduced new measures. Some schools that face challenging circumstances will receive a programme of support with the aim of ensuring that at least 25 per cent. of pupils at every school obtain five GCSEs at grade A to C by 2006. Kent has 28 schools where 25 per cent. or fewer pupils attained five or more GCSEs at A to C grade in 2001.
  If we can improve the achievement in those schools, we will provide diversity and better choice for parents who live in the area. All those schools received targeted school improvement grant of up to £70,000 per annum to support them in raising attainment. As the right hon. Lady knows, the schools are subject to monitoring visits from Ofsted to ensure that they focus on agreed action, which will have a sustainable effect on pupils' attainment. Local education authorities will invite, or if necessary, be instructed to invite, external partners to help turn around failing schools.
  All those plans to improve standards can come to fruition only if we have sufficient well-trained and well-motivated teachers. Therefore, our policies on teacher recruitment and retention are vital. In the lifetime of this Parliament, we will recruit 10,000 more teachers, 20,000 more support staff and 1,000 more trained bursars.
  We are also reviewing teachers' work loads so that we can find ways to ensure proper time for preparation, development and management. That work is being overseen by a group that includes representatives of teaching and head teacher associations.
  Tackling disruptive behaviour is another important factor in ensuring equality of standards. An additional 40 pupil referral units will be opened, more learning support units and learning mentors will be introduced, and parenting orders will be extended to ensure that parents take responsibility for their child's behaviour. Admission forums will be made mandatory; one of their tasks will be to consider schemes for sharing challenging pupils fairly among all schools.
  Ensuring that all parents get their preferred choice of school depends on local institutions co-operating and working together. I hope that the right hon. Lady will
  270
  work in her locality to ensure that we can achieve that. The effect of our initiatives will be to raise standards. That will make parental preference more meaningful to more parents.

PETITION

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital (Gateshead)
  11.34 pm
  Joyce Quin: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of some 600 constituents and residents of the Gateshead area who wish to raise fundamental concerns and questions about the treatment of a number of women patients at our local hospital during the 1980s and 1990s at the hands of two consultants who have since been struck off the medical register.
  The issue has caused much local concern, and much anguish and suffering to the women affected, some of whom live in my constituency. Others live in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam).
  The petitioners request:
  That the House of Commons takes steps to obtain redress of their grievance by calling on Her Majesty's Government to set up a public inquiry into the mistreatment, negligence and misconduct of consultant Peter Silverstone and Dr. Janusz Wszeborowski and the subsequent cover-up by the Queen Elizabeth hospital authorities.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Post Office
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to introduce this important one-and-a-half-hour debate for colleagues with an interest in the future development of post office services, particularly in relation to electronic government and the Government's targets to deliver services using automated credit transfer systems and new banking systems.
I am delighted that the Minister is able to join us. I know that he is particularly busy and that he has had difficulties at home to do with the health of a family member. We are all pleased that it seems that the family difficulties are being resolved. We are particularly grateful that he has joined us this morning while under that sort of pressure.
This is an important debate on the relationship between the Post Office as an institution and central Government, and the services that we are trying to ensure are delivered in the best possible way to our constituents. I shall set out the context in terms of Consignia and the Post Office. One does not have to be an expert to recognise that both are currently under considerable financial strain. Anyone who has studied the recent report of the announcements made by the chief executive to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will see that the Post Office is under a great deal of financial pressure across its operations. It is facing financial losses and increasing competition, not only internally in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe and the wider world. Base level staff within the Post Office and Consignia are understandably worried—both those who work directly and those, such as sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who work indirectly for the organisation. It would not be proper at this time of year to miss paying tribute—as I am sure all Members would wish—to the dedication and commitment of Post Office staff, particularly the postmen and women who over the next week or so will work themselves into the ground to ensure that our constituents get the delivery services that they have come to expect. Their sacrifice and contribution are acknowledged and recognised by us all.
I shall concentrate on the future facing postmasters and postmistresses and consider two aspects of e-commerce and ACT technology. I want to refer to the universal bank, about which the Minister made a significant announcement in a written answer yesterday. I shall then consider the "Your Guide" system of promoting government general practitioner services in the way suggested in the performance and innovation unit report, published in June 2000.
First, I shall cover some of the background to the current situation regarding sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. I vividly remember the television report
2WH
of the Conservative party conference during which the then Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), waved his magnetic stripe card high above his head with gay abandon and an uncharacteristic flourish. In fact, that is not true, because the year after he took to song, which was even worse. It looked like an awful opportunity for a photograph, but that did not cross his mind. The Horizon card scheme ended up hung round his neck like a political albatross, because it was a signal failure. However, it was a signal failure only afterwards.
It will discomfort the Minister to remind him that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—the Minister for Welfare Reform from 1997–98—confirmed at the annual conference of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that the Labour Government would continue with the swipe card. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom he sent in his absence to the subsequent annual conference, also confirmed that the Government would try to roll out the Horizon card scheme as it was originally conceived. Many sub-postmasters rightly made investment decisions on the basis that that would provide secure income generation.
Many of my constituents told me that they had invested heavily in the bricks and mortar of their village and town post offices, safe in the knowledge, as they believed, that their businesses would have some income security. That was turned completely upside down when the Minister of State for Social Security in the last Parliament decided that the game was up and that the scheme would not fly. Everyone took a terrible financial loss, including ICL—the company that promoted the scheme—the Post Office and postmasters. The Government also lost a lot of money. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have looked into the matter, which was one of the biggest financial disasters ever known in the public sector.
That is the background to the debate. In June 2000, the performance and innovation unit produced a report—"Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network"—which gave postmasters in my constituency real hope that if everything that was set out in the report was done, which is what they wanted and needed, there was a future for post offices in urban and rural areas throughout the United Kingdom. The report raised their hopes, and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters could not have written it better. The report's concepts are still the foundation for a secure future for post offices in rural and urban areas.
The report highlights the universal bank, the concept of the roll-out of the government general practitioner and the "Your Guide" pilot as crucial to the success of the entire undertaking. These are big projects and none of this is easy. It is difficult for Government to procure them and to roll out contracts. They always take longer than anyone would like. I also accept that considerable investment has been put into the hardware system, which is now working and which makes a positive difference. That is all welcome. However, the day of judgment is looming, and we must try to pin down what income stream will flow from the PIU reports and recommendations, the universal bank and the general practitioner services for sub-postmasters. I need not remind the Minister that there are only 53 or 54 weeks between now and when ACT technology starts to be delivered and post office owners no longer have access to

3WH
the income stream from fees for cashing social security giro cheques. In anyone's language, that is not a long time. The timetable for finishing work on the universal bank and rolling it out in a sensible, coherent way, and for developing sophisticated new concepts such as general practitioner services, is certainly ambitious. Time is not on our side.
Although the concepts and vision are right, post office owners in my constituency are fearful that they will not recover the £400 million that will be removed from the system with the loss in 2003 of social security giro cheque payments. They are not convinced that e-commerce, the universal bank and general practitioner services will provide adequate substitute income.
It is important that between now and 2003 postmasters and postmistresses are able to clarify the business opportunities. The written answer that the Minister gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) will cause them to be more rather than less fearful; the answer was helpful only to the extent that we now know a bit better where we are going. We waited for that answer for some time, but it was not what my sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses wanted to hear. I will quote some key sentences for the benefit of Members who have not yet read it.
"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."
That is seductive, but the words "marketing strategy" concern me. If the Government were to make it more attractive for people to take ACTs straight into their bank accounts, it would diminish the opportunities that the universal bank would provide for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating this important debate. Does he agree that a subtext is that the Treasury would dearly love to encourage more people to use PAT 14 accounts—named for policy action team 14—at the expense of the major banks, rather than the Post Office card accounts, which would have to be underwritten by the Treasury? I have not had the benefit of reading the detailed answer, but I suspect that it does not tell us how many accounts the Treasury is prepared to underwrite.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which underlines my point. Another key sentence in the answer might help the hon. Gentleman understand the Government's plans for a cap:
"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."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 119W.]
That is good news, because we have argued all along that there should be no eligibility criteria or cap on numbers for Post Office card accounts. However, it is bad news because the operational assumption of 3 million accounts suggests to me that instead of the £400 million that is available annually at present, postmasters and postmistresses will be lucky to get £50 million out of the system when it is fully
4WH
operational. Every week, 16 million social security benefit transactions in 18,000 branches throughout the United Kingdom contribute to that annual income of £400 million.
The question is how we will fill the £350 million gap. If the Government limit the amount of funding, it will not matter that there are no caps or eligibility criteria for the Post Office card account. The 16 million Post Office benefit transactions, if they continue at that level, will be financed with only £50 million. That will not take post office and sub-post office operators any further forward. I may be wrong, but I hope that the Minister will answer that crucial question.
Mr. David Heath: I support my hon. Friend's argument. A further difficulty is that the Post Office card account and the basic bank account will not be on an equal footing if they are not simultaneously up and running in April 2003. That start date is desperately important for many reasons, not least of which is the effect of the Tax Credits Bill that is currently passing through Parliament. The Government have decided to split the contracts: one will go to the Link organisation, the other to EDS/Citibank. It will be difficult to get the contract right in the time scale available. Given the experience of previous contracts such as NIRS2, is the Minister confident that a POCA will be functional in April 2003?
Mr. Kirkwood: I am certain that some people know much more about that than I, or my hon. Friend do, although he has worked extensively on this subject. They are concerned that the roll-out periods and implementation plans are not robust, and feel that a full trial year of the fully spec system should take place before it goes online. My hon. Friend is right to remind hon. Members that the system is vital, especially for the low paid, whose domestic income depends on reliable delivery of benefits. Otherwise, they are thrown on to the social fund safety net.
The Government must persuade us not only that that can be done in the suggested time scale, but that they have a plan B. The obvious plan B would be to postpone the replacement of benefit books by ACT for as long as it takes to ensure that the new systems are robust.
Other questions flow from the operational assumption that 3 million people will open accounts. Do high street banks want a new cohort of people past retirement age queueing up in their branches to obtain their pensions? How will the Government's marketing strategy ensure that POCAs are limited to 3 million? If an agreed rate of return was set for each transaction, sub-postmasters might be able to derive income. If customers wanted to continue using the service, which they currently do at the rate of 16 million transactions a week, postmasters and postmistresses in my constituency could encourage them to do so in their post offices. If the transaction rate were agreed, people could choose where they obtain their benefits without the need for marketing strategies, pressure or incentives. Academic research suggests that people are more comfortable with benefit payments being made across the counter in their local post office.
We must try to pin down the Government's plans, which are crucial to the survival of the post office network. We are talking about 18,000 offices and a high

5WH
closure rate. I think that the last Postal Services Commission report said that 541 offices closed in the year to March 2000. The Minister may say that closures have tailed off and that things have not been quite as bad this year but people have been founding their plans on the PIU report. When sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses see the detail of the written answer dealing with the universal bank proposals and others, the closure rate of sub-post offices may accelerate.
I want to talk about the concept of the government general practitioner. The pilot scheme has been running for some months in Leicestershire and Rutland, and all the evidence made available to me suggests that it has been a success. The services that were rolled out have been of considerable interest to the people using the new delivery mechanisms.
Some of my colleagues and I had the advantage of seeing a presentation by the team that is rolling out the project. That powerful system is impressive. If it were put at the heart of the Government's programme of service delivery, it would transform the interface between the ordinary citizen and central Government. That vision was carefully worked out and involved consideration of the way in which post offices could be a one-shop entry into a panoply of Government services. I found particularly exciting the fact that they could to a large extent deal with information and advice themselves, using a combination of new technology and personal services across the counter. There is the additional benefit of passing on customers to specialist advisers and having surgeries on-site.
I think that the Secretary of State may have in mind the possibility of a visit to one of the best examples in the pilot area. I hope that she makes known her views and her experience of how well the pilot scheme has gone. If the Government invested time, effort and commitment in the idea, it would certainly be a key element in developing and delivering post office services in rural and urban areas in the longer term.
Again, the concept and vision are right, and the work that has been done is extremely useful and valuable, but we must ask questions about some of the resources, timetables and other issues. We need to know how the programme is going. What is the Government's view of the pilot scheme and what is their time scale for rolling it out? Which client groups found it most useful and to what extent are they using it in a way that they did not before? Do customer satisfaction surveys suggest that users are satisfied with the new services that they are being offered? I am particularly interested to know how the programme has affected low-income groups and rural areas such as south-east Scotland, which includes my constituency.
What will be the decision-making process? What steps is the Department of Trade and Industry taking to see that the devolved Administrations ensure that the content of "Your Guide" is accurate and up to date? If it is not relevant to the local circumstances, it will be useless and positively harmful. We need to tie in the constituent legislatures in Edinburgh and Cardiff and the content providers in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom where the content is significantly different because some of the rules and laws are different.
How do the Government see "Your Guide" helping to achieve their rightly ambitious targets for the delivery of e-government by 2005? What other areas of
6WH
government policy are likely to be affected by the new service? The opportunities are almost limitless. It could help to improve public service reform, social inclusion and to tackle fuel poverty in rural areas. It could promote neighbourhood renewal, rural renewal and e-democracy. I came away from the presentation extremely enthusiastic. I am old and cynical yet I was really cheered up by the potential that this new tool can deliver if it is properly used.
Finally, I return to the future viability of sub-post offices in my constituency. Where will the income stream come from for "Your Guide"? When will we know what fees central Government will pay? When will we get down to the nitty-gritty of how these concepts—"Your Guide", the universal bank and other systems of e-government—which are right in theory, will work in practice? The day of reckoning is coming. We need to know how committed the Government are, how much money they will put into the system and how the Department will take forward these issues. We need to know that soon because the ACT migration scheme will kick in in 2003. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, if we do not get these things sorted out by then we will all suffer. Certainly the attrition of the network will continue and rural and urban sub-post offices will continue to close at an alarming rate. I hope that the Minister can answer some of these important questions because many people are urgently awaiting his response.
9.58 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—my neighbour—in this important debate, and I congratulate him on securing it. The attendance for the debate has rather the feel of the usual suspects. There is strong representation on the Liberal Democrat Benches and a blank representation on the Government Benches, apart from the Minister whom we are grateful to see in his place. What was once a reasonably healthy attendance by Conservative Members at previous Post Office debates has now diminished. I do not think that fairly reflects the seriousness of the issue, although I concede that the full title of this morning's debate may be somewhat esoteric and may have scared off a few hon. Members.
The bottom line for us all, regardless of party and whichever part of the country we represent, is that the local post office is a vital part of our communities. My hon. Friend said that our thoughts are focused at this time on the Christmas postal deliveries. I attended the Peebles delivery office yesterday at the ungodly hour of 6.30 am. I was a late arrival; most of the postmen and postwomen had been there since midnight, anticipating what turned out to be the busiest day of the year so far. About 50,000 items of mail were being sorted by a team of between 30 and 40 for delivery throughout the county of Peebles, which forms a large part of my constituency.
Much information technology in the modern post office is used for preliminary sorting, but when the mail gets to delivery offices such as that in Peebles, it is a much more manual affair. That is perhaps why, when I was going round the office, getting in the way of people sorting the mail, several postmen and postwomen told me that they could not understand why, at this busy time

7WH
of year, senior managers in the Post Office had announced the possibility of 30,000 redundancies. To say that the timing was insensitive is an understatement; to see the hard work being done and the necessary way of working in post offices suggests that senior managers need to get back to the floor themselves if they are to understand more about what goes on in their business.
Although it is not the primary aim of the debate, I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be nowhere near as many redundancies as has been suggested, even though some doubt was subsequently cast on that figure. The people who deliver the customers' mail would be reassured to know that they are extremely valued and that it is not their fault that the Post Office is in commercial difficulty.
Mr. Waterson: I do not for a moment disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the excellent work and commitment of Post Office workers. In his conversation with them, did he ask why the Post Office or Consignia is responsible for about half of all days lost throughout the economy in industrial disputes?
Mr. Moore: I did not discuss that issue. The industrial record in my constituency is perfect, and I am unaware of any recent disputes in any of the areas that I represent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise that matter with the Minister.
We are, rightly and properly, focusing on the delivery of e-government through post offices. Liberal Democrats have consistently expressed anxieties about the future of the sub-post office network in rural areas and in larger towns where sub-post offices also give an essential service. They, too, feel under financial threat because there is great uncertainty about their future.
The Government proposed the universal bank and the 'Your Guide' system as solutions to the crisis; my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire extolled some of the ideas and asked some important questions. Time is short to get the new systems in place, assuming that they will deliver what they promise. Substantial anxieties remain among the sub-post masters and mistresses in my constituency and, I suspect, across the country.
My hon. Friend and I recently held a meeting with our local post masters which highlighted their worries, especially about the shape of the community information network, which "Your Guide" will represent. They expressed great uncertainty about it and although their federation had received a presentation in Perth not long before, they were conscious of widespread ignorance among local agencies in the Borders and elsewhere about the services that could be provided through it and the roles that councils and other agencies would be expected to play. That meeting in Galashiels led us to ask for the meeting, which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, with the "Your Guide" implementation team in London. We were given a comprehensive and neutral presentation of the project's development to date, and I thank the individuals concerned for their time and patience.
The presentation made it clear that there are three core customer propositions in the project that try to focus its usefulness on retirement, work and community
8WH
services, and on key groups that use or might be tempted to use the Post Office reasonably regularly. An impressive range of services is being considered on such matters as money and legal issues; retirement; jobs and training; benefits entitlements; local government services; adverts and notices; and, importantly, local information. There are several channels, to use the jargon, through which the services may be delivered, but the touch-screen facility is perhaps the most imaginative and the one that catches attention. We saw a demonstration and were able to test it out in its current form for our constituencies, and we were impressed by what we saw, although we appreciate that it is not yet the finished article.
It was a good presentation in many ways, but it raised a series of questions in my mind. It was not clear which Department is in charge of ensuring that the services that are to be delivered through "Your Guide" are properly prepared, although I assume that it is the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Minister is able to answer that question, perhaps he could list the Departments that he expects to use "Your Guide" and give us a progress report on the state of preparedness for trialling it beyond the pilot stage that is happening in Leicester. It also struck me that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned, huge cost implications are often associated with such projects. It is unclear what departmental budgets exist to ensure that proper preparation is made for developing the services and ensuring that they are delivered on time.
Most important will be the roll-out of touch screen and other aspects of "Your Guide" to the wider sub-post office network. Will the Minister tell us what stage the procurement and contract setting has reached? Given that we are within 18 months of the project going live throughout the country, we would expect to hear about an advanced stage of negotiation and roll-out. I hope that we will not be told that nothing will be done until the pilot is finished. I suspect that that will be a handy answer behind which to hide, but no one will believe the Minister and his Department if that is the best that can be done at this stage. We want a cast-iron assurance that the 2003 deadline will be met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, there appears to be an alarming shortfall between the income generated under the existing benefits system and what is promised under the new system. If there is no income when we trip over from one to the other, there will be chaos in the system and many people will lock up their post offices and throw away the keys.
My hon. Friend spoke about the relationship between the DTI and devolved administrations. Anxious about the future of our sub-post offices, we in the Borders have devoted considerable time to that matter. The position north of the border is extremely murky: it is not clear who is in charge of the roll-out and the relationship with the DTI. I am a firm supporter of devolution—as, indeed, is the Minister—but that is no excuse for losing the thread of Government policy and the impetus to deliver it.
At what level is liaison with the Scottish Executive taking place and to what extent are the same services as those set out in the "Your Guide" plan for London involved? I do not want to make a personal point, but is

9WH
the Minister's sister in charge? Perhaps they will have a chance to sort out a few problems over turkey this Christmas.
I have heard some flashy suggestions that the "Your Guide" platform could be used as an internet access point across the country, which would help the Scottish Executive to reach their target of internet access for the whole of Scotland. That is superficially attractive and I can understand why one might think in those terms but, as the history of commercial internet café sites shows, those who want to use the internet do not necessarily use it for a short period. To make this a commercial proposition—and ensure that people are not gummed up in queues until they get fed up and move on elsewhere—internet access may have to be denied and other routes for delivery established. Will the Minister clarify the position, which is a matter of growing concern north of the border?
My hon. Friend's argument came home to roost when we spoke recently to key local players in our region. He and I chair a monthly meeting that brings together the convener and key economic development officials from the council, the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Borders, the chairman and principal of Borders college, the vice-principal of Heriot-Watt university, and the chief executive and chairman of the Scottish Borders tourist board: I hope that that list includes everyone. That meeting has taken place monthly for two and a half years, primarily to focus local efforts on maximising the benefit to the region of European funding, but we also touch on wider purposes. When I recently mentioned the roll-out of "Your Guide" I was met by blank stares. I blame not those senior local individuals, but the information system. We are close to implementation yet key players such as the council, which should be interested in developing its services through the platform, know little about it.
My hon. Friend and I suggested that the implementation team should come north of the border at the beginning of January to demonstrate the system to local agencies. That may sound like an ad hoc approach from the Minister's point of view, but it is important from our local perspective. I hope that the Minister will provide the implementation team with sufficient resources, because it is costly to acquire the kit north of the border. The team must be able to meet Ministers and the Scottish Executive. I understand that the Minister cannot instruct or demand in that respect, but I hope that he will encourage the appropriate Minister to meet the team. If the "Your Guide" platform is on time in England, we do not want to be left behind in Scotland.
The bottom line is that within 18 months the sub-post office network should have a viable future. It is important that post offices serve our local communities and that Government policy objectives can be delivered through that post office network. Despite numerous debates in the House, Government announcements in parliamentary answers and so on, it is not clear what form that future will take. The documents that we are asked to read are full of buzz words: modernisation, reform, and one nation—you name it, it is in there. Sub-post masters would add another buzz word, which is uppermost in their minds—survival. They fear for theirs
10WH
right now. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the onus is increasingly on him to demonstrate how they will survive.
10.15 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on initiating the debate, on his campaigning over the years for the post office network and on the work that he has done on the Select Committee on Social Security in bringing out many of the ways in which the automated credit transfer system will have an impact on the Post Office. The debate builds on a substantial legacy of work. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) referred to the problem from the standpoint of the Scottish Borders. However, this is not specifically a Scottish problem, a Borders problem or a rural problem. I represent a relatively affluent London suburb but I know from experience that post office branch closures arouse perhaps more emotion than any subject other than the closure of hospitals. The issue concerns us all.
I wish to ask two opposing questions. First, what can the internet and particularly e-government do for the Post Office? Secondly, what can the Post Office do for the internet and e-government? The first question returns us to the issue that both my hon. Friends have touched on in some detail: the underlying economics of Post Office Counters and of the network and how they will be affected by the changes of the next two to three years. Perhaps I can put the same questions in a slightly different way. I understand that as a result of the phasing in of ACT in 2003, the network will lose approximately £430 million in income, which is slightly more than the figure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The notional figure that I was carrying in my head, as a result of past debates and parliamentary questions, was that the universal bank and particularly the Post Office card account would bring in about £180 million. My hon. Friend quoted £50 million, and it would help us all to have more clarity about the income string that we could expect. The Government have always said, "That is an issue of commercial secrecy; we cannot discuss it." It may be an issue of secrecy or it may reflect an unwillingness to say that they do not know the answer.
It is also vital to have more clarity for the sake of staff. People are having to make decisions about whether to continue in the business or to close up. If there is a prospect of raising more money than the figures I have cited, it would help to build confidence within the network if we knew that. The more the Minister can say about the expected figures for card accounts and the income stream that will flow from that, the more that would help business planning. It would also help if we could add to that a notional estimate of what fee income the network can expect to derive from its electronic government work, a role that will emerge from the pilot programme. I was given estimates of a fairly derisory income, but that may be over-pessimistic. There may be substantial money in the scheme, in which case it would be useful if the Minister could give us a range of estimates. We are not asking him to put his reputation

11WH
on the line by citing a precise figure—a possible range of figures would tell us something about the way in which Post Office economics are being affected.
Before leaving the question of the impact on the Post Office, I raise the slightly wider question of how internet-based services will affect Consignia as a whole. As we have learned over the past week, the finances of Consignia are in a dire state. It is not simply a question of strikes, though they are important. The simple fact is that there has been growing competition for the services provided by the Post Office for many years, particularly by electronic mail and fax. The Post Office has been unable to respond because of under-investment, in large part because its annual gross profits every year have been looted by the Treasury. As much as 90 per cent. of its gross profits for much of the 1990s was taken by the Treasury in tax and dividends. It has not invested and is not ready for the challenge. It is now faced with a pincer attack from two sets of regulators: the Association for Postal Commerce—Post Com—which is helping couriers and others to get into bits of its business, and the European Commission, which will squeeze its margins by reducing the weight limit. It is difficult to see anything other than a downward spiral of increasing losses and contraction of business, and at some point the issue will arise of whether Consignia can continue with its universal service obligation.
The relevance of the internet is that at least it offers a positive opportunity rather than a set of negative threats. The Post Office's one great asset is the door-to-door delivery system. It may become a liability, but it could become an asset if it were linked to the increasing use of internet shopping. Terminals in domestic households and the Post Office Counters network could be the mechanism for stimulating new business and value addition for the postman delivery service, and that could be a great boon for Consignia. However, I do not see much evidence of that.
I want to ask the Government for some indication of how they see the income streams of Post Office Counters and Consignia generally being affected by the changes. I also want to turn the question round and ask what the Post Office Counters network can do for the dissemination of internet access and electronic government. I understand that both universal access to the internet and availability of electronic government are targeted for 2005, so the two processes are interrelated. The Government must address the issue of how far the adaptation of electronic government by Post Office Counters can contribute to reducing the digital divide problem, which has several elements. One is the great difference between social classes—about 20 per cent. of families with unskilled workers as head of household, but more than 60 per cent. of those with professionals as head of household, have internet access. There is also a big gap between the old and the young, and between rural areas and big cities. The question is whether the Government can bridge that gap using the post office network. Let us take those in turn.
With imagination in the use of electronic government through the Post Office, much could be done to bring the elderly within the system. They are the main users of Post Office Counters because that is where they collect their pensions. They are being left behind, but they do
12WH
not have to be. In Twickenham, an imaginative system has grown up around the villages which are the basis of my constituency. One social entrepreneur has created in each suburban village an online system targeted specifically at elderly people, most of whom are now wired up to the internet, but that is unique and specific to my area. The system—Hampton online and Twickenham online—has not, as far as I know, been replicated elsewhere. If elderly people are to have internet access, the Post Office Counters network of branch offices is best placed to achieve that. I wonder how far the Government are targeting that specific audience in that way.
The second problem relates to rural areas. We know that BT is behind with its asymmetric digital subscriber line roll-out, but even if it were up to scratch with that, there would be a problem. We know from case studies in Europe, in countries such as Sweden, that even if there is a line going into a village, the offshoots into domestic households often lag far behind. The way in which village communities obtain access to internet services is primarily by using a focal point, such as the library or the local main post office.
I turn to electronic government itself, an area in which there are clichés. The Government often set themselves a target of having certain services online, but the services offered are often fragmentary and not very useful. It is important that a small trader should, for example, not only be able to use electronic government terminals to find out how to get an application form for a VAT return, but should be able to talk interactively to the VAT office. That would make business and the payment of tax much easier. The quality of electronic government is crucial, not simply access to it. We must understand how far the Government have thought through going beyond mere mechanical targets to achieve a really useful electronic government service. The Post Office experiment could be important in accelerating that process.
We are at a branching point. We can envisage an environment in which the Post Office Counters network declines or disintegrates rapidly and the Post Office as a whole is on a downward spiral. However, it is equally possibly to envisage upturn and increasing opportunities. The use of the internet-based system and electronic government could be a main mechanism in achieving that. The Government must be much more explicit about how they intend that to work and how much income the Post Office can derive from it.
10.26 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate. It is a timely opportunity to discuss such issues, although it is not one that a significant number of colleagues have taken. Perhaps they are desperately trying to catch the last Christmas post.
As it is Christmas, I join in the tribute paid to postal workers in my constituency and elsewhere. They are a special breed of people. How many of us would want to get up so early and tread the streets in all weathers? I know how committed and dedicated they are to their task.
The real affection that the British people have for the Post Office—if I can use that old-fashioned term—is underlined during the Christmas post. It is therefore all

13WH
the greater pity that the postal services face so many problems at present. A rather good film was made a few years ago by Mr. Tim Burton called "The Nightmare before Christmas". The postal services are becoming the nightmare before Christmas in some ways.
There are two principal issues. First, how effective are the Government in delivering e-government and e-services generally? Secondly, will the steady erosion of postal services, in particular the closure of branches throughout the land, undermine the efforts to introduce e-government?
It will be interesting to see whether the Minister, in what will probably be a protracted reply, given the time available, will follow the example of his Secretary of State in Question Time the other day. She distanced herself from the many problems currently faced by postal services and no wonder, because we are talking about an organisation that is losing £10 million a week and has the worst industrial relations of any organisation in the country. Perhaps the Minister, who has many and varied contacts in the unions and in politics, can use his good offices to try to get the Communication Workers Union's tanks off Consignia's lawn so that it can at least make some sensible management decisions and have some expectation of carrying them through to fruition.

We know that the management have decided that they must make savings of £1.2 billion. Rather unbelievably, the figure of 30,000 redundancies was blurted out during evidence to the Select Committee. Ministers and senior management have rowed back from it ever since. Underlying all that is Consignia's dismal failure even to come close to meeting what are in my view quite modest delivery targets. Achieving its basic core business of delivering a first-class letter the next day is simply evading that failure.
We keep hearing ideas floated that would dismantle the postal service as we know it. They include the abolition of the first morning collections, which has happened in many parts of the country, and scrapping the second delivery. It has also been suggested that people should actually pay to receive their mail, rather than its being delivered in the traditional fashion. I hope that the Minister will explain how such developments will sit with the universal service obligation.
In introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly dwelt on universal banking services and the "Your Guide" pilot. Despite the written answer that slipped out yesterday, presumably in anticipation of this debate, the universal banking project is fraught with uncertainty. What is certain, however, is that in April 2003, 36 per cent. of sub-post offices' income—about £400 million, although the figure will have risen even during this debate—will disappear. That is one major reason why 547 sub-post offices have closed. That is a record figure, and the trend is continuing this year.
During questions a couple of weeks ago, Ministers tried to draw comfort from the fact that that rate of closure may be slowing. I am sorry to disabuse them, but there are a number of reasons for that. Many sub-post offices have already closed and will probably never reopen. Moreover, the honest truth is that some people are hanging on simply because they cannot find anyone to buy their business. Many in urban areas are waiting
14WH
until next year, when new forms of financial support will be introduced as part of the Government's regeneration proposals. As has been eloquently pointed out, a great mass of people are waiting to see what will happen with the universal banking project.
In a remarkably frank tour d'horizon before the Select Committee, the chief executive of Consignia accepted that about half the network is, in effect, uneconomic. As many as 5 million people are unbanked, and probably unwired as well. They are the main targets of any proposals. Yesterday's interesting written answer states that good progress is being made, that the Government are negotiating on these matters—one would hope that they are—and that they are developing
"a detailed migration and marketing strategy",
the aim of which is
"to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances."—[Official Report, 17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 119W.]
The answer also suggests that departmental staff will discuss options with people. Can the Minister assure me that when advice is given, it will be wholly neutral? Departments should not try to pressure people into opening traditional bank accounts or PAT 14, stripped-down versions, instead of Post Office card accounts. According to some estimates, as many as 7 million people could request POCAs. There is a cost involved in providing such accounts, although it is difficult to estimate, as the figures have been difficult to get hold of.
The written answer to which I referred also states that there will be no cap on numbers. I welcome such talk, as far as it goes, but is the Minister really suggesting that the Treasury will write a blank cheque for these accounts and pick up the bill regardless of how many people apply for a POCA? Moreover, according to one estimate, PAT 14s will cost £60 or £70 a year per account. Will the banks or the Treasury bear those costs? According to the Minister's estimate, how many people will want to open such accounts?
Although it is nice to hear that the Minister is still negotiating and developing a strategy, does he accept that the April 2003 deadline is rapidly becoming unrealistic? The key issues of training for sub-postmasters and, indeed, for customers have already been mentioned. For the elderly in particular, keying-in pin numbers and swiping cards will be difficult and unfamiliar tasks. We ought to hear a little more on the migration strategy and the way in which costs will be allocated.
To judge by information that we have received, the consensus is that the "Your Guide" pilot has proved to be quite a success. It has had 150,000 users so far, which is impressive for a six-month pilot in one area that has run for only two thirds of its term. That is encouraging. As co-chairman of the all-party group on older people, I can see enormous potential for helping older people in the community, especially those who are less able to get around. There have been massive benefits through Age Concern, and the surface has barely been scratched. It is a good idea and we are pleased that it is going well. No doubt the Minister will tell us more.

15WH
The original performance and innovation unit proposal envisaged a 12-month pilot, and there was quite a scramble to get it up and running for the six-month period. Ministers should not just wait for the pilot to come and go, after which people's expertise will dissipate, and then start thinking about what will happen next. A few days ago I tabled a question on that for written answer, to which I have yet to receive a reply. I was hoping for the purposes of the debate that I might get it yesterday afternoon, but I was not as lucky as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who received his answer on the universal bank. We deserve to be told about the attitude of Ministers to the pilot. Following all the work that has gone into it from the private sector, are they producing their own detailed proposals on how it will work in practice, or has there been slippage in the decision-making process? What is their timetable?
I recently searched the Government's e-envoy website to see their strategy paper for the coming year. As far as I could see, it made no mention of Consignia or post offices. That rather suggests that the organisation is not necessarily seen as crucial to the delivery of services. I hope that that is not the case. The Minister will not mind if I remind hon. Members that he has not always inspired the IT industry with confidence. In July, a publication called "The Register" questioned whether he had done enough about the internet, and concluded that he had done "nothing at all". By September, its view had changed somewhat, and it said that
"there's no way he's up to speed on what is going on with the Internet".
I am sure that he will wish to refute that.
The real problem is the Government's attitude. When difficulties arise—there are legions in this instance—the Ministers involved tend to say, "It's not me, guv." They have made desperate attempts to distance themselves from the failures of the Post Office, saying, "It's nothing to do with us, it's the company—it has commercial freedom." If they are prepared to stand by while existing services are dismantled, what is their attitude to the new, exciting e-services? The simple message is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that it is nothing to do with them, while on the other the Secretary of State effectively sacks the chairman of Consignia, Dr. Neville Bain, during Question Time in the House of Commons. The Government are the 100 per cent. shareholder in Consignia. I have tabled another question, which remains unanswered, on whether they will waive their dividend this year in view of the company's dreadful commercial results.
Ministers are interfering at every level of Consignia's management and organisation. The other day, when 30,000 redundancies were announced, the Minister was reported to have made clear the Government's "concern and anger." Behind the scenes, they are constantly chivvying Consignia in one direction or another. They must therefore take responsibility. If they are not prepared to give Consignia real commercial freedom, so that management can get on with managing and making
16WH
the decisions that are necessary to bring our postal services firmly into a new century, they must carry the can. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10.39 am
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Like other Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his success in securing this morning's debate on such an important topic. He was, along with the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), the first Member to seek a meeting with me on these issues when I assumed office in June. I know that it is an issue of special concern to him, not only in his own village or constituency but throughout the country. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the difficulties that I am encountering at home at the moment. The difficulties of which he speaks arise from the very early arrival of a son last week. I am glad to say that he is doing well, as is his mother. Although, on reflection, I think that my wife took rather literally the interpretation of the general election by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as an instruction to deliver.
I now move on to the substantive issue. I shall direct my remarks first to the issue of the government general practitioner or the "Your Guide" service, as it is now known in the pilot. I will endeavour, in the time available to me, to answer as many of the substantive questions, the very genuine questions, that have been raised by the hon. Gentlemen and colleagues.
First, I shall make clear the context of today's debate. The Post Office is still piloting the concept of post offices as government general practitioners in Leicester and Rutland. The aim is to test the concept of post offices acting as one-stop, first-stop shops providing information, advice and access to transactions within a range of public voluntary sector organisations. The Government have put £25 million into the pilot, which is being branded as "Your Guide" and which began to be rolled out from mid-July of this year.
The pilot was fully up and running in all post offices in the Leicester-Rutland area by the end of August, and was formally launched at the beginning of September. During the pilot, post offices concentrated on a number of limited, key services to core customers, which included advice, information, assumptions, actions in broad areas of retirement, seeking work and local information. The service will include advice and information on pensions, other benefits, job vacancies, local transport, interface with local government, and much more. I hope that that gives some guide to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in terms of the Government Departments that have been involved in the project, and in terms of the evaluation.
The services are being delivered through five channels: first, electronically by touch-screen kiosks; secondly, by means of a freephone hotline; thirdly, by over-the-counter service from sub-postmasters who are supported by the network's relatively new Horizon intranet system. In a meeting I had with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters yesterday, its representatives were keen to emphasise the centrality of the role of sub-postmasters in the "Your Guide" pilot.

17WH
They were keen to suggest that this was a means by which we could place leverage on the trust that is felt in many local communities towards the advice and guidance that can be offered by sub-postmasters. The fourth channel is through leaflets, and a much wider a range of leaflets than currently appear in most post offices. The last channel is an expert advice centre that brings representatives from key organisations, such as the Benefits Agency and Age Concern, closer to those in need of face-to-face interviews.
The Leicester-Rutland pilot fulfils the recommendation of the performance and innovation unit report, which has been much discussed this morning. For a range of reasons we believe that post offices would be well placed to offer the services involved. I should add that post offices offer a vital service, not only to vulnerable citizens but to the viability of many rural communities. Often post offices provide the last shop in a village, and may be the only place within reach for less mobile citizens for banking services. The current pilot in Leicester—Rutland provides the opportunity to examine these hypotheses.
The outcome of the pilot will be fully evaluated by the Post Office—I will give some more detail about that in a moment—by those organisations participating in the pilot, and by the Government participating as a whole. The Department of Trade and Industry is co-ordinating an overall Government evaluation of the findings of the pilot. The responsibility of the DTI, the evaluation will examine the extent to which the "Your Guide" concept can deliver services that citizens really want and need. It will also examine the extent to which "Your Guide" can provide value for money for Government Departments and other organisations using it as a channel to offer their services to the public. This includes examining the extent to which "Your Guide" can help those organisations achieve efficiency savings. It will also cover the extent to which "Your Guide" services can improve the ability of Government Departments to meet their service objectives.
The pilot ends on 1 March 2002. The full evaluation report is expected in June next year. I emphasise that this reflects a tight timetable. I will turn to evaluation in a moment. First, there is the question whether the pilot as it stands is going well. The post office network and local and central government departments participating in the pilot have already done a tremendous amount of work to set up the pilot, and have it running within such a short timetable. Indeed, yesterday that point was emphasised to me by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which was keen to stress its confidence in and support for Consignia's work.
Mr. Moore: I take the Minister back to his point about evaluation being completed in June next year. That is six months later than was envisaged in the original plan, which means that the project is six months behind schedule.
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I heard the section of his speech that dealt with that issue, and I shall address it in a moment.
Full and robust evaluation of the pilot outcomes must be conducted to inform future planning decisions. Among the tasks that the core evaluation must perform
18WH
is that of interpreting the data that emerge from the pilot. For example, it is easy to measure how many times an individual page of content has been called up on an electronic kiosk in any post office, but a degree of analysis is necessary to establish and measure usage and to understand the extent to which the services provided by the pilot are proving to be useful for customers. The evaluation process includes gathering data both manually and electronically, the conduct of surveys within and beyond the pilot area and the gathering of qualitative data via focus groups, discussion groups and feedback sessions involving the public, sub-postmasters and stakeholder organisations, including both central and local government.
As the Minister responsible, my answer to the question, "How is the pilot going?" is "Please be patient, we must wait and see." I must emphasise that evaluation is taking place and is continuing during the pilot. I have been keen to emphasise both to my Department and to Consignia the importance of expediting the evaluation process for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. I hope that by early next year we shall be able to state how the pilot has gone.
Turning to the decision-making process on the national roll-out, the hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable and the procedure. The decision whether to proceed with roll-out of a national government general practitioner service and the form in which it should be delivered will involve not only the DTI but my colleagues in several Departments and, as far as possible, leaders of local government. I am the Minister responsible for the GGP project and I am actively championing it within Whitehall, but given that a range of Departments and organisations are involved, and that they would pay for the national service, the decision must be made collectively.
Turning to the specific question about the timetable for the roll-out of the national GGP service, the PIU recommended that pilots for the GGP and internet access point propositions should be up and running early this year with a view to evaluation and full roll-out in mid-2002. Given that the Post Office had to work on the supporting business case during autumn last year and that the details of funding arrangements and the scope of the pilot, including where it should take place, had to be decided, it was agreed at the end of November last year that it was impractical to put pilots in place until early this year. Consignia has therefore done a superb job in designing, building and rolling out a pilot that commenced last June. That has been a major task involving detailed on-going discussion on the original PIU recommendations with various Departments, local government and the voluntary sector.
We have decided to limit the length of the pilot to six months to address concerns about the timetable. The current pilot finishes at the beginning of March. Full evaluation in line with best practice, project management and public procurement cannot be rushed because there are rules to which we must adhere for the national roll-out of the pilot to be judged a success. Interpreting the data from the pilot and understanding its implications for a wider national service is a complex task. In addition to evaluating the pilot, which will entail looking back and learning lessons from it, there will need to be a forward-looking application of the lessons

19WH
learned. We must involve the full range of potential stakeholders in order to design a service that will meet both the needs of citizens and the service aims of participating organisations.
Paying organisations must examine how a national GGP service could fit in with their wider service delivery plans, how far it could help them in achieving greater efficiencies, how much the service which they find useful would cost them and whether it would provide value for money compared with alternative direct channels to the public. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was kind enough to acknowledge, by definition these are complex issues and not to be taken lightly. At this stage, I am not ruling out the option of commencing roll-out of a national service next summer—as proposed by the PIU report. Realistically, it is not likely that it could be a full roll-out of a comprehensive national service. If the pilot proves successful, and paying Departments believe that a national service can provide value for money for them, it is more likely that some services will begin to be rolled out next summer in parallel with on-going longer-term work on a fuller comprehensive service.
A fully comprehensive national service will, of course, not be cheap. The touch-screen facility, mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, is only one feature of the system operating in Leicestershire and Rutland. That is a relatively costly way forward but, on the basis of anecdotal evidence, it appears popular with certain members of the public. Before committing the funding that would be required, it is therefore essential to ensure that the service is designed in a way that meets the needs of users in the paying Departments.
The Government are approaching the project with urgency. We have already commissioned a pilot that will run for just over six months in all post offices in the area, and a full evaluation will be carried out as quickly as possible while complying with best practice regulations. We will ensure that the various streams of work required—evaluation, funding, service design and such like—are conducted in parallel. If proved a success as a pilot and if the concept is shown to provide value for money, the project will be taken forward with all expedition.
The specific point about the participation of devolved Administrations is of concern not only to other hon. Members, but to me. Administrations received consequential funding for the piloting of GGP in post offices at the same time that money was made available for the pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland. The money was not ring-fenced, so it was for individual Administrations to decide whether to run pilots in their regions. I understand that the Executive in Northern Ireland are actively considering running a pilot, but that neither those in Wales and Scotland have decided to do so at present.
I, too, am a long-standing advocate of devolution, and on some subjects one must accept both the power of and the responsibility for devolved Administrations. Notwithstanding the option of Christmas-lunch conversations, the hon. Gentleman will understand the political reality that although we can suggest the great merit of schemes north of the border, a decision to
20WH
commit funds ultimately rests in Edinburgh and Cardiff respectively. If the decision is taken to go ahead with national roll-out in the United Kingdom, reserve services could be delivered through post offices on UK-wide. However, it is for devolved Administrations to decide whether devolved services should be included in that programme. I fully acknowledge the point—not least in a Scottish context—about the importance of services that are provided by an Executive being available in a way that is genuinely useful to constituents.
Although a case may be made for tailoring the service in devolved Administrations on the basis of local need—I have acknowledged that in relation to Scotland—on the whole, it would detract from the overall service. It would be a great pity if it were less comprehensive in one part of the United Kingdom than elsewhere. I am happy to say that the three devolved Administration are keeping in close touch with my Department and Consignia about national roll-out following the pilot being taken forward. Like Whitehall Departments, they will carefully review the outcome of the pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland, apply the lessons learned and actively identify services that they might want to offer through post offices.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a number of other initiatives are being introduced by the devolved Administration in Scotland. They are relevant to his Scottish constituency and deal with social inclusion through the internet. I do not wish to suggest a lack of geographical knowledge of Scotland, but there is a digital highland project at the other end of the country from his constituency, and an initiative—introduced by the Scottish Executive—that addresses public internet access points. There is continuing potential for such initiatives to have a role in post offices in future. However, on the basis of conversations to date between Consignia and the Scottish Executive, Consignia has reached a judgment that those two initiatives had no particular role to play in post offices. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman's work at local level, scope exists for further discussions, not least involving the Scottish Executive and Consignia, about the possibility of schemes that are not specifically tailored for post offices being made relevant to them as regards social inclusion and digital divide work elsewhere in Scotland.
I mentioned earlier some of the areas covered. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Inland Revenue, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have all been involved in the development of the pilot. We expect each of these Departments to be heavily involved in the evaluation process. That addresses the substantive point on the government general practitioner. Unless Members wish to raise any further points on that issue I shall turn to the universal bank.
In prefacing his remarks on the universal bank, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire paid due acknowledgement to the difficulties encountered by the Conservative Government in the original benefit card proposals. It pleases me to say that the revised model Horizon card scheme has been rolled out successfully throughout the post office network. In looking for grounds for optimism about the capacity of both the Government and the Post Office to move forward that

21WH
initiative, the £480 million committed to the computerisation and modernisation of sub-post offices over the past year or so should give us great courage and optimism for the future.
The hon. Gentlemen emphasised the terms of yesterday's written answer on ACT migration and marketing strategy. Interestingly and perhaps unsurprisingly, he and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) held conflicting views on the importance that should be attached to it. I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that a marketing strategy is inappropriate given the scale of public education that is necessary on ACT migration. Ironically, I am more inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who acknowledged that the information must be made available to the elderly. Therefore a marketing strategy will be a key part of that work.
Mr. Waterson: Will the Minister deal with my request for an undertaking that there will be total neutrality in the advice given and that people will not be pushed in one direction or another regardless of their personal circumstances?
Mr. Alexander: I reiterate the points that I made in yesterday's written answer: we will give advice that allows people to make the best choice dependant on their circumstances. There may be some disagreement on the best way forward on this serious point. We have always recognised, not least in terms of social inclusion, the great merit in moving many of those currently not banking into the banking system and ensuring their full participation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire did not pay due acknowledgement to the significance of the statement in yesterday's written answer that there would be neither a cap nor eligibility criteria in terms of POCA numbers. Those points were
22WH
emphasised in our previous debate in this Chamber by many of the usual suspects, as the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale so charmingly put it.
The emphasis of the ACT migration and marketing strategy will ensure, as I have just said, that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. Conventional basic bank accounts offer more services than the Post Office card account and do not have its limitations, and so are likely to be the best option for a significant number of people.
As hon. Members are aware, in recent months we have been working on the detail of our migration and marketing strategy. In that context consideration has been given to eligibility criteria and caps. I am glad that clarity was offered in the written answer given to the House yesterday. POCA numbers must be managed to levels that deliver value for money while ensuring that the new system meets the needs of benefit recipients who want to keep their benefits separate from their normal bank account—for example, women with joint accounts who want to keep child benefit separate.
Mr. Kirkwood: All that is true, but how much money is going to Post Office card accounts?
Mr. Alexander: I fear that I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that the contract negotiations are still continuing. I assure the House that often on a more-than-daily basis I am updated on the discussions that are taking place. As stated earlier, there is the issue of commercial confidentiality, but much detailed work is being done at present, not least that involving the DWP, which is why I was grateful for its involvement in the project management work. We shall have to wait a little longer for information on the details because, by definition, what will ultimately go to the sub-postmaster will in part be a judgment informed by POCA management's decision and also the—
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. We come now to the next topic for our consideration.

Barnett Formula
11 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: First, I want to thank Timothy Edmonds, who did a prodigious amount of work and produced an excellent Library research paper on the Barnett formula, which I am sure that many hon. Members will quote. I also thank Professor lain McLean—a Scot—of Nuffield college, Oxford, who is currently working at Yale, and who helped me with the debate.
We have been given only 90 minutes for this discussion; the debate in the House of Lords in November was for more than three hours. That may, or may not, be a reflection of the importance of Joel Barnett.
The debate is topical; this morning a headline in the Financial Times stated:
"Scotland's fiscal deficit narrows to £4bn excluding oil revenues."
I was going to quote the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who said that it was bogus, but he is present. Statistics and the economy in Scotland are topical north of the border and today, for once, they may be topical south of the border.
The origins of the Barnett formula go back to the 1880s, to a Chancellor called George Goschen. Joel came to it in 1978, using it as an expedient because the Prime Minister at the time, James Callaghan, was caught short; he could not work out how to resolve a technical issue of how to spend our money in Wales, and, more especially in Scotland. Joel told me privately that he thought that the formula would last six months at best; in his speech in the House of Lords he said perhaps a year, but it was meant to be only six months. It has lasted 21 years, which is not bad for a temporary measure. Curiously, it is not a statutory instrument; perhaps we should bless Joel in one way but not in another.
My question is fundamental to how we, as Members of Parliament, work. How do we decide the underlying philosophy of how to allocate our people's taxes, which we sometimes call Government expenditure? Do we do it by head of population, by the needs of our population or by a compromise consisting of the two? I shall return to that issue shortly.
My question is more complicated because we have enacted several relevant pieces of legislation in the past four years—the constitutional reforms that gave Scotland a Parliament, Northern Ireland and Wales Assemblies, and London an Assembly, and the UK human rights legislation, which enshrines some human rights of European law into UK law. Shortly, we shall have the White Paper on regional assemblies; I am sure that there will be elected regional assemblies by 2005, certainly in the north-east, perhaps in the north-west, and possibly in the south-west if we can agree the boundaries. This is the right time to talk about the Barnett formula because England has never had a say on it, which is curious.
As the regional assemblies develop in England, they will all want to have a say and to change the way in which the formula is decided. The local government funding review announced last week has changed the
24WH
way in which local government will be funded from 2003 onwards. It will be funded according to needs, which is a minor change, but a change nevertheless. The comprehensive spending review takes us up to 2004–05. Considering that block of legislation—some past, some to come—we cannot expect changes to Barnett until 2005–06 at the earliest.
I shall place on the record one or two quotes from the excellent Library research paper. On the mechanism of the Barnett formula, it states on page 9:
"The first key to understanding Barnett is to remember that the formula determines the amount of additional changes to the expenditure of Scotland and Wales. It applies to the margin, not to the bulk of expenditure as determined by past decisions. Secondly, Barnett only applies to some types of expenditure. In particular large expenditure areas such as welfare payments are outside of the formula's jurisdiction. Barnett has played very little role in the overall relative level of public sector provision, but simply produces a value for the increase in a single year."
The next page gives the three parts to the calculation:

"1. The change in planned spending in departments in England.

2. The extent to which the relevant English departmental programme is comparable with the services carried out by each devolved administration; and

3. The population proportion in each country."

Slight changes were made to the Northern Ireland part in 1998. The population of Northern Ireland used to be compared to that of Great Britain as a whole; now, it is compared to the population of England. Northern Ireland has therefore benefited slightly more in the last three years of the Barnett formula. If the Scottish Parliament ever exercised its tax-varying powers, the resources available to it would be adjusted up or down, according to the formula.
In my short period in the House, I have noted that the civil service would rather explore change within existing law or practice—I cite the Child Support Agency reforms as an illustration—than start to make changes from scratch. Therefore, I do not expect any Government to do away with Barnett, but it will have to change beyond 2005, especially as the regional assemblies come on line.
Why will the formula change? It is manifestly unfair to the English taxpayer—of course, I would say that. Those who represent English constituencies will all be able to quote their own figures, and I took mine from the Treasury's public expenditure statistical analysis for 1999–2000. Government spending for Scotland was £5,271 per head; for London, it was £5,035 per head. For the north-east, it was £4,837 per head, and for all England, it was £4,283 per head. The figure for the south-east, which includes my constituency, was £3,734, so I have some reason to wish for an analysis of the Barnett formula and for changes to be made to it.
Joyce Quin: A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend quoted the excellent Library research paper, and he will know that the formula's supporters refer to it as a way of reaching convergence in spending over time. However, that paper quotes Professor Bell of Stirling university, who

25WH
estimates that it will take at least 30 more years to reach any form of convergence. Does my hon. Friend have a comment on that?
Mr. Wyatt: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Joel's original idea was that the formula would provide convergence, but it never has and I doubt if it ever will, which is another issue for English taxpayers.
Adam Price: I am not clear whether the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are for identifiable public expenditure. However, he will be aware that most of the 25 per cent. of Government expenditure that is non-identifiable is spent in the south-east of England, whether it goes on central Government administration or military research and development. If we seek a fairer allocation of Government spending among the countries and regions of the United Kingdom, should we also be looking to redistribute that non-identifiable element and decentralise much of central Government administration to the regions and nations of the UK?
Mr. Wyatt: I think that that will happen once we have regional assemblies in England. As I said, wherever we happen to look, statistics are an issue. Of course, everyone argues their point from their background—that is what we are here for—but I shall resolve the statistics issue in a moment and return to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I hope that I have read all the papers on the Barnett formula. There seem to be more from the north of the country and certainly north of the border. I have noticed that there have been many more front-page stories on the issue this year in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Whatever figures are produced, it is apparent that the Barnett formula favours Scotland. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times suggested that Scotland enjoys Scandinavian services in exchange for British taxes.
Hon. Members from Scottish constituencies will want the Barnett formula to remain: that is understandable. We need to find a consensus on the issue after 2005, but I would like to suggest a way forward between now and then—not the Barnett formula 1.1 or 2.1 but the Wyatt suggestions. Whoever delivers statistics is not trusted among the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How can we trust the figures, and which Members of Parliament would we choose to ensure that the statistics were fair? Would we trust a Bank of England committee to study the Barnett formula? Would we trust a royal commission, or a special commission such as Lord Wakeham's on House of Lords reform? I suggest that Parliament should do it. My first suggestion is that a joint House of Lords and House of Commons Select Committee be established next year to consider the future of the Barnett formula.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman suggested a House of Lords and House of Commons Committee. Does he want such a joint Committee to encompass the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly as well, or is he trying to rig the game before it starts?
Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman should have let me finish. Evidence would be taken throughout the United
26WH
Kingdom. The Select Committee would visit the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly and take evidence in London. The Committee could be formed next year and report in 2003.
We have to resolve how we divvy up the money. I side with Professor Iain McLean's research. He suggests creating a commonwealth grants board, which
"should agree the apportionment of regional public spending by a qualified majority vote (that is, with the support of more than half the regions represented).
Two extremely important questions remain. How large a qualified majority? And what if they fail to agree? The two are linked … Unanimity gives each and every region a veto over any scheme. So the region with most to lose from any change would veto it, and the result would be failure to agree to any settlement at all. Then what matters is the 'default'. What if the inter-regional body fails to agree by the deadline for an agreement? If the default is the status quo, then all who can see that they are better off under the status quo than under any change will tend to block that change."
McLean suggests two rules for a commonwealth grants board: first,
"any formula it recommends must be supported by at least two-thirds of the regions"
and secondly,
"that the default, if the Board fails to agree, is that each region gets the reciprocal of its relative GDP per head."
Mr. Bill Tynan: Would the decision of that proposed Select Committee be binding on Parliament, or would it be debated in the House?
Mr. Wyatt: It would have to be debated in the House. If we were to effect change, some sort of statutory instrument would probably be necessary.
I have started the debate, and I am sure that that will not be the end of it, but it is the first time that we have debated the matter in 23 years in the House. I look forward with interest to the rest of the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. Hon. Members seem to be engaging in a conversational style. Comments must be addressed through the Chair. No accusations should be made to the Chairman, although I have allowed them to pass until now. For those who are not familiar with proceedings in Westminster Hall, the winding-up speeches start 30 minutes before the debate concludes. That means that the three Front Benchers must begin their exchanges at 12 noon. Seven hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye to make speeches and 45 minutes are available, so I appeal to hon. Members to help me to help them by making their remarks clear, concise, pertinent and respectful.
11.15 am
Adam Price: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) for securing the debate. We live in an unequal state, and territorial justice is at the heart of current political issues. There are issues of regional

27WH
equity in England and, as demands for democratic devolution develop in England, the concerns are rightly coming to the fore of English democratic debate.
I will focus on the relationship between Barnett and public expenditure for Wales. Plaid Cymru has some principal concerns about the Barnett formula, which is not needs-based but population-based. As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey says, it is a stop-gap measure, which remarkably has survived for 21 years. In the case of Wales, it is a short-term political fix to prevent bickering, rather than a real attempt to allocate resources fairly according to need. We last had an official estimate of needs in 1979, and it was found that expenditure in Wales should be 9 per cent. higher than in England according to need. The actual expenditure was 6 per cent higher. There could be at least a tentative conclusion that Barnett has short-changed Wales. There has been no needs assessment since then, so let us have the research that Plaid Cymru has been requesting for some time; we can then consider a different needs-based assessment for Wales.
As the hon. Gentleman points out, Barnett is a convergence formula. The Wales Office estimates that convergence has been happening at a rate of 2 per cent. per annum from 1999 to 2002. One effect is that the rate of increase in spending on a core area such as education will rise by 3.2 per cent. in real terms per annum for Wales over the comprehensive spending review period, compared with 5.6 per cent. per annum for England. So the convergence effect—the Barnett squeeze—is beginning to have a real effect on the rate of increase in public spending.
There is also the problem of the Barnett block. The change in funding for the devolved Administrations arises perversely from an assessment by Whitehall Departments of England's needs. The resulting changes for Wales and Scotland are what are known in the jargon as consequentials—in other words, they are consequential to the assessment of England's needs. The political consequence is that every year there is an absence of negotiation between the Treasury and the devolved institutions on changes to the block grant. That is bureaucratically convenient, but it is hardly in the spirit of democratic devolution. More than half the entire block grant in Wales consists of Barnett formula adjustments, which are nothing to do with the needs base of Wales but are the product of decisions between Whitehall Departments largely in respect of England. To add insult to injury, those discussions occurred during the tenure of a Tory Government. Wales was effectively locked into a mechanistic formula for the reallocation of changes in public expenditure and locked out of wider debates about levels of public expenditure and spending priorities.
Since the introduction of the Barnett formula, Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have been excluded from departmental spending rounds. Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament cannot debate on the Floor of the House the need for more resources for health and education without immediately being told that those are matters for the Assembly. In reality, the size of the overall health and education budget in our countries depends on spending plans and
28WH
political priorities drawn up exclusively in England. We are no more than passive observers of what happens to tax and public expenditure.
Change is never easy, but from my party's perspective, reform is long overdue. We require a needs assessment that examines a wider range of factors. Lessons about fiscal federalism or fiscal equalisation from Australia, Canada, Germany and other countries should be learned. To avoid disruption, any new system will have to be introduced over a long period. However, given the levels of deprivation in Wales, we have nothing to fear and much to gain by replacing an antiquated formula with a more progressive needs assessment for the UK as a whole. A new public expenditure settlement is more important than objective 1 funding and should be one of the central goals of all who are committed to democratic devolution. Without it, the constitutional settlement that we won in the referendum on devolution will be undermined.
11.21 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: The operation of the Barnett formula and the general financial relationship between Scotland, England and the rest of the UK is often misunderstood. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that the very title of his Adjournment debate—the Barnett formula—shows how one element of the relationship between Scotland, Wales and the rest of the UK can be taken out of the picture, failing to present an accurate assessment of the real relationships. It is not the case that the Barnett formula gives Scotland—or Wales and Northern Ireland—any extra or unfair share of UK resources. Far from conferring advantage, its effect is to bring Scotland's expenditure into line with the rest of the UK.
In response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey referred to the work of Professor Bell on the Barnett formula and needs assessment. A reference to Professor Bell's full work would show that, under present spending trends, the Barnett formula will bring Scotland's expenditure into line with the needs assessment within a mere eight, not 30, years.
Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the paper by the Cuthberts suggests an even more rapid convergence than—
Mr. Frank Cook: Order. I make a plea to all hon. Members to address the Chair at sufficient volume for the Chairman to judge whether remarks are in order. Will the hon. Gentleman please repeat his inquiry?
Mr. Salmond: I was asking whether the hon. Gentleman was aware of a paper produced by the Cuthberts, two prominent Scottish economists, which suggests a more rapid convergence than that suggested by Professor Bell.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am much obliged.
Mr. Lazarowicz: I am sure that that is so. The spending policies of the present Government also

29WH
underpin the greater trend towards convergence. Indeed, some people in Scotland have suggested that the current formula leads to a Barnett squeeze which they say works against Scotland's interests. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his colleagues have at times criticised the Barnett formula precisely because it brings about a convergence.
Joyce Quin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Barnett formula has been in existence for more than 20 years means that, in terms of deprivation in the English regions, it has been a poor way of getting any convergence at all?
Mr. Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that an assessment of the way in which expenditure is allocated in England as a whole is needed, that is well and good, but I do not think that it is a reason for taking an attitude to the Barnett formula and the allocation of spending between Scotland and the rest of the UK that does not reflect reality. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the Barnett formula and the base upon which it applies take no account of many elements of Government expenditure that undoubtedly benefit the London area. The subsidy for commuter travel in London, the channel tunnel link, the dome and all the expenditure that we see around Westminster are not reflected in the Barnett figures.
If hon. Members looked closely at the budgets of other Departments, they would find that their base figures were not chosen as the result of any scientific assessment. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey think that Government spending in Scotland should be singled out for scientific analysis when that is not applied to other areas of Government expenditure? Even if the figures that he put forward were correct, the benefit to the rest of the UK would average out at only about £17 per head. I accept his concern about levels of Government expenditure in his constituency, but breaking down spending on a constituency-by-constituency basis inevitably leads to anomalies because large elements of Government expenditure are concentrated on certain constituencies. Moreover, the analysis takes no account of the contribution that constituencies make to the public exchequer.
My hon. Friend appears to have been swayed by those who paint post-devolution Scotland as a land flowing with milk and honey, enjoying Scandinavian levels of spending provided by lower levels of taxation. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies know that that is not the case. He should not allow himself to be too strongly persuaded by those who point to areas where the level of spending on particular budget heads is higher, because spending per head in other areas of expenditure is often less than in the rest of the UK. It is misleading to pick out certain areas of Government expenditure to suggest that Scotland or Wales benefit.
I agree with those hon. Members who have said that the Barnett formula is not perfect. Certainly, there is no way in which the rationale for Government expenditure across Departments as a whole can be regarded as subject to scientific verification. As the UK moves towards regional government, there is a case for looking
30WH
at the way in which the Barnett formula operates and for conducting a review. However, the suggested commonwealth board or a parliamentary Committee reflect all the metropolitan-centred thinking that has bedevilled debate on these issues over the years. My hon. Friend should not take a line that will destabilise the UK and play into the hands of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his colleagues.
11.29 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I find myself disturbingly in agreement with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), but I shall begin my comments by mentioning an article by Peter Hetherington in The Guardian today. It suggests that a review of the Barnett formula will begin early next year on behalf of the Treasury and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams by provoking a review before he even made his speech. I am sure that the House would be interested in her answer, given the number of denials that have been made in recent weeks, not least by Scotland Office Ministers.
The Barnett formula is like the Schleswig-Holstein question, in that only three people understand it: one is mad, one is dead, and I have forgotten. On the basis of a recent television interview with Lord Barnett, I can report that he is among those who have forgotten how the formula was meant to work, noble and true though he is. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith rightly said that Barnett was a convergence formula. It has been pointed out that Barnett has not led to convergence. However, significant changes in the past few years will provide convergence, much to the detriment of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Barnett formula now operates as a population-based formula and is updated accordingly. Thus, there will be a severe squeeze on Scottish spending because any increase will now be relative to total spending.
The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) suggested that convergence might take 30 years. I believe that she was reading a review of Professor Bell's paper and not the paper itself. In fact, Jim Cuthbert, the former chief statistician at the Scotland Office, and his wife Margaret estimated that the Barnett squeeze on Scottish public spending could be as much as £2 billion over the next three years. Barnett may achieve the desire of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith to squeeze Scottish public spending and amass a huge £17 per head for his constituents, but the view in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is that Barnett is not ideal.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. If he is right, surely he would want a review of the Barnett formula and a proper needs assessment such as that advocated by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price)?
Mr. Salmond: I am coming to that point. The difficulty that I have with many of those who argue for scrapping the Barnett formula is that they do not

31WH
support a needs assessment, as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) suggested, or fairer distribution of resources. Their argument is about grabbing Scottish money. The comments that have been made by Conservative Members and by many Back-Bench Labour Members can best be described as anti-Scottish. There seems to be a desperate attempt to grab as much of Scotland's money as possible. I can suggest a better option.
I deprecate the motives of many hon. Members who rally against the Barnett formula. They do it not for the best or noblest reasons but to grab £17 per head for their constituents, who are south of the border. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey does not have such a motivation; only he can clarify that.
The best way to proceed would be to give the Scottish Parliament fiscal autonomy. The hon.. Gentleman mentioned the Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland analysis, which was published this morning. If we accepted GERS, which I certainly do not—for no apparent reason it failed to take account of £1 billion of Scottish income tax in the past three years—and compared its analysis with current estimates of oil revenues, we would have a Scottish economy in fiscal surplus by £1 billion, even on the Government's figures for this year. The hon. Gentleman must explain why he has suggested cutting Scottish public spending, which was the essence of his comments, at a time when there is a substantial fiscal surplus in Scotland. It is unacceptable for the Scottish population to hear such a suggestion, and it should be equally unacceptable to have a squeeze, which is the effect that the Barnett formula is having on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I have one difficulty with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, who otherwise made an admirable speech, including his many examples of non-identified public spending that are hugely concentrated in south-east England and London. Indeed, I have seen one survey that shows that London public expenditure is the highest by far of any area of the United Kingdom when all the factors that were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are taken into account. My difficulty with him, and others who defend Barnett as the only possible formula, is that they do not take account of the considerable squeeze that it will cause in the next few years.
I am in favour of fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament. It would provide the only secure protection from the efforts of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and the many other Members who want to raid as much of Scotland's finances as possible. I suggest to him that if he wants a review, or if the Treasury Minister suggests one, it should be carried out on an equal basis. It would be unacceptable to have a review with a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons at a time when the Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are functioning. At the very least, the hon. Gentleman might have suggested a little more than a day trip to Scotland to take evidence from the very
32WH
people from whom he is trying to filch money. Any review would have to be based on a position of equality, and the arguments for financial freedom and fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament should be heard and should win through.
11.36 am
Mr. lain Luke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing the debate. I firmly believe that all areas of public policy and expenditure should be open to constant question and review. I have some concerns about the narrow nature of the press debate in this area, which I believe circumvents reasoned discussion on the allocation of overall expenditure in the UK and sets us at each other's throat. Taking a broad macro and brush-stroke approach clouds the issue when we should be examining micro-situations and what happens in different localities throughout the UK. It is often said that the devil is in the detail. We as politicians have a responsibility to examine that detail and to act accordingly.
In any debate on the Barnett formula, we should discuss the breakdown of expenditure under comparative budget heads relating to different areas of the UK, and review it on a needs basis. I agree with my hon. Friend that some English regions suffer levels of deprivation similar to those found in many communities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that they should receive similar financial assistance. If there is a failure in the formula or a breakdown in the mechanisms that weigh the vital indicators of need, we should take them in hand and put them right quickly. When the Minister of State, Scotland Office last answered questions on the topic only a few weeks ago, he made it clear that any identifiable regional differentiation in England that needed extra Government expenditure should be addressed, given the programme of increased public expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey made a reasonable case about the national issues that affect us across the boundaries of the separate entities that make up the UK. We should consider, for example, the recent unemployment figures for north-east England, London and Scotland, which are comparatively similar at 6.9 per cent., 6.5 per cent. and 6.7 or 6.8 per cent. respectively. Those areas need Government funding and are addressed through the work of the Treasury and relevant Ministries.
On the micro-level, the Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency is ranked 284th in the UK, 197th in England and has 3.3 per cent. unemployment. Compare that with my constituency, Dundee, East, which is ranked 40th in the UK, fifth in Scotland and has 6.8 per cent. unemployment. Those regional disparities must be addressed.
I was glad to hear the reference to the Scandinavian services that we enjoy in Scotland. I have travelled widely throughout Scotland as a local government councillor and as a private citizen, and I would be glad to discover where the Scandinavian services are, but ultimately—this is a contentious point—Scottish taxpayers are British taxpayers. They pay their contribution to the Treasury. The Government are increasing public expenditure against the objections of

33WH
the European Commission year after year, and are committed in their manifesto to promoting social justice. The Government will not fail to address, where necessary, the issues of deprivation and poverty that arise in dealing with English regions. The central principle of the Labour party, to which the Government's programme rigorously adheres, was set by Nye Bevan when he talked about Labour Governments having to practise the science of priority.
I do not discount the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend in this welcome debate. If there is real need, based on personal experience throughout the UK, that must be addressed. The nature of the UK constitution means that it is imperative that the Westminster Government ensure that allocated spending is spread fairly throughout the UK, and that is what the Barnett formula attempts to do in a crude fashion, primarily on the basis of population. However, I agree that if the squeeze is on, or if convergence is not to be in place for 30 years, or if differentials apply throughout the UK, rigorous criteria should be laid down. Needs assessments should be carried out that are sensitive enough to upgrade the Barnett formula. If the factors of average earnings, population density and spread, peripheral locations and key social factors such as changing structures of industry, levels of poverty and conditions of housing and health, are properly and fairly assessed, they will show the case for the retention of the Barnett formula.
The Government strongly support that position, and that is reinforced by their decisions on how to spend the EU objective 1, 2 and 3 funds of the European regional development fund and social fund allocation. Large tracts of Scotland achieve access to those funds on the just basis of need, which has been identified through the criteria.
In summary, we need to consider the issue constructively. We should examine what is happening throughout the region. In considering how Government finance is handled, we must bear in mind the creation of the Scottish Office in 1926 and the increase in social policy spending in the 1960s and 1970s. The Barnett formula was devised in the 1970s, prior to an expected Bill on devolution that would have created a Scottish Parliament well before its eventual creation in 1999. We should consider the issue of the English regions, because that would provide the vehicle for assessing the needs of the different regions and for enabling the Government to fine-tune their spending policies. I am not arguing for retention without consideration of a needs element to the Barnett formula, but the union between Scotland and England is based on a collaborative effort to do what is best for Britain. The Barnett formula serves that end.
11.44 am
Mr. David Stewart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) for initiating the debate. As he said, it is the first time in about 20 years that the issue has been discussed in the House. His was a well-researched speech and a thoughtful and excellent contribution to the debate.
What we have been told about the Barnett formula today is well known: it is non-statutory and has been used since 1978. The history books show that
34WH
Chancellor Goschen in the 1890s had a similar formula, which related to the allocation of probate duties between the countries of the Union.
I shall briefly explain my understanding of the formula and make some suggestions for the future. I think that there is some misunderstanding about how the formula works across the UK. As we have heard this morning, the method is based on population, sharing out changes in public expenditure plans between the countries of the Union. It is not used to determine overall spending levels: that is a key point. We are talking about the margins of expenditure, where changes and populations are reflected, not about the base budget.
People might say that I would be bound to say that where Scotland is concerned, but what Scotland receives is a population-based share of changes in spending in analogous programmes in England. Importantly, population factors have recently changed. In 1992, it was agreed that population changes evident from the 1991 census would be taken into account. Now, yearly changes based on figures from the Office for National Statistics are also considered.
I offer an example that was proposed in Library research paper 01/108 in November 2001. It is a good worked example, but I had to examine it carefully because statistics in maths was never one of my strong points. It examined what the figure for Scotland would be if, for example, £1 billion expenditure were allocated to health in England, and how that would be worked out. The figure for Scotland would be £103 million, based on 2001 figures. The formula would be £1 billion x 10.34 per cent. x 99.7, where 10.34 per cent. is the population of Scotland as a percentage of that of the United Kingdom, and 99.7 is the comparability of the English health services to Scotland's. That is a dense formula, and I am sure that my son, currently doing standard grade maths, would be interested in trying to work the figure out in practice. It is important to know where the formula comes from.
We have heard a lot about convergence, and there are differing arguments about whether it will come in eight years or 30 years. However, before we can make those predictions, we must ask what the formula for convergence is. It will of course depend on the growth of comparable spending in England on such things as health and education. It is also—I do not think that this has been touched on much so far—about the relative stability of population changes. For example, if Scotland's population declines relative to England's—it is at the moment, and it is predicted to continue to decline in the next decade—that will offset the convergent effect of the Barnett formula.
I quote figures from 1995–96, when expenditure for Scotland was approximately 19 per cent. and that for Wales about 12 per cent. above the UK average. As the House of Commons Library research paper on public expenditure states, this is
"not necessarily a simple relationship between the geographic area in which money is spent and the resident who benefits … it is also important to remember this analysis is not exhaustive and only covers around three quarters of total spending"
in the UK. The Barnett formula has nothing to say about the size of the cake; it is about how that cake should be divided up.

35WH
A further issue, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), concerns identifiable and non-identifiable public spending. We could have a debate simply on that. We must examine hot-spot spending in, for example, growth parts of London—I am aware that there is great social need there—and Edinburgh. There are pockets of poverty and higher need throughout the UK. I have mentioned London, but there are such areas in the north-east, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey made clear to me last night, in the south-east.
However, academics such as Professor Midwinter of Strathclyde university have acknowledged that Scotland has higher expenditure needs relative to the UK average. It has higher morbidity rates, sparse population in remote areas, low pay, the islands—which we have not mentioned and where life is very expensive—remoteness and high service costs. I give an example from my own area in the highlands. We were one of the few areas in Scotland that qualified for the old objective 1 funding, because our economic spending was less than 75 per cent. of average European GDP. The problem is the extent to which need is greater, which is difficult to establish.
Following devolution, it is up to the devolved Parliament and the Assemblies to decide their spending within the block and formula grants system. The Office for National Statistics recalculates population shares annually, but the Treasury last carried out a needs assessment in the mid-1970s, in which it concluded that spending on the basis of need would result in per capita spending in Wales and Scotland being greater than average.
In its second report, the Treasury Committee agreed with Treasury officials, who stated that
"there is a long-established practice of looking at the allocation of spending across programmes and across regions to try and get the right distribution".
The Government's response to the Select Committee's 1998 report was that there was no case for reviewing the Barnett formula, but the White Paper on Scottish devolution argued that any substantive revision to the Barnett formula would need an in-depth study of relative spending and full consultation between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. Interestingly, exactly the same comments were made in the White Paper on Welsh devolution that established the devolved Assembly. The Barnett formula provides Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland blocks with a population-based share of planned changes in equivalent English spending programmes.
We have not touched on redistribution, and time will not allow me to examine that issue, but the Government have addressed redistribution through programmes such as the minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the pensioner credit, none of which are covered by the Barnett formula. The new deal, which is an anti-poverty and employment support measure, is also not covered by the formula. Those programmes are crucial to regional development and totally independent of the Barnett formula.
36WH
Today's debate must be accompanied by health warnings. We cannot directly compare spending across various countries and blocks. For example, the Scotland and Northern Ireland blocks include provision for water and sewerage services, which are not included in English spending. If we include non-block programmes such as social security, Scotland receives only 9 per cent. more than the equivalent figure in England.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stewart: I have just about finished. If the Barnett formula did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. I am not claiming that it is perfect, because it produces inequalities within regions and nations. Perhaps the time has come for a full needs assessment across the UK to deliver the son of the Barnett formula. Until that happens I say, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
11.52 am
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate, which comes at an important time. As he rightly says, we are about to consider regions and regionalism in England and that is bound to trigger a debate about the distribution of public spending across the UK.
I must speak with some caution, because I represent a city that was besieged and occupied by the Scots in 1644. Nevertheless, I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that this is not an issue over which anyone should develop a Tora Bora complex that leads them to retreat, dig in, hide in caves and hope that it will go away.
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) called for a needs assessment that would stretch into the non-identifiable areas of public spending. Many representatives of English constituencies will echo that approach, and it will certainly be echoed in my region. We would be happy to work on that approach when we discuss English regionalism.
Mr. Salmond: I am still trying to work out the relevance of the Tora Bora complex. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many Scottish people would be suspicious of a review based on reducing Scottish public spending? He heard me say that financial autonomy for the Scottish Parliament is an entirely different matter, but does he support financial freedom for the Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Cousins: No, I do not. On this issue I am clearly a Unionist. We should try to hang on to the fiscal integrity of the United Kingdom, which is an important part of a proper sense of British Unionism. The hon. Gentleman should understand that many of us are asking for a proper needs assessment for the English regions not because we think that Scottish expenditure is too high and should be reduced, but because it would provide a benchmark against which we can compare the needs of our own regions. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) has ever said that Scottish expenditure is too high; nor have we regarded

37WH
it as a pot to be raided to serve the needs of our own region. Such a description is a misrepresentation of our case.
In considering the so-called Barnett squeeze, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the Barnett formula was originally a makeshift needs allowance. As matters have progressed, more makeshifts have been added to it, so to prevent the Barnett squeeze the comparison of English and Scottish expenditure has itself been changed. Two years ago, London Transport expenditure was added to the comparison with Scotland. However, that addition was never properly explained to Parliament, and it proved very difficult to dig out of statistics. The Treasury does not have a history of replying clearly to parliamentary questions on the matter. The addition was a neat trick, which enabled Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get more resources without a penny extra being spent on London Transport. Such a "makeshift within a makeshift" destroys the integrity—such as it was—of the Barnett formula.
Public expenditure is growing, so the time is right to address this issue and to consider a needs assessment. In paragraph 6.56, on page 114, the pre-Budget report states that
"the 2002 Spending Review will assess how departments' policies impact on different regions and seek to ensure that spending is fairly distributed and targeted at those areas where it is needed most".
I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of what the regional spending review will mean. She is unfailingly helpful, so I am sure that she will not let us down. Will it be stretched to cover Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or confined to the English regions? What form will it take and how can Parliament be involved in the decision-making process?
The Barnett formula is a makeshift that has run its course. The time is right to move to a needs assessment on the broad basis set out by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr.
11.58 am
John Thurso: I begin by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this debate. As he said, this subject has not been debated in the House for some time, although it has been discussed in the other place on several occasions. Until the issue is resolved, I hope that it will receive the same treatment as the issue of post offices, which arises regularly.
A few days ago, I had the honour of being the first person to inform the hon. Gentleman that he had secured today's debate. I asked him the simple question, "Are you for or against?", to which he replied that he was against. I therefore thought that I would be able to quote "Julius Caesar", in saying that he had come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. However, he had slightly more praise for Lord Barnett than he had given me to understand, and it was more a case of burying with faint praise.
The Barnett formula has become shorthand for general discontent about various aspects of the financial settlement relating to the nations, and I deprecate the
38WH
narrow nationalism that has crept in both in England and in Scotland. We need to reconsider what it seeks to achieve and how to achieve it.
The formula has been roundly attacked. On 7 November, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale said in another place that it must have something going for it if it is attacked on one side for being too generous and on the other for not being generous enough. Lord Barnett said:
"I had always assumed that the arrangement would be temporary until a more sophisticated method could be devised which took account of needs. In fact, not only has there been no change to take account of needs, there have been only minor changes to take account of changes in population."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 225.]
This mechanism, which was last only six or eight months, is still with us because a formula is required. That was made clear by Lord Campbell of Croy. He explained, on the basis of his experience as a Minister and Secretary of State, the difficulties that arose prior to Barnett, when negotiations had to be undertaken annually. The one aspect of the formula that can be defended is that it has provided relative stability and a framework. I come neither to bury it nor to praise it. We should accord it its due, but consider what to replace it with.
Any new formula must be needs-based. Given the diverse economy of the United Kingdom, we must consider the differing needs of the various regions and make available corresponding funding to match those needs. In fact, Barnett does no particular favours to some regions of Scotland. For example, the latest figures show that in 1998 gross domestic product per capita in the highlands and islands was some £9,000, whereas that for Scotland as a whole was some £12,000. Those figures are not reflected in expenditure. The area was compensated to some extent by objective 1 finance, but that has now been lost. Scotland has differing needs in terms of expenditure, as do England and Wales.
Mr. Salmond: I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman's even-handed speech, but can he tell us whether the Liberal and the Labour parties in the Scottish Executive have a common position on the Barnett formula and, if so, what it is?
John Thurso: I have no idea of the position in the Scottish Executive, but I can clarify our position in this place. We felt that there was a strong necessity to maintain the relative stability that Barnett had produced and that that stability should be maintained by keeping the formula for the first two Scottish Parliaments, but that the underlying policy should be a review to produce a new formula to take account of needs. When asked what he would do about it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) put it very well. He said:
"Quite simply—reform it! We would review the current formula and replace it with a needs-based one which would look at the UK region by region giving each region the amount it needs. Therefore, places like the North East which need more funding, would be fairly treated."
That is our position.
The formula should not be based only on population. In many regions—for example, the north-east and the highlands—per capita allocations for expenditure

39WH
simply do not work. The formula should recognise that many areas of expenditure, such as roads, require a different basis. As was suggested by a number of hon. Members, we must examine existing needs in the diverse regions and economies of the United Kingdom and allocate a new formula that takes account of those needs, based on expenditure that is not currently part of the Barnett formula, expenditure that is best driven by population and expenditure that is best driven by other methods. That should be negotiated between the devolved Assemblies and the Treasury. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey that the best way of doing that is through a joint Select Committee of both Houses. It must be properly negotiated, and the relationship must be akin to that between our Ministers and their European ministerial colleagues. With our devolved settlement, it is impossible to imagine devolved Parliaments and Assemblies being excluded from the process.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred, as he is wont to do, to the squeeze. The point about the squeeze is that it is a reduction not in Scottish expenditure but in the increase in Scottish expenditure compared with that in England. He cannot call for fiscal autonomy and boast of a surplus in the Scottish economy while at the same time saying that it is foul and unfair that there is a squeeze. He cannot have his cake and eat it. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the appropriate way to deal with the problem was to give Scotland fiscal autonomy.
Mr. Salmond: I am tempted to say that Liberal Democrats can have their cake and eat it in almost any place I could mention. It is fair to argue for fiscal autonomy—he may not know this, but some members of his party have argued for it in the Scottish Parliament—while at the same time being concerned about the review of the Barnett formula, which, in the minds of some people, has as its prime objective further squeezing of Scottish expenditure. Is that not a fair and consistent position?
John Thurso: I was talking about fiscal autonomy. I feel strongly that fiscal autonomy would bring with it almost as many difficulties as the Barnett formula. Where exactly are the borders of fiscal autonomy defined? Does one say that defence is included, but foreign policy is excluded? When looking for provision for the needs and economies of Scotland, fiscal autonomy holds out no greater hope of benefit than the current system. We need to reform the current system. We need to recognise the relative stability that having a formula has delivered, and to recognise that any new formula must be based on needs.
The Barnett formula has stood the test of time in one sense. It has provided relative stability. However, to ensure that expenditure is fairly allocated across the whole of the United Kingdom, we need to change to a formula that recognises the varying needs of the various parts of the United Kingdom. To achieve that, we need to be able to—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Order. I appreciate the hon. Member's inconvenience and discomfort, but time is being squeezed.
John Thurso: Then I leave it at that, Mr. Winterton.
12.10 am
Mr. John Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, and I am sure that we can anticipate that combination of gravitas and panache that you invariably bring to our proceedings.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, not least the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). I do not think that he has resiled from his opposition to the way in which the formula works. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) should recognise that the hon. Gentleman was just making his argument in his usual gentlemanly and understated way. His message was certainly pretty clear to me; he is not entirely sanguine about the way in which the formula works.
I also congratulate the hon. Members for East Camarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), not to mention what I might describe as the representative of the north-east, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins). I think that I am right in saying that he speaks also for the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who spoke on this subject on 19 July in Treasury questions. She signalled her growing disquiet about the way in which the formula operates to the disadvantage, as she sees it, of the north-east of England.
There is a tendency for positions to be polarised in this debate. My starting point is to observe that the Barnett formula is neither a godly blessing nor the devil's curse. It is rather curious that it has subsisted for the best part of 22 years. As a number of hon. Members have observed, Lord Barnett expected that it would last perhaps six months, possibly a year, but was very unlikely to go beyond that. The fact that it has lasted for as long as it has might suggest that it has benefits. That is not of itself justification for its continuance. One commonplace and truism that I can utter without dissent from anyone who has taken part in the debate is that successive Secretaries of State for Scotland representing both parties have judged that the formula has merits. It has merit in terms of stability, merit in terms of flexibility, and merit for the people of Scotland.
Secretaries of State for Scotland have been spared the annual ordeal of having to negotiate with the Treasury, which is not something that should be taken for granted. For example, I was interested to learn on studying the debate in the other place that Lord Forsyth of Drumlean was himself a supporter of the Barnett formula, and he remains so. Anybody who knows the noble Lord will testify that he is not exactly scared of confrontation: he is always prepared to argue his corner. However, he is of the view that the merit of being spared that annual negotiation and the stability that the formula has brought about in the past 20 years are not inconsiderable benefits.
There is some misunderstanding about the purpose of the formula. It is to ensure not a cut in Scottish expenditure, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan

41WH
unworthily and inaccurately suggests, but simply to secure a reduction in the differential between per capita expenditure in Scotland and England. We can argue the toss about whether and to what extent that objective has been achieved, but it is important not to misrepresent the initial purpose. The idea is to ensure that, in relation to expenditure that is comparable between England and the rest of the United Kingdom, proper provision exists for Scotland based on its population and what is admittedly a grossly outdated assessment based on 1976–77 figures for local needs.
Mr. Salmond: In the interests of not being misrepresented—no one wants to suffer that—I would like to ask a question. On 7 February this year, the shadow Leader of the House, who was then a Back Bencher, charmingly asked the Prime Minister:
"When will the Prime Minister end the scandal of English subsidies for Scottish benefits?"—[Official Report, 7 February 2001: Vol. 362, c. 928.]
Does that represent the view of the Conservative Front-Bench team or any significant part of it?
Mr. Bercow: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I have made many speeches over the years that have attracted vociferous criticism and complaint, but when I have sat down to discuss my views with people, they have rarely been in any doubt as to my position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is now a distinguished member of the Opposition Front-Bench team and, as shadow Leader of the House, he accepts collective responsibility. I will tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan the exact position taken by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the chairman of the Conservative and Unionist party. We are all engaged in a thorough-going and heart-searching review of policy across the field and we will report on our findings in due course.
It is fair to point out that there has been a significant downwards change in the population of Scotland during the intervening 22 years. That can be cited by hon. Members for English constituencies, including those for constituencies in the north-east, but it has not been reflected in public expenditure. Similarly, it is a fact that gross domestic product per head in Scotland is £12,512, whereas it is £10,449 in Wales and only £10,024 in the north-east of England. That is not reflected in expenditure per head, which is greater in Scotland at £5,271 than in Wales at £5,052, or in north-east England at £4,837.
In the past, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West has pointed out that six of the nine English regions receive less funding per head than Scotland. That must be taken into account. Seven Back-Bench speeches have been made today, whereas 22 speeches were made during the 7 November debate initiated by Lord Barnett in the other place. It would be an exaggeration to say that there were 22 differences of opinion, but a miscellany of different views were expressed. It is fair to say that most reasonable people in Scotland—it would be rash in the extreme to include the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in that category—judge that the formula has worked well for Scotland. The leader of the Conservatives in the Scottish
42WH
Parliament, Mr. David McLetchie, has said that the financing arrangements have served and continue to serve the people of Scotland well.
I agree with Lord Barnett that there is a compelling argument for a review of his formula. An undeniable and unanswerable case exists for a thorough needs assessment in 2001; we should no longer depend on the hotch-potch that resulted from an examination of the situation 24 years ago. Any review should be wide-ranging, all-embracing and thorough. In the context of the formula, I note a slight difference between the position enunciated at the last Scottish questions in the Commons by the Minister of State, Scotland Office and that expressed by Lord McIntosh in the other place. The Minister of State said that the system was stable, fair and flexible and that the Government had no plans to review it. There was a difference, at least of tone and nuance, during the debate in the other place, when Lord McIntosh of Haringey splendidly said:
"We have no commitment to review the Barnett formula. On the other hand, it is not fixed in stone."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 262.]
That is a splendid example of the two-handed lawyer.
We should have a thorough review. It should be systematic and comprehensive. It will necessarily take some time. There is a strong case for the creation of a royal commission to consider all the arguments as far as the people of Scotland, Wales, the north-east of England and the other English regions are concerned. After that detailed and thorough consideration, which the Opposition favour, I will be able to enunciate my party's conclusions with the clarity and specificity that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan requires.
12.20 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on securing this important debate. It is a topical issue and I am delighted to be here to debate it. My hon. Friend's contribution was well researched and interesting. As various hon. Members pointed out, Lord Barnett himself did not expect that the formula that bears his name would last so long. The longevity of the Barnett formula is a tribute to its effectiveness in determining the allocation of public expenditure to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are at least two reasons for that longevity.
First, although no formula is perfect or above criticism, the Barnett formula has produced what have been perceived as generally fair and broadly acceptable distributions of public funds since it was first introduced. It has been used by both Labour and Conservative Administrations. It underpinned the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is not perceived to be politically biased. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out so eloquently, the formula has avoided the need for separate negotiations between Treasury Ministers and their counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during public spending reviews. It has provided a transparent, durable and simple rule for reaching spending settlements without direct negotiation.

43WH
A frequent misunderstanding is the widely held impression that the Barnett formula is responsible for determining the level of spending per head on services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is not the case. The formula is a device to allocate to the devolved Administrations a relative population share of changes in planned spending on comparable UK Government Departments' programmes. The formula was not used to determine the initial baselines, which have been inherited from the past. Furthermore, the Barnett formula is used to determine only the overall increase in the assigned budgets of the devolved Administrations. It is for the devolved Administrations to decide how they want to allocate their budgets to individual programmes. The UK Government do not determine the levels of spending per head on devolved services such as health and education.
Mr. Bercow: In order to remove one bogus argument from the agenda, will the Minister confirm that use of the tax-raising power by the Scottish Parliament could in itself raise only £450 million, which is just 3 per cent. of the total allocation of funds to Scotland? Therefore, it is a complete red herring to suggest that the use of that power could make a dramatic difference to Scotland. Manifestly, it could not.
Ruth Kelly: Of course the use of the tax-raising power is up to the Scottish Parliament itself. It is an important tool that it may choose to use at a particular time, but I do not suggest that it is particularly relevant to the Barnett formula.
We have heard a wide range of views in today's debate. Questions have been asked about the comparison of per capita public spending in Scotland and the equivalent figures for English regions such as the north-east or the north-west. However, the Barnett formula does not determine the allocation of resources within England—which is generally a matter for English Departments and reflects Department's various needs-based allocation systems—or baselines inherited from the past, or non-devolved spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Salmond: It is reported in The Guardian today that Ministers are moving towards a full review of Whitehall spending throughout the UK. Will the Minister endorse that as a "report", or knock it on the head as a "story"?
Ruth Kelly: Even though I used to work for that newspaper, I am reluctant as a Minister to endorse every single line written in it. We have neither a commitment nor any plans to review the Barnett formula, and there is no tension between that position and the fact that the Barnett formula is not set in stone. We have to review it in the run-up to spending reviews and it changes according to population shifts, so reviewing the detail is an on-going process.
A comparison between spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the English regions shows that there is a substantial variation in need within regions as well as between them. Outside London, the north-east has the highest level of public spending per head in England.
44WH
The Government are committed to improving prosperity in all regions and countries within the UK. Since the 1997 election, youth unemployment has greatly declined and long-term unemployment has been reduced. All regions are benefiting from the new deal, the working families tax credit, the introduction of the minimum wage and cuts in corporation tax and capital gains tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) asked about the reference in the pre-Budget report to public spending decisions being
"fairly distributed and targeted at those areas where it is needed most".
It might be helpful to put that in context. At the time of the pre-Budget report the Government published a paper on "Productivity in the UK: the Regional Dimension" which sets out the economic analysis underlying the Government's approach to regional economic policy and the institutional framework necessary to deliver it. Working in partnership with the Government, regional development agencies and other local and regional economic bodies have put in place a substantial programme of policies designed to tackle economic failure—at every geographical level—and deliver sustained improvements in the UK's economic performance.
The forthcoming spending review provides an opportunity for the Government to consider the lessons of the first years of this new regional economic policy and incorporate the analysis into our evidence-based approach to public spending. Reference is made to public spending that takes place in England, but that does not imply any fundamental rethinking of the Government's approach to the Barnett formula. It is all about learning from experience and building up an evidence base to inform public spending within the overall context.
There has been criticism from some in England that the Barnett formula is too slow in delivering convergence in per capita total identifiable spending between the four countries of the UK. I would point out that the speed of convergence is affected by a variety of factors, including the rate of increase of comparable English programmes, changes in relative population between the countries of the UK, and changes in relative public spending per head on programmes that do not fall within the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assigned budgets.
On the other hand, there has also been criticism in the opposite direction that spending percentage increases in Scotland and Northern Ireland are lower than elsewhere in the UK—sometimes referred to as the Barnett squeeze. In fact, no fixed or predetermined convergence path is built into the Barnett formula. The so-called convergence characteristic simply reflects that fact that population-based increases represent a smaller percentage increase where baseline levels of spending per head are higher.
The Government's policy on funding the devolved Administrations, including the Barnett formula, is set out in the statement of funding policy published by the Treasury in July 2000. The statement fully and transparently sets out the details of the funding arrangements, and was agreed with the Secretaries of

45WH
State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, following consultation with the devolved Administrations. It allows for operational change. We have updated the population figures, for example, and the comparability factors are kept under review.
We have heard a wide range of—sometimes conflicting—views. The Barnett formula has served us reasonably well, but we will continue to listen to various representations.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I regret that time is up. We thank the Minister for her reply. We move to the next debate.

Wolvercote Clinic
12.30 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is of great importance to my constituents, and to allow the Minister to place some important points on record. I also thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for attending the debate. He may not have an immediate or obvious interest in what goes on in my constituency, but he has historic connections with it and Opposition Members are grateful for his support.
The Wolvercote clinic is a therapeutic facility that is run by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. It treats approximately 20 convicted paedophiles and seeks to educate them into departing from their offending behaviour to ensure that they can become safe members of the community again. It operates a contract regime. People who are in the clinic are not prisoners: they enter into a contract with the clinic to stay there for the duration of their treatment, but they are free to go whenever they choose. At present, the clinic is at Epsom, on the site of a large, disused psychiatric hospital that included a medium-secure psychiatric unit. The Secretary of State for Health has sold the site for development and houses are being built. Therefore, the clinic must move.
I emphasise that the debate is not about the clinic, which I have visited. I have no reason to suppose that it is not doing a good job: more than 80 per cent. of those treated in the clinic do not reoffend. The debate is about the Home Office's handling of the relocation proposal. The need to relocate the clinic was not sudden or unexpected—but there had been six years to plan the move. Ministers appear to have taken the decision to relocate the facility only on 11 May 2001. The clinic was relocated to Silverlands near Chertsey, which is owned by the Department of Health. That decision was not announced, no one local was briefed, and I was not informed as the Member of Parliament for that constituency. Given that the decision was taken just a few weeks before the general election, one can perhaps understand why.
I was first informed about the decision on 12 October, by which time there were less than six months until the date by which the clinic had to vacate its premises. I want to put on record that the Minister was not responsible for that decision because, of course, she was not there. When she reviewed the decision in the summer, she identified concerns about the decision-making process. She described it as one that:
"could have been better handled."
Local people were relieved when the Minister announced that she would review the decision that was taken in May behind closed doors. However, there is great concern in my constituency to ensure that all options are genuinely reviewed and that the review does not repeat the shortcomings of the original decision-making process. I have had more than 2,400 representations on the matter, which is easily the most that I have received on any subject since becoming a Member of Parliament.

47WH
The debate will not primarily be about whether Silverlands is an appropriate location, but about the decision-making process and the procedure that was followed. However, I will briefly outline some of my constituents' concerns about the location of the facility at Silverlands. It is in a residential area and is directly overlooked by at least two properties. Many schools and child care facilities are in the immediate vicinity, St. Peter's hospital and two creches are on the site, and a psychiatric unit and the White Lodge centre for handicapped children are close by.
The large and diverse traveller community in that part of my constituency has clear views about the issue. After some difficult years, that community has integrated well with the rest of the local community. The key to integration has been Lyne and Longcross primary school, a small Church of England school that is attended by many children of travellers, sometimes on a seasonal basis. The school is coping well and facilitating their integration into the community.
The building that the Department is proposing to relocate the clinic to is a grade 2 listed mansion. Some of the security arrangements that have already been put in place, without the nicety of obtaining planning or listed building consent, have already damaged its setting.
I share the strong local belief that the criteria used to select the site for a facility of this nature must include some measure of the effect on the community in which it is placed. It is well established that perceptions have an important effect: fear of crime is as damaging as crime itself. I submit that special factors make the community particularly vulnerable to the effects of such a facility.
However, I do not wish to engage in special pleading. I ask only for a fair and objective evaluation of all the alternatives, confident that the case against Silverlands will stand on its merits. There is no evidence that the May decision was made on the basis of rigorous evaluation and it was manifestly made without consultation. Such a decision is unsatisfactory and vulnerable to challenge. I believe that the Minister has recognised that and therefore agreed to a review. Other communities will raise other concerns, but I will accept the outcome of an objective evaluation procedure that is fair, transparent and rigorous. I wish to discuss the process that is necessary to ensure such evaluation.
How will the Minister apply the criteria to evaluate the different sites? The Home Office issued a list of criteria, but there is still some confusion. It is not clear whether they were prepared at the outset or reactively during the process. According to a Home Office minute of a meeting in my constituency the Minister said that the criteria for selection were simply that the site was big enough and was part of the Government estate. The Home Secretary wrote to one of my councillors that
"a nationwide search throughout the NHS and Prison Service estate"
had taken place. He said that the advantages of Silverlands were that it was of the right size and could be refurbished to meet Home Office requirements and that
"the existing, experienced staff could transfer easily; and the site is already in Government ownership".
48WH
The published criteria are ambiguous. Officials made it clear to me that Government ownership is not an issue, but the criteria could be interpreted to require that it be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that all options will be considered, regardless of ownership. I understand that instructions have been given to property consultants to look for suitable sites throughout the country.
The conflicting statements sometimes leave us with the impression that the selection criteria have been cobbled together during the process, rather than carefully thought out in advance. Nevertheless, we now have a set of 15 criteria. Most of them are sensible and uncontroversial, if somewhat inward looking: they tend to deal with the suitability of the building, rather than the effect on the community. However, I wish to ask the Minister about a few specific difficulties with the published criteria.
I do not want a lengthy debate on the European convention on human rights, but rights are affected by a decision to locate that type of facility. Regardless of human rights considerations, the least onerous solution that has the least negative impact on the community should be sought. The Home Office criteria do not refer to impact on the community, which should be the primary criterion. Does the Minister agree that minimal impact on the community should be one of those criteria?
Criterion 3 details the retention of specialist and experienced staff. That is a sensible aspiration. Due to the time scale—only four months are left until the backstop date for relocation of the clinic—we are concerned that the criterion introduces a narrow geographical bias against Silverlands. That appears to contradict what Ministers have said about undertaking a nationwide search for suitable sites. I accept that relocation across substantial distances will pose difficulties in that short time scale and may involve temporary arrangements, but it is not impossible. Not all staff live close to the current site in Epsom. Crucially, criterion 3 cannot have been one of the original criteria used, because we were told that a nationwide search was undertaken. At this stage of the review, I would be concerned if a new criterion were introduced that, for geographical reasons, biased the search against Silverlands. Will the Minister confirm that geography will not be a determining factor, as it was not in the original decision?
It is not clear whether the criteria will be weighted when taking a decision on an application, or whether some of them are absolute criteria with which a site must comply. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a transparent scoring system so that any location can be objectively evaluated and seen to be so? Ideally, I would like a matrix at the end of the process that identifies possible sites, and the criteria against which they are measured, and that scores them in a way that the public can scrutinise and challenge. I hope that the Minister will accept that the Government must publish details of evaluated sites and must make open to scrutiny the basis for any conclusion that a given site is the most suitable according to the defined criteria. Will the Minister assure us that she will publish the data that underpin her decision?

49WH
The Minister told me on 12 October that a review process would be conducted, followed by consultation of local people in the preferred location. That is her position, but since that statement, Ministers have been at pains to avoid the use of the word consultation. The Home Secretary wrote:
"It was always intended that there would be a process of dialogue."
The Minister herself referred to engagement with community concerns, which is not the same as consultation. That shyness over the word consultation may relate to the fact that courts have established that a proper consultation must occur when the decision maker's mind is still open and the decision may still be influenced.
It is not clear how the views currently gathered from local people and representative groups will influence the decision-making process. None of the 15 criteria relates to impact on the local community. Via her mechanical scoring process, will the Minister explain how the views of the local community will be scored and plugged into the evaluation system, along with more mechanical issues such as the quality of the property and its appropriateness? If the process is to be credible, it must be seen to be even handed. There is a perception of bias in favour of Silverlands, partly because of the time scale. It appears that a new criterion has been added that biases the playing field against us.
Despite the announcement of a review of the original decision, a £2 million contract for work on the Silverlands mansion has been let. That work continues unabated. There is deep suspicion locally, which I hope is misplaced, that the decision has already been made and the review is really an exercise in propping up a faulty and vulnerable process. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that, in the Home Secretary's words, this will be a "genuine" and "wide ranging" review and that
"all possible alternatives will be properly investigated".
I would be grateful if the Minister would put a time limit on my constituents' agony by making it clear when she expects to reach a decision. The clock is ticking and there is a tension between the need for a full and thorough review procedure, which we understand, and the fixed deadline for the clinic's removal from its present site in Epsom. We believe that the dice are becoming increasingly loaded against Silverlands. I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) indicated, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and to put on public record some of the important issues concerning Wolvercote and the decision-making process, as well as the wider context of how we better protect children from sex offenders.
I shall deal with four areas. The first area is the reason why Wolvercote has had to move and the initial decision on the Silverlands site. Secondly, I shall deal with how that initial decision is being reviewed—I shall answer some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. Thirdly, I shall touch on the work of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Finally, I shall consider some of the broader questions—
50WH
how we better protect children and the difficulties we all face as policy makers and in local communities in trying to implement measures to protect children effectively.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Wolvercote Clinic had to move because its site at Horton hospital was only temporary. It was always known that it was unsuitable. It was in poor physical condition—now, it is in extremely poor physical condition. In any event, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the site is being sold and the clinic has to be relocated.
Prior to my coming to this post, an extensive nationwide search was conducted through the national health service and Prison Service estates for possible alternatives, in which the Silverlands site was identified. Although many would argue that there is no ideal site for such a facility, those making the decision thought that Silverlands had several advantages. It was of the right size, it could be refurbished to meet security and health and safety standards, experienced staff could transfer there easily, which was highly important, and it was already in Government ownership as part of the NHS estate. Ministers agreed that Silverlands was a suitable site for the clinic.
However, substantial issues of finance, security and listed building status had to be resolved before my former colleagues could be sure of the viability of Silverlands. It was clear that they always intended that there should be dialogue. Arrangements were set in train to organise that process, starting with an information day for everyone concerned, including the public. Officials were in contact with the chief executive of the local authority about that proposal.
Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister clarify whether this was dialogue post the fact, or consultation which could have some bearing on the decision?
Beverley Hughes: I am speaking with hindsight, because I was not party to the information, but I think that it is fair to say that Silverlands was certainly the preferred site at that stage. My colleagues clearly recognised the need for, and desired, a process that involved the local community. I had concerns about the proposals. After I had discussed them with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I decided that we should review all the alternatives and that community concerns should be heard and included in the decision-making process.
Andrew Mackinlay: The head teachers in the surrounding area, which I think is peppered with a large number of schools, did not know about the matter until October. That is a matter of fact, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind. If consultation was embarked on before, some people with primary interests were not consulted until October.
Beverley Hughes: I am aware of that, which is partly why I decided to review the decision so that community concerns across the board could be heard and, more specifically, included in the decision-making process. At that stage, I briefed the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on the situation. Let me deal with some points that he raised about the review process.
On 20 October, I appointed Tony Raban from the National Probation Service to head a project team to review all possible alternatives for a new site. On

51WH
31 October, I met a group of local stakeholders and gave them those assurances. To be fair, I think that people accepted that what I said was genuinely and sincerely meant and that the process would be robust, fair and objective.
The project team's work continues. The search for alternative sites throughout England and Wales has included a comprehensive review of Government properties, which involved the Department of Health, the Prison Service and the Ministry of Defence. The review included what we learned about what might be available in the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the criteria and suggested that there might be conflicting statements. When we started the process, we had a broad remit, asking those agencies to tell us about any property or site that might be suitable as regards size and facilities. Once names of sites started to come in, the evaluation criteria were applied. The initial trawl was wide, with no criteria set down other than the broad parameters that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned in his letter. The criteria are necessary to evaluate those sites.
Chief officers in all 42 probation areas have been asked to assist. The search conducted by the Department of Health has been undertaken through not only the regions but 400 health trusts. We have employed an independent consultant to search for properties in the private sector and we have been following up a contact that the hon. Gentleman gave us about a company specialising in private residential care.
I emphasise that the process of searching for and evaluating alternative sites has been thorough, systematic, open, rigorous and objective. I wholly reject any suggestion that the process was tipped towards selecting Silverlands. I would not be party to that and I will not entertain the suggestion because it is not true.
Mr. Hammond: To ensure that people in the community accept that the process has been open and rigorous, will the Minister undertake to publish the resulting data, so that they can see which sites have been evaluated and how they scored against the defined criteria? People would then see that there was a clear and objective case for whichever site was ultimately selected, rather than being asked to rely on the Minister's judgment on a set of data that she had seen behind closed doors.
Beverley Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to continue to question my integrity and the way in which I am approaching the review. I have reassured local people about it, and with hindsight, local people will be able to examine our process and judge for themselves. I insist that the review is as open, transparent and comprehensive as possible. I shall take advice on what can be published and I have no difficulty in publishing the detail of the scheme, its criteria and the how they have been applied. I will not guarantee at this stage the publication of the details of all the other sites that we considered, because to do so could have implications for other places in England and Wales. I shall ask for advice on that, but I shall publish what detail I may.
52WH
Any property identified—the search found many—was first subjected to a desktop review against criteria, which I have made available. Sites that were assessed as having potential were visited and a full evaluation took place. The second task for the project team was to continue the dialogue with local people. I understand fully the concerns of parents and local people and it is for that reason that we have conducted the review and guaranteed that their views would be incorporated into the decision-making process. The meetings that have taken place between Tony Raban, the project team and local people have enabled us to hear directly their concerns and clarify some issues of misunderstanding.
Mr. Hammond: I in no way questioned the Minister's integrity. You would have ruled me out of order had I done so, Mr. Winterton. However, does the Minister accept that it will be difficult for local people to accept a decision if they do not know the other sites against which Silverlands has been compared? They will always stand accused of nimbyism. They do not want to be accused of that; they want to conduct a fair and objective assessment of the alternative sites on offer.
Beverley Hughes: I will be able to put into the public domain the evaluation process, our criteria and the weightings that consultants advised us to apply. The criteria try to create a balance between the two issues that the hon. Gentleman identified—the needs of the clinic and the impact on the local community. We have used weightings to ensure that both factors are given importance. As I said, I will take advice about publishing the names of individual sites and identifying them by location, but I am happy to publish the scheme's details because I am confident about our process.
The work of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation is important to the debate. The hon. Gentleman said that the debate was about Silverlands, Chertsey and the decision-making process, but it is not. The issues that he raised would be important in decisions to locate such a clinic anywhere in the country. They are the natural concerns of people, but we must examine them in the context of trying to protect children. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation and clinic are undertaking pioneering work in the field of child protection. It is critical that the clinic continues its work somewhere in the country and child protection would be much worse if it could not do so. I am determined that we will find a suitable location.
The protection of the public, and of children in particular, is clearly a high priority of the Government and one at the forefront of our minds after the recent conviction of Roy Whiting for the murder of Sarah Payne. There has been much debate about how we can better protect children and whether public access to the sex offenders register, for example, would help. We have concluded that it would not. Child protection is best served by the police and others knowing where sex offenders are, keeping them under supervision and providing treatment to reduce the risk of further offending. Clinics such as Wolvercote make a significant contribution to that. If we are to keep known sex offenders in our sights and enable the police to know where they are, clinics such as Wolvercote are essential. There is not an abundance of possible locations that are removed from housing and proximity to schools, so

53WH
wherever there are clinics and hospitals, these issues will be raised and politicians and members of the community who, understandably, want to protect their children must face up to that.

Melbeck Park, Manchester
1 pm
Paul Goggins: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue that has annoyed and upset some of my constituents for more than two years. For reasons that will become clear during my speech, it has also caused considerable irritation to their Member of Parliament.
The constituents live on a new, private development known as Melbeck Park. They came to see me following a series of burglaries on their estate where there are 170 houses, all built by the developer Redrow Homes. I warmly welcome the significant growth of private development in my constituency in recent years; Wythenshawe was traditionally known as the largest council housing estate in Europe, and the fact that there is now a greater diversity of housing tenure is helping to give the community a broader, more sustainable social base. None the less, in this case, the conduct of Redrow Homes falls well short of the manner in which a responsible company should behave.
On its website, Redrow describes itself as
"widely acknowledged to be one of the UK's leading residential and commercial property developers, with an excellent reputation for quality."
Redrow won the Daily Express best national house builder award for three years running. In the company's latest annual report, chairman Robert Jones reported that the group's pre-tax profits had risen to more than £72 million pounds. He commented:
"We have had an outstanding year in terms of public recognition of our achievements".
In the same annual report, Redrow's chief executive, Mr. Paul Pedley, said that the awards recognised his company's
"focus on quality, design, customer care and environmental awareness."
He said:
"Redrow fully recognises its responsibilities to the wider community. In tandem with creating an excellent living and working environment is the need to add significantly to the daily life of the communities in and around our developments."
One might expect such remarks from an organisation that recently sponsored the annual lunch of the City of Westminster home safety committee under the theme "Safer Homes in the new Millennium", but they are not reflected in the experience of my constituents.
I was first approached by some Melbeck Park residents in 1999. Their homes had been burgled and they took the view that the poor quality window units installed by Redrow Homes were largely responsible for making their homes vulnerable to crime. During the whole of 1999, 2.5 per cent. of UK households were victims of burglary with entry. On the small Melbeck estate, in the six months between April and November 1999, there were 14 burglaries, which is equivalent to an annual rate seven times the national average. In 12 cases, the burglars got into the property by removing the kitchen window. The residents told me of their fear and insecurity. One had reluctantly decided to put her home on the market. One does not have to be an expert on double glazing to understand why it was so easy to break into the houses: the double-glazed kitchen windows

55WH
were made of uPVC and externally beaded. All that was required to break in was a knife to cut the beading before lifting the window out.
In May 1999, I wrote to Redrow Homes asking the company to replace all the kitchen windows on the estate; it refused to do so. In addition to my representations, a few months later Greater Manchester police also brought the windows' security defects to Redrow's attention. In a letter to Redrow's customer services manager, GMP's architectural liaison officer stated:
"Most of the burglaries have been carried out through the same location to each property. The rear ground floor kitchen window is concealed from natural surveillance, offering the opportunity for the criminals to peel off the external pvc glazing bead to the windows. The ease with which this is carried out is normally without damage to the components. The glass panel is removed and entry is made to the property. This action would create no noise and the burglar would be confident in the knowledge that articles could be removed without risk of being seen particularly if an intruder alarm is not fitted."
He went on:
"The police are aware of the problems that external beading to windows causes to occupants and we always encourage, particularly with the installation of uPVC windows that all ground and first-floor windows, including french windows and patio doors, are beaded internally and then with secure clips. We would further suggest, in certain circumstances, that windows are glazed with laminated glass. The problems current indicate the wisdom of this course of action."
The letter continued:
"You will appreciate we are always concerned that the components specified in buildings meet minimum secure standards. For windows, apart from other design, manufacturing and mechanical specifications, BS 7950 is the accepted minimum security standard for window sets. We would encourage you to consider this specification in the near future."
Given that clear and unambiguous advice from the Greater Manchester police, I wrote again to Redrow in December 1999. The following month, I received a reply from Redrow Homes northern managing director at that time, a Mr. Andrew Swindell, who told me,
"I am aware of the problems which have been experienced by a number of residents on the Melbeck Park development with burglaries. We are concerned that the police appear to be unable to prevent these burglaries, and rather than addressing the issue by more patrolling of the development, they suggest that the developer, in this case Redrow, have not provided suitable windows. The windows fitted on this development are the same as those fitted throughout the Redrow Group, they need to be relevant to building regulations and NHBC standards.
Whilst I do sympathise with the residents of the Melbeck Park development, I feel they should be pursuing the Greater Manchester police to try and provide a better service to the residents of the development".
It is thus perfectly clear: the fact that windows can simply be lifted out of their frame to facilitate a burglary is not a matter for the developer but for the police. That is not my view or that of the Melbeck Park residents, who have a positive relationship with the local police. The residents believe that the police have done everything possible to make their estate safe.
It is a Member of Parliament's responsibility to look for answers to constituency problems. Therefore, given the difference of opinion expressed by Mr. Swindell, I resolved to try to bring Greater Manchester police and
56WH
Redrow Homes together to discuss the difficulties that the Melbeck Park residents were experiencing. The police said that they were more than happy to meet Redrow, but Redrow were reluctant to meet us.
I wrote to Mr. Swindell in February 2000 to request a meeting; I received no reply. I wrote again in May and in June. Eventually, having telephoned his office on numerous occasions, we fixed a meeting for August 24. On the morning of the meeting, Mr. Swindell's office telephoned to say that he was unable to attend. I was appalled at such a lack of concern for my constituents. I wrote to the chief executive of Redrow Homes, Mr. Paul Pedley, to complain. I subsequently received a reply from Mr. Barry Harvey, regional chairman of Redrow Homes (Northern). He informed me that Mr. Swindell had left the company and that he, Mr. Harvey, would investigate my complaint.
Any initial hope of a breakthrough was dashed when 10 days later he replied with the standard retort that it was unfair for me to take Redrow to task. I wrote again to Mr. Harvey asking him to meet me and representatives of Greater Manchester police. In January this year he wrote to say that he could
"not see any way forward as we have no intention of changing or replacing windows."
That strong denial of responsibility might have been more persuasive but for the fact that in August 1999 Redrow had commissioned Avonside Window Systems, the original supplier of the windows to offer all Melbeck residents, free of charge, the opportunity to have the beading removed from their kitchen windows and replaced with an additional silicone seal. Clearly, the company knew that something was wrong. Only 36 of the 170 households on the estate agreed to the offer—figures that Redrow confirmed in writing to me. The other residents were not persuaded that that would improve their security and, in any event, the majority of them continued to believe that Redrow Homes should replace the entire kitchen window unit. Yesterday evening, Redrow Homes issued a statement in anticipation of today's debate, claiming that 90 per cent. of the estate's 170 residents agreed to extra silicone treatment for their windows, yet it had already written to me confirming that only 36 residents had so agreed. Its claim is therefore so at variance with reality as barely to constitute credible evidence.
All hon. Members are regularly in touch with a wide range of commercial organisations. They might need to deal with a constituent's complaint, with plans for investment, or even with job losses. In my experience, although such organisations do not always share one's views, they invariably show courtesy and respect. I asked to meet the American owners of an engineering company in my constituency that had just announced several hundred redundancies and they readily agreed. As you know, Mr. Winterton, I am trying to help the managers and work force at the Manchester airport division of FLS Aerospace to retain several hundred jobs that are under threat as a result of the recent downturn in the aviation industry. Such organisations are always happy to meet and to respond to my requests. In fact, Redrow Homes is the only company to refuse to have a meeting with me in my almost five years as the Member of Parliament for Wythenshawe and Sale, East.
This sorry saga not only displays a wilful disregard for the residents of Melbeck Park, it also has serious implications for public policy and resources. In a letter

57WH
to one of my constituents, Barry Harvey, chairman of Redrow Homes' northern region, remarked that the windows in the properties sold on the estate reflected exactly those on display in the show homes. He said:
"You bought what we sold".
I do not accept that a developer should be allowed to get away with such an irresponsible attitude. A wide range of legislation and regulations deals with customers' rights in respect of the purchase of goods and services. The time spent by police following up the disproportionate number of burglaries on the estate gives rise to considerable public expenditure implications. There is also the question of the distress caused to the families and individuals involved, but all Redrow Homes seems interested in is the house as sold.
My principal purpose in raising this issue is to ask the Minister what action the Government are taking to ensure that developers are not able to wriggle out of their wider responsibilities in the manner of Redrow Homes. In particular, the residents of Melbeck Park would like to know what Ministers are doing to ensure that local authorities are able to enforce effective security standards on new housing estates as part of the planning process.
In recent years, as a result of this Government's actions local partnerships have been established in every area to spearhead the fight against crime. In that regard, I pay tribute to the efforts of Greater Manchester police, Manchester and Trafford councils and other local partners in working together in my own constituency. That work is made all the more difficult, however, when houses are built to a defective design.
An annexe on design attached to Government planning guidance contains a paragraph on security that includes the following advice:
"In considering the design of proposed new developments, local planning authorities, developers and designers should take into account the advice contained in DOE circular 5/94, "Planning Out Crime". In doing so, the approach should be sufficiently flexible to allow solutions to remain sensitive to local circumstances."
Advice and good intentions are not enough, however. When a developer seeks planning permission for a new estate, the council can recommend that the developer consult the police about the estate's layout, but it is powerless to insist that the developer follow police advice. It is also powerless to insist on minimum security specifications for windows or doors. Local authorities need more effective powers to monitor the implementation of approved plans, particularly in respect of crime and security issues.
My constituents bought their homes from a developer with a good reputation, on an estate for which the local authority had given planning permission, yet they were badly let down. I strongly support the "Secured By Design" initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is standard in all housing corporation-funded schemes and which local authorities increasingly view as a reasonable minimum for new developments. That view is, however, resisted by developers such as Redrow, and the windows that it installed in Melbeck Park would not meet the "Secured by Design" standard.
Recently, burglaries on the estate have decreased significantly, which is largely due to Melbeck Park's residents, who have displayed an impressive sense of community spirit. They have established a residents'
58WH
association and a neighbourhood watch and they look out for each other, as all good citizens should. However, they deserved a more positive and responsible attitude from the organisation that designed and built their estate—Redrow Homes. Some residents have replaced their kitchen windows at their own expense, but even at this late stage, two and a half years after the issue was first raised, I call on Redrow Homes to reconsider its position and to offer every Melbeck Park resident a new kitchen window of the standard suggested by Greater Manchester police.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will endorse my request and I look forward to hearing more from her about the action that the Government are taking to make developers more accountable for the delivery of public safety, more responsive to public authorities and more responsible to those who purchase properties from them.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) on securing this debate and raising this important issue. He has conveyed the serious concerns that have been raised by his constituents about public safety on the Melbeck Park estate and I was sorry to hear about his constituents' difficulties.
I shall deal with planning issues and briefly touch on building regulations, but first I must state that there should be no doubt about the Government's willingness to tackle crime and the fear of crime wherever they exist. We have determined a course, of which planning, house building and neighbourhood management are important parts, to help communities to fight back against crime.
Many of my hon. Friend's comments relate to the quality of detailing on new private housing schemes. Although planning regulations can stress good standards in design, unfortunately they cannot solve the problem of crime. However, when they are co-ordinated with other measures, including sensitivity to designing-out crime by developers, their contribution can be significant. Well-designed developments can reduce the fear of crime, make crime harder to commit and increase detection rates. There have been too many cases in which criminals' work has been made easy and people's lives have been blighted unnecessarily—the Melbeck Park estate seems to be a case a point.
As my hon. Friend said, the planning system must play its part in tackling crime, which is why the Government intend to review and update the existing circular advice on planning-out crime to which he referred. We want to drive home the fact that crime prevention is a key objective in planning. Local authorities already know that crime prevention is a possible material consideration when planning applications are determined because it is a social issue to which their development plans must pay attention. We shall remind local authorities that they can insist on appropriate crime prevention measures and refuse planning applications where they have concerns about community safety. Local authorities must not step beyond what they can legitimately pursue under

59WH
planning legislation, but there is no reason why community safety and crime prevention should not be central concerns for local authorities when they exercise their planning responsibilities.
In recent planning policy guidance, we have already underlined the importance of thinking about crime prevention when designing new developments. For example, our new approach to planning for housing, which we set out in PPG 3, requires local authorities to adopt policies that promote designs and layouts that are safe and take account of crime prevention and community safety. We are reinforcing that guidance with advice on sound practice: "Better Places to Live", which we published in September, provides sound practical guidance on how the planning system can help to achieve quality residential environments. It emphasises that good design is concerned not only with the appearance of a development but with matters such as community safety.
My hon. Friend rightly feels strongly about tackling crime on the Melbeck Park estate. Although by no means a whole solution, thoughtful planning and design can be effective in creating more secure environments. Most crime is opportunistic. Design principles based on common sense, such as encouraging natural surveillance and ensuring that such areas as kitchen windows can be overseen, can help to improve security for people and property. Through good design, we can secure safe neighbourhoods where people want to live and that are well connected to an inclusive city.
I am sorry to say that once a development has been completed, the main opportunity to incorporate crime prevention measures may have been lost. That is why we expect crime reduction to feature in the discussions that authorities have with developers and their designers right at the outset of the design process. Local authorities are advised to consult police architectural liaison officers on planning applications for developments where there is potential to eliminate or reduce crime through the adoption of suitable measures at the design stage. That is especially important for major developments such as new housing estates. We have stressed the importance of consulting the police architectural liaison officer at an early stage and my hon. Friend drew attention to the problems if the officer is consulted only after building has finished.
My hon. Friend touched on the "Secured by Design" scheme promoted by police forces throughout the country. Given that scheme's potential, I can appreciate why he wants to see the best use made of it. There should be no doubt that local authorities can insist on appropriate crime prevention measures and refuse planning applications where they have concerns about design safety. However, as he may know, "Secured by Design" covers a wide range of issues, some of them reaching beyond the boundaries of planning control.
In reviewing our planning guidance, we will examine how the principles in "Secured by Design" can best be employed. As part of the review, we propose to build up collective knowledge of what works in designing out
60WH
crime. Our aim is a pool of good practice guidance relevant to local planning authorities and police that is practicable and robust in a wide range of circumstances.
Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend the Minister rightly lays great emphasis on the need to follow and share good practice. She has also emphasised the need for developers to consult the local police architectural liaison officer and has spoken in support of the "Secured by Design" initiative. However, is not the problem that although those are noble aspirations, when a developer such as Redrow takes no notice of that good practice, or, as in the case that I have quoted, of the advice of the architectural liaison officer, the residents are very badly let down?
Ms Keeble: I take my hon. Friend's point and have some points to make in reply. There is clearly wide discretion for local planning authorities when considering and approving plans. We provide them with the tools to make the best possible decisions, in the interests of all parties involved. The final decisions are down to them, but we give them strong guidance on how to consider such matters. I have clearly set out that community safety is a material consideration that they can properly take into account.
In examining how we can best use the "Secured by Design" principles, we will take account of considerations such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned in relation to the residents of the estate that he highlighted. The aim is to prevent just such problems arising. On his point about the architectural liaison officer, it may well be that had his advice been given earlier, the circumstances for my hon. Friend's constituents might not have turned out as they did.
I want to deal with other issues relating to building regulations, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend about the seriousness with which we view community safety, building design and building standards. In addition to the planning system, building regulations cover health and safety, welfare and convenience, but not the protection of property, which would require an amendment to the Building Act 1984. We are looking into that and I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views are passed on.
Every house buyer in a private housing development will have a contract with the house builder. They will have seen the property, had it described, and probably had a survey. If there is any suggestion that purchasers were misled when they bought, there may be an opportunity for them to take legal action for breach of contract. I appreciate that that is difficult for an individual, but my hon. Friend is referring to an estate. If residents have specific worries about the way in which the developer has behaved, they may wish to bring the matter to the attention of the local trading standards office. However, I cannot comment on that, because such cases require careful consideration.
On the standard of new housing in general, the non-statutory Buildmark new home warranty scheme run by the National House Building Council covers a large proportion of new homes built for sale. The scheme standards specify that doors and windows must be designed to resist unauthorised entry. That reflects the point that my hon. Friend made about the windows on

61WH
the Melbeck Park estate. The NHBC's guidance manual states that ground floor windows should have key-operated locks and that windows in general should be designed to prevent opening from the outside. However, that design must reflect the fact that windows, especially above ground floor level, may provide an escape route in the event of fire.
Under the NHBC's Buildmark scheme, any noncompliance with scheme standards that comes to light in the first two years of the 10-year cover must be put right by the builder. In this case, the problem started almost exactly two years ago. In years three to 10, cover is mainly confined to repairing structural damage. Any home owner whose home is registered with the Buildmark scheme can contact the NHBC to check whether a problem with their home is covered. If my hon. Friend is unaware of the NHBC, I shall be happy to give him its contact details after the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to our attention. I extend my sincere sympathies to his constituents and congratulate them on the way in which they have tackled their problems by establishing a residents' association and taking local action to help to reduce the crime rate. I assure him that I have taken note of the serious issues that he raised. I have already mentioned our intention to review and update the existing circular advice on planning out crime, and I will ensure that his views are passed on. I will also ensure that attention is paid to the details of house design that he mentioned and pass on his concerns about building regulations and any efforts to update them. When I meet house builders, I always underline the importance of good design, especially designing for safer communities, because I understand its importance to the well-being of people in their homes. I shall continue to do that strenuously.
I hope that I have helped my hon. Friend's constituents to find some immediate solutions to their problems by suggesting several avenues through which they can seek assistance. I hope that I have also reassured him as to the seriousness with which the Government regard planning, home design, building standards and community safety. It is our intention to continue to work to ensure that people are safe in their own homes.

Foot and Mouth (Devon)
1.30pm
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise the impact of foot and mouth in Devon. I am grateful to Devon county council, Torridge district council, West Devon borough council, Dartmoor national park, South West Tourism, the National Farmers' Union, and numerous other farmers and business men in my constituency for the help that they have given me in preparing for today's debate. I should also put on record that I farmed for more than 20 years in my constituency and I still own farmland there, which is rented out.
I believe that it would help the Chamber if I gave some stark statistics about this years' outbreak of foot and mouth in so far as it has impacted on Devon, and particularly on my constituency, which was the most severely hit of all the Devon constituencies that suffered foot and mouth. We had by far the largest incidence of the disease. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), had the second largest incidence of the disease in the county.
In Devon, we had 173 confirmed cases of foot and mouth and 4,500 farms were placed under D form notices and movement restrictions. Taken together, nearly half the farms in Devon were directly affected. A total of 386,203 animals were slaughtered in the county and 3,000 miles of footpaths were closed when the disease was at its height. I hasten to add that they are virtually all now open. We lost 2.6 per cent. of the county's gross domestic product, which meant that about £316 million went out of Devon's economy as a result of foot and mouth. In West Devon borough, of which my constituency envelopes the bulk, 89 per cent. of firms reported a downturn in business as a result of foot and mouth.
It should be borne in mind that in Devon, 32 per cent. of our population earn less than the EU average. Devon county council has estimated that over a 12-month period, job losses have reached nearly 8,000, of which slightly more than 1,500 are in agriculture. Nearly 3,000 are in ancillary industries, and some 3,332 jobs were lost in tourism.
I am anxious to highlight some real problems in Devon and in my constituency, but nevertheless, I shall point to some positive signs. The people of Devon will never lie supine in despair in the face of any catastrophe. They have the courage, foresight, imagination and energy to recover. I intend to stress the steps that we are taking to recover towards the end of my speech.
The Minister will know that on a number of occasions I have raised the problems of Ash moor, which is in my constituency. It is in the parish of Petrockstowe. At the height of the foot and mouth crisis, there was real confusion in Devon. We kept being told that some half a million carcases had not been disposed of, and that was the justification for constructing and purchasing Ash moor. As it happens, that was a gross overestimate of the number of carcases that had not been disposed of. In any event, Ash moor was just about the most unsuitable site for a carcase burial site that one could find. Carcase burial is about the worst method of disposing of animal carcases. Far from being impervious, the land below the site at Ash moor is

63WH
extremely porous. There was no environmental assessment and no microbiological study. Worst of all, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), told me in reply to a parliamentary question that the water table is between 1.3 m and 3.5 m below ground level. The burrows are more than 20 m deep, so if the site were ever brought into use and however many pumps were available, one flash flood would cause thousands of gallons of pernicious effluent to flood the valley and poison the water supplies of many thousands of people.
In response to the same series of questions, the Under-Secretary told me that the cost of the work at Ash moor at the beginning of November this year was around £5.6 million. However, he qualified that figure because it is subject to confirmation following negotiations that are taking place with, I believe, the main contractor. That figure also excludes the cost of purchase of the site. I estimate that the cost of the site—a white elephant—is currently in the region of £10 million. In addition, the weekly cost of monitoring and keeping the site is £20,000 a week, or more than £1 million a year just for upkeep. The Minister informed me that if Ash moor were ever brought into use further costs would be more than £1.5 million and that odour control, long-term maintenance, monitoring and testing would cost, in addition, approximately £400,000. Ash moor has been and continues to be a vast waste of public money. I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs will confirm today that the site will be dismantled and restored to its former use as a peaceful wildlife habitat.
I have never understood why during the foot and mouth crisis the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not liaise with local authorities and other local bodies. If it had done so, it would never have made plans for four or five huge pyres within half a mile of Holsworthy hospital. The weather in Devon is far from predictable. Fortunately, after a series of negotiations and demonstrations, we had to suffer only one smaller pyre at Holsworthy, but it is time for Arscott farm to be restored to its former use as a farm.
The events at Ash moor and Holsworthy demonstrate two reasons why we need a public inquiry into what happened during the foot and mouth crisis. West Devon borough council, with the full support of the three political groups represented on the council, wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs requesting a full statutory inquiry into the causes, course and handling of the outbreak with the purpose of promoting understanding and an improved response to any further recurrence.
I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to address some additional points. First, as he knows, due to movement restrictions during foot and mouth, many cattle went over the 30-month limit. I know that he has been tackled about that before. Farmers whose cattle went over the limit suffered a direct economic loss as a result of foot and mouth. Will the Minister reconsider his Department's decision not to pay compensation in those circumstances?
Secondly, there is currently a 20-day cooling-off period for stock movements. We all appreciate that this is important to the prevention of disease, but can the
64WH
Minister tell us what is proposed for the future? If, following a significant movement, other animals from the same farm cannot be moved for 20 days, that will cause real problems in the agricultural industry. For example, I have bred suckler cattle and if a calf dies, it is imperative to get another one to replace it right away. I hope that the Minister will consider a 20-day cooling-off period only so far as the moved animals are concerned, provided that they are isolated and that proper biosecurity rules are adhered to. It should not be necessary to prevent movements of other animals on the farm for that period.
Thirdly, the European Court of Justice has recently ruled that the French ban on British beef is unlawful. The French have unilaterally decided to disregard that ruling. Will the Minister please tell the House what action the Government propose to ensure that the French abide by the rule of law and do not flagrantly flout it? As the Minister knows, exports add a vital base to prices. Are the Government satisfied with the adequacy of our import controls? We still receive numerous consignments of beef with spinal cord.
Fourthly, speculation in the press has been that the Government are proposing that every British farm should be linked to the Minister's Department by computer and that farmers will have to report regularly to Whitehall on what is happening where on their farms. We do not want the state to run the agricultural sector; we want the industry to be freed up as much as possible. I hope that the Minister will concede that it would be unfair to penalise farmers who cannot, or cannot afford, to go online.
Fifthly, during a debate in the Chamber on 4 December the Minister stated that the Inland Revenue and Customs had given an undertaking to continue to be sympathetic about the repayment of deferred tax and value added tax. I hope that the Government are speaking to the clearing banks on the matter and that they are providing similar forbearance.
Sixthly, the south-west regional development agency worked well during the crisis. As the Minister knows, Lord Haskins recommended an immediate increase in the business recovery fund by some £40 million. The Government's response has been £24 million but I hope that that will be reconsidered and increased. Both West Devon borough council and Torridge district council have made applications under the Bellwin rules. They have incurred substantial extra cost for giving rate relief, so I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to their requests.
If there is one thing that the Devon tourist industry requires, it is further worthwhile marketing campaigns. I highlight the fact that per capita spend on tourism is £4.03 in Wales, £3.77 in Scotland and only 26p in England. That puts the south-west at a severe disadvantage. The regions of Britain should be treated the same and although I appreciate that tourism is not the Minister's responsibility, I hope that he will make my point to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
At various taskforce meetings during the crisis, I raised the inadequacy of the loan guarantee scheme, which is extremely expensive. The cost of funds is about 4 or 5 per cent. above base rate and the scheme is

65WH
cumbersome and bureaucratic. I wonder whether there was there any take-up of the loan guarantee scheme during the foot and mouth crisis?
I am endeavouring to get financial support for the Council for Voluntary Services in Okehampton and Tavistock. The voluntary sector is vital in the west country and a mainstay of our rural communities, providing, among other things, child care and some social services. Mrs. Carmel Fanconi and Okehampton's CVS initiated, organised and ran the advice and assistance centre at Hatherleigh during the foot and mouth crisis. Lack of assistance for those services is just one area of concern highlighted by Devon county council in its admirable recovery plan. The council has welcomed the Minister's interest in the initiatives proposed in that plan. Innovative and positive actions have been suggested, and we look forward to seeing him in the west country in January because we know of his commitment to "Taste of the West" and other west country initiatives. The headline in The Western Morning News on 29 November 2001 stated: "Be wise, eat well and we'll prosper". Our regional newspaper launched this campaign and it is designed to achieve a huge increase in the purchase and consumption of local food and produce.
On the positive side, as I said to the Minister earlier in the debate, the people of Devon will overcome this crisis and we are working hard to do so. We do not ask for special favours; all we ask is to be treated like any other region of the United Kingdom.
1.45 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) on securing the debate, on the content of his contribution and on the manner in which it was delivered. It will be challenging to cover all the points, but if I fail to address them all I undertake to write to him. May I also say how pleased I am to see you here, Mr. Winterton? I am sure that the behaviour of both Government and Opposition Members will be impeccable.
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted the problems and opportunities, and the determination of people in Devon that should recover their economy and their communities. That reflects my experience of meeting people in Devon and I join him in thanking the groups to which he referred. Those groups have helped and assisted me by putting forward points in both correspondence and meetings that I have held in Devon.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's reference to "Taste of the West". It provides a model for other regions of how to achieve a clear regional identity and branding while encompassing within that branding local identity and information about quality. I join him in congratulating the newspaper on highlighting the need for people to pay attention to the impact of their purchasing decisions on the local economy.
I met all the party leaders when I was in Devon in the summer and also received representations from the Devon taskforce when it made its presentation, which was excellent, to the rural taskforce. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, I shall be meeting its representatives in the new year.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that Departments have given an undertaking to extend the sympathy with which they are dealing with the
66WH
deferment of tax and other payments. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I met the clearing banks through their association, and I have met one or two separately as well. We have discussed the problems in rural areas with them and they gave an undertaking to do all that they can to deal sympathetically with customers and to acknowledge the difficulties that many farmers, particularly those who were not directly affected by foot and mouth but who nevertheless lost income, and people in the tourist industry face. In short, we raised with the banks the impact of foot and mouth on both farming and non-farming industries.
Rate relief has been raised by several hon. Members. The definition of those local authorities that can receive help is clear, but my colleagues at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have indicated that if other local authorities produce evidence, it will be considered. Relief is available to individuals and compensation is available to local authorities and we have sought to target the measures on those areas that were most directly affected.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no plans to use the Ash moor site for the disposal of animal carcases. At the height of the foot and mouth outbreak, the preferred methods of disposal—rendering and incineration—could not keep pace with demand. That was also true in Devon. Before June, when I was a Back Bencher, the question of carcase disposal on a site in my constituency arose, so I am familiar with such problems and I understand local concerns. However, our judgment must be based on the progress of the disease and it is now—thank goodness—well over 60 days since a new case has arisen. We must stand prepared for the possibility of a further outbreak, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials plan to meet Devon council officials shortly to discuss possible future uses of the Ash moor site in the light of the cost and benefit to the environment and the community. I am happy to expand on this issue, but I recognise that time is short and I am willing to give way if necessary. Work ceased on the site in May in response to the local state of the disease and the need for disposal. In effect, the site has been mothballed.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about 30-month limit and 20-day movement issues. One understands the wish of farmers and all those involved in the rural economy to return to normal as quickly as possible, but Ministers must strike a difficult balance between doing so and ensuring that we act only in accordance with the veterinary risk assessment. We must do nothing that might exacerbate the problems, should there be a further outbreak. None the less, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my colleagues who are dealing directly with those issues are mindful of the wish of everyone to loosen requirements as soon as it is safe to do so.
On the French ban on importing British beef, we welcome the recent judgment and hope that France will comply with it by lifting the ban as soon as possible. It is probably unwise to say more than that at present, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are as keen as he is to see matters progress. It was interesting to hear restaurateurs and others in Paris who were interviewed on the day of the judgment say that they are looking forward to consuming British beef.

67WH
On the adequacy of our import controls, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking afresh at the way in which they are implemented. Commercial imports and imports for personal use are both important issues and we are keeping them under review, although I should point out that some of the scare stories are not justified by the evidence.
On computer links, the Department certainly wishes to deal with more business electronically and to make it easier for farmers to do likewise. Using modern methods to avoid paperwork could make a significant difference, and would be very much in the interests of farmers. Many farmers are computer users, so they would not find it at all strange to use such methods. We want to develop that opportunity, but there is no question of each farmer being filmed by a camera as they do their daily work, in the fashion of "Big Brother". In that regard this issue has been reported with a certain amount of journalistic licence.
I certainly endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of encouraging farmers to act entrepreneurially and to develop a business without being unnecessarily constrained. Of course, some constraints and regulations are necessary in respect of public protection, food quality, traceability and so forth. However, we certainly do not seek the kind of "Big Brother" controls that have been mentioned.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the importance of the voluntary sector. That is partly why we put a lot of money into match funding for voluntary organisations such as the rural stress action group, which deal with strain and pressure. Those organisations play an important role. The support that they receive, which was increased during the foot and mouth outbreak, comes jointly from my Department and from the Department of Health. Of course, supporting the voluntary sector locally is primarily a matter for local authorities, but I share the hon. Gentleman's view about its importance in reconstructing local communities. In the new Department, we are considering how to increase the ways in which we work with the voluntary sector in rural areas towards that end.
The most important objective for the rural economy is to return it to normal. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the need for further efforts to promote tourism, which was one of the prime recommendations of the rural taskforce. I hope that he has seen the document that was published last week, "England's rural future", which responds to the taskforce report and to the report by Lord Haskins and sets out the progress that has been made in the past year on the implementation of the rural White Paper.
68WH
One of the document's most important recommendations concerned the business of encouraging people to return as visitors to the countryside. The taskforce is meeting again tomorrow to discuss that issue with several additional representatives, whose presence will ensure that we widen the discussion about how to promote tourism and visits to rural areas in the coming year. We want to talk to the right people to build up an inclusive campaign in the new year, or as soon as we can be confident that the countryside is open—a situation that we want to accelerate towards as quickly as it is safe to do so. Tomorrow's meeting will include representatives from Devon, and the discussion will form part of the debate in the forthcoming meeting with Devon representatives in the new year.
Tourism is the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I have been working closely with him and with several other Ministers to pave the way towards helping the recovery of the tourism industry. The grant in aid was the equivalent of £3.77 per head of population for Scottish tourism, £4.03 per head for Welsh tourism and 20p per head for English tourism. There are many more heads of population in England than in Scotland or Wales.
In the past 30 years, trying to promote tourism in Wales, especially in my own attractive constituency, the capital city of Cardiff, has been an uphill job. That is reflected by the fourth report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which was published in October. The hon. Gentleman would find that interesting reading. In their response, the Government say
"the record of success of tourism in England stands up to any comparison with that of Scotland or Wales".
They say that
"comparisons of grant-per-head of population may be misleading. They say nothing about the extent to which financial support is needed to address market failure in different parts of the UK or about comparative success in attracting tourism earnings."
That is what we should measure. Incoming visitor expectations per head of population in England are higher, at £227 per head, than in Scotland, where the figure is £154, or in Wales, where it is £91.
We need to help tourism to rural areas of England to recover and to grow and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is at the forefront of my mind. We have introduced a package of measures to help business. The loan guarantee scheme to which he referred is only one of several such schemes. In recognition of the wider impact of foot and mouth disease, we made £74 million available for the business recovery fund—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has concerning the deployment of British troops in Sierra Leone. [24369]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our military training and assistance programme continues to make good progress towards its goal of developing a professional, accountable and effective Sierra Leone army, able to protect the security and integrity of Sierra Leone on its own. I announced in September that, following the completion of the work of British short-term training teams, our military presence would reduce to 360 shore-based personnel by January 2002, remaining at that level until April. Since then, it has been announced that presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone are to be held on 14 May 2002. I have therefore decided to maintain our presence at the force levels announced in September over the period of the elections. The International Military Advisory and Training Team will continue the military training and assistance task with the Sierra Leone army.

  Tankers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision his Department has reached with regard to a replacement for the(a) Rover and (b) Leaf class tankers; when these replacements will be ordered; and how many are planned to be ordered. [23623]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 77W, to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) and on 3 May 2001, Official Report, column 717W, to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies).

  Harrier
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is planned that the(a) Sea Harrier FA2 and (b) Harrier GR7 will be able to operate from the CVFs; and if he will make a statement. [23619]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 November 2001,Official Report, columns 380–81W to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Cruise Missiles
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many cruise missiles have been fired by Britain since 1983(a) in conflicts and (b) for testing purposes; [21552]
  172W
  (2) if he will list the conflicts in which the UK has used cruise missiles since 1983. [21553]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]: UK submarines launched a number of Tomahawk land attack missiles during the Kosovo campaign and also during current operations in Afghanistan.

  I am withholding the precise number of cruise missiles fired in conflicts and for testing purposes in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Trident
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the annual running costs of the Trident submarines; and if he will make a statement. [18810]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the Strategic Defence Review Supporting Essay 5 dated July 1998, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Joint Strike Fighters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Joint Strike Fighters the United Kingdom is planning to buy; what the projected cost and final delivery date is; and if he will make a statement. [23226]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our current planning assumption is that 150 Joint Strike Fighters will be purchased to meet our requirement for a Future Joint Combat Aircraft. Final numbers will depend on the choice of variant and on the outcome of work to confirm future UK fast jet requirements. The estimated procurement cost would be up to £10 billion, dependent on numbers of aircraft required, variant selected and how it is to be supported through life. Under current planning assumptions, the last of the 150 aircraft would be delivered by the end of 2024.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much British involvement in the design, development and production of the Eurofighter has cost; what plans his Department has to purchase Eurofighters; and if he will make a statement. [23224]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence investment in the design, development and production of the Eurofighter programme, to 31 March 2001, totals £5,444 million. The order for the first tranche of aircraft, placed in 1998, includes 55 for the United Kingdom. Orders for the remaining aircraft are expected to be placed during 2003 and 2007. These orders will include 89 and 88 aircraft, respectively, for the United Kingdom, bringing our total purchase to 232 aircraft.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the chemical defence establishment,
  173W
  Porton Down in 1973, entitled "Wind Speed and Miosis from Nerve Agents"; [22930]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down, in 1971 entitled "Estimation of the concentrations of nerve agent vapour required to produce measured degrees of miosis in rabbit and human eyes". [22933]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. This document is classified Confidential. It contains an assessment of the effectiveness of nerve agent in field situations and the release of this report would assist potential proliferators. I am therefore

  Date

  Area visited

  Issues

  May 2000

  Explosives handling area

  Formal inspection of explosive handling activities

  August 2000

  Safety cell

  Introduce new HSE Inspector

  October 2000

  Biomedical sciences

  Routine preventative visit

  November 2000

  Biomedical sciences

  Routine preventative visit

  November 2001

  Biomedical sciences

  Routine visit to discuss high containment facilities

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer 9 April 2001,Official Report, column 364W, on Porton Down, if former service volunteers invited to visit Porton Down to view the original record books and discuss their experiences with current members of Porton Down staff are refunded for their travel expenses by his Department. [22875]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not Ministry of Defence policy to do so. However, some travel expenses were refunded when the Porton Down helpline was established in February 1998. Since November 2000, MOD policy has been to not refund volunteers' travel expenses on the ground that visiting Porton Down to view original records is a matter for the individual concerned and adds no further information to that previously communicated in writing.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 824W, on Porton Down, if he will place in the Library copies of the (a) minutes, (b) agendas and (c) papers of the meetings between his Department's staff and the Medical Research Council on 2 and 3 August to discuss the epidemiological study into volunteers who took part in experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. [22873]

  Dr. Moonie
  These meetings were not of a kind to require formal documentation of this type. The only formal document relating to either of these meetings is a note of the meeting of 3 August which was included in the pack of papers distributed in advance of the Medical Research council seminar on 9 October to those who had shown an interest in putting forward proposals for research into the health of Porton Down volunteers. I will place a copy of my note in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down have been given copies of technical reports relating to their own experiments since the establishment of the Porton Down helpline in February 1998. [22931]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no definitive list of the number of the volunteers who have received copies of technical reports. Volunteers who visit Porton Down are given 174W
  withholding this information in the interest of national security under category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Health and Safety Executive has conducted formal inspections of the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, since 31 May 2000. [22934]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since May 2000 there have been five occasions when representatives of the Health and Safety Executive have visited Dst1 (formerly DERA) Porton Down. These are as follows:

  copies of records that refer to them personally and copies of other documentation, including technical reports, where they add relevant information to that already located in the volunteer record books. This is decided on a case-by-case basis. In addition, copies of reports are included with the letter sent to the volunteer, detailing their attendance, where deemed appropriate.

  Third Airport (Paris)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the French authorities about the proposed building of a third airport for Paris on the Somme battlefields. [23598]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has made no representations to the French Government about any proposals for a third airport for Paris.

  Warships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the taxpayer in respect of the construction, including the amount paid to the shipyard and the cost of weapons and sensor systems, incurred by his Department of(a) HMS Argyle, (b) HMS Marlborough and (c) HMS Lancaster. [23621]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Airforce bases (i) whose closure has been announced since 1997 and (ii) where significant amounts of land or buildings have been sold since 1997. [24019]

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

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has with other Government Departments when considering the(a) closure, (b) partial sale and (c) move of a military base. [24018]
  175W
  Dr. Moonie
  While there are normally no formal discussions, as part of the decision making process for the closure, partial sale or move of a military base officials consider, where appropriate, the views of other Government Departments. However, as such decisions are primarily determined by operational requirements, the final decision rests with the Ministry of Defence.

  Officials are fully aware of the impact of such changes on local communities and it is the MOD's policy to initiate an early and close dialogue with the local authorities and the regional government offices concerned. While it is for local authorities to deal with local concerns, officials seek to take local aspirations into account as far as possible in identifying alternative uses.

  Sea Wolf
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Wolf systems are to be upgraded as part of the Sea Wolf MLU programme. [23617]

  Dr. Moonie
  We currently plan to upgrade up to 46 systems.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley will play in defence contracts; and if he will make a statement. [23552]

  Dr. Moonie
  Royal Ordnance Chorley passed from Government ownership in 1988 and now forms part of Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD), itself a division of BAE Systems. The Chorley site presently provides ROD with munitions sub-component manufacture, assembly and testing facilities. Although the future use and utilisation of any ROD site is a matter for the company, I can confirm that ROD is currently reviewing its overall manufacturing strategy and I understand that the company has recently made an announcement to this effect to its employees.

  Shegaird Radar Tests
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the Shegaird radar tests affected low flying in west Somerset; and how many low flying aircraft were caught. [23550]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF police use a Skyguard radar system to undertake covert monitoring of military low flying aircraft and to record their heights and speeds. The results of this monitoring show that military aircrew operate in a professional manner. Data from the Skyguard deployment to the Minehead area between 3–7 December are still being evaluated. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Somalia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deployment of British military personnel there is in Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [23640]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no British personnel deployed in Somalia.
  176W

  Exercise Saif Sareea II
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the operational welfare package for servicemen and women not based at camps South and Sha'ata during Exercise Saif Sareea II. [21743]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have completed a First Impressions Report into the conduct of Exercise Saif Sareea II, which noted that there were some difficulties in delivering the Operational Welfare Package (OWP) to isolated detachments and to some units during the manoeuvre phases of the exercise. The report concludes that we should examine the requirement for a more mobile operational welfare capability but that, because there will always be limitations imposed by the essential nature of operations and exercises we should aim to deliver an OWP that can be provided within these constraints.

  Work to address these issues is under way and the conclusions will be incorporated into an evaluation and review of the OWP, which starts in February 2002.

  MOD Police
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Quinquennial Review of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. [24370]

  Dr. Moonie
  I announced terms of reference for Stage 1 of this review on 26 April 2001,Official Report, columns 307–08W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington North (Ms Buck). The conduct and outcome of the review have not been connected with proposals relating to the MDP's jurisdiction in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

  In line with central guidance on Quinquennial Reviews (QQRs), the central question for the review to date has been how far the Ministry of Defence continues to require the services of an in-house civil police force. The clear conclusion from Stage 1 of the review is that the MOD has a strong need for the MDP's services. Following careful analysis of the spectrum of crime risks facing the MOD, it is clear that the MDP provides by far the most cost-effective means of dealing with the most serious threats, of armed attack, public disorder, major theft and financial fraud. The study has clarified that the core role of the MDP is to apply civil police training and constabulary powers to combat these risks.

  The MDP will, however, continue to provide other policing services both within MOD, and as now to external customers on repayment terms. They will also continue for the foreseeable future to provide a source of trained police manpower to deploy overseas, where required, in support of foreign policy objectives, as currently in Kosovo.

  Although the new articulation of the MDP's core role focuses on specific categories of crime, this does not in any sense preclude the involvement of its officers in dealing with other types of offences on the Defence Estate, where it makes sense for them to do so.

  We have also concluded that the MDP should remain an Agency within the MOD, in view of the benefits of improved management and increased visibility and accountability which this has already delivered. Important work continues in Stage 2 of the QQR, including an

  177W
  examination of the role of the MDP in providing policing support to MOD married quarters, the number and day-to-day employment of officers held in reserve to deal with unforeseen contingencies, and the operation of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee.

  The QQR has underlined very clearly the vital importance of the MDP in helping to counter the risks to MOD of public disorder and armed attack. Sadly, the need for both these outputs has been highlighted recently by increased protest activity at certain Defence sites, and of course by the events of 11 September. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the officers of the force, and civilians who support them, for the crucial work they are doing during these challenging and dangerous times.

  I am placing a copy of the Stage 1 report in the Library of the House.

  Medical Downgrading
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what he attributes the increase in servicemen medically downgraded between August 2000 and November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [21739]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume that the figures to which the hon. Member refers are those given in my recent reply to him on 22 November 2001,Official Report, columns 369–70, and in a letter in response to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in September 2000, Official Report, column 749W, dated 27 July 2000. The key figures are as follows:

  RN/RM

  Army

  RAF

  1 August 2000

  2,510

  9,144

  3,796

  1 August 2001

  —

  9,718

  3,871

  20 November 2001

  3,678

  —

  —

  Further work has now revealed that the November 2001 figure inadvertently included a group of some 850–900 personnel who do not fall within the 'medically downgraded' definition.

  Regrettably it is not possible, from data currently held centrally, to provide an analysis of the causes of the increases. Improving data and analysis in this area is a high priority, on which action is already in hand.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 861W, on prisoners of war in the Far East, if he will state the assumptions on which budgetary provision was made for his ex-gratia payment scheme for former British civilian internees of the Japanese; [23768]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the (a) working assumptions and (b) calculations that his Department made regarding the number of potential claimants in respect of the ex-gratia scheme for former civilian internees of the Japanese. [23769]

  Dr. Moonie
  When the scheme was announced on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–70W, I advised the House that it was estimated that up to 16,700 people might be eligible for the ex-gratia payment for
  178W
  former Far East prisoners. This figure was the best estimate available and was based on an assessment of the numbers of those who had been held captive in each of the groups covered by the scheme and of the likely number of surviving members of those groups or surviving spouses where the former prisoner had subsequently died. The data were gathered from official records and from the associations representing former Far East prisoners. The estimate made for the number of surviving civilian internees and surviving spouses of deceased internees was 3,700 based on data provided by the Association of British Civilian Internees—Far East Region.

  I am withholding the further detail requested under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an inquiry into the suspension of private contractors working at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, following a police investigation and drug-testing among those working on the decommissioning of nuclear warheads. [23394]

  Dr. Moonie
  Safety at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston is paramount, and we are confident that it has not been compromised by the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. The decommissioning activities in this case related not to nuclear weapons, but to a redundant building. None the less, work was halted pending the outcome of a Ministry of Defence police investigation into allegations relating to drugs. This is now complete. No drugs were found during searches and no evidence emerged to support either further investigation or legal proceedings. AWE plc expect to resume the decommissioning shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of(a) her Department and (b) agencies sponsored by her Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16115]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]My Department employs 30 staff in London, 32 staff in an EU Objective 2 status area and 52 in other areas. No staff work in an EU Objective 1 area.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17604]

  (2) if she will list those public bodies to which her Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17603]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS
  179W
  bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website (http://www. official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/pb00.htm). Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

  The only public body for which my Department has responsibility is the Boundary Commission for Scotland, details of which are in Public Bodies 2000.

  Abortion
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to propose legislation to permit the Scottish Parliament to amend the abortion law in Scotland. [22879]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 91, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), when she plans to launch her consultation exercise on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [24542]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today issued the document "The size of the Scottish Parliament—a consultation". Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are being sent to all MPs representing Scottish constituencies and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Views are sought on the case for retaining or ending the linking of Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries as provided in the Scotland Act 1998, in the light of the experience now gained of the Scottish Parliament. I am inviting responses by 29 March 2002.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his estimate is of the money owed to parents by absentee parents in the City of Durham; [13606]

  (2) what his estimate is of how many CSA assessments will be being processed at the end of this financial year; [13607]

  (3) how many cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since it was established. [13609]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  180W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 12 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply by me.
  You asked three questions; our estimate of the money owed to parents with care by non resident parents in the City of Durham, our estimate of how many CSA assessments will be processed at the end of this financial year and how many cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since it was established.
  I am sorry but we don't collect information in a way that will permit me to make a sensible estimate of the amount of maintenance that is owed to parents with care by non-resident parents in the Durham area. I can, however, provide answers to your other questions.
  I estimate that around 16,500 cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since November 1995. This is drawn from a sampling exercise which only started in November 1995 so my figures cannot precede that date.
  During the current financial year the Agency is expecting to process 380,000 assessments arising from new maintenance applications and 715,111 assessments arising from changes to existing maintenance arrangements.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out an action plan to address the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in qualifying the 2000–01 accounts of the Child Support Agency. [15244]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 12 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply by me.
  I take the concerns that the Comptroller and Auditor General have expressed very seriously and have created an action plan which has two key components:
  An enhanced focus on corporate governance to ensure that basic checks are carried out, that risk management processes are fully embedded and that lessons learned from audit reports are implemented.
  The implementation of the Child Support Reforms, which should obviate many mistakes which have led to the qualifications having previously been made.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of compensation payments for maladministration by the CSA. [18994]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 17 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You asked for a statement on the cost in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–2001 of compensation payments for maladministration by the CSA.

  181W
  The amount of compensation paid by the Agency for maladministration was:

  £3,075,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

  £3,053,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

  Deferred debt is also classed as a compensatory payment because we compensate the parent with care for the amount of deferred debt that we do not collect from the non-resident parent. The amounts that were paid were:

  £2,024,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

  3,693,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

  Advance payments are another form of compensation. They are lump sum payments of arrears paid to a parent with care when the Agency has delayed actioning a case. The arrears are however recovered from the non-resident parent over a period of time. The following amounts have been paid:

  £ 862,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

  £1,153,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

  In 1999/2000, 2.58% of the total Agency budget was paid in compensation for maladministration and in 2000/2001 3.46% was paid. In both years the amount of compensation for maladministration paid was lower than the amount allocated towards these payments.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the performance target was for the CSA to reduce its outstanding work by 31 March; and if it was achieved. [19125]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You asked what the performance target was for the CSA to reduce its outstanding work by 31st March; and if it was achieved.
  The Performance targets were published in the Annual Report and Accounts 2000/2001 and are set out in the attached annex. During the year, these targets were set aside in order to prioritise those elements of work which best supported successful implementation of the Child Support Reforms.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Targets for reduction of outstanding work for year 2000–01

  Weeks

  Outstanding work

  Target

  Performance

  Pre-maintenance assessment

  18

  30.5

  Revisions, supersessions and case checks

  6.2

  10.8

  Account advice

  4

  5

  Interim maintenance assessment

  49

  276.0

  Account maintenance

  1.4

  1.5

  Debt management

  12

  20.1

  Enforcement

  30

  46.7

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the CSA met its performance target in 2000–01 for the accuracy of the cash value of all assessments. [19124]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.
  182W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.
  You asked if the CSA met its performance target in 2000–01 for the accuracy of the cash value of all assessments.
  Our target measures the accuracy of our assessments to the nearest penny and requires us to revisit the whole of the current assessment including those elements which may have been in place for some considerable time. The measure therefore reflects historical mistakes rather than current performance. On that measure we achieved 67.4 per cent. accuracy against a target of 78 per cent. However if we look solely at the most recent action accuracy was 78.5 per cent.
  In the current year we have continued to improve that latter figure and in October we achieved 82.4 per cent. accuracy.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ring-fenced Funds
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funds allocated by(a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies are ring-fenced for specific purposes; and if he will list the allocations of funds involved. [22953]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  In the 2000 Spending Review, and in subsequent discussions with HM Treasury, it was agreed that the following expenditure areas should be ring-fenced in respect of the current financial year:

  £ million

  Welfare Modernisation Fund

  404

  Employment Opportunities Fund

  1,055

  European Social Fund

  608

  European Regional Development Fund

  27

  Invest to Save

  24

  With the formation of the Department for Work and Pensions the Chief Secretary to the Treasury decided to review the EOF arrangements, mainly on the grounds that as the overwhelming majority of the fund fell within DWP it presented the perfect opportunity to simplify arrangements. The EOF has now been transferred into the Department's DEL and the unallocated element transferred into a new Employment Development Fund, within the DWP's DEL.

  Independent Living Fund
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Independent Living Fund will be published. [24544]

  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend has received the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Independent Living Fund and I am pleased to announce that we are accepting all the recommendations made. In addition to the removal of the earnings rule and the increased capital limit announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 28 November, the report contains a number of other recommendations which we believe represent a significant improvement in ILF provision for severely disabled people. Along with the revised earnings and capital rules, the other recommended changes will be introduced in April 2002. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
  183W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Criminal Justice Review
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Government intend to publish a Bill to implement the recommendations of the report of the Criminal Justice Review of Northern Ireland, published in March 2000; and if he will make a statement. [22459]

  Mr. Browne
  A Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to implement most of the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review Group in its report, "Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland", is receiving its First Reading today and will be published tomorrow.

  Paramilitary Attacks (Hospital Treatment)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the number of patients treated at hospitals in Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary attacks, broken down by type of injuries and (b) the number and type of operations carried out on patients whose injuries have been received as a result of paramilitary attacks in each of the past five years, indicating the cost of treating such patients. [24101]

  Dr. John Reid
  Responsibility for this matter has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

WALES

  Child Poverty
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of child poverty in(a) Wales and (b) the United Kingdom. [23982]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Child poverty and social exclusion are complex and multi-dimensional concepts, affecting many aspects of children's lives—including their living standards, health, housing, the quality of the environment, and opportunities to learn. The Government are committed to ending child poverty within 20 years. The Government's strategy for tackling child poverty and social exclusion is set out in the annual "Opportunity for all" reports. The third "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 5260) presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

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

  Health Consultation Document
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish an analysis of the responses to the consultation document, "Improving Health in Wales—Structural Change in the NHS in Wales". [22962]

  Mr. Touhig
  No. That is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. I understand that the assembly has prepared a summary of responses and deposited a copy in the Library of the House.
  184W

  Government of Wales Act
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales in respect of section 1 Part 1(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998. [22826]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17616]

  (2) if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17615]

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

  I make appointments to the following public bodies which are not listed in "Public Bodies 2000":

  Reference Committee Panels (Wales)

  Council of St. David's University College, Lampeter

  Court of Cranfield University

  Court of University of Wales, Bangor

  Court of University of Wales, Swansea.

  My Department does not have sponsorship responsibility for any public bodies.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15488]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies are placed in the Library of the House and the report is published on the Cabinet Office website. The next edition, which will include numbers of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  While there is no central record of appointments falling to me, the total is thought to be around 20. I have made no such appointments since 7 June.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the distribution of grants is proceeding at a sufficient rate to ensure that
  185W
  all objective 1 money allocated to west Wales and Valleys will stay in Wales and will not have to be returned to the EU structural fund under the conditions of the mid-term target review in 2003. [22173]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the Assembly Finance Ministers regularly and discuss progress on the objective 1 programme. I am told there is no question of money having to be returned to the European Commission. The Assembly expects to exceed the target of drawing down £176 million from the Commission by the first decommitment date of 31 December 2002.

  In addition, the Assembly has recently put in place new monitoring procedures to ensure that projects' sponsors claim their grant as quickly as possible after receiving approval. This will speed up the rate of programme spend.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on which projects in the Cynon Valley have been funded by west Wales and Valleys objective 1 funding since October 2000. [22174]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the amount of EU objective 1 budget for west Wales and the Valleys that has been (a) committed and (b) spent on projects in the Cynon Valley since October 2000. [22175]

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

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary as to whether sufficient match funding can be allocated to enable the full use of objective 1 funding to west Wales and the Valleys over the project period 2000 to 2006. [22176]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is a condition of structural fund programmes that grant recipients meet a proportion of their project costs, in addition to the grant provided by the European Commission. This "match funding" does not all come from the Assembly budget but can be found from a wide range of different sources, for example, local authorities, voluntary organisations, lottery funding, colleges and training organisations and other public and private sector bodies.

  Nevertheless, the Government have allocated an additional £1.4 billion to the Assembly budget over the three year spending review period from 2001–04 to ensure that the Assembly has sufficient funds to provide match funding for the portion of objective 1 projects which require Assembly support. It is for the Assembly to decide how this additional funding is allocated among its programmes, but the First Minister has assured me on numerous occasions that no other Assembly budget has suffered to provide match funding for the objective 1
  186W
  programme. The Assembly's budget for 2002–03 makes specific provision for match funding across a number of policy areas.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burma
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to support non-Burman ethnic groups in Burma. [22447]

  Clare Short
  British and European Community (EC) assistance in Burma is provided for a wide variety of humanitarian needs including the needs of refugees. DFID also provides funding for HIV/AIDS interventions. We are currently increasing our funding through selected INGOs and UN agencies to assist the most needy in Burma.

  The total UK humanitarian assistance provided to Burma in 2000–01 was £0.8 million. We have committed up to £2 million for humanitarian purposes for 2001–02. This includes funding for the needs of refugees/returnees and the war-affected, including ethnic minorities in the Thailand border areas. Last year we spent £0.2 million on HIV/AIDS; our commitment for this financial year is £1.6 million.

  Assistance provided to Burma through ECHO for the calendar year 2000 was euro 2 million or approximately £1.3 million (the same amount has been allocated for 2001). Assistance is delivered through European NGOs and focuses on health including HIV/AIDS, water and sanitation. Some assistance is provided to Burmese refugees in Thailand and for the protection of detainees in prison. The UK EC attribution for 2001 is 19 per cent.

  Afghanistan
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of Afghan children in danger of dying this winter; and what steps she has taken to provide assistance. [23043]

  Clare Short
  Afghanistan has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the world with one in four children dying before the age of five. Every effort is being made to minimise the suffering of all vulnerable Afghans, including children. Humanitarian agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, continue to make good progress in transporting essential relief supplies to Afghanistan. However, some areas of Afghanistan are proving difficult to access because of continuing insecurity.

  My Department has so far allocated £7 million to UNICEF and other aid agencies to support their activities in the region, which are specifically focused on children.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the security situation in Afghanistan and its effect on the delivery of humanitarian aid. [22686]
  187W
  Clare Short
  United Nations agencies, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP) and UNICEF, the Red Cross movement and NGOs continue to make good progress in transporting essential relief supplies into Afghanistan. Over the past month, WFP has delivered over 68,000 tonnes of food, exceeding its monthly target. International staff of humanitarian agencies have now returned to some areas of the country and are working with national staff to reach those in need of assistance. However, progress is heavily dependent on improved security. Some areas of Afghanistan are still proving difficult to access because of continuing insecurity.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the(a) protection and (b) assistance her Department is providing for Afghan refugees. [22688]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in regular contact with UNHCR at both field and headquarters level to try to ensure that resources are used effectively for the provision of assistance to Afghan refugees and the protection of their rights. We continue to do all we can to ensure that Afghan refugees are properly cared for and give neighbouring countries the necessary support to cope with the burden of refugees, for whom they have provided over a long period.

  We have committed £3 million to UNHCR's operations for refugees in response to the current crisis. This has included technical personnel, material and financial support. At the request of UNHCR, my Department has provided three relief flights to Iran and Pakistan transporting tents, shelter material and communications equipment. We have also provided a specialist site planner to UNHCR in Pakistan to assist with the setting up of new refugee campsites. In addition we are supporting a number of NGOs assisting refugees, including Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, Oxfam, and Save the Children.

  We have also provided £11 million to support communities in Pakistan most affected by influxes of refugees.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the outcome of the Reconstruction Afghanistan Conference in Islamabad; and if she will make a statement on the future of Afghanistan. [22687]

  Clare Short
  The recent 'Conference on Preparing for Afghanistan's Reconstruction' was attended by over 350 people including a large number of Afghans, as well as officials from my Department.

  The conference highlighted the need for security and stability to underpin reconstruction. We are fully committed to supporting Ambassador Brahimi and the United Nations system in their central role to help the people of Afghanistan and the new Interim Authority. A copy of our updated "Emergency Plan to Initiate Recovery" has been placed in the House Library. Further details of the conference can be found at www.reliefweb.int.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people were employed in her Department in each of the last four years. [23798]
  188W
  Clare Short
  The numbers of staff employed by DFID in each of the last four years were as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  1,007

  1998–99

  1,095

  1999–2000

  1,280

  2000–01

  1,313

  These figures do not include staff employed on contract terms in the UK and overseas.

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which countries that allow child soldiers to be used in conflict within their countries receive financial assistance from the UK for aid projects. [22971]

  Clare Short
  It is difficult to say which countries "allow" the use of soldiers. Where non-state actors use children in armed conflict, this is usually in opposition to the Government of that country. Other countries may state that they do not use children, yet there are reports of children being used.

  The UK provides development assistance to countries that are committed to poverty reduction and who will use our assistance effectively. The protection of children caught up in armed conflict is an important aspect of our development assistance programmes, which can include, among other things, working with Governments to improve their human rights record. DFID is contributing, over a three-year period, £3 million to UNICEF to build its capacity to implement programmes which will prevent children becoming involved in, or otherwise being affected by, conflict, and £3 million to the UN Secretary General's Special Representative for Children to support his work in reducing the impact of conflict on children, including the involvement of children in armed conflict. The work of these two institutions spans a wide range of countries in Africa, Asia and Europe.

  We also encourage the ratification of important international instruments such as the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child covering the involvement of children in armed conflict.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with which her Department works on the issue of street children. [22974]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 4 July 2001,Official Report, column 214W.

  Children (Welfare and Protection)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the Council of Europe to develop joint policies for the welfare and protection of children. [22973]
  189W
  Clare Short
  My Department has not had any recent discussions with the Council of Europe on child protection.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial assistance has been given by her Department to Sri Lanka in each of the last two years; for what projects; and where in Sri Lanka they were. [22975]

  Clare Short
  Full details of DFID's programme are contained in the table.

  Projects/description

  Start date

  End date

  Region

  Primary Education Planning Project

  To strengthen capacity of the national and provincial authorities to plan, manage, monitor and evaluate primary education programmes within an agreed policy framework

  October 1996

  March 2001

  Country wide

  Primary English Language Project

  To improve the quality of teaching of basic English Language skills in Sri Lankan primary schools

  April 1996

  August 2002

  Country wide

  Primary Mathematics Project

  To improve the quality of teaching and learning of mathematics in primary schools in Sri Lanka

  March 1998

  March 2003

  Country wide

  Education Co-ordination Project

  To ensure that DFID funding TC projects in the education sector in Sri Lanka are well co-ordinated with those funded by the World bank and other donors

  March 1997

  August 2003

  Country wide

  Relief and Reconciliation Programme—SCF/Oxfam

  To help meet the basic survival and emerging rehabilitation needs of communities affected by the civil conflict

  April 1997

  March 2001

  Refugee camps

  Oxfam Support to Country Programme

  To build on Oxfam's emerging competencies in conflict analysis and grass roots work to facilitate the practical application of tools for transforming community dynamics. To enable people affected by poverty and conflict are better able to cope with, challenge and overcome the barriers sustaining their condition

  April 2001

  March 2002

  Country wide

  SCF Support to Country Programme

  To ensure that the voices of marginalised and vulnerable children are heard and acted upon, in policy and practise, for the best interest of these children, in education, social protection, inclusion and emergencies

  April 2001

  March 2002

  Country wide

  Mother and Child Reproductive Health Project for Displaced Persons

  Provision of three static clinics which also provide mobile health services to the displaced population

  October 1995

  December 2003

  Vavuniya, Puttalum, Horowpathana

  Mother and Child Reproductive Health Care in Mannar

  Increase access to and utilisation of reproductive health services (in co-ordination with Government services among the displaced population and host community in Mannar)

  September 1998

  June 2003

  Mannar

  Strengthening Prospects for Peace in Sri Lanka

  To enhance the prospects for a sustainable negotiated settlement by strengthening the capacity of senior cross party parliamentarians and other significant actors to contribute to the peace process

  August 2000

  August 2003

  Colombo

  International Humanitarian Law—A Peace Building Measure in Sri Lanka

  To establish and support a respected group from within the international Buddhist community who will engage with senior Buddhist Clergy in Sri Lanka in International Humanitarian Law, trust-building, de-escalation and wider peace processes

  November 2000

  October 2001

  Colombo

  190W
  DFID expenditure in Sri Lanka 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Total Bilateral Aid:

  1999–2000: £7,827 million

  2000–01: £7,282 million

  DFID has financed projects targeting primary education, improving the livelihoods of those people affected by the conflict, mother and child health, promoting social cohesion and reconciliation, poverty reduction, capacity building of community based organisations, child soldiers, micro enterprise, mental illness and promoting human rights. Activities of these projects have been undertaken in Vavuniya, Puttalum, Horowpahana, Mannar, Colombo, Mahaweli, Jaffna, Kurunegala, Gampaha, Kilinochi, Mullaitivu, Trincomalee, Pudukudyirrapu, Meerakerny, Okewala, Villachiciya and country wide.
  191W

  Projects/description

  Start date

  End date

  Region

  Environmental Management and Sustained Development in the Upper Mahaweli Catchment Area

  To improve the operational capacity of the EFCD so that it more December 1995 September 2001 effectively serves the needs of its customers who are the major users of the land in the Upper Mahaweli Catchment Area

  December 1995

  September 2001

  Mahaweli

  Urban Poverty Reduction in Colombo Municipality

  To reduce poverty in the city of Colombo by developing a participatory and sustainable institutional framework within the municipal structure that is close to the poor and where the community can be effectively organised for livelihood and environmental improvement

  June 2000

  October 2003

  Colombo

  Greater Colombo Sewerage Project

  To provide background information relating to technical and policy issues required to enable a major World bank project to proceed

  August 1997

  February 2000

  Colombo

  Jaffna Power Rehabilitation

  To restore power to the Jaffna area in a sustained manner

  June 1996

  November 2000

  Jaffna

  ICRC

  Ongoing humanitarian assistance and implementation of the ICRC mandate

  January 1998

  December 2001

  Country wide

  UNICEF Programme of Special Assistance for Children and Women Affected by Conflict

  Promote the civil empowerment and participation among families and communities to build capacities for coping with the effects of the conflict and continue to strengthen child survival, protection and development to serve as a platform for reconciliation and conflict resolution

  January 1998

  June 2002

  Refugee camps

  Capacity Building on Community Based Organisations in Jaffna

  To strengthen 20 CBOs to enable them to provide sustainable financial services in a post conflict situation

  July 2000

  June 2002

  —

  Light Engineering in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh

  To learn through action research about the cost effectiveness of the different approaches to increasing technological capability and capacity within the particular socioeconomic environments of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka

  April 1998

  March 2001

  Kurunegala, Gampaha

  Sri Lanka: Save The Children From Violence Campaign

  To increase awareness at all levels of Sri Lankan society that armed conflict has an unacceptable impact on all Sri Lankan children

  November 1999

  March 2000

  Country wide

  UNHCR Displaced Persons

  Facilitate Internally Displaced People to their place of origin or their resettlement in other designated locations in Sri Lanka

  February 1998

  December 2001

  Kilinochi, Mullaitivu, Mannar, Vavuniya, Trincomalee, Jaffna

  Vulnerable Groups in Conflict Areas (VOICE)

  To increase the opportunities for all sectors of the conflict affected population to represent their needs and rights to the authorities

  December 2000

  March 2004

  North and East

  Micro Enterprise

  To increase the number and profitability of small scale food processing businesses in Sri Lanka and thereby stimulate rural employment, income levels, self sufficiency and entrepreneurial activities

  March 2000

  March 2004

  Pudukudyirrapu, Meerakerny, Mangalagama, Okewela, Villachciya

  Establishment of Continuum of Care for the Mentally III

  To establish a residential rehabilitation institution/therapeutic community to prepare those who are recovering from mental illness for independent living in the community

  April 1999

  March 2002

  Colombo

  DFID' s bilateral programme in Sri Lanka is increasingly focused on the relationship between poverty and conflict. The objectives of the programme are to: improve livelihood security of the poor in conflict areas; explore processes for intercommunual reconciliation; and improve the quality of education, particularly at primary level.
  192W

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to countries in the clearance of anti-personnel land mines; and if she will list the countries concerned. [22977]
  193W
  Clare Short
  DFID' s humanitarian mine action strategy is directed towards widening support for the anti-personnel land mines ban and helping developing countries to develop their own capacity to meet their Ottawa Convention obligations; supporting mines awareness and clearance programmes including, in particular, encouraging practical innovation to enhance safety and efficiency in operations; and strengthening international systems for co-ordination.

  DFID has allocated £10 million in the current financial year on humanitarian mine action. Additional resources are available for unforeseen emergency responses such as Afghanistan, for which we have committed a further £2 million for mine action. DFID funding is channelled increasingly towards international organisations (core funding as well as country-specific programmes). Additionally we fund projects bilaterally through NGOs and to a limited extent commercial demining organisations. The profile of expenditure in 2001–02 is expected to be:

  Country/organisation

  Amount (£ million)

  Core funding

  United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)

  1.0

  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

  0.6

  Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)

  1.0

  International Testing and Evaluation Programme (ITEP)

  0.4

  Consultancy/advice

  0.2

  Mine Action Research

  0.25

  Kosovo, Cambodia, Georgia

  HALO Trust

  0.8

  N. Iraq, Cambodia, Laos

  Mines Action Group (MAG)

  2.0

  Bosnia

  International Trust Fund

  0.5

  Cambodia, Laos

  UNDP

  1.0

  Croatia

  International Trust Fund

  0.125

  Kosovo

  Bilateral via NGO and commercial demining organisations

  2.0

  Afghanistan, Ethiopia/Eritrea

  UNMAS

  2.0

  Nicaragua

  Organisation of American States

  0.2

  Total

  112.0

  1 Rounded

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid and advice her Department gives to countries to counter the spread of HIV/AIDS; and if she will list(a) the countries and (b) the financial help being allocated. [22972]
  194W
  Clare Short
  My Department supports comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, control and mitigation programmes. We continue to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease. We seek to support the development, strengthening and implementation of national strategies to combat HIV/AIDS and to provide assistance in the framework of such strategies.

  In 2000–01, my Department spent over £120 million on HIV/AIDS-related bilateral programmes in many countries, including:

  Bangladesh

  Bolivia Brazil

  Burma

  Cambodia

  China

  Cuba

  Ecuador

  Ethiopia

  Ghana

  Haiti

  Honduras

  India

  kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Mali

  Malawi

  Mongolia

  Montserrat

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Senegal

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Sierra Leone

  Republic of South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  West Bank and Gaza

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  We also made significant contributions in 2000–01 to support the HIV/AIDS programmes of a number of multilateral organisations, including the EC, UNAIDS and the United Nations Population Fund.
  195W

TREASURY

  Mr. Graham Mills
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times Mr. Graham Mills, a professional clay pigeon competitor has(a) been stopped by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and (b) had his house raided by Customs and Excise. [18534]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]It would be inappropriate to disclose information about enforcement or investigation matters as provided in Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out spending plans for the NHS beyond 2005–06 in the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [20335]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]Arrangements for the 2002 Spending Review are set out in Chapter 6 of the pre-Budget report.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the yield from the upper rate of income tax for each of the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02, (d) 2002–03, (e) 2003–04, (f) 2001–05 and (g) 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [22477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics", table 3.4, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he plans to take in order to avoid avoidance of income tax liabilities by individuals who pay tax at the upper income tax rate of 40 per cent. by use of capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [23246]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue will continue to apply existing legislation which ensures that income is charged to income tax.

  In addition, we will keep the position under close review and will not hesitate to take action to protect the income tax yield if new tax avoidance schemes for turning income into capital are introduced.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow the maturation, bottling and packaging of Scotch whisky to qualify for the climate change levy rebate scheme. [23254]

  Mr. Boateng
  Eligible sectors are those covered by Parts A1 and A2 of Schedule 1 to the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Regulations. These sectors have a regulatory requirement to use energy efficiently, unlike other sectors. There are no current plans to change this definition.
  196W

  Holding and Movements Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to seek an amendment to the Holding and Movements Directive to permit spirits producers a defence of due diligence when consignments are lost. [23255]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Scottish Affairs Committee, in its report published in November 2001, recommended that the Government look at a defence of due diligence when excise consignments are lost. The Government are considering their response to this report and will reply in due course.

  Employee Share Schemes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the capital gains taper relief announced in the pre-Budget report will operate in relation to employee share schemes. [23763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where there is a chargeable gain on the disposal of shares acquired through an employee share scheme, taper relief is available for the qualifying holding period.

  This period usually starts when the shares are acquired. For shares acquired under options granted under Enterprise Management Incentives, it starts with the date of grant. For shares acquired under the Share Incentive Plan, it starts when the shares leave the plan.

  The business assets rate of taper relief is available to employees of trading companies who dispose of shares in their companies and to employees of non-trading companies who do not have a material interest in the company. Such employees will be able to benefit from the improvements to the taper which were announced in the pre-Budget report.

  Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken in response to the 1998 IMF Article IV, Consultation Concluding Statement, regarding tax expenditures; and if he will make a statement. [23757]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the costs of the main tax reliefs in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are published twice a year: in the Budget and, at the time of the pre-Budget report, in the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs". Both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the 2001 IMF Article IV consultation, Concluding Statement, regarding broadening the tax base; and if he will make a statement. [23756]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and any changes will be made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reform inheritance tax. [23762]
  197W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and any changes will be made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expected cost to public funds is of raising United Kingdom expenditure on health to the EU average by 2005–06. [23597]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 329W, in response to his previous question on health expenditure.

  Economic Stability Document
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of printing, publishing and distributing the HM Treasury publication, "Reforming Britain's Economic and Financial Policy: Towards Greater Economic Stability"; how many copies of this publication are to be produced; what sales proceeds are anticipated; what the net estimated cost is; and if he will make a statement. [23245]

  Ruth Kelly
  "Reforming Britain's Economic and Financial Policy" has been published commercially by Palgrave, the academic publishing division of Macmillan. Publication was on the basis that there would be no net cost to the Treasury.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of each tax credit for each of the years 2001–02 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [23248]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The projected costs of all tax credits, and the elements attributable to the R&D tax credit and the tax credit for clearing contaminated land, are shown in Table B 11 of the pre-Budget report. Figures for working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit are shown in Table B15.

  The projected costs of the children's tax credit are shown in Tables A.11 and A2.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget report issued in March 2001.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) two parent families and (b) lone parents (i) claimed and (ii) were eligible for child care tax credit in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [24031]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of families receiving the child care tax credit within working families' tax credit (WFTC) are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  No estimate is available of the number eligible for the child care tax credit.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households ceased to claim WFTC during 2000–01 due to an increase in income. [23990]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The reasons for families not renewing working families' tax credit awards are not known.
  198W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of(a) the WFTC and (b) DPTC worked (i) 30 hours and over and (ii) 16 hours and over in (A) 1999–2000 and (B) 2000–01. [23994]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the number of hours per week worked by the main earners in families receiving working families' tax credit are shown in Table 6.2 of the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library.

  The total number of recipients of the disabled person's tax credit are shown in the DPTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library. All recipients worked for at least 16 hours per week. The proportion working for at least 30 hours per week was 42 per cent. in 1999–2000 (including disability working allowance awards still current) and 46 per cent. in 2000–01.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost will be of replacing the national income from savings and investment with actual income earned in the calculation of tax credits. [24002]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Entitlement to the new tax credits proposed by the Tax Credits Bill will be governed by income measured over a tax year, rather than, as with existing tax credits, by the income of a much shorter period. The new tax credits will also be more flexible and responsive to change. There is therefore no direct comparison between the way in which the existing and the new credits treat income derived from capital. The detailed definition of the income to be taken into account for the purposes of the new tax credits will be set out in regulations under clause 7(8) of the Bill which will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment of the cost of child care he has used to determine the rate of the child care tax credit. [23996]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The current limits for eligible child care costs in the child care tax credit accord with available evidence on the costs of child care across the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost will be of extending the child tax credit to those who cannot claim the children's tax credit. [23992]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The costs associated with the child tax credit will depend on the rates of and thresholds for that credit. These are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of(a) WFTC, (b) DPTC and (c) child tax credits on (i) wage rates and (ii) incentives for those in work to move to higher paid jobs. [23991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit and the child tax credit are designed to make work pay and thereby help to provide employment opportunity for all. Independent estimates suggest that these and other measures such as the national minimum wage, the 10p rate of income tax and reforms to national insurance contributions will improve work incentives. The Government have put in place a comprehensive programme of monitoring and evaluation of these tax credits.
  199W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the child care tax credit on child care costs. [23995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit—which will include an assessment of the impact of the child care tax credit element of both credits—is in progress. The programme of work spans several years and comprises qualitative and quantitative research and analysis.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the cost of new(a) IT and (b) telephone systems to deliver the proposed new tax credits. [24003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The administrative costs associated with the child tax credit and the working tax credit will reflect the number of people receiving those credits. The number of people receiving the credits will depend on the rates of and thresholds for the tax credits, which are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions the regulatory impact assessment on the Tax Credits Bill made about the number of claimants of(a) the working tax credit and (b) the child tax credit. [23999]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment assumes, for illustrative purposes only, that the current systems of support for children and workers are replicated.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of administering(a) the child tax credit and (b) the working tax credit. [24004]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of administering the child tax credit and the working tax credit will depend on decisions about the rates of and thresholds for those credits. These are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the fiscal impact of the Tax Credits Bill in accordance with section 23(b) of the Code for Fiscal Stability. [23993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As stated in the pre-Budget report (paragraphs 2.43 and 2.44), the interim forecast does not take account of proposals where final decisions have yet to be taken on rates. This is consistent with the requirements of the Code for Fiscal Stability. The rates of and tapers for the child tax credit and the working tax credit are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors he will take into consideration when determining(a) the taper and (b) rates of the different elements of the working tax credit and child tax credit as set out in clauses 9 and 11 of the Tax Credits Bill. [23997]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor will take all relevant factors into account in reaching a view about the rates of and thresholds for the child tax credit and the working tax credit, as part of the wider Budget process.
  200W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he made of the number of reassessments a claimant of(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit would make in a year, in calculating the impact on businesses of the Tax Credits Bill. [24005]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child tax credit will be paid direct to the main carer by the Inland Revenue and any adjustments to the amounts paid will not affect businesses. The extent to which payments of tax credits will be adjusted in the course of a year will be determined by the circumstances of claimants in individual cases and by the rates of and thresholds for the tax credits. Those rates and thresholds are a matter for the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the Tax Credits Bill on the targeting of support for families with children. [24001]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The contribution that the proposed measures in the Tax Credits Bill will make to support families with children is considered in chapter 5 of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on the number of claimants of(a) increasing and (b) decreasing by 10 per cent. the top rate for (i) WFTC, (ii) DPTC and (iii) child tax credit. [23989]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no top rate for the working families tax credit or the disabled person's tax credit.

  It is estimated from household survey data that increasing or decreasing the level of the child tax credit by 10 per cent. would result in a change of something less than 30,000 in the number of eligible families.

  The sample size is too small to yield a more precise estimate.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of discrimination suffered as a consequence of employees claiming DPTC. [24000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The notification and forms sent to employers use the generic term "tax credits" and do not contain any references to DPTC. Employers are therefore unable to distinguish between payments of DPTC or WFTC. Employers who discriminate against employees, are acting illegally.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on the interim conclusions of the Wanless report on health funding; what representations he has received from other Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [23249]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Consultation on Derek Wanless' interim report "Securing our future health: taking a long-term view" began on 27 November 2001. Several representations have already been received from a range of organisations and individuals. The Government will publish a full list of responses to the consultation when Mr. Wanless' final report is published.
  201W

  Civil Service Pay
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in respect of the harmonisation of civil service pay and conditions; what proposals he is considering in respect of the reform of civil service pay scales; and if he will make a statement. [21454]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have received representations from the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU), proposing a national framework agreement on civil service pay. Discussions between the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the CCSU are continuing to explore whether this would be useful in the context of existing pay arrangements which delegate responsibility for pay and grading to Departments and agencies. I have also received correspondence from hon. Members forwarding more than a hundred representations on this issue from their constituents. Departments and agencies have put forward proposals for reform of their pay scales during the current pay round, which are now being implemented.

  Phone Bills (VAT)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the VAT payable on telephone bills for pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [23330]

  Mr. Boateng
  Long-standing agreements with our European partners permit reduced rates of VAT only for a prescribed list of goods and services. Telephone services are not included on this list.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been in the Tax Law Rewrite Project. [24319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite Project continues to make good progress. It will shortly be publishing its twelfth exposure draft, containing more draft rewritten clauses on employment income, pension and social security income. This will be published on the internet towards the end of this month and will be available in paper form early in the new year.

  The project has also now started work on rewriting the PAYE Regulations. Representative and professional bodies have suggested in discussion that it would be more helpful if the timetable for this work were revised to allow more time for consultation; and the regulations to be made well before the start of the tax year. In order to meet these suggestions I have agreed the project should now plan for the rewritten regulations to be made in the autumn of 2003, to come into force in April 2004.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Places of Worship
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the estimated cost of administering the listed places of worship grant scheme over its first year. [20990]
  202W
  Dr. Howells
  The precise details of the contract for the running of this scheme, which could result in approx £30 million going to listed places of worship, are a matter of commercial confidence between ourselves and our appointed contractor, CSL Group Ltd. The contract is set up so that costs are dependent on the success of the scheme, the number of claims processed and the rate at which they are received. As an example, if we were to receive in the region of 10,000 claims over the period to June 2003 we would expect to see costs of around £500,000.

  Apsley House
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Apsley house was handed to the nation by the Wellesley family; and how much has been spent out of public funds to(a) maintain and (b) refurbish Apsley house in the last 30 years. [20872]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 December 2001]Apsley house was given to the Government by the 7th Duke of Wellington under the terms of the Wellington Museum Act 1947. The following amounts have been spent on the maintenance and refurbishment of Apsley house:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  135,792.00

  1997–98

  221,940.40

  1998–99

  178,488.23

  1999–2000

  330,008.13

  2000–01

  631,095.15

  2001–02 (to date)

  71,127.25

  The information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage UK holiday makers to take holidays in the UK over the coming year. [22905]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are working urgently with tourism and other rural stakeholders on an inclusive approach to attracting visitors back to the countryside throughout spring and summer 2002. This is in addition to the strategic advertising and marketing campaigns of the regional tourist boards, such as the Greater London Authority, which has been authorised to switch £500,000 of this year's marketing budget for use in attracting domestic visitors to London. Ministers will continue to attend important domestic events to increase tourism's profile and make people aware of the many good reasons to consider taking their holidays within the UK.

  For the longer term, the Government are reviewing the options for stimulating better co-ordination of the public and private sector funds currently spent on marketing tourism in England. Matters relating to the taking of holidays in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are a fully devolved matter.
  203W

  Libraries
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what efforts she has made to increase the use of book-lending facilities in public libraries; and if she will make a statement. [23197]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have encouraged better planning, accountability and performance in public library services through the introduction of Annual Library Plans (ALPs) in 1998 and Public Library Standards on 1 April this year. In addition the Government, in partnership with the Wolfson Foundation, have helped to support the reader development work of organisations like Launchpad and the Library Association through the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund, which is administered by Resource. Reader development programmes, for both children and adults, help foster a love of reading and assist in broadening individuals' reading horizons.

  Government Art Collection
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the Government Art Collection is open for viewing by members of the public. [23074]

  Dr. Howells
  The role of the Government Art Collection is to promote British art and culture in British Government buildings. In fulfilling this brief some 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of its holdings are on display in several hundred Government buildings in the UK and around the world, where they are seen by a large number of visitors.

  Access to central Government buildings by members of the public to see specific works of art is possible by appointment, depending on current security circumstances. A number of Government buildings in London, as well as the Government Art Collection's premises, are open as part of the Open House scheme during a weekend in September every year. Additionally the Government Art Collection gives regular tours around its premises to specialist groups. The Government Art Collection also lends works of art from its holdings to public exhibitions.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of boundary changes on eligibility for deprivation related funds, with particular reference to the New Opportunities Fund; and what was the outcome of that assessment. [23089]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have contacted the New Opportunities Fund to request the information required, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what basis the average funding per pupil under the New Opportunities for PE and Sport Fund was determined in respect of(a) Herefordshire council and (b) Birmingham council; and if she will make a statement. [23816]
  204W
  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund has provisionally allocated funding to each local education authority (LEA) based on the size of the school population and on the levels of deprivation within the individual LEA.

  Free Television Licences
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners over 75 in the Epsom and Ewell constituency received free television licences. [23424]

  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 8,700 people aged 75 or over in the Epsom and Ewell constituency.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners over 75 years in Hamilton, South constituency receive a free television licence. [23359]

  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 2,800 people aged 75 or over in the Hamilton, South constituency.

  Arts Bodies
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates she has made of the savings to be made by making changes proposed in "Working Together for the Arts"; what evidence she has received that the savings proposed in "Working Together for the Arts" are deliverable; and if she will make a statement. [23571]

  Dr. Howells
  "Working Together for the Arts" set a savings target of £8–10 million. We will expect the Arts Council to achieve this. How it does so is an operational matter for the Arts Council.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria she has set for the Arts Council of England to meet to ensure her Department's continued support for the proposals ACE sets out in `Working Together for the Arts'; which of those criteria are being met; and if she will make a statement. [23569]

  Dr. Howells
  Our approval of the Arts Council's plans for the reorganisation of arts funding in England will be conditional upon it demonstrating to our satisfaction that it will indeed involve the delegation of more power and funding to the regions, and the delivery of savings, as promised. The Arts Council is still working on the details of the reorganisation, but a recent progress report confirms that it is addressing both issues.
  205W

  Performing Arts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives of(a) Equity, (b) the Writers Guild and (c) other bodies representing the performing arts. [23610]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has yet to meet formally representatives of Equity or the Writers Guild although she has met many individual artists and arts administrators over the past seven months, both formally and informally.

  Network Q Rally
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she plans to have with the Motor Sports Association in connection with their investigation into the accident during the Brechja stage of the Network Q Rally of Great Britain. [23961]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had discussions with the Motor Sports Association in relation to their investigation into the accident during the Brechfa stage of the Network Q Rally of Great Britain. I understand that the Motor Sports Association is undertaking a full inquiry into the accident and that it is its intention to publish a summary of the findings. I will ensure a copy of the summary is placed in the House Library as soon as my Department receives it.

  British Grand Prix
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations have been made by the Government to secure the continuation of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone. [23906]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met representatives of Octagon Motorsports, the British Racing Drivers' Club, and the Motor Sports Association on 11 December to hear at first hand Octagon's proposals for improving arrangements for the 2002 British Grand Prix at Silverstone as well as wider proposals for the long term development of Silverstone Following that meeting I met Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, on 12 December to inform him of the Government's commitment to motor sport and the British Grand Prix. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister also wrote to Mr. Mosley on this issue.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when a liquidator will be appointed for the New Millennium Experience Company. [24402]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the orderly winding down of operations by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the company's directors today took steps to commence a Members Voluntary Liquidation. The Minister for Housing and Planning, NMEC's sole shareholder, has formally appointed Richard Heis and Stephen Treharne, two partners of KPMG, as liquidators.

  NMEC's final annual report and financial statements for the period 1 January 2001 to 18 December 2001 will be available tomorrow and I will arrange for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  206W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the issue of Spain's access to the airport in Gibraltar with the Governor of Gibraltar. [23765]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 471W. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Governor of Gibraltar on all issues relating to Gibraltar. These exchanges are confidential and in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  China
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed at the human rights dialogue held between the United Kingdom and China in November. [24367]

  Mr. MacShane
  The seventh round of the UK-China Human Rights dialogue took place in London on 19–21 November.

  We discussed a wide range of human rights concerns including: Tibet and Xinjiang; freedoms of expression, religion and association; Falun Gong; the abuse of psychiatry; criminal justice issues, including the death penalty, torture and re-education through labour; North Korean refugees; co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms, including visits by Special Rapporteurs; the ratification of the two Human Rights Covenants and International Labour Organisation Conventions; the blocking of the BBC World Service website and Mandarin Service. We also discussed the programmes of practical co-operation between the UK and China to promote human rights and the rule of law.

  We raised 22 individual cases of concern.

  As well as the formal talks, we organised two sessions involving outside experts to discuss the role of the media and on the administration of criminal justice. We also arranged for the Chinese delegation to visit the BBC World Service and the Central Criminal Courts.

  Tajikistan
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to open an embassy in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. [24368]

  Peter Hain
  We will open an embassy headed by a Charge d'Affaires on 20 December 2001. Until then our Ambassador in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) will remain cross-accredited to Tajikistan.

  Somalia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representatives of which(a) governmental and (b) quasi-governmental organisations his officials are in contact with in Somalia; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards relations with Somalia. [23642]
  207W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, and in our diplomatic missions in Addis Ababa and Nairobi, are in contact with a wide range of governmental and quasi-governmental representatives in Somalia. Since the collapse of the Republic of Somalia in 1991 we have had no formal diplomatic relations with Somalia.

  Iraq
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts his officials have had with(a) representatives of Iraqi Kurdish groups, (b) the Kurdish Parliament and (c) the Government in Baghdad covering the future of the northern part of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [23641]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  FCO Ministers and officials have regular contact with Iraqi Kurdish groups. I recently met Nechirvan Barzani and Kosrat Rasoul, senior representatives of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) respectively. FCO officials have also met members elected to the Kurdish Parliament in 1992. Although HMG do not have diplomatic relations with Iraq, officials in New York are always available to speak to the Iraqis if they wish to do so.

  HMG are committed to the maintenance of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its current borders. The only long-term future for Iraq's Kurds is as part of a stable, peaceful Iraq which gives them a negotiated degree of autonomy.

  Victims of Homicide
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps UK posts abroad are taking to ensure that copies of the Home Office pack for Victims of Homicide, 3rd edition, are being made available to families of UK subjects murdered abroad. [23386]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO does all it can to help the families of British nationals murdered overseas. The needs of each family are different. We will usually give the families leaflets published by the FCO on "Victims of Crime Abroad" and "Death Overseas" and put them in touch with relevant agencies in the UK who may be able to help them (such as the local police and victim support). The Home Office pack Victims of Homicide, 3rd edition is designed for the relatives of those murdered in the UK and is handed out at the discretion of the police.

  Entry Applications
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate the application for entrance to the UK made by an individual whose name has been communicated to him, to the Istanbul Embassy; and if he will make a statement. [23328]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I will investigate the circumstances of this application and write to the hon. Member.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries(a) hold
  208W
  and (b) are suspected of holding stocks of (i) chemical weapons, (ii) biological weapons and (iii) nuclear weapons. [22865]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are four states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (the US, Russia, India and another state party) that have declared possession of chemical weapons, to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). They are currently in the process of destroying them, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. Information received in confidence from Foreign Governments is exempt under Exemption 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons was prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.

  The UK recognises five nuclear weapon states as defined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT-1968) (UK, US, France, Russia, China). India and Pakistan have announced that they have a nuclear weapons capability. The UK continues to encourage Israel to resolve concerns about its nuclear programme by acceding to the NPT as a non-Nuclear Weapon State. We have also encouraged Israel to sign a full scope safeguards agreement and supported United Nations General Assembly Resolutions on a Middle East nuclear weapons' free zone. A large number of other states have the technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons, but have committed themselves not to do so by adhering to the NPT.

  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on specific intelligence matters or assessments.

  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 use of a scorecard approach in pursuit of the Public Service Agreement target for building a modern NATO. [22586]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been using the current set of scorecard targets since the start of the Spending Review 2000 triennial.

  We have made good progress towards our target of a modernised NATO to improve Europe's security. This year's scorecard measure is to re-engage Russia in the full range of PJC co-operation. The UK has been proactive in transforming the new NATO/Russia relationship and on 6 December the North Atlantic Council launched a process to establish new mechanisms for working with Russia at 20.

  We have continued to press the case for NATO modernisation and have actively supported Lord Robertson's NATO Plus initiative. NATO Plus is a programme for reform of working methods at NATO HQ and bringing them in line with best practice in the public and private sectors elsewhere.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present relationship between the Zimbabwean Government and the Southern African Development Community. [23092]
  209W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mindful of the economic damage that Zimbabwe is inflicting on the region, the countries of the Southern African Development Community have set clear benchmarks against which they will measure the Zimbabwe Government's conduct. We welcome SADC's efforts to encourage stability in Zimbabwe and a change of direction in Zimbabwe Government policy.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in conjunction with the international community to ensure those engaged in violence and murder in Zimbabwe are brought to justice. [23533]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]We and other members of the international community regularly remind the Zimbabwe Government of their obligations under the Harare Commonwealth Declaration, the Cotonou Agreement, the Abuja Agreement and other international instruments to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of the individual.

  Moluccas
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Christians in the Moluccas Islands. [23142]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to monitor events in the province closely. The United Nations has made several assessment visits to Maluku since 1999. They have found concrete evidence of only a small number of forced conversions, including the most highly reported cases in Kasiui and Tior. Many of the Christians evacuated from the province in January are now reported to be voluntarily returning to their homes. Also, many Muslims and Christians who fled their villages to escape the violence are returning, and Muslim leaders in some villages have asked for help in encouraging Christians to return.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The unit will build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces torn apart by ethnic conflict, particularly in North Maluku. These new initiatives will complement DFID-supported humanitarian relief programmes by addressing the causes underlying conflict, abuse of power, alienation and loss of access to and control of resources essential for everyday life. The embassy in Jakarta has also recently funded a series of conflict reporting training workshops for journalists in various provinces in Indonesia, including North Maluku. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider reconstruction work and to offer practical assistance where appropriate.

  The UK's message to the Indonesian Government has been consistently clear: a long-term solution to regional conflicts can only be achieved through political negotiation and consultation with the people. On 29 November, the British Charge d' Affaires in Jakarta raised our concerns about recent violence in Maluku with Manuel Kaisiepo, the Minister for Eastern Indonesia.
  210W

  European Journalism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK participation in(a) the European Journalism Centre Maastricht, (b) l'Association pour la Formation au Journalisme Europeenne, Bordeaux, (c) la Foundation Journalisme en Europe, Paris and (d) the European Journalists' Association. [22936]

  Peter Hain
  We are not aware of any recent FCO participation in these organisations.

  Association Jean Monnet
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards European Community(a) financial and (b) other support towards the Association Jean Monnet; and if he will deposit a list of Community-funded material published by this body in the Library. [22888]

  Peter Hain
  I understand that the Association Jean Monnet has received community funding in the past. For further details I suggest the hon. Member contact the Commission directly.

  EU Info-Points
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the locations of(a) EU Info-Points and (b) Rural Information and Promotion Carrefour in the UK; what (i) EU and (ii) UK funding they receive; and if he will make a statement on their activities. [22937]

  Peter Hain
  There are no EU Info-Points in the UK. There are six Carrefours in the UK, in Preston, Cirencester, Inverness, Clogher (Northern Ireland), Llangefini (Anglesey, North Wales) and Carmarthen (West Wales).

  The EU has provided 20,000 euros to each Carrefour for the financial year 2000–01. The centres do not receive UK Government funding.

  Carrefours are rural advice and information centres, supported by the European Commission. Their activities are outlined in the European Commission Representation to the UK's website at www.cec.org.uk.

  Afghanistan
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that the protection of children's rights is incorporated into the international communities action regarding Afghanistan. [23045]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Bonn Agreement states the commitment of the participants in the peace talks to promote national reconciliation, lasting peace, stability and respect for human rights in Afghanistan.

  The international community is fully committed to the restoration of the rights of children in Afghanistan. The Government fully support the work of UNICEF and other NGOs working to achieve this.
  211W
  UNICEF's operations to date have focused on immediate relief requirements. 1.7 million children remain in need of urgent assistance. The international coalition has made it clear that the humanitarian action in Afghanistan is as important as miliary action. The Taliban were one of the main obstacles to getting humanitarian relief through. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.

  Under the Taliban, women were not allowed to teach. When the Taliban came to power in 1996, in Kabul alone, 100,000 girls and 150,000 boys were forced to leave school. The provision of education will be key to the protection of children's rights in Afghanistan. UNICEF is currently planning for the start of the next school year in March. They hope to get 30,000 teachers and as many children as possible back to school then.

  Pakistan
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on the use of capital punishment against people who transgress blasphemy laws in Pakistan. [23125]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 966W.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government Ministers have visited Pakistan in each of the last three years. [23713]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following Government Ministers have visited Pakistan in each of the last three years:1999:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development;
  2000:
  There were no ministerial visits in 2000;
  2001:
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister;
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; and
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.

  Permanent Secretary
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of persons who were on the shortlist for the position of Permanent Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [23232]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Sir Michael Jay was selected to follow Sir John Kerr as head of the Diplomatic Service, and Permanent Under-Secretary of State, following consideration of all members of the Service who had the requisite experience and were willing to run. It is not our normal practice to make public the names of unsuccessful 212W
  candidates as to do so would be a breach of the non-disclosure provision of the Data Protection Act 1998. Exemption 15A of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information refers.

  Race Discrimination
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many race discrimination cases there have been against his Department in the last four years. [23229]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Six claims have been lodged with the Employment Tribunal in the last four years which have cited race discrimination. Only one case proceeded to a full hearing, which was found in favour of the FCO. The other five cases were either withdrawn or settled out of court.

  International Criminal Court
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made in ratifying the statutes establishing the International Criminal Court. [23393]

  Peter Hain
  The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was open for signature between 17 July 1998 and 31 December 2000. During this period 139 states signed the statute of which 46 have since ratified. The United Kingdom deposited its instruments of ratification on 4 October 2001, the 42nd state to do so. One state has acceded to the statute. The statute will come into force upon receipt of the 60th ratification or accession.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) how many people have been employed by the Refreshment Department in each year since 1990; [21657]

  (2) how many of those employed by the Refreshment Department in each year since 1990 have been managers. [21658]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The hon. Member will recall that by 1990, when Sir Robin Ibbs made his recommendations for the future management of House services, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the catering services provided by the Refreshment Department. Since then, the House has not only invested in its catering premises, but also in the training and development of the staff and management of the Refreshment Department. The management task has increased over this period in order to maintain and improve the standard of catering provided in a larger number of outlets, while modern business management techniques have required the employment of managers with specialist skills, such as IT, training, and procurement expertise.

  The authorised staffing levels and senior management posts in the Refreshment Department since 1990 were as shown in the table.
  213W

  Financial year

  Authorised staff complement1

  Senior management posts2

  1989–90

  263

  8

  1990–91

  266.5

  8

  1991–92

  305.5

  8

  1992–93

  309.5

  8

  1993–94

  318.5

  8

  1994–95

  318.5

  10

  1995–96

  317.5

  12

  1996–97

  316.5

  14

  1997–98

  310

  15

  1998–99

  314.5

  15

  1999–2000

  313.5

  16

  2000–01

  300

  16

  1Staff numbers are stated as full-time equivalent posts as at the end of each financial year, except for 2000–01, which is calculated as the average across the year.

  2Senior management is defined as Band B (previously Grade 8) and above in the main House of Commons service.

  In addition to the senior manager posts listed in the table, the Refreshment Department employs a team of Assistant Managers and supervisory staff (sous chefs, head waiters, cafeteria and restaurant supervisors, etc.) who undertake management responsibilities as part of their duties. As at the end of November 2001, the Department employed 36 such management staff in addition to the 16 posts reported in the table. No figures are available for previous years, as this information was not recorded.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what information is available to the Commission of the average standard days worked each week by the Parliamentary Commissioner; [21979]

  (2) if he has made available to hon. Members the assessment that led the Commission to decide to reduce the Parliamentary Commissioner's days of pay to three days a week. [21978]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges has indicated to the Commission that the Commissioner for Standards has worked on average about five days a week.

  In setting an appropriate time commitment for the Commissioner, and resources to support the Commissioner's work, the long-term need must be established. The Commission has instructed the House's Internal Review Service to carry out a new assessment of the workload and resources required. The Commission will also seek the advice of the new Commissioner and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and has undertaken to provide what resources are judged to be required.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, whether the Commission intended to make the contents of the recent letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner available to hon. Members and to the public. [21982]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  It is not the practice of the Commission to make public letters written to the Speaker by Officers of the House.
  214W

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the total cost of necessary capital works in public sector housing in(a) the London borough of Southwark and (b) Greater London; and how much has been allocated for expenditure in the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [21569]

  Ms Keeble
  Southwark have estimated that, as at 1 April 2001, they need to spend £232 million on capital repairs and improvements on their own housing stock. The estimate for all authorities in Greater London is £5,380 million. Southwark's combined Housing Annual Capital Guideline and Major Repairs Allowance allocations for the current and next financial years are £52.636 million and £54.547 million respectively. The equivalent allocations for Greater London are £716.010 million and £723.013 million.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve the ability of rural local authorities to provide services. [21570]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government have recently published a new Local Government White Paper, which sets out measures that should increase the ability of all local authorities to deliver services. These include some initiatives, such as new powers for local authorities to work together, which will particularly benefit rural authorities.

  Planning
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform the planning system. [21571]

  Mr. Byers
  I launched last week our Green Paper proposing fundamental reforms to the planning system. We want to deliver a faster, fairer system, that places communities at the heart of the planning process. At the same time I published a consultation paper on fundamental reforms to arrangements for compulsory purchase.

  This week I have published consultation papers on Parliamentary Procedures associated with planning applications for major infrastructure projects and on reform of the system of planning obligations.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform local government finance. [21572]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have set out radical proposals for reforming local government finance in the local government White Paper "Strong Local
  215W
  Leadership— Quality Public Services". Copies of the White Paper which has been very well received, have been placed in the House Library.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform local government finance. [21575]

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reform local government finance. [21576]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have set out radical proposals for reforming local government finance in the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership— Quality Public Services". Copies of the White Paper, which has been very well received, have been placed in the House Library.

  Roadworks (Utilities)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities on minimising traffic disturbance connected to roadworks undertaken by utilities; and if he will make statement. [21574]

  Mr. Byers
  Authorities must co-ordinate works to minimise inconvenience to road users, and utilities must co-operate with them. Guidance is given in a code of practice on co-ordination and in "Best Practice in Street Works and Highway Works", published by my Department in conjunction with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee.

  Train Delays
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of trains were subject to delay in(a) September and (b) November. [21577]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rail industry is monitored by four-weekly periods, not calendar months. In the period from 19 August to 13 October, 78.7 per cent. of services were punctual. In the period from 14 October to 10 November, the last period for which figures are available, 72.3 per cent. of services were punctual.

  Council House Sales
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to allow the phased release of receipts from council house sales to the appropriate local authorities. [21578]

  Ms Keeble
  The requirement for a proportion of housing capital receipts to be set-aside to offset debt allows a greater share of new investment to be targeted at areas of highest need. Last week's Local Government White Paper set out our intention to retain this requirement in England. The National Assembly for Wales will be consulting separately on changes to the Welsh local government finance system, which will cover this issue.
  216W

  Housing (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to improve public housing in areas of high deprivation. [21579]

  Ms Keeble
  We have made a commitment to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010 with a reduction of one third being made by 2004. Most of the reduction in the period up to 2004 will be in deprived areas. This objective is supported by the substantial element of targeting of resources to deprived areas incorporated within the needs indices which underpin resource allocation.

  Transport (Christmas)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to maintain the effective operation of the transport system during the Christmas period. [21580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for operators of public transport services. I understand that most public transport services will not operate on Christmas day, and very restricted services will run on Boxing day. For the rest of the holiday period, services will operate either normal or reduced timetables, according to the anticipated demand. No problems are expected on the road network.

  Rail Investment
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the progress made with investment programmes within the rail sector. [21581]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We believe that our current public expenditure plans will deliver the rail investment programmes provided for in the 10-Year Plan for Transport.

  Business Rates (Domestic Properties)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to exempt office space in domestic properties from business rates. [21582]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None. Business rates will be payable only where part of a domestic property is separately identifiable as being used as office space or for other non-domestic purposes. The remainder of the property will remain subject to council tax, although a reduction may be made to the property's banding to reflect the change in use of part of it.

  Unitary Authorities (Coastal Towns)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the performance of unitary authorities in seaside and coastal towns. [21583]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no assessment of the performance of unitary authorities. We are putting in place a comprehensive performance assessment framework for all councils building on existing audit, inspections and assessments,
  217W
  including assessments of corporate capabilities. These assessments will be compiled by the Audit Commission with assistance from other inspectorates.

  Electoral Reform
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to establish an independent body to review the electoral system for local government elections in England. [21585]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government have already established the independent Electoral Commission. This will be looking at various aspects of the electoral system for local elections, including the effective and efficient conduct of such elections and the use of innovatory pilot schemes. From 1 April 2002, the Electoral Commission will also take responsibility for the review of local electoral area boundaries and the number of councillors elected by those areas.

  Car Free Day
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what involvement his Department had in European car free day 2001. [21586]

  Ms Keeble
  On 19 September the UK Government signed a pledge, drawn up by the European Commission, to promote European "In town without my car" day to local authorities. On 20 September we wrote to the Local Government Association and to the Devolved Administrations setting out our position.

  Train Services
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on levels of reliability of train services; and what the levels were(a) one and (b) two years ago. [21589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Reliability of train services may be defined as the percentage number of services that ran against the published timetable. On that basis:

  97.5 per cent. of trains operated for the 12 months up to 13 October 2001.

  98.6 per cent. of trains operated for the 12 months up to 14 October 2000.

  99 per cent. of trains operated for the 12 months up to 16 October 1999.

  Trunk Roads (Norfolk)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for upgrading Norfolk's trunk roads; and if he will make a statement. [21590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We recently announced the preferred routes for schemes to dual the last two single carriageway sections of the A11 trunk road between the M11 in Cambridgeshire and the city of Norwich. Studies have been commissioned to look at safety, congestion and other transport related problems along the A47 corridor in Norfolk. A £4.5 million scheme to improve the A47 Hardwick roundabout is programmed to start in the next financial year.
  218W

  Railtrack
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will release the minutes of the meetings that took place between 1 July and 30 September between the Government, Railtrack and Credit Suisse First Boston. [21591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend informed the House about relevant discussions with Railtrack and its advisers in his statement of 15 October.

  There is no commitment under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information that pre-existing documents, as distinct from information, will be made available in response to requests.

  It is not, in any case, the Government's practice to release information the disclosure of which may be an issue in legal proceedings. Such information is exempted from disclosure under section 4 of Part II of the Code.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the sum that would need to be granted to(a) Railtrack plc and (b) Railtrack Group to give the bonds an A Credit rating. [19426]

  Mr. Spellar
  The credit rating of the proposed Company Limited by Guarantee would depend upon its structure and financial framework.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what were the sums(a) agreed in 2000 and (b) at the latest date for which information is available for payments to Railtrack in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04 by the (A) Government and (B) Strategic Rail Authority. [22118]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 555W.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal requirement will be placed on the administrators of Railtrack under the strategic plan drawn up by the Strategic Rail Authority. [23363]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]The Strategic Plan will be published on 14 January.

  Air Traffic
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to limit the vectoring off from approved routes by National Air Traffic Control when residential areas are affected. [21592]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have no such plans. While the balance of environmental advantage generally lies in concentrating departing aircraft along routes that avoid densely populated areas where possible, the vectoring of aircraft from such routes once they have climbed above agreed minimum altitudes is necessary for efficient and safe management of aircraft.
  219W

  Rail Franchises
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what response he has given to proposals from train franchisees to acquire and run vertically integrated operations. [21593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have not responded to any specific proposals.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance his Department gave to the Strategic Rail Authority on the renewal of rail passenger franchises in(a) September 1999 and (b) July 2001; what plans there are to make any amendments to this guidance; and if he will make a statement. [23511]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State's Instructions and Guidance to the Franchising Director, issued on 29 September 1999, addressed this issue. A revised approach was set out in the draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority and the draft Statement of Policy on Passenger Rail Franchising issued for consultation on 29 June and 16 July respectively.

  The consultation responses received on the draft Franchising Policy statement are being considered and a revised version will be published very shortly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the rail franchise renewal process. [21594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A revised approach to franchising was set out in the draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority and the draft Statement of Policy on Passenger Rail Franchising issued for consultation on 29 June and 16 July respectively. The responses received are under consideration.

  The Strategic Rail Authority's franchising programme will be reviewed in the light of this. An announcement will be made in due course.

  East of England Development Agency
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the East of England Development Agency on the region's transport infrastructure. [21595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has had no specific discussions with the East of England Development Agency on the state of the region's transport infrastructure. Ministers are, however, aware of the Agency's transport priorities as set out in their Regional Economic Strategy, published in June this year.

  Euston-North Wales Rail Service
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department last met the office of the Rail Regulator to discuss the quality of the service provided by Virgin trains between Euston and North Wales; and if he will make a statement. [21584]
  220W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority monitors train operators for both performance and quality of service. The Authority has regular contact with the operators, including official quarterly meetings with senior management to discuss areas of concern. My Department are in regular contact with the authority over these matters.

  Regional Rail Services
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority on devolving rail services on a regional basis. [21567]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been no such discussions. Special arrangements apply in Scotland following devolution. But the Government's general view is that the GB railway is a national network and should be operated as such.

  Antisocial Tenants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what interdepartmental co-ordination there is on speeding up the eviction of antisocial tenants. [21573]

  Ms Keeble
  My officials are liaising with colleagues in other Government Departments, in particular the Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service.

  Local Authority Grant Settlement
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities in country districts on the grant settlement for 2002–03. [21587]

  Dr. Whitehead
  By midday on 11 December, we had received 15 representations from shire district councils concerning the 2002–03 grant settlement. Of these, 11 relate to the data used for the authority concerned. The other four relate to the methodology used or level of funding provided by the settlement.

  Millennium Dome
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in relation to the future use of the Millennium Dome. [24724]

  Mr. Byers
  Meridian Delta Ltd. have today been appointed exclusive partners with English Partnerships for the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and to take over ownership of the Millennium Dome, through a 999 year lease.

  Once legally concluded the deal will provide a 20,000 seat arena inside the Dome, surrounded by an urban entertainment complex. The total investment in and around the Dome will be £200 million. The deal also provides for the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula through a joint venture between EP and MDL which, over its 20 year lifetime, will provide a total investment of around £4 billion, at least 5,000 new homes and an estimated 20,000 full-time jobs.
  221W
  Meridian Delta Ltd. is a consortium that includes Lend Lease (developers of the Sydney Olympic Village and the Bluewater shopping centre), Quintain Estates and Development and Anschutz Entertainment Group— the second largest entertainment company in the world.

  English Partnerships expects to conclude a legally binding contract with MDL by the end of May 2002, but it is intended that it will provide both a guaranteed minimum price for the land that English Partnership is putting into the joint venture and a substantial share of the overall remaining profits of the joint venture.

  The precise amount to be received by EP over the lifetime of the deal depends on the final details of the deal and the amount of development ultimately undertaken. However, it will amount to several hundred million pounds and is structured in such a way that it is likely to generate better value for the public sector than could have been achieved through either of the deals with Nomura or Legacy. The deal also provides for MDL to take on all of the risks associated with operating and maintaining the Dome. The public sector's only remaining interest will be to receive a share of profits once they exceed a threshold, still to be determined.

  We welcome the fact that the National Audit Office is scrutinising the sale process and will report to Parliament. We have kept the NAO informed throughout and will continue to do so.

  Lincolnshire County Council
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the National Standards Board is investigating complaints about the establishment of a local standards committee by Lincolnshire county council; and if he will make a statement. [22216]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 11 December 2001]The Standards Board is not investigating the matter. However, I understand that the Chairman of the Standards Board has written to the Chief Executive of Lincolnshire asking the council's views regarding the composition of its standards committee.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will give the total investment in the core London Underground infrastructure in each year since 1990–91; and if he will give an estimate for 2001–02. [22701]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 May 2001,Official Report, column 23W. The actual level of investment in 2000–01 was set out in London Transport's annual report 2000–01, published in July of this year.

  London Underground has been set a target of delivering total investment expenditure of at least £410 million in 2001–02.
  222W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the comparative international data available to London Underground as a result of their membership of the CoMet group of international metros. [22758]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for London Underground (LU) which is a member of CoMet. I am advised by LU that all members of CoMet are required to sign a written confidentiality agreement; information between operators within the group is exchanged on a confidential basis.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, columns 14–15W, if his Department (a) is testing and (b) has asked Ernst and Young to test alternative discount rates for the London Underground PPP; and if he has asked Ernst and Young to conduct Monte Carlo simulations as an element of their robustness assessment. [23270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 10W. Ernst and Young's terms of reference are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Cherished Number Plates
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the income generated by the sale of cherished plates is distributed among(a) Government Departments and (b) nations and regions of the United Kingdom. [22771]

  Mr. Jamieson
  After the administrative costs of running the Sale of Marks Scheme have been met, the remaining receipts are paid to the Exchequer to be allocated to spending programmes in line with the Government priorities for public services.

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the rough sleepers unit has to improve support and services provided during the day for street homeless people. [22982]

  Ms Keeble
  The RSU has already invested over £2 million from its Special Innovation Fund to put in place education, training and employment schemes around the country that have helped over 2,500 former rough sleepers to make the move to independent living.

  The RSU has also funded the development of a website showing employment, advice and training resources available for homeless people in London and is working with Business Action on Homelessness and the Employment Service to deliver tailored solutions to help former rough sleepers back into employment.

  This work is backed up by 23 Tenancy Sustainment Teams (TSTs) in areas across England that give former rough sleepers the help they need to keep their new home and to route former rough sleepers into education, training and employment.
  223W
  The Unit also funds a range of day centres around the country and has developed 10 learning zones linked to hostels and day centres to provide work based training in businesses, to help former rough sleepers back into paid employment.

  In the future the new Homelessness Directorate of the DTLR will ensure that schemes that rebuild the lives of former rough sleepers will help to sustain the reductions already made in rough sleeping since 1998.

  Rents (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many properties(a) in London as a whole and (b) in each London borough have rents above the relevant rent cap for their size; and what percentage these properties represent of the relevant categories of housing stock in both local authority and RSL sectors. [23078]

  Ms Keeble
  Estimates based on the 1996 English House Condition Survey (the latest suitable data available) suggest that in London as a whole around 30,000 local authority properties and 15,000 RSL properties currently have rents above the relevant rent cap for their size. These properties represent around 5 per cent. of the local authority housing stock and 7 per cent. of the RSL stock in London in 1996. We expect the number of properties with rents above the relevant cap to be reduced by rent restructuring. We do not have equivalent information at an individual London borough level.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many RSL tenants in(a) Battersea and (b) Wandsworth (i) pay rent above £100 per week and (ii) would have their rent reduced under rent restructuring in April 2002. [22947]

  Ms Keeble
  The information is not available. To avoid excessive administrative burden, information is not collected centrally on the rents of individual properties owned by local authorities and RSLs. Moreover, individual landlords retain responsibility for rent-setting.

  Rent Restructuring
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 136WH, (a) how he has calculated his assessment that the rents of one council tenant in five will fall under his rent restructuring proposals, (b) what assessment he has made of the regional variations in this figure and (c) what proportion of tenants in RSL properties he estimates will see a fall in real term rents as a result of his policies. [23077]

  Ms Keeble
  (a) The assessment that the rents of one council tenant in five will fall in real terms under our restructuring proposals was an estimate based upon modelling using the English House Condition Survey (EHCS) database.

  (b) Estimates from the EHCS database suggest that the proportion of council tenants whose rents fall in real terms varies from around one in 15 in Yorkshire and the Humber to almost one in three in London.
  224W
  (c) We expect the proportion of tenants in RSL properties who see a fall in rents in real terms as a result of our policies to be somewhat higher than that of council tenants.

  For both sectors the actual figure will depend upon the rent-setting decisions of individual landlords.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 383W, on the west coast main line, whether the Government have given financial guarantees to an organisation in relation to the Hartwell agreement on (a) the west coast main line and (b) the Virgin cross country franchise; what is the total cost estimated by the Strategic Rail Authority for the Virgin cross country franchise upgrade; and how dependent this upgrade is on (i) completion of Phase I west coast main line upgrade and (ii) Phase 2 west coast main line upgrade. [22796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The Government have given no financial guarantees in relation to the Hartwell agreement. Financial support to the cross country franchise is set out in the annual report of the Strategic Rail Authority, which was placed in the Library of the House in July. Various enhancements of the cross country route have been undertaken by Railtrack; the costs are a matter for Railtrack. Improvements to journey times for cross country trains operating on the west coast main line are dependent on work to be carried out by Railtrack which will permit 125 mph operation with tilting trains at certain locations.

  Planning Applications
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning applications were called in by him in the last 12 months. [23688]

  Ms Keeble
  127 planning applications were called in in the last financial year (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001).

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what percentage of planning applications served with an article 14 holding direction have been subsequently called in by him in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [23687]

  Ms Keeble
  29 per cent. of the planning applications subject to an Article 14 Direction during the last financial year (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001) were subsequently called in.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the security situation at Frethun on railfreight traffic through the channel tunnel; and what steps he is taking to(a) reduce interruption to traffic and (b) mitigate the financial impact on British rail terminal operations. [23115]
  225W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]Rail freight through the channel tunnel is currently being disrupted due to repeated intrusions by would-be illegal immigrants to this country. This is a matter of considerable concern to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the French Prime Minister. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Transport have both made representations to the French Transport Minister emphasising the need for a speedy resolution so that normal levels of service can resume, free of intrusion from illegal immigrants. The UK Immigration Service held a meeting with the head of security for the French railways on 3 December to investigate the scope for speeding up the implementation of additional security measures at the Frethun freight yard, and to offer assistance and advice on those security measures.

  The question of compensation is one for the French railways, as it is their decision to reduce services that has resulted in the financial impact to British operators.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has made to his French counterparts on security measures on rail freight using the channel tunnel. [23316]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the issue with the French Transport Minister; and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport have both made representations to him emphasising the need for a speedy resolution so that normal levels of service can resume, free of intrusion from illegal immigrants. The UK Immigration Service held a meeting with the head of security for the French railways on 3 December to investigate the scope for speeding up the implementation of additional security measures at the Frethun freight yard, and to offer assistance and advice on those security measures.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the documentation related to the railway safety cases for mark 1 passenger carriages submitted to the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the assessment of these safety cases by the Health and Safety Executive since December 2000. [23526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Every railway operator is required to have a railway safety case setting out the arrangements for its management of health and safety across the board. These are lengthy and detailed documents covering a wide range of health and safety issues including those relating to passenger rolling stock. They are available for public inspection at the relevant operators' premises.

  Social Housing
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of social housing built in 2000–01 was funded entirely by the public sector. [23406]

  Ms Keeble
  1.29 per cent. of social housing new build units approved for building in 2000–01 was funded entirely by the public sector.
  226W

  Housing Targets (South-East)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the basis on which applications for new housing resulting from Government housing targets for the south-east will be permitted on green belt land. [23416]

  Ms Keeble
  Our policy in PPG3 on Housing and in Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) is clear that applications for housing should follow a search sequence, starting with the use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas identified by the use of housing capacity, the urban extensions, and finally new development around nodes in good public transport corridors. It is for local authorities, in their development plans, to identify sites to be allocated for housing in accordance with the guidance in PPG3 and RPG9.

  Our policy in PPG2 on green belts continues to place a presumption against inappropriate development such as housing in the green belt. We consider that green belts in the south-east are important in preventing urban sprawl, in preventing the coalescence of settlements and in protecting the countryside. Indeed RPG9 recognises that there is no regional case for reviewing the boundaries of green belts.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has responsibility for civil contingency facilities underneath the QE2 Conference Centre. [23368]

  Dr. Whitehead
  No.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the anticipated average percentage increase in Band D council tax across England for 2002–03, based on this year's local government finance settlement. [23365]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 30W.

  Planning Applications (East Devon)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many outstanding planning applications there are in the East Devon constituency. [23754]

  Ms Keeble
  The latest information available to the Department is that there were 683 planning applications outstanding at the end of September 2001 by East Devon district planning authority.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost to the Department is of each publication. [23755]
  227W
  Dr. Whitehead
  DTLR has a very wide range of policy responsibilities and therefore publishes a large number of publications. The cost of tracing and listing the total costs of each individual publication would thus be disproportionate. A list of the titles of the main publications produced through DTLR' s Directorate of Communication between June 2001, when the Department was created, and November 2001 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Major Road Schemes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major existing road schemes in the Local Transport Settlement that are due to be carried out in 2002–03; which additional schemes have been(a) postponed because work is still progress and (b) rejected; and which authorities will receive the additional funding provided for road maintenance in 2002–03. [23987]

  Ms Keeble
  Work is planned to start during the financial year 2002–03 on the following local major road schemes accepted for funding in previous year's Local Transport Settlements. The exact timing of the work is the responsibility of the relevant local authority and may depend on the satisfactory completion of any remaining statutory procedures. Construction work on a further 32 schemes is already in progress.

  Baldock Bypass— Hertfordshire

  Nar-Ouse Regeneration Project—Norfolk

  >South Lowestoft Relief Road—Suffolk

  W. Thurrock Regeneration Ring Road—Thurrock

  Arlesey Bridge Replacement— Bedfordshire

  A142 Fordham Bypass—Cambridgeshire

  A1073 Spalding to Eye Improvement— Lincs/Peterborough

  A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route— Nottinghamshire

  Eastern Transport Corridor—Darlington

  A689 Sedgefield to Wynard Improvement—Durham

  Bridgefoot Environmental Enhancement—Warrington

  East Kent Access Phase 1— Kent

  Semington to Melksham— Wiltshire

  NW Taunton Package– Somerset

  Cradley Heath Town Centre— Sandwell

  A53 Hodnet Bypass— Shropshire

  Barford Bypass— Warwickshire

  Rugby Western Bypass— Warwickshire

  Biddulph Inner Bypass— Staffordshire

  Rugeley Bypass— Staffordshire

  Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3—Barnsley

  Glasshoughton Coalfields Link Road—Wakefield.

  Of the 45 bids for new local major schemes for which bids were received this year, 15 have been provisionally accepted subject to the satisfactory completion of all remaining statutory procedures; the following 25 require further work before a decision can be reached:

  A165 Reighton Bypass— N. Yorkshire

  A171 Burniston/Cloughton Bypass— N. Yorkshire

  Al9 Shipton/Beningbrough Bypass— N. Yorkshire

  228W

  A228 Leybourne and West Mailing Bypass— Kent

  A24 Horsham-Capel Improvement— W. Sussex

  A260 Hawkinge Bypass—Kent

  A350 Westbury Bypass—Wiltshire

  A36 Codford-Heytesbury Improvement—Wiltshire

  A38/A390 Link Dobwalls—Cornwall

  A391 Corridor—Cornwall

  A418 improvements inlcuding a Rowsham Bypass—
  Buckinghamshire

  A418 Wing Bypass—Buckinghamshire

  A57 Cadishead Way—Salford

  A605 Stanground Bypass—Peterborough

  A61 Killingshall Bypass—N. Yorkshire

  A684 Leeming/Aiskew/Bedale Bypass—N. Yorkshire

  Ashton Northern Bypass (phase 2)—Tameside

  Botley Bypass—Hampshire

  Central Route— Sunderland

  Chickenhall Lane Link Road—Hampshire

  East Middlesbrough Corridor—Middlesbrough

  Northern Gateway Stage 2—North Tyneside

  Roscommon Way Extension—Essex

  Wylye Valley Relief Road—Wiltshire

  Al SE Northumberland Link Road (Central Section)— Northumberland.

  The following four were rejected:

  A52 Grantham East-West Bypass— Lincolnshire A

  182 East Durham Link Road— Durham

  Central Somerset Access Package— Somerset

  East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor— Middlesbrough.

  No decision has yet been announced on the following scheme which is being considered as part of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study:
  Alderley Edge Bypass— Cheshire

  The following local authorities will receive the additional £10 million provided for road maintenance in 2002–03:

  Birmingham

  Wolverhampton

  Brighton and Hove

  Cheshire

  Isle of Wight

  Warwickshire

  Oldham

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Coventry

  Thurrock

  Stockport

  Poole

  Bournemouth.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) the HSE, (b) Railtrack plc, (c) the administrator of his staff and (d) Mr. Alan Cooksey concerning issues of rail safety since Railtrack was put into administration. [23985]
  229W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials have regular meetings with HSE, Railtrack plc and the administrator and his staff at which a variety of matters are discussed.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to fund by PFI(a) new and (b) existing major road schemes announced in the Local Transport Capital Settlement 2002–03. [23984]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities are asked, as part of their Local Transport Plans, to examine whether individual major road schemes would be suitable for PFI procurement. Based on this information, the Department has identified a number of schemes which appear to be suitable for PFI procurement. In these cases, we expect each of the local authorities to evaluate whether the scheme would demonstrate better value for money as a PFI deal. Advice and assistance is available from the Department to help local authorities carry out this evaluation. Conventional funding would not be available as an alternative source of funding for schemes that demonstrate better value for money through PFI. At present, a number of existing schemes are undergoing, and new ones have been asked to carry out, such an evaluation. Final decisions on the most appropriate procurement route will be taken when those evaluations are complete.

  Regeneration Projects, Islington
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the regeneration projects(a) wholly and (b) partly funded by the Government in Islington since May 1997, with the expenditure to date on each project by central Government. [23643]

  Ms Keeble
  Central Government expenditure to date on Islington regeneration schemes is as follows:

  £

  Scheme

  Expenditure

  Single Regeneration Budget

  Futures Gateway

  189,583

  Kings Cross

  30,523,806

  Finsbury Park

  4,365,254

  City Fringe

  8,000,000

  Total

  43,078,643

  New Deal for Communities

  2000–01

  10,000

  2001–02

  595,282

  Total

  605,282

  Estates Action

  Prior to 2001–02

  7,853,895

  2001–02

  1504,844

  Total

  18,358,739

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  2001–02

  386,828

  Capital Challenge

  1997–2000

  19,500,0000

  Grand total

  161,548,219

  1 Estimate

  230W

  Jo Moore
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 16 November from the hon. Member for Maidenhead regarding his special adviser Jo Moore. [23925]

  Mr. Byers
  I wrote to the hon. Member yesterday.

  Ring-fenced Funds
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funds allocated by(a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies are ring-fenced for specific purposes; and if he will list the allocations of funds involved. [22951]

  Ms Keeble
  All funds allocated by the Department and its executive agencies to recipients in the private, public and voluntary sectors are issued for specific purposes. However, recipients may have more or less flexibility over the use they make of those funds depending on the conditions of the payment regime.

  Government Advisory Group for Motor Cycling
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the Government Advisory Group for Motor Cycling has been disbanded. [23699]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The advisory group met on 13 November and the next meeting is to be arranged for the spring.

  River Safety
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry into the Marchioness and River Safety; and if he will make a statement. [21588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 29 November I announced that I had, that day, placed in the Libraries of the House an updated summary of the action taken on each of Lord Justice Clarke's 74 recommendations. Further updates will be placed in the Libraries at about six monthly intervals.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures are being taken to speed up delivery from multi-modal studies. [24259]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Highways Agency, in consultation with the relevant study steering group and Government Office, to identify trunk road schemes which would benefit from additional work to support and inform the study and the subsequent decision-making process. In concert with the Government Office, statutory advisory bodies and regional partners, the Agency will carry out such additional work as may be required to establish these schemes' feasibility. Where the Regional Planning Body and the Secretary of State subsequently agree to progress a scheme, this approach will also facilitate entry to the national Targeted Programme of Improvements. We are working closely with the Strategic Rail Authority to
  231W
  ensure that consideration of rail schemes is similarly informed and robust and have asked steering groups and Government Offices to identify schemes that would benefit from early assessment. We are also encouraging steering groups to identify local transport schemes for which additional appraisal at an early stage would aid decision making.

  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he intends to invite the members of the Boundary Commission for Wales to serve a second term; and if he will make a statement. [24404]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today appointed, for a second term, Professor Kenneth George as a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales. His appointment is effective until 30 June 2005.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also today appointed, for a second term, Mrs. Susan Smith, as a member of the Boundary Commission for Wales. Mrs. Smith's appointment is also effective until 30 June 2005.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian

  Police strength

  Full-time equivalent

  Strength

  Change—Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  30 September 2001

  March 1997 to September 2001

  September 2000 to September 2001

  North East

  6,597

  6,820

  6,859

  6,927

  330

  107

  Cleveland

  1,459

  1,421

  1,407

  1,434

  -25

  13

  Durham

  1,461

  1,581

  1,595

  1,600

  140

  19

  Northumbria

  3,677

  3,818

  3,857

  3,893

  216

  75

  North West

  17,588

  17,110

  17,296

  17,514

  -74

  404

  Cheshire

  2,046

  2,000

  2,002

  2,021

  -25

  21

  Cumbria

  1,144

  1,048

  1,048

  1,075

  -69

  27

  Greater Manchester

  6,922

  6,767

  6,909

  7,036

  114

  269

  Lancashire

  3,247

  3,215

  3,255

  3,288

  41

  74

  Merseyside

  4,230

  4,081

  4,081

  4,095

  -135

  14

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  11,750

  11,189

  11,234

  11,463

  -287

  274

  Humberside

  2,045

  1,905

  1,917

  1,991

  -54

  86

  North Yorkshire

  1,338

  1,293

  1,305

  1,390

  52

  97

  South Yorkshire

  3,159

  3,184

  3,197

  3,223

  64

  39

  West Yorkshire

  5,209

  4,806

  4,815

  4,859

  -350

  53

  East Midlands

  8,436

  8,350

  8,490

  8,550

  114

  200

  Derbyshire

  1,791

  1,780

  1,823

  1,851

  60

  71

  Leicestershire

  1,949

  2,010

  2,032

  2,062

  113

  52

  Lincolnshire

  1,196

  1,162

  1,202

  1,184

  -12

  22

  Northamptonshire

  1,177

  1,166

  1,157

  1,180

  3

  14

  Nottinghamshire

  2,323

  2,232

  2,275

  2,273

  -50

  41

  West Midlands

  12,290

  12,324

  12,429

  12,474

  184

  150

  Staffordshire

  2,211

  2,157

  2,129

  2,119

  -92

  -38

  Warwickshire

  926

  912

  926

  930

  4

  18

  West Mercia

  2,040

  1,906

  1,951

  1,994

  -46

  88

  West Midlands

  7,113

  7,350

  7,423

  7,432

  319

  82

  Eastern

  9,727

  9,554

  9,703

  9,762

  35

  208

  Bedfordshire

  1,094

  1,006

  1,036

  1,050

  -44

  44

  Cambridgeshire

  1,302

  1,266

  1,296

  1,350

  48

  84

  232W
  staff there are (i) in total and (ii) for each police force in England and Wales at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [23919]

  Mr. Denham
  The tables show, for March 1997, September 2000, March 2001 and September 2001 total numbers of police officers and civilian staff for each police authority area in England and Wales, together with changes in numbers since March 1997 and September 2000.

  On 30 September 2001 total police numbers, including secondments, in England and Wales were 127,231 an increase of 2,645 or 2.1 per cent., compared with the end of September 2000. This is the largest annual increase in police numbers since 1980–81.

  Between 30 September 2000 and 30 September 2001 the number of civilian support staff increased by 2,788, or 5.2 per cent., to 56,644.

  In total, there were 183,875 police officers and civilian support staff compared with 180,169 in March 1997.

  The substantial investment we are putting into the police service is delivering the improvements that we promised. We are on track to meet our target of record police numbers by April 2002 and 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

  Following concern about the quality of data in previous police personnel statistics publications, we established a task force to review the data requirement. The report of the task force proposes a comprehensive revision to the current requirements on police personnel statistics. Following consultation with the police service we will implement the necessary changes from September 2002.
  233W

  Police strength

  Full-time equivalent

  Strength

  Change—Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  30 September 2001

  March 1997 to September 2001

  September 2000 to September 2001

  Essex1

  2,961

  2,818

  2,897

  2,937

  -24

  119

  Hertfordshire1

  1,759

  1,961

  1,922

  1,843

  84

  -118

  Norfolk

  1,432

  1,387

  1,420

  1,436

  4

  49

  Suffolk

  1,180

  1,115

  1,133

  1,146

  -34

  31

  London

  27,536

  25,414

  25,581

  26,074

  -1,462

  660

  City of London

  859

  719

  703

  699

  -160

  -20

  Metropolitan police1

  26,677

  24,695

  24,878

  25,374

  -1,303

  679

  South East

  15,111

  15,349

  15,381

  15,378

  267

  29

  Hampshire

  3,452

  3,437

  3,438

  3,449

  -3

  12

  Kent

  3,260

  3,239

  3,319

  3,367

  107

  128

  Surrey1

  1,620

  2,113

  2,066

  2,018

  398

  -95

  Sussex

  3,085

  2,812

  2,855

  2,837

  -248

  25

  Thames Valley

  3,695

  3,748

  3,703

  3,708

  13

  -40

  South West

  9,424

  9,354

  9,576

  9,693

  269

  339

  Avon and Somerset>

  2,989

  2,941

  2,994

  3,040

  51

  99

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,865

  2,873

  2,934

  2,972

  108

  100

  Dorset

  1,284

  1,299

  1,354

  1,360

  76

  61

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  1,142

  1,173

  1,169

  36

  27

  Wiltshire

  1,154

  1,099

  1,120

  1,152

  -2

  53

  Wales

  6,592

  6,738

  6,927

  7,134

  542

  396

  Dyfed Powys

  1,005

  1,045

  1,055

  1,098

  94

  53

  Gwent

  1,243

  1,271

  1,274

  1,303

  60

  32

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,393

  1,444

  1,491

  122

  98

  South Wales

  2,976

  3,029

  3,154

  3,241

  265

  212

  England and Wales2

  125,051

  122,203

  123,476

  124,969

  -82

  2,766

  Total secondments

  2,107

  2,383

  2,206

  2,261

  154

  -122

  Total3

  127,158

  124,586

  125,682

  127,231

  73

  2,645

  1 As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000.

  2 Excluding secondments

  3 Including secondments

  Note:

  Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals

  Civilian staff (excluding traffic wardens)

  Full-time equivalent

  Strength

  Change—Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  30 September 2001

  March 1997 to September 2001

  September 2000 to September 2001

  North East

  2,557

  2,583

  2,496

  2,562

  5

  -21

  Cleveland

  609

  598

  586

  604

  -5

  6

  Durham

  583

  573

  566

  612

  29

  39

  Northumbria

  1,365

  1,413

  1,344

  1,346

  -19

  -67

  North West

  6,267

  7,007

  7,066

  7,394

  1,127

  387

  Cheshire

  735

  870

  833

  857

  122

  -13

  Cumbria

  451

  505

  588

  612

  161

  107

  Greater Manchester

  2,612

  2,845

  2,858

  3,027

  415

  182

  Lancashire

  1,126

  1,351

  1,369

  1,409

  283

  58

  Merseyside

  1,343

  1,437

  1,418

  1,489

  146

  52

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  4,762

  4,923

  4,939

  5,221

  459

  298

  Humberside

  718

  783

  808

  802

  84

  19

  North Yorkshire

  519

  533

  591

  677

  158

  144

  South Yorkshire

  1,291

  1,399

  1,312

  1,446

  156

  47

  West Yorkshire

  2,234

  2,208

  2,228

  2,296

  62

  88

  East Midlands

  3,555

  4,039

  3,855

  3,914

  359

  -125

  Derbyshire

  723

  865

  875

  874

  151

  9

  Leicestershire

  755

  808

  686

  691

  -64

  -117

  Lincolnshire

  521

  554

  561

  581

  60

  27

  Northamptonshire

  554

  648

  694

  745

  192

  97

  Nottinghamshire

  1,003

  987

  1,039

  1,023

  20

  36

  West Midlands

  4,819

  5,132

  5,261

  5,463

  644

  331

  Staffordshire

  763

  897

  935

  950

  188

  53

  Warwickshire

  376

  388

  412

  428

  52

  40

  West Mercia

  942

  1,026

  1,095

  1,192

  250

  166

  West Midlands

  2,739

  2,821

  2,819

  2,893

  155

  72

  234W 235W

  Civilian staff (excluding traffic wardens)

  Full-time equivalent

  Strength

  Change—Number

  GOR/police force

  31 March 1997

  30 September 2000

  31 March 2001

  30 September 2001

  March 1997 to September 2001

  September 2000 to September 2001

  Eastern

  4,234

  4,699

  4,802

  5,097

  863

  398

  Bedfordshire

  484

  488

  491

  512

  28

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  607

  543

  614

  668

  61

  125

  Essex1

  1,199

  1,472

  1,447

  1,509

  310

  38

  Hertfordshire1

  818

  948

  935

  990

  172

  42

  Norfolk

  603

  651

  694

  759

  156

  108

  Suffolk

  522

  592

  621

  659

  137

  67

  London

  13,840

  10,382

  10,273

  10,469

  -3,371

  87

  City of London

  347

  235

  233

  229

  -118

  -6

  Metropolitan police1

  13,493

  10,147

  10,040

  10,240

  -3,253

  93

  South East

  6,399

  7,292

  7,462

  7,957

  1,558

  665

  Hampshire

  1,316

  1,467

  1,424

  1,507

  191

  40

  Kent

  1,384

  1,670

  1,796

  2,022

  638

  352

  Surrey1

  111

  865

  897

  957

  230

  92

  Sussex

  1,149

  1,405

  1,454

  1,506

  357

  101

  Thames Valley

  1,825

  1,890

  1,891

  1,965

  140

  75

  South West

  4,122

  4,581

  4,715

  4,951

  829

  370

  Avon and Somerset

  1,438

  1,437

  1,452

  1,531

  93

  94

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,159

  1,391

  1,453

  1,516

  357

  125

  Dorset

  615

  681

  682

  721

  106

  40

  Gloucestershire

  435

  498

  506

  533

  98

  35

  Wiltshire

  475

  574

  622

  650

  175

  76

  Wales

  2,455

  2,686

  2,706

  2,829

  374

  143

  Dyfed Powys

  322

  393

  401

  438

  116

  45

  Gwent

  452

  490

  537

  564

  112

  74

  North Wales

  476

  511

  498

  559

  84

  48

  South Wales

  1,206

  1,293

  1,270

  1,268

  63

  -25

  England and Wales2,3

  53,011

  53,147

  53,573

  55,856

  2,845

  2,709

  Total secondments

  n/a

  708

  765

  789

  n/a

  81

  Total3,4

  53,011

  53,856

  54,338

  56,644

  3,633

  2,788

  1As of April 2000, the Metropolitan police force was reduced in size by a transfer of responsibility for policing some areas to the surrounding forces of Surrey, Hertfordshire and Essex. These changes need to be borne in mind when comparing figures for these forces before and after April 2000.

  2Excluding secondments

  3 In the March 1997 figures, civilian secondments were counted within the civilian figures for the forces from which they were seconded. The increase in civilians between March 1997 and September 2001 take account of this.

  4 Including secondments

  Note:

  Because of rounding, constituent parts may not necessarily sum to the totals

  Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans to integrate(a) cultural exchanges with the Islamic world and (b) the Barcelona Process into the fight against terrorism. [22884]

  Peter Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are working closely with the British Council, which is designated as our cultural arm overseas. The council has developed a programme called "Open Minds", with proposals to build mutual understanding between young people of different cultures. These include school links and other youth exchanges, and networking between young professionals, future leaders and journalists. The project will focus initially on ten countries with large Muslim populations (Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). It will also involve Muslim communities in the UK.

  At the most recent Ministerial Meeting of the Barcelona Process, on 5–6 November, Ministers reiterated their condemnation of the terrorist attacks committed in the
  236W
  United States on 11 September. They underlined the importance of the Barcelona Process as an instrument for promoting a dialogue of equals between cultures and civilisations. Ministers agreed to work on deepening the existing dialogue between cultures and civilisations, focusing on youth, education and the media.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the willingness of terrorists to commit suicidal acts to inflict substantial loss of life was taken into account in the drafting of the Terrorism Act 2000. [19776]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Such acts are covered by the definition of terrorism in Part One of the Terrorism Act 2000. Following the attacks of September 11 we decided to take stock and review our laws to see where they might need further strengthening. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill contains proportionate and targeted measures which will ensure and safeguard our way of life against those who would take our freedom away. The Bill takes account of the threat from those helping to organise, fund or facilitate global terrorist acts, including the structures and systems needed by those prepared to undertake suicide attacks.
  237W

  Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to receive the next report of the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851; [12251]

  (2) if he will list the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851. [12252]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 7 November 2001 ]I have been informed by the Secretary of the Royal Commission of 1851 that they are no longer obliged to report to Government and have not done so since 1961. Any enquiries should be addressed directly to the Commission.

  Neighbourhood Watch Scheme
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding was provided by central Government to the neighbourhood watch scheme in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [8451]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office pays for the production of a range of neighbourhood watch publications, including a training manual for scheme co-ordinators. We also support neighbourhood watch training events. In addition we have this year made up to £80,000 available to ensure that the neighbourhood watch annual conference can go ahead.

  PFI
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 288W, on PFI transactions, what is the (a) aggregate of cost savings estimated to have been made through PFI transactions overseen by his Department, (b) aggregate capital value of the PFI projects overseen by his Department and (c) individual capital value of each PFI project overseen by his Department in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [13975]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]The information is as follows:

  (a) The aggregate of cost savings estimated to have been made through PFI transactions overseen by this Department is £641.63 million.

  (b) and (c) from the best information available, the following table lists the capital value and aggregate value of PFI projects overseen by this Department in the last 10 years:

  £ million

  Transaction/project title

  Capital value

  2001

  Rainsbrook (Onley) Secure Training Centre Expansion

  5.6

  Heat Energy Services Tranche 2

  12

  2000

  HM Prison (HMP) Ryehill

  37

  HMP Dovegate

  64

  Quantum

  60

  Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)

  Not applicable

  IT2000 (Sirius Programme)

  24.7

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) (Airwave)

  500

  238W

  £ million

  Transaction/project title

  Capital value

  1999

  0

  1998

  Rainsbrook (Onley) Secure Training Centre

  7.4

  Hassockfield (Medomsley) Secure Training Centre

  9.1

  HMP Forest Bank

  45

  HMPS Heat Energy Services Tranche 1

  8

  HM Young Offender Institution (HMYOI) Ashfield

  26

  Passport Application Support System—Front End

  15

  Passport Application Support System—Back End

  15

  1997

  Medway (Cookham Wood) Secure Training Centre

  9.1

  1996

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Casework Programme

  41

  HMP Pare

  47

  HMP Lowdham Grange

  25

  1995

  HMP Altcourse

  68

  1994

  0

  1993

  0

  1992

  0

  Aggregate value

  1,018.90

  Police Patrols (Private Minibuses)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of occasions on which private minibuses have been hired for police patrol purposes; and what assessment he has made of the cost compared with that of using police vehicles. [18908]

  Mr. Denham
  Decisions to deploy hired minibuses rather than other police vehicles for police patrol purposes are operational matters for Chief Officers.

  Forensic Laboratories
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total funding by his Department for the national forensic laboratories in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [12041]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not subsidise the Home Office Forensic Science Service in England and Wales. Their income is generated through the services they provide to police forces, the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the other law enforcement agencies in England and Wales.

  The Forensic Science Service receives short-term loans from the Home Office, which are repaid within the same financial year. The Forensic Science Service has received the following aggregate short-term loans:

  1999–2000: £5.8 million

  2000–01: £2.5 million

  2001–02: £4.5 million.

  They also have a long-term trading fund loan of £17.92 million, which was made in March 2000 and is repayable over the next 25 years at commercial rates.
  239W

  Asylum Applications
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of initial refusals of applications for asylum on the grounds of non-compliance were upheld on appeal for each of the last six months for which data exists. [10723]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Figures regarding the outcome of all asylum appeals (regardless of the type of refusal) are published on the Department's website: http: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm.

  We are continually seeking to expand the information which we are able to publish but we will only do so once we are confident in the data's reliability.

  Assisted Prisoner Visits Unit
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual budget for the Assisted Prison Visits Unit in respect of visits to(a) British nationals and (b) foreign nationals; and under which vote the funds are provided. [22815]

  Beverley Hughes
  The assisted prison visits scheme for England and Wales exists to help prisoners maintain contact with their close family. To qualify for assistance the visitor must be in receipt of a low income or one of a number of benefits as set out in the rules of the scheme. Visitors who meet the qualifying criteria are eligible for assistance without regard to the nationality of the prisoner whom they wish to visit. The scheme provides financial assistance to meet the cost of visiting prisoners who are held in prisons in England and Wales but there are reciprocal arrangements in place with the prison services in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Channel Islands.

  The opening budget for the assisted prison visits scheme for 2001–02 is £2.6 million. These funds are provided under Home Office Request for Resources 2 (RfR2): Protecting the public by holding prisoners in decent conditions and reducing re-offending after release.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for the number of offenders completing accredited programmes in the community. [17069]

  Beverley Hughes
  Encouraging progress has been made so far towards the Service Delivery Agreement target (30,000 offenders completing accredited offending behaviour programmes in the community by 2003–04—including 6,000 drug-related programme completions).

  Nine offending behaviour programmes have been awarded full accreditation, and two have achieved provisional accreditation. All probation areas are now running accredited general offending programmes, and roll out of other accredited programmes is continuing. It is however too early to provide meaningful figures on the actual numbers of completions.
  240W

  Board of Visitors Reports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Board of Visitors annual reports for prisons in England and Wales for 2001 have been received by his Department. [22481]

  Beverley Hughes
  As of 11 December 2001, annual reports had been received from 44 Boards of Visitors. Since the reporting period each year is staggered, some of the reports for 2001 are not due before the end of March 2002.

  High-risk Offenders
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for legislation to reduce the dangers posed to the public by people with a demonstrable history of high-risk offending. [15177]

  Beverley Hughes
  "Making Punishments Work", the report of a review of the sentencing framework (and known as the Halliday Report), was published on 5 July. One of the key recommendations in the report is that prison sentences of 12 months or more for 'dangerous' (violent and sex) offenders should be subject to special provisions which provide for discretionary release, subject to risk assessment, from the halfway point until the end of the sentence, coupled with the possibility of extended supervision.

  We are currently analysing the responses to all the recommendations in the report with a view to formulating final proposals for legislation on a new framework for sentencing.

  We also recently published a review of Part One of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (the register of sex offenders) for public consultation. The consultation period ended on 19 October and we are currently analysing the responses to its recommendations for strengthening the legislation.

  In addition, the Government plan to introduce new Mental Health legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. This will provide a clear legal framework for the detention of those who pose a significant risk of serious harm to others as a result of a mental disorder, including a personality disorder.

  These proposals will build on earlier measures we have taken to improve public protection including: implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for sex offender orders and extended supervision of sexual and violent offenders; and provisions in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to ban unsuitable people working with children and to strengthen the Sex Offenders Act.

  Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been sentenced under(a) section 109, (b) section 110 and (c) section 111 of the powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [21641]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have a record of 310 life sentences imposed under what is now section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (PCC(S)A). We only have reliable figures for sentences
  241W
  imposed under what is now section 110 and 111 of the PCC(S)A for the period from December 1999 to June 2000. There were four offenders sentenced under section 110 for repeat drug offences. Current figures indicate that there have been no mandatory sentences imposed under what is now section 111 which deals with repeat burglars.

  Prison Estate Services (Privatisation)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the inquiry into the scope for further privatisation of services within the prison estate; and if he will make a statement. [21638]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am considering the review commissioned by my predecessor on the private finance initiative (PFI) and market-testing in the Prison Service conducted by Pat Carter. I expect to publish it shortly.

  New Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for future contracts for new prisons to be agreed on the basis of private sector design and building and public sector management; and if he will make a statement. [21639]

  Beverley Hughes
  The only new programme currently planned are for prisons designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector at Peterborough and Ashford. Any requirement for new prisons beyond these will be for discussion in the current spending review.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to put to tender local probation service facilities; and what consultation has taken place with employers and employees concerning such reform. [21622]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is currently a phased procurement exercise taking place to put to tender National Probation Service facilities management functions on a property division basis. Consultation has taken place and will continue to do so, with employers and staff, including trades unions and employers groups.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the criteria used are in assessing whether local probation services facilities should be the subject of tendering; and if he will make a statement. [21623]

  Beverley Hughes
  Facilities Management Services to be subjected to tendering are to be selected on the basis of those assessed as having the potential to provide better value for money. With the creation of a national service on 1 April 2001 there is greater need for consistency in service delivery and the opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of probation services through benefiting from economies of scale.

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations he has made to accommodate suspected international terrorists in the event 242W
  of legislation before the House being enacted; which prisons and other buildings have been identified for use; which body has been tasked to prepare the administration of accommodation for suspected international terrorists in detention; what arrangements have been made to provide separate secure accommodation for (a) women and (b) persons under 18 years of age; what security regime will be put in place at these institutions; what arrangements are being made for suspected international terrorists (i) to receive visitors and (ii) to maintain family relations; what preparations he has made to allow those in detention to practise their religion and to meet their dietary requirements; and what special training he has established to prepare prison officers to treat detainees in accordance with international best practice. [21309]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Prison Service will be responsible for the safe and secure custody of any such detainees. We have identified suitable secure facilities within the Prison Service Estate. Prison Service rules will apply in respect of all aspects of the detention.

  Northumbria Police
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were in post in the Northumbria police area in(a) May 1997, (b) September 2001 and (c) each reporting period in between. [17990]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table. Police numbers information is collected in March and September. Police strength figures for September 2001 are not yet available but Northumbria police have provided officer numbers for August 2001.

  Full-time equivalent

  Police strength in Northumbria

  Civilian support staff

  March 1997

  3,617

  1,365

  September 1997

  3,689

  1,385

  March 1998

  3,769

  1,362

  September 1998

  3,802

  1,430

  March 1999

  3,840

  1,443

  September 1999

  3,800

  1,482

  March 2000

  3,788

  1,417

  September 2000

  3,818

  1,413

  March 2001

  3,857

  1,416

  September 2001

  3,908

  n/a

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength 1997–2001 (March and September figures)

  Northumbria police has set a budgeted workforce total for 31 March 2002 of 4,000 officers.

  Policing (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been allocated for policing in Merseyside in each year since 1997, broken down into budget headings. [18219]

  Mr. Denham
  The amount of funding allocated for policing in Merseyside is as follows.
  243W

  Annual police settlements

  £ million

  Police grant

  Revenue support grant

  National non domestic rates

  Total Government funding

  1997–98

  113.6

  65.8

  28.1

  207.5

  1998–99

  119.1

  66.5

  27.6

  213.2

  1999–2000

  118.7

  67.1

  29.5

  215.3

  2000–01

  122.2

  65.9

  32.6

  220.7

  2001–02

  126.7

  70.3

  32.2

  229.2

  Crime fighting fund

  £ million

  2000–01

  1.6

  2001–02

  15.0

  1 It is expected that the force will receive this amount in respect of 124 Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruits from 2000–01 and a further 93 new CFF recruits projected for 2001–02

  Capital

  Under present arrangements, capital grant is paid to police authorities. Grant also continues to be paid towards the annual loan charges on capital sums borrowed under earlier grant rules.

  £ million

  Capital grant

  Loan charges grant

  1997–98

  3.8

  0.48

  1998–99

  2.3

  0.34

  1999–2000

  2.0

  0.35

  2000–01

  2.5

  0.32

  2001–02

  2.3

  10.29

  1 Provisional

  Individual Payments

  Home Office accounts records show that the force has also received the following individual payments:

  Purpose

  £

  August 1997

  Police Firearms grant

  66,556

  August 1999

  Police Beacon scheme

  83,000

  March 2000

  Police Beacon scheme

  8,880

  October 2000

  Anti-robbery grant

  1,800,000

  December 2000

  Execution of warrants

  145,987

  March 2001

  National Fuel Distribution Emergency

  1320,939

  July 2001

  National Intelligence Model

  115,800

  1 A further estimated £36,000 will be paid in 2001–02, subject to audit of claims

  Crime Reduction Programme

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme over £10 million has been allocated since 1999 to Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships for projects in Merseyside.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the £11 million allocated for running costs and service development work in 2001–02 in respect of new places in the Prison Service High Security estate has been reallocated to other key Home Office priorities. [22091]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]The initial allocation in 2001–02 for running costs and service development was £11 million. This figure was 244W
  necessarily an estimated projection of likely spend for the year because of the ground-breaking nature of this work. Project spend is carefully monitored and regular forecasting exercises are carried out.

  Latest projections show that £5.67 million will be spent within this financial year, and £5.33 million reallocated to other key Home Office priorities.

  Police (North Wales)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed in North Wales in each of the last 10 years; and how many he estimates will be employed over the next five years. [17957]

  Mr. Denham
  The historic information requested is set out in the table. At 31 March 2001 North Wales police numbers were at record levels. In addition, North Wales police employed 498 civilian support staff at 31 March 2001.

  Year as at 31 March

  Police officers in post1

  1991

  1,349

  1992

  1,347

  1993

  1,360

  1994

  1,352

  1995

  1,366

  1996

  1,378

  1997

  1,369

  1998

  1,396

  1999

  1,391

  2000

  1,403

  2001

  1,444

  20022

  1,506

  20032

  1,529

  1 Full time equivalents

  2 Estimate

  The Chief Constable of North Wales police has provided the estimates for 2002 and 2003, but is unable to make an estimate for later years.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many errors in fingerprint identification have been discovered in(a) the UK and (b) the Greater Manchester area in the last five years. [16950]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collated nationally.

  During the last five years over 75,000 crime scene submissions have been received in the Greater Manchester Police Fingerprint Unit, which have produced nearly 19,000 identifications. In the last five years, two cases in which a person who was incorrectly identified.

  Greater Manchester Police Fingerprint Unit has an excellent reputation and performance record and has taken all practical steps to mitigate the risk of any further occurrences.

  Terrorist Prison Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are serving a prison sentence(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Northern Ireland for acts of terrorism. [20437]
  245W
  Beverley Hughes
  The number of people serving a prison sentence in the United Kingdom for acts of terrorism is not held centrally. If a person commits an act of terrorism, they are generally charged and convicted of an offence relating to the effect that the act has had. For example, if people are killed as a result, the prisoner is likely to be convicted of murder.

  The latest figures show that between 1 January 2000 and 18 February 2001, 46 people were detained in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 of whom 26 were subsequently charged with an offence. Nine were charged with an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and 17 were charged with other offences (14 for kidnapping, including hijackings). Further information is contained within the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 'Statistics on the Operation of Prevention of Terrorism Legislation', 16/01, Great Britain 2001. This bulletin is available at the web address: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uldrds/pdfs/hosb1601.pdf

  The request for information on prisoners in Northern Ireland should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Anti-crime Strategies (The Elderly)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies are in place to protect the elderly from becoming the victims of burglary and violent crime; and if he will make a statement. [19360]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The Government's Crime Reduction Strategy, which was published in November 1999, set out what we are doing to tackle various crimes including domestic burglary. Our publication "Fighting violent crime together: an action plan" sets out what we are doing to tackle violent crime. Neither is specifically targeted at elderly victims; crime statistics show that the elderly are generally at lower risk of victimisation. However, various initiatives have been aimed specifically at preventing elderly people becoming victims of these types of crime including:
  A number of projects under the Reducing Burglary Initiative (part of the Crime Reduction Programme) with interventions specifically addressing burglary against the elderly.
  Over £2 million allocated to three projects specifically designed to combat distraction burglary, which primarily affects the elderly, and a further £1 million for the work of the distraction burglary task force.
  A home security scheme for pensioners, which provides security checks and, where needed, additional security measures for eligible pensioners.
  Home Office publicity on crime prevention contains detailed advice to help the elderly reduce the risk of burglary, including burglary by fraudulent callers.

  The Government approach to tackling violent crime includes:
  providing the police with resources in terms of manpower and modern technology to enable them to develop more efficient intelligence-led policing and problem orientated policing;
  more effective punishment, through the creation of a new sentencing structure;
  246W
  dealing with the root causes of violent crime by looking at measures to divert young people from crime;
  giving the courts new community disposals to curtail offending behaviour at an early stage;
  the Crime Reduction expenditure includes Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) schemes to improve personal safety in public areas.

  Charity Check
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will withhold grants to charities which do not comply with good practice as laid down by Charity Check. [20182]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: No. Charity Check is self-appointed to the role it aims to play in the control of fundraising. The Charity Commission is the regulatory body for charities and in the case of collections being made for charitable purposes the Commission has powers under the Charities Act 1993 to look into instances where it appears that funds raised for charitable causes may be at risk.

  Police Service (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations were closed in Devon and Cornwall, in each year since 1997; and what plans he has to help rural communities benefit from locally-based police. [17276]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand from the chief constable that the numbers of police stations closed in Devon and Cornwall since 1997 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  5

  1997–98

  4

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  4

  2000–01

  0

  1 April to 22 November 2001

  0

  Police authorities are now required to undertake public consultation before closure of police stations in their area.

  The Government fully recognise the special needs of rural policing, and the demands of delivering a high quality service to communities with a low population density. £15 million was made available in 2000–01 to enhance the policing service in rural areas. Financial provision for future years has been included in the SR2000 settlement. Forces that police sparsely populated areas benefit from a further £30 million in 2001–02, and similar provision exists for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Devon and Cornwall was allocated more than £1.5 million Rural Funding in 2000–01, and £3.1 million for the current year. These sums are greater than the allocations to any other force area.Police authorities which are allocated a share of the fund are required to publish a statement in their Annual/Best Value Policing Plans on how the money has been, and will be, spent.

  In addition, the White Paper "Policing a New Century", published on 5 December, set out plans for increasing the accessibility of the police service to the public.
  247W

  Rough Sleepers Unit
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications(a) his Department and (b) affiliated organisations have had in the last four years with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Rough Sleepers Unit concerning rough sleeping headcounts in London. [22051]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: Regular contact is made between officials, but I am not aware of specific communication over the rough sleeping headcounts. I am also aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met with Louise Casey.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the range and provision of education to prison inmates; and what type of work is made available in prisons. [20961]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: All prisons must provide a core curriculum of basic skills, life and social skills and information technology skills. The main thrust of education in prisons is to provide opportunities for offenders to attain a range of nationally recognised qualifications up to level 2, which will enhance their employability on release. We are encouraging the integration of basic skills across prison regimes in areas such as physical education, kitchens, vocational training (VT) workshops and arts and crafts classes. Provision is also made for those with higher levels of ability, for example through distance learning.

  Prisoners are employed in a range of work-related activities which include: industry workshops supplying goods and services for the Prison Service and outside commercial contractors and catering, cleaning, works and garden parties providing services within each establishment. Industries and training workshops offer prisoners opportunities to learn job skills and to achieve nationally recognised qualifications, such as NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) and construction awards. VT courses cover a wide range of learning areas such as, catering, industrial cleaning, construction skills, motor mechanics, engineering, hairdressing, and manufacturing.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 14 August and 3 October from the hon. Member for Putney on behalf of his constituent Ms Saeeda Dualeh Jibril (Ref. O 128662). [16767]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 December 2001. I am extremely sorry for the delay in replying.

  Travellers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent guidance he has issued to police forces on the handling of travellers and traveller encampments. [21728]
  248W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) provides operational guidance to police forces on powers to direct travellers or other trespassers to leave land when the appropriate statutory requirements are met. The guidance is kept under regular review.

  Research has been conducted to review the effectiveness of the current Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)/Home Office Good Practice Guidance on Managing Unauthorised Camping. A summary of the findings was published by the DTLR on 2 November and a copy placed in the Library.

  Blantyre House
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the report on allegations of bullying at Blantyre House will be published before the end of the year; [21843]

  (2) if he will list the (a) prison service officials, (b) inmates and (c) former staff interviewed as part of the investigation into allegations of bullying at Blantyre House; and on what dates they were interviewed. [21844]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am unable to provide a list of the people interviewed as part of this investigation. This is because all witnesses are assured that their participation in, and any information resulting from, interviews during the course of a prison service disciplinary inquiry is treated in the strictest confidence. However, these allegations are being thoroughly investigated. The report into allegations of bullying will be completed by the end of the year and submitted to the commissioning authority in the new year. It is not intended to publish the report.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget was for education at Blantyre House in(a) 2001 and (b) the preceding three years. [21842]

  Beverley Hughes
  The education budget for Blantyre House for the period 1997 to 2001 was:

  £

  Period

  Total

  1998–991

  164,000

  1999–20001

  204,775

  2000–011

  197,820

  2001–022

  170,000

  1 Actual spend

  2 Projected budget

  During the period 1999 to 2000 the actual spend included one-off provision of information technology equipment for a new course.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were spent by inmates at Blantyre House in colleges of further education outside the prison in 2001; and what the figures were in(a) 2000 and (b) 1999. [21841]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested can only be collected by manual collation of the data from prisoner records and databases and would be at a disproportionate cost. However, 21 prisoners at Blantyre House attended college in 1999–2000, 12 attended in 2000–01, and eight
  249W
  are attending in 2001–02. Details of hours spent by these prisoners on courses at further education colleges is not collected.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many resignations there have been by members of staff at Blantyre House in the last 12 months; and if he will list them. [21840]

  Beverley Hughes
  One member of staff, a plant attendant, resigned and was re-engaged as an Operational Support Grade. There have been no other resignations of Prison Service in the last twelve months. Teaching staff are provided under contract by the Kent Adult Education Service. During the last twelve months one full time tutor and one sessional tutor provided to Blantyre House under this contract have resigned from their employment.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio of short-term to long-term inmates at Blantyre House is; and what the ratio was in(a) 2000 and (b) 1999. [21839]

  Beverley Hughes
  Blantyre House only accepts prisoners with a minimum length of four years, and all its prisoners are therefore classified as long-term. This was also the case in 1999 and 2000.

  It may be, however, that the hon. Member is interested in any change in periods prisoners have left to serve when coming to Blantyre House. To maximise the numbers of prisoners who can benefit from the resettlement opportunities available at Blantyre House, the establishment is now accepting prisoners with a minimum of two years left to serve, which is shorter than was formerly the case. In order to maintain a balance in the population, however, the number of life sentence prisoners held there is being increased. Historical data on the lengths of sentence remaining to prisoners at Blantyre House are not available.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage change in funding allocation to each police authority per head of resident population in each police authority between 2001–02 and 2002–03. [21703]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The percentage change in provisional grant allocation for 2002–03 compared with 2001–02 to each police authority per head of resident population is given in the table. Grant allocation includes Home Office Police Grant, Revenue Support Grant (from DTLR), National Non Domestic Rates, Crime Fighting Fund allocations and, where applicable, rural policing fund grants. The 2002–03 allocations given here are provisional.

  In 2002–03 the costs for National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service will be paid directly from the centre rather than by the previous system of levies on police authorities. To provide a realistic comparison of funding for 2002–03 against 2001–02 provision for the NCS and NCIS levy has been deducted from the total allocation for 2001–02.

  Resident population is one of a number of indicators used in the calculation of the police funding formula. Details of the indicators and their relative value in determining the allocation for individual forces are set out
  250W
  in The Provisional Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2002–03, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Police force

  Grant funding per head 2001–02 (£)

  Grant funding per head 2002–03 (£)

  Percentage change

  Avon and Somerset

  100.55

  105.03

  4.46

  Bedfordshire

  101.29

  106.24

  4.89

  Cambridgeshire

  93.75

  97.33

  3.82

  Cheshire

  99.69

  104.23

  4.56

  City of London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cleveland

  141.32

  147.03

  4.04

  Cumbria

  114.95

  119.21

  3.71

  Derbyshire

  96.27

  101.56

  5.49

  Devon and Cornwall

  100.17

  105.32

  5.14

  Dorset

  85.83

  89.48

  4.26

  Durham

  127.10

  131.96

  3.83

  Dyfed Powys

  102.47

  107.16

  4.57

  Essex

  92.13

  96.54

  4.80

  GLA all functions

  261.31

  275.43

  5.40

  Gloucestershire

  98.94

  103.29

  4.40

  Greater Manchester

  139.38

  145.77

  4.58

  Gwent

  116.74

  121.90

  4.42

  Hampshire

  98.50

  103.75

  5.33

  Hertfordshire

  92.30

  97.04

  5.14

  Humberside

  120.67

  124.28

  2.99

  Kent

  107.87

  112.09

  3.91

  Lancashire

  116.96

  121.86

  4.19

  Leicestershire

  100.51

  105.13

  4.60

  Lincolnshire

  92.50

  96.21

  4.01

  Merseyside

  162.87

  168.27

  3.32

  Norfolk

  96.95

  102.25

  5.47

  North Yorkshire

  91.81

  95.88

  4.44

  Northamptonshire

  96.02

  99.68

  3.81

  Northumbria

  143.05

  147.73

  3.27

  North Wales

  106.86

  111.02

  3.90

  Nottinghamshire

  114.20

  117.92

  3.25

  South Wales

  122.54

  128.64

  4.98

  South Yorkshire

  125.13

  129.17

  3.22

  Staffordshire

  96.58

  100.12

  3.67

  Suffolk

  92.72

  96.47

  4.05

  Surrey

  77.04

  79.63

  3.36

  Sussex

  96.94

  101.43

  4.62

  Thames Valley

  93.91

  98.48

  4.87

  Warwickshire

  92.21

  95.42

  3.48

  West Mercia

  90.12

  93.65

  3.92

  West Midlands

  139.62

  144.64

  3.59

  West Yorkshire

  128.84

  133.40

  3.54

  Wiltshire

  93.84

  97.36

  3.75

  Note:

  1. The Corporation of the City of London have grants calculated as a local authority with wider functions than police. The principal police grant is given in the Provisional Police Grant Report.

  Gulf War (Detentions)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 350W, on detentions, how many of the (a) Iraqis and (b) Palestinians detained during the Gulf War were compensated. [18616]

  Angela Eagle
  No Iraqis or Palestinians have been paid compensation for their detention during the Gulf War.

  An out of court settlement of £20,000 was made in the case of one Iraqi, who sued the Home Office for damages for false imprisonment.
  251W

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17595]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 December 2001,Official Report, column 333W.

  Recidivism
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect and publish information on reoffending rates by penal institution. [22286]

  Beverley Hughes
  Reoffending rates are not normally measured as they rely on the self-reporting of offending by offenders. Such an approach can lead to questions over the reliability of data based on individuals' recollection and willingness to impart their offending behaviour to an official source.

  Reconviction rates for all prisoners are published annually in Prison Statistics England and Wales, copies of which are available in the Library.

  It is not appropriate, as a matter of routine, to publish reconviction rates by establishment. This is because the data source which enables prison reconviction rates to be measured only identifies the establishment from which an offender is finally discharged; a prisoner may have spent the majority of their time in custody in other establishments. The number of offenders finally discharged from individual establishments can be so small that any results produced would not be statistically robust.

  Child Pornography
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to tackle child pornography on the internet. [22113]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to tackling child pornography on the internet. We are determined to ensure that there are effective measures to combat this exploitation of children. In January 2001 we raised the maximum penalties for taking, making, distributing or showing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children to 10 years (from three years), and the maximum penalty for simple possession of such material to five years (from six months).

  We have made substantial investment in law enforcement to enhance the capability of the police to investigate serious and organised crime committed via computers or computer networks, such as the internet. In April, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit was established, within the National Crime Squad, to investigate or support the investigation of such serious criminal activity, including the production and distribution of child pornography.

  In March, a task force on child protection on the internet was established to identify and implement the best ways in which children can be better protected when using the internet. Within the task force, Government, industry, the police and the children's charities have come
  252W
  together to, among other things, scope new legislative measures specifically to tackle 'grooming' of children by paedophiles online (and offline).

  We support the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which was set up in 1996 by internet service providers to enable members of the public, via a hotline, to report child pornography and other potentially illegal material in a newsgroup or website. If the material is considered illegal, the foundation passes details to the United Kingdom police to initiate action against the originators and asks British internet service providers (ISPs) to deny access to the sites concerned. If the originators are abroad, the foundation passes the report to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) who liaise with the enforcement agencies of the countries concerned. Since it was established, the IWF has asked United Kingdom internet service providers to remove nearly 30,000 illegal items from the internet.

  Internationally, the Government actively support efforts within the European Union, and more widely, to combat child pornography on the internet. In November, we signed the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, which will underpin co-operative action between signatory states in respect of computer-related crimes, including the making, distribution and possession of child pornography.

  Internet Chat Rooms
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to raise public awareness of the dangers of children being targeted by paedophiles using internet chat rooms. [22112]

  Beverley Hughes
  On 3 December the Government launched a £1.5 million advertising campaign to deliver clear and consistent messages to internet users so they can enjoy the massive benefits of the internet in safety.

  The campaign is split in two discrete but complementary campaigns. One aimed at parents of 11 to 14-year-olds has begun. The other, aimed at 14 to 16-year-olds, starts in early January 2002. The whole campaign will run until March.

  The parents campaign started on 3 December with press advertisements in the national press and women's weekly magazines. The adverts explain the benefits of the internet and offer advice to parents on how to help their children chat safely online. Parents who want further information can call the UKonline centre (0800 77 1234) for a booklet about chatrooms or download the leaflet online by visiting www.wiseuptothenet.co.uk.

  The campaign for young people will involve cinema, radio, online and teen press advertising. A dedicated website (www.thinkuknow.co.uk) will provide further information and advice.

  The campaign was initiated by the task force on child protection on the internet. Created by the Home Secretary in March this year, the task force is a partnership of Government, industry, police and charitable organisations working together to tackle the danger posed to children by online paedophiles. It has two simple but ambitious aims: to make the United Kingdom the best and safest

  253W
  place in the world for children to use the internet; and to help protect children the world over from abuse fuelled by criminal misuse of new technologies.

  Crime Reduction Funding
  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 police and crime reduction 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 Resources 1-A. [22131]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: The projected change in net provision of £23,746,000 for policing and crime reduction in 2001–02 arises from:
  the transfer of provision to other parts of the Home Office and to other government departments that administer policing, crime reduction and anti-drugs initiatives on behalf of the Home Office's Policing and Crime Reduction Group;
  the uptake of End Year Flexibility in respect of the Crime Reduction Programme and the Confiscated Assets Fund;
  the transfer from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office in June 2001 of responsibility for the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit; and
  a transfer of provision from the Prison Service in support of police scientific development work.

  The projected change in net provision for policing and crime reduction does not represent a reduction of available funding for any particular initiative, but rather a transfer of provision to areas undertaking these initiatives.

  Request for Resources 1-A is intended to meet the cost of delivering a wide range of policing, crime reduction and anti-drugs initiatives. Examples include:
  the recruitment and training of police officers under the Crime Fighting Fund;
  Crime Reduction Programme funding to trial the effectiveness of a range of crime reduction initiatives;
  the expansion of the database of DNA samples.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total costs to date are of publicity campaigns for(a) police recruitment and (b) vehicle crime prevention. [22134]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001 ]: The total costs to date for the police recruitment and vehicle crime reduction publicity campaigns are as follows:

  2000–01

  Police £7.35 million

  Vehicle crime reduction £8.67 million

  April 2001 to date

  Police £4.78 million

  Vehicle crime reduction £4.26 million.

  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 criminal policy and programmes in 2001–02, (b) details of those areas of action which have received less funding than was
  254W
  provided for at the commencement of financial year 2001–02 and (c) examples of measures which are funded under Request for Resources Bl. [22133]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: (a) Reasons for the changes are set out in Command Paper 5514 Home Office Winter Supplementary Estimates, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  (b) No areas of action funded under B1 have received less funding than was provided for at the commencement of the current financial year other than for the reasons set out at (a) above. However underspends in these areas may be redirected to other priority areas later in the current financial year.

  (c) The principal activities funded under B1 are the National Probation Service, and the administration costs of the units that comprise Criminal Policy Group.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contract price was agreed by the Prison Service when the public sector took over HMP Blakenhurst at Redditch; and what additional sums have since been agreed. [22261]

  Beverley Hughes
  The year one price for the Service Level Agreement (SLA) at Blakenhurst prison is £10,143,844. The additional annual costs that have since been agreed amount to £58,000. There will also be a payment of £166,000 per year to cover Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment regulations (TUPE) costs for the first three years of the SLA.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 84W, on asylum seekers, what categories of data to be stored on the microchip on the asylum seeker's identification card were added after 5 November. [15273]

  Angela Eagle
  The list we provided earlier has been subjected to change. Discussions are still continuing in order to conclude a final list. Once this has been agreed, I will place a copy in the Library.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bed spaces the Landmark company is contracted to provide for asylum seekers. [18346]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that I am unable to supply this information on the grounds that details of individual contracts between National Asylum Support Service and its suppliers are commercial in confidence.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department concluded the last contract with the Landmark company in respect of asylum seekers; and which properties this was in respect of. [18347]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service has a single contract with the Landmark company for five years effective from 3 April 2000. I am unable to disclose precise details of the properties involved as there is a need
  255W
  to protect and preserve rights to privacy and security of the individuals living in accommodation provided by Landmark.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the administrative costs of the policy of dispersing asylum seekers were. [12872]

  Angela Eagle
  In the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 the administrative costs of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) were £15.6 million1. In addition, grants totalling £14 million1 were paid to voluntary sector organisations by NASS to recognise their role in the dispersal scheme. These figures include start-up costs for NASS.

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

  International Development Foundation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Charity Commission investigation into the International Development Foundation. [14822]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission who will write to my hon. Friend. A copy of the Commission's reply will be placed in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the merits of recruiting from the private sector to fill vacancies at permanent secretary level. [23607]

  Mr. Leslie
  Like any organisation, the civil service benefits from people coming in at all levels. Since the beginning of 1999 well over half of the vacancies at permanent secretary level have gone to open competition and a number of external appointments have been made.

  It takes an outstanding individual to come in at the very top of any organisation without previous experience of that sector. There is, however, an increased use of open competition at other levels in the senior civil service, which should broaden the future field of permanent secretary candidates. Last year 202 SCS posts were advertised, and almost two-thirds were won by candidates from outside the civil service.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been reported under paragraph 11 of the civil service code since 13 May 1999; how many of these related to special advisers; and how many have been reported to the civil service commissioners under paragraph 12 of the code. [23385]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the number of complaints made within Departments under paragraph 11 of the civil service code is not held centrally. However, information on appeals made under paragraph 12 of the civil service code are set out in the annual report of the civil service commissioners. A copy of the commissioners' latest annual report for the year 2000–01 is in the Library of the House.
  256W

  Devolved Administrations
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to publish a revised edition of the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. [24329]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I am publishing today as Cm 5240 a revised edition of the Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the UK Government, Scottish Ministers, the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available on the Cabinet Office website shortly.

  Government Car Service
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list, by manufacturer and country of manufacture, the composition of the Government Car Service fleet for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1997–98, (e) 1998–99, (f) 1999–2000 and (g) 2000–01. [23094]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency's fleet composition for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is as follows:

  Manufacturer

  Number1

  Number2

  Country of manufacture

  Rover

  44

  35

  United Kingdom

  Jaguar

  12

  15

  United Kingdom

  Ford

  98

  77

  Belgium

  3

  3

  Portugal

  15

  24

  United Kingdom

  Vauxhall

  65

  67

  Germany

  6

  7

  United Kingdom

  Nissan

  5

  8

  United Kingdom

  Total

  248

  236

  1 Year end 2000

  2 Year end 2001

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency was formed in April 1997. Information on fleet composition by country of manufacture is available only for years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. Information for earlier years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were employed in his Department in each of the last four years. [23785]

  Mr. Leslie
  The numbers of staff in all Departments are shown in Table C of Civil Service Statistics 2000, published on 31 August 2001. Copies are in the Libraries of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Government Bills (Human Rights)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide more specific information about the consideration given to human rights issues by Government Bills. [24725]
  257W
  Mr. Wills
  Yes. The Government have agreed changes to the relevant guidance so that the explanatory notes of all Government Bills first introduced after 1 January 2002 will draw attention to the main Convention issues raised by a Bill. I hope that this will further assist the House in its debates on these matters.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional key performance targets have been agreed for the Public Guardianship Office. [24364]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Two additional key performance targets for the Public Guardianship Office have been agreed as follows:

  1. to achieve 75 per cent. effective visits by March 2002; and

  2. to achieve a unit cost per case of not more than £425.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the size is of the eligibility package for legal aid for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and when it will take effect. [22551]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Changes to the financial conditions for public funding were implemented on 3 December 2001 and will apply to new cases from that date. The cost of this package is £2.5 million this year (2001–02) and £10 million for 2002–03. We estimate that an additional 5 million people will become eligible to obtain publicly funded advice and assistance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Monument Oil
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with representatives of Monument Oil in the last 12 months. [20239]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. Monument Oil was taken over by Lasmo in 1999 and Lasmo have themselves since been taken over by Eni.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18596]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 325W.

  Figures broken down in percentages of replies within each of the specified timescales are unavailable, however my Department monitors its performance annually by
  258W
  sample for all correspondence (excluding ministerial) against the Whitehall standard "to answer all correspondence within 15 working days". The latest figure available is for 2000–01 when the department answered 95 per cent. of correspondence within this target. The volume of correspondence was estimated to be 81,726.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many, and what proportion of letters received by the Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July were replied to in(a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days. [22007]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 December 2001]: 936 letters were received by this Department from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. The proportion of letters replied to in (a) under 15, (b) under 20, (c) under 30, (d) under 40 and (e) over 40 working days were as follows:

  Percentage

  Under 15

  65.96

  Under 20

  71.61

  Under 30

  84.04

  Under 40

  89.41

  Over 40

  100

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many local firms are involved in the Manufacturing Advisory Service in Portsmouth, South. [21795]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Manufacturing Advisory Service will be formally launched in spring 2002.

  In October this year, SEEDA (South East England Development Agency) awarded a three-year contract to the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) (South) to establish a regional centre for manufacturing excellence (RCME). The RCME will be responsible for delivering the MAS in the south-east, forming a strong partnership with the six Business Links in the south-east region. A full-time MAS professional manufacturing consultant will be attached to each of the Business Links to provide a range of information, advice, diagnostic and manufacturing consultancy support to businesses in the south-east.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many combined heat and power schemes are under construction. [22331]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on the number of schemes under construction is not readily available. However, in the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001", chapter 6, details are given of schemes that had received consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 but were not in commercial operation at the time of publication. Only schemes over 10 MWe need consent from the Secretary of State. The information will be updated in July 2002. It
  259W
  is understood that a large portion of consented capacity is not likely to proceed at the present time, or may be built, but will be much smaller than the consented capacity.

  Law of the Sea
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she plans to consult the(a) Executive of the National Assembly for Wales, (b) Scottish Executive and (c) Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to the Government's submission to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea by 17 December; [21800]

  (2) what plans she has for discussions with the (a) Executive of the National Assembly of Wales, (b) Scottish Executive, (c) Executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly, (d) Government of Iceland, (e) Government of Norway and (f) Government of the Irish Republic following the decision of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea on MOX; [21790]

  (3) which parties she plans to consult prior to the UK Government's submission to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea on 17 December. [21801]

  Mr. Wilson
  The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea has prescribed the following provisional measure:"Ireland and the UK shall co-operate and shall, for this purpose, enter into consultations forthwith in order to:

  (a) Exchange further information with regard to possible consequences for the Irish Sea arising out of the commissioning of the MOX plant;

  (b) Monitor risks or the effects of the operation of the MOX plant for the Irish Sea;

  (c) Devise, as appropriate, measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might result from the operation of the MOX plant."

  On 17 December, the Government submitted their initial report to ITLOS setting out the steps the UK has taken and which it proposes to take in order to comply with the provisional measure. A copy was sent to the Government of Ireland. I have placed a copy of that report in the Libraries of the House.

  The provisional measure relates to co-operation and exchange of information between the Governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom. There is no intention at this stage to consult others on the question of compliance with it.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the documentation Her Majesty's Government plans to exchange with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on Sellafield as a result of the ruling of the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea of 3 December; and if she will place in the Library copies of all documents made available to Ireland following the ITLOS adjudication. [22842]

  Mr. Wilson
  The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has prescribed the following provisional measure:"Ireland and the UK shall co-operate and shall, for this purpose, enter into consultations forthwith in order to:

  (a) Exchange further information with regard to possible consequences for the Irish Sea arising out of the commissioning of the MOX plant;l

  260W

  (b) Monitor risks or the effects of the operation of the MOX plant for the Irish Sea;

  (c) Devise, as appropriate, measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might result from the operation of the MOX plant"

  The Government are currently exploring with the Government of Ireland arrangements for ensuring compliance with the provisional measure including the form co-operation might take. On 17 December, the Government submitted their initial report to ITLOS setting out the steps the UK has taken and which it proposes to take in order to comply with the provisional measure. A copy was sent to the Government of Ireland. I have placed a copy of that report in the Libraries of the House.

  Business Grants (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in the constituency of Buckingham have received funding from(a) Smart, (b) the Phoenix Fund, (c) the Enterprise Fund, (d) the Regional Venture Capital Scheme, (e) the Incubator Fund, (f) Carbon Trust, (g) the Regional Innovation Fund and (h) the Innovative Clusters Fund in the last 12 months; and what the total level of funding received from each scheme was. [22526]

  Nigel Griffiths
  (a) There is one current Smart project, which started in 1999 with a value of £308,000, and one new Smart award with a value of £45,000 was awarded in 2001.

  (b) None. The Phoenix development fund seeks to promote innovative approaches to business support in deprived areas. It does not provide funding to individual businesses.

  (c) The Enterprise Fund is the generic name for a number of programmes, including the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme and The UK High Technology Fund, designed to improve small businesses access to finance. Funding is not provided directly to businesses, but through intermediaries, as a result, companies in Buckingham benefiting directly from funding from the Enterprise Fund cannot be identified.

  (d) The Regional Venture Capital Fund, as it is not yet operational in the South East region.

  (e) None. This is a new initiative providing funding to establish incubator support. It does not provide funding to individual businesses.

  (f) None. This is a new initiative, which will soon provide support to businesses. It does not provide funding to individual businesses.

  (g) The constituency of Buckingham falls within the region covered by SEEDA which has been allocated RIF funding of £3.2 million in 2001–02.

  (h) The ICF operated during 2000–01 during which time SEEDA was allocated £1.66 million of funding.

  RIF and the now defunct ICF are not typical centrally administered DTI schemes. No funding goes directly from DTI to any companies. Both are funding streams provided to the Regional Development Agencies, which are non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

  Online Trading (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of small businesses in the constituency of Buckingham that are trading online. [22530]
  261W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The latest figures from the E-commerce International Benchmarking Studies—2001, which monitors business use of information communication technologies in the UK, shows that 540,000 small and medium enterprises are trading online in the UK.

  The 'Study' does not break this figure down to constituency levels. However, it does confirm that we are making significant progress towards our aim of making the UK the best place in the world to trade online. For example, the target of having 1.5 million small businesses wired up to the digital marketplace by 2002 was achieved last year and continues to increase with 1.9 million now connected.

  Pulmonary Disease Claims
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claims have been registered, broken down by coalfield area; how many live claimants there are; and how many(a) widows and (b) estates are claiming. [22233]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]: In collating statistics, the Department does not normally distinguish between estate claims for widows and others. In the time given, these figures are not available. IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered claims in the following regions:

  Region

  Number of live claims

  Number of estate claims

  Wales

  18,319

  16,858

  Scotland

  7,582

  5,478

  Nottinghamshire

  16,623

  4,444

  Yorkshire

  31,447

  13,117

  North East

  11,991

  12,760

  North West

  5,371

  3,803

  Midlands

  10,500

  5,394

  South

  2,517

  1,501

  Other

  756

  307

  Total

  105,106

  63,662

  Regional statistics and headlines statistics are available on the Department's website on www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miners claiming chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been diagnosed by Health Call to be suffering with asthma, broken down by coalfield area; and how much money has been paid to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease claimants, broken down by coalfield area, showing how many(a) final and (b) expedited settlements have been made; and how many interim payments have been made. [22232]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 2001]: The court judgment did not accept that asthma can be caused by working in mining, but acknowledged that it may be made worse temporarily by coal dust or fumes. Under the Handling Agreement, the sum of £2,500 will be paid for temporary exacerbation of asthma plus interest. This sum is not subject to apportionment and is paid following full medical assessment. Interims and expedited offers are not applicable in this category. To date nine claimants have been diagnosed as having temporary exacerbation of asthma only (with no other accompanying compensatable disability), broken down as follows:
  262W

  Region

  Number of claimants

  Damages paid (£)

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  5,298

  Derbyshire

  2

  5,343

  South Wales

  1

  2,703

  Leicestershire

  1

  2,594

  Leeds

  1

  2,673

  West Yorkshire

  1

  2,763

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  2,627

  Renewables Obligation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the timetable is for the renewables obligation. [22616]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she expects the start date for the renewables obligation to be. [22720]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government intend to lay the necessary order before Parliament in February with a view to its coming into effect on 1 April 2002.

  The Scottish Executive intends to lay the corresponding Scottish order before the Scottish Parliament with a view to its coming into effect to the same timetable.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason a distinction is not made in the draft Renewables Obligation between conventional mixed waste incineration and energy from waste residue after separation, recycling and materials recovery. [23384]

  Mr. Wilson
  Such a distinction has not been made because the Government intend that the Renewables Obligation should encourage the development of more efficient or environmentally beneficial "energy from waste" technologies. These technologies include pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is being done to ensure that manufacturers are(a) promptly and (b) accurately informed of what stage their applications for export licences have reached. [22811]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Any exporter who has submitted an application for an export licence can telephone the Export Control Organisation (ECO), who retrieve from their licensing database up to date information about the stage that application has reached.

  For cases where ECO is awaiting a response from another Government Department, the ECO has agreed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, arrangements for direct communication between exporters and specified contacts in those Departments.

  These arrangements apply if the ECO has not contacted the applicant for 15 or more working days following dispatch of their standard acknowledgement letter, or the receipt by them of any further information requested from the applicant in connection with the application. If the applicant telephones the licensing officer dealing with the application, the ECO will check their records to establish the current situation. If they are awaiting advice from one of their advisers and that advice request has been

  263W
  outstanding for 10 or more days they will give the applicant a contact name and telephone number in the section of the relevant Department in order that the applicant may obtain accurate information on the progress of their application.

  The ECO is planning to introduce a new IT system which will enable exporters to apply for Standard Individual Export Licences over the internet and will also provide an online facility for any exporter to find out what stage their application has reached.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to aid manufacturers that are attempting to obtain export licences; and if she will make a statement. [22808]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A number of IT and other continuous improvement initiatives are in train to assist exporters seeking to obtain export licences. These include a project to enable exporters to apply for a licence over the internet.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the difficulties faced by manufacturers with regard to their applications for export licences. [22814]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A joint Confederation of British Industry and Export Control Organisation working group works to address issues of concern, including difficulties faced by manufacturers with regard to their applications for export licences.

  Among the difficulties I have identified are delays arising from the assessments of use of exports for internal repression, external aggression, diversion to other end-users and preventing the development of WMDs, among others.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the effects of delays in the processing of applications for export licences. [22810]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do recognise the effect that delays in the processing of an export licence application can have on individual companies, but the need to give applicants a quick decision cannot outweigh the Government's determination to manage the transfer of all goods and technology controlled for strategic reasons in a responsible manner by rigorously assessing all relevant export licence applications against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to speed up the procedure for the processing of applications for export licences. [22813]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1045W.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the criteria that need to be met by British manufacturers, with special reference to the obtaining of export licences, in order to compete on level terms with their(a) European and (b) American counterparts; [22805]
  264W
  (2) what assessment she has made of the effect on British manufacturers of difficulties in obtaining export licences in cases where they are in competition with their (a) EU and (b) American counterparts. [22804]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Many of the UK's controls on the export of military and dual use items are derived from international commitments that apply equally to competitors from the EU and the US as they do to British companies.

  We have no evidence to suggest that British manufacturers face any more difficulties in obtaining export licences than their EU or American competitors. The provisions of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports applies equally to all EU member states. In addition I would refer my hon. Friend to the Quadripartite Committee's analysis of the US system of export licensing published on 25 July 2000 (HC467), a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of actions manufacturers can take to speed up the process by which their applications for export licences are granted; and if she will make a statement. [22807]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In order to assist the Export Control Organisation to process an application for an individual export licence as quickly as possible, exporters are advised to submit at the outset a completed application form together with all relevant supporting documentation at the earliest opportunity before a contract has been signed. Copies of the application form and guidance notes are available on the ECO website www.dti.gov.uk/export.control.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the process by which export licences are granted to manufacturers. [22806]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This is set out in a memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Quadripartite Committee on the roles and responsibilities of the main Departments involved in the licensing process, published on 15 June 1999 (HC540), available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the security threat posed by the granting of export licences to manufacturers selling their products to states that form part of the coalition against international terrorism. [22809]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not comment publicly on specific security threats. All relevant export licence applications are considered against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing requirements.

  Enron
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications of the problems faced by Enron for the UK electricity market, with particular reference to(a) volatility, (b) liquidity and (c) pricing; and if she will make a statement. [22591]
  265W
  Mr. Wilson
  It is important to recognise that Enron's current situation was not caused by any problems in the UK electricity market, but by the collapse of its US parent company. The wholesale electricity market coped well with the circumstances surrounding Enron's administration. The new electricity trading arrangements have provisions within them to deal with companies going into administration. It is difficult to identify the precise impact of any one event within the wholesale markets. There were however no significant increases in the level or volatility of prices over the past four weeks. Liquidity, particularly on the power exchanges, did however increase as market participants sought to offset any potential counterparty risk exposure.

  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 UK performance in transposition of EU single market measures. [23167]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The UK had transposed 97.2 per cent. of EU single market measures due by November 2001. Work is in hand across Government on this and we expect to exceed the PSA target in 2002.

  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 successful high growth business start ups. [23175]

  Nigel Griffiths
  For the purposes of this target high growth is defined as achieving annual sales of £1 million or more, or employing 10 or more people, by the fourth year of trading. Latest data from the Inter Departmental Business Register maintained by the Office for National Statistics show the figure for 1997–98 was 12,600 and for 1998–99 was 12,800.

  Due to the long time lags inherent in this target, it is too soon to establish further progress.

  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 productivity and profitability of small and medium sized enterprises assisted by Business Link partnerships. [23176]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The last Business Link Value for Money study in 1997 showed that after allowing for wider positive and negative effects, it is estimated that Business Links have generated at the national level more than 8,000 jobs, nearly £1 billion extra business turnover, more than £300 million extra profits, £145 million worth of extra net assets and nearly £400 million of extra exports in the last three years. The targets is to improve on this each year. Another VFM study is planned in 2002 to compare with the original study.

  Year on year progress is being monitored by SBS using business data provided by Business Links. The monitoring system was only recently established so no year on year data are available yet. First comparative data are expected in February 2002.

  Various quality measures are being introduced to monitor both customer satisfaction with Business Link Services and the Business Link operators themselves.
  266W
  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 performance against a set of competitiveness indicators. [23177]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI published its most recent assessment of progress in "UK Competitiveness Indicators: Second Edition", a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House. The DTI is currently working on an update of the "UK Competitiveness Indicators" to be published next year.

  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 productivity gap relative to other industrialised countries. [23178]

  Ms Hewitt
  The most recent ONS data shows that in 2000, UK productivity on both a "per worker" and "per hour worked" basis was lower than in France, Germany and the US. However, since 1997, the productivity gap on both a per worker and per hour basis has closed slightly with France and Germany. The gap with the US has remained broadly the same on a per hour basis, but has widened on the per worker measure. This is largely the result of the exceptional growth experienced by the US during the second half of the 1990s. The productivity data is available from the December 2001 ONS publication "Economic Trends", available from the Libraries of the House.

  The Government's aim is to close the productivity gap through policies to encourage enterprise, innovation, investment, competition and the acquisition of skills. The policies have been designed to correct long-standing problems and so we should not expect to see results immediately. However, the slight narrowing of the productivity gap with our European competitors is encouraging.

  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 UK small and medium sized enterprises connected to the digital market place. [23174]

  Mr. Alexander
  The number of UK SMEs which are "connected" (i.e. have a website, or use external e-mail or Electronic Data Interchange) is now 1.9 million, up from 1.7 million in 2000, and 600,000 in 1999. This is well in excess of the Government target of having 1.5 million SMEs connected by 2002.

  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 electronic trading. [23169]

  Mr. Alexander
  The recently published International Benchmarking Study showed that 540,000 UK businesses are trading online, up by 90,000 since 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on the Radio Communications Agency financial efficiency, between 1998–99 and 2002–03. [23161]

  Mr. Alexander
  Under the DTI Public Service Agreement the Radiocommunications Agency has a target to achieve a gain in financial efficiency of 20 per cent. over the five-year period 1998–99 to 2002–03.
  267W
  The Agency achieved annual gains of five per cent. in each of the year's 1998–99,1999–2000 and 2000–01. It's latest Corporate Plan for 2001–02 to 2005–06 set targets of three per cent. for 2001–02 and two per cent. for 2002–03 which if met will ensure it delivers the overall target of efficiency gains of 20 per cent.

  Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what circumstances operators are permitted under the NFFO transfer provisions to aggregate two or more existing NFFO contracts from different sites into one project. [23039]

  Mr. Wilson
  Decisions on whether modified NFFO contracts remain qualifying arrangements for Fossil Fuel Levy purposes are for Ofgem. My understanding is that aggregation of contracts is not permitted under current arrangements, and that the Locational Flexibility Order will not change this position.

  The possibility of allowing aggregation was raised in the consultation on locational flexibility.

  We will consider the complex legal and policy implications of aggregation with a view to bringing forward possible further legislation in the new year to allow some aggregation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests to amend NFFO contracts to enable implementation Ofgem has(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused; and in cases where they have been refused, for what reason. [23041]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for Ofgem.

  I have asked Mr. Callum McCarthy, the chief executive of Ofgem, to write to the hon. Member and to copy his reply to me, so that it may be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ofgem, however, does not grant or refuse contract amendments as such amendments are a matter for the contracting parties. Ofgem has to assess whether any contract amendment would cause the project to cease to be a qualifying arrangement for receiving support from the fossil fuel levy. Each case is considered on its facts. If Ofgem decides that a project for which a contract amendment has been agreed has ceased to be a qualifying arrangement, that project will cease to receive support from the fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance she has provided to(a) the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency and (b) to Ofgem defining the criteria for the transfer of NFFO contracts. [23037]

  Mr. Wilson
  The criteria for the transfer of NFFO contracts are set out in the Electricity from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources (Locational Flexibility) Order 2001.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the roles are of(a) her Department, (b) the Non Fossil Purchasing Agency and (c) Ofgem in approving requests for NFFO contract amendments. [23038]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI has no role in approving requests for NFFO contract amendments.
  268W
  The Non Fossil Purchasing Authority (NFPA) is counter-party to contracts and must agree any amendment. If the NFPA has any doubts as to whether the amended contract would remain a qualifying arrangement for support from the fossil fuel levy, it consults Ofgem.

  Ofgem's role is to make payments from the fossil fuel levy in respect of qualifying arrangements and to set and collect the levy. Ofgem cannot make payment in respect of contracts which are no longer qualifying arrangements.

  Ofgem is also required under NFFO contracts to approve terminations of contracts for economic reasons. Other terminations are matter for the NFPA and the contract-holder.

  Separate but similar arrangements apply in Scotland where the SRO contracts are held by the supply successor companies and not by the NFPA.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many NFFO contracts which would otherwise have failed she expects to be brought to fruition through the new arrangements for site transfer; and what steps she is taking to maximise take-up. [23040]

  Mr. Wilson
  The industry estimates that over a 100 projects across a wide range of technologies want to move.

  The Government have played their part by making the NFFO Locational Flexibility Order, and it is now up to developers to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by that Order.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation which have been transferred from one site to another since March. [23036]

  Mr. Wilson
  There have been none. The Government are introducing an Order to facilitate such transfers.

  Telephone Lines
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is her objective that the minimum service standard for mainland telephone lines in the UK should be ISDN; and if she will make a statement. [23356]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: The Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) sets the minimum service standard for mainland telephone lines in the UK as part of the Universal Service Obligation on BT, taking into account the appropriate European legislation. I am therefore asking the Director General of Telecommunications to write to the hon. Member to address this point.

  Broadband Development
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the fund for broadband development has been allocated; and over what period it is expected to be fully allocated. [23266]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: I set out allocations for the UK broadband fund on 9 October 2001. The Regional Development Agencies and devolved Administrations are in discussion with my officials to develop action plans. The fund will be allocated over the period 2002–04.
  269W

  Consignia
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Consignia concerning its business prospects; and if she will make a statement. [23811]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. Last year's Postal Services Act gave the company greater commercial freedom so that it could improve its services and performance. We expect the management and the unions, which have been asking for more commercial freedom for years, to work together to use the freedom we have given them to deliver a better service to customers.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice she gives to UK companies considering investment in Sudan. [23684]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The advice Trade Partners UK provides to UK companies considering trading or investing in Sudan is based on the nature of the inquiry and the specific area of business of the company concerned.
  270W

  Pakistan
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the European Union has increased the quota allocation for imports from Pakistan's clothing and textile industry; and what assessment she has made of the impact on Pakistan's economy of the increased allocation. [23920]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The EC increased Pakistan's quotas for textiles and clothing as part of Commissioner Lamy's initiative to improve market access for these products on a reciprocal basis, taking into account the impact on Pakistan's economy of the events of 11 September and their aftermath. Given the importance of textiles and clothing to the Pakistani economy, the impact is likely to be of significant benefit.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to cap the number of post office card accounts; and if she will make a statement. [23591]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-commerce and Competitiveness on 17 December 2001, Official Report, column 119W.
  271W

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the fifth report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. [24400]

  Ms Blears
  The fifth Report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The PPRS: Fifth Report to Parliament covers the operation of the 1999 scheme, which was introduced in October 1999. It explains the Government's objectives for the scheme, how the scheme is managed and operated, including pricing policy, and gives detailed consolidated

  New health authority

  HAs involved

  Norfolk, Suffolk Cambridgeshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  Bedfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Essex

  Norh Essex

  South Essex

  North West London

  Brent and Harrow

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounlsow

  Hillington

  Kensington, Chelsen and Westminster

  North Central London

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  Camden and Islington

  North East Londona

  Barking and Havering

  East London and the City

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  South West London

  Croydon

  Kingston and Richmond

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  Sunderland

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  County Durham and Darlington

  Tees

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  Easting Riding and Hull

  North Yorkshire

  South Humber

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Leeds

  Wakefield

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  North Cumbria

  East Lancashire

  Morecambe Bay

  North West Lancashire

  South Lancashire

  Greater Manchester

  Bury and Rochdale

  Manchester

  Salford and Trafford

  StockPort

  West Pennine

  Wigan and Bolton

  272W
  information on company annual financial returns. The report also sets out the contribution made to the economy by the United Kingdom based pharmaceutical industry.

  Health Authority Boundaries
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the outcome of the recent consultation on proposed boundaries for new health authorities in England. [24399]

  Mr. Hutton
  I can announce today that, following 22 simultaneous consultation exercises across the whole of England, we are proposing to establish 28 new health authorities from 1 April 2002, when the existing health authorities will be disestablished. Subject to progress with the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill these new health authorities are expected to become strategic health authorities by next October. The table indicates the new health authorities and their constituent existing health authorities.
  273W

  New health authority

  HAs involved

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  Liverpool

  North Cheshire

  Sefton

  South Cheshire

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  Wirral

  Thames valley

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  North and Mid-Hampshire

  Isle of Wight and Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Kent and Medway

  East Kent

  West Kent

  Surrey and Sussex

  East Surrey

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  West Surrey

  West Sussex

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  Avon

  Gloucestershire

  Wiltshire

  South West Peninsula

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  North and East Devon

  South and West Devon

  Somerset and Dorset

  Dorset

  Somerset

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Trent

  Lincolnshire

  North Derbyshire

  North Nottinghamshire

  Nottingham

  South Derbyshire

  Leicestershire Northamptonshire and Ruland

  Leicestershire

  Northamptonshire

  Shropshire Staffordshire

  North Staffordshire

  Shropshire

  South Staffordshire

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  Birmingham

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Coventry Warwickshire Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  Coventry

  Warwickshire

  Herefordshire

  Worcestershire

  Mental Health Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will bring forward the draft Bill for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. [22957]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" in December 2000. The White Paper made clear our intention to reform mental health legislation and bring it into line with the contemporary patterns of care and treatment including the changes and new investment set out in the NHS Plan, and to improve the provisions for high risk offenders, including those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered.

  This is a high priority for the Government. New legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Hospital Patients (Children)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what educational provision exists for over 16-year-old children in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [22488]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has a duty to secure the provision of proper facilities for the education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds including those who may have missed out on education due to prolonged illness.

  The Connexions Service also provides integrated information, advice, guidance and personal development opportunities for all young people aged 13 to 19 in England, including giving more in depth support to those who are at greatest risk of not making a successful transition to adulthood.
  275W
  In addition, the DfES published in November this year, new statutory guidance "Access to Education for children and young people with Medical needs" which sets out minimum national standards for the education of children who are unable to attend school because of medical needs. The guidance advises that all agencies should try to enable a pupil to continue any course being taken on entry to hospital or while ill or injured at home. Local education authorities (LEAs) also have the power to provide suitable education otherwise than at school for young people over compulsory school age but under the age of 19. A local education authority (LEA) should normally arrange continuing education for young people over compulsory school age but under 18 where he or she is a "year behind" if they need to study for a further year to complete an examination course.

  From April 2002, local LSCs will allocate resources to LEAs for provision delivered in school sixth forms and LEA maintained 16–19 institutions. I expect this to ensure a genuinely coherent approach to post-16 provision.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to letters dated 2 August and 10 September from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare on foot and mouth disease. [15668]

  Mr. Morley
  My noble Friend Lord Whitty replied to the letter from the hon. Member on 12 December. We have no record of his letter of 2 August.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she issued guidelines on the proximity of landfill sites to housing; and if they are retroactive; [22659]

  (2) if she has powers to require the closure or containment of a landfill site which is closer to housing than the guidelines require; what discussions she has had with the European Commission about changes to those guidelines; and if the proposed EU Directive would be retroactive. [22660]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires a local planning authority to consult the Environment Agency before granting planning permission for development within 250 metres of land which is or has, at any time in the 30 years before the relevant planning application, been used for the deposit of refuse or waste. Guidance to the Agency in Waste Management Paper 27 on Landfill Gas published in 1991 contains guidelines on the proximity of new housing developments to landfill sites. These guidelines do not arise from European legislation and we have had no discussions with the European Commission about changes to the guidance.
  276W
  In addition, under section 42 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency must take the steps needed to ensure that:

  1.the activities authorised by a waste management licence do not cause environmental pollution, harm to human health or serious detriment to local amenities; and

  2. the conditions of a licence are complied with.

  Following implementation of the Landfill Directive, the Environment Agency will be required to exercise its functions under the Directive in order to prevent, or reduce as far as possible, negative effects from the landfilling of waste on the environment and any resulting risk to human health during the whole life cycle of the site. The Directive also requires local planning authorities to take into consideration the distance from the site boundary when considering the location of a new landfill site. This requirement has applied to all new landfill sites from 16 July 2001 but is not applied retrospectively to existing landfill sites.

  The Environment Agency can suspend, vary or revoke a waste management licence or, in future, the permit issued under the terms of the Landfill Directive, where it appears the continuation of activities would cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or where the conditions of the permit or licence are breached.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the legal basis for the current closure of livestock markets; and when that legal basis has to be reviewed. [19739]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Declaratory (Controlled Area) (England and Wales) (No.3) Order 2001, as amended, was made under section 17 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and declares the whole of England and Wales to be an infected area to which the provisions of Part IV of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 1983 as amended apply (a controlled area). Part IV imposes certain restrictions on the area, including the provisions of article 35 which prohibit the use of premises for a fair, market, show or other gathering of animals.

  When the chief veterinary officer is of the opinion that England and Wales is no longer infected with foot and mouth disease, consideration will be given to revoking the Declaratory Order. Once this order is revoked, the restrictions in article 35 on the holding of livestock markets will no longer apply. There are other powers available to Ministers under the Animal Health Act 1981 to regulate markets even in the absence of an FMD controlled area. However, the Government are minded to permit the resumption of cattle and some sheep markets in the new year, provided no further cases of FMD come to light. The Government are in close consultation with representatives of auctioneers and farmers abut the biosecurity rules to apply when markets resume.

  White Goods
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to improve energy efficiency standards in white goods. [22598]
  277W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department will continue to seek to improve the energy efficiency of domestic appliances, including white goods, through a combination of policy measures including product information (energy labels), minimum standards and the promotion of best practice.

  These policies will continue to be taken forward by the Market Transformation Programme (MTP), jointly sponsored by the Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, which aims to encourage products that do less harm to the environment, using less energy, water and other resources. The MTP will continue to have a strong focus on improving the delivered energy performance of domestic and non-domestic products, especially energy consuming appliances, equipment and components. This will include all major domestic energy consuming appliances (heating, cold, cooking and wet appliances, consumer electronics and lighting) as well as traded goods in the commercial sector.

  The Department will also continue to work closely with stakeholders and other member states to conclude a review of Council Directive 92/75/EEC on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances; to reach agreement on a Framework Directive for Minimum Energy Efficiency Requirements for End-Use Equipment; to develop voluntary measures where appropriate; and to support the work of the Energy Saving Trust in promoting more efficient products.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress the Government have made to date in improving the energy efficiency standards of white goods. [22599]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have made some good progress in improving the energy efficiency of household appliances, including white goods, in recent years. This has been achieved through a combination of policy measures including product information (energy labels), minimum standards, industry agreements and the promotion of best practice. The Market Transformation Programme (MTP), jointly sponsored by my Department and the DTI, works closely with business and other stakeholders to produce the analysis supporting these measures and suggesting future strategies for action at UK and EU level.

  As an example of progress in the energy efficiency of white goods, the combination of energy labelling since 1995 and minimum standards from 1999 has helped to bring about the situation where new efficient fridge-freezers now use only half the electricity of existing older appliances.

  While in general the unit energy consumption of white goods has been decreasing for a number of years, overall energy savings have tended to be offset by increasing numbers of appliances in use as the number of households and demand for new services such as digital electronics, in the UK have increased.

  Household Appliances
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research has been commissioned by the Government into the effects of not leaving electrical appliances on standby in terms of energy saved. [22597]
  278W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's Market Transformation Programme, jointly sponsored by the Department and the DTI, has been working over the last three years to reach consensus on the potential to reduce the energy consumption of a range of products and appliances. The programme addresses 27 key product types so far, representing about 75 per cent. of UK electricity consumption. From that on-going research and consultative process, the current indications are that the energy used by domestic electrical appliances left in standby mode accounts for about 7 TWh, which is equivalent to about 6 per cent. of total electricity consumption in the domestic sector.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers are waiting for subsidy payments from the Rural Payments Agency(a) in Norfolk and (b) in England. [22612]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what percentage of subsidy payments were paid within three weeks in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; [22613]

  (2) for what reasons there have been delays in subsidy payments to farmers by the Rural Payments Agency. [22614]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: Most IACS (integrated administration and control system) schemes are subject to regulatory payment windows determining the earliest and latest dates for payment to be made. Progress in processing claims for individual schemes varies from year to year and is influenced in particular by the workloads faced by the offices handling the claims and by the extent of any regulatory changes. This year claim processing on all schemes has been affected by the diversion of staff to foot and mouth disease duties and by industrial action. In addition livestock claims have had to be cross-checked with FMD slaughter records and bovine scheme claim processing has been delayed because new computer software had to be developed to reflect regulatory changes.

  The percentage of IACS subsidy claims sent for payment within the first three weeks of the opening of the payment window in 2000 and 2001 was as shown in the table.

  2000

  2001

  Arable Area Payments

  83

  51

  Slaughter Premium

  18

  0

  Beef Special Premium (advance)

  74

  0

  Beef Suckler Cow (advance)

  0

  0

  Sheep Annual Premium

  1st advance

  97.2

  86.2

  2nd advance

  99.4

  97.8

  Uncultivated Land
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses she has had to the consultation on the proposed
  279W
  regulations concerning environmental impact assessments on uncultivated land; what research she has commissioned on how other EU member states implement these regulations; and if she will make a statement. [22460]

  Alun Michael
  The Government gave a commitment in the Rural White Paper in November 2000 to consult on the implementation of the uncultivated land provisions of the EIA Directive. Two public consultation exercises have been carried out this year; the first in May on the options for implementation elicited 42 responses; the second in September, with detailed proposals, received 32 responses.

  It has not been necessary to formally commission a report on how other EU member states have implemented the regulations, as the Commission has shown a willingness to take any member state to the European Court of Justice should they fail to implement the Directive properly or correctly. Information is also available through agricultural attaches.

  The Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 3966), come into force on 1 February 2002. They will require any project to bring uncultivated land and semi-natural areas into intensive agricultural use to be assessed for the likelihood of significant environmental effects. Only where there is a likelihood of significant effects will an environmental statement be required. In case where a project raises environmental concerns, officials will be as helpful as possible to farmers and will seek to agree a way forward which takes account of business needs as well as environmental factors.

  Guidelines are to be introduced which explain further the types of land that can be regarded as uncultivated, and an indicative list of the types of projects on that land which will be subject to the regulations. These guidelines will also explain how the scheme is to be administered. The Government are looking for a collaborative approach with farmers, land owners and environmentalists so that the regime can protect the most environmentally significant land without bearing disproportionately heavily on the farming industry.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support there is for farmers who grow organic crops; and if she will make a statement on organic farming. [22864]

  Mr. Morley
  Support for organic farmers in England is provided in the main through the Organic Farming Scheme, which offers payments to fanner over a period of five years totalling from £50 to £450 per hectare according to land type. Supplementary payments totalling £600 per beneficiary are made towards the cost of training. The budget for this year's payments is £18 million, rising to £20 million in the next financial year.

  Direct payments to organic farmers in other regions of the UK are a matter for the devolved Administrations. Organic farmers are also entitled to other payments under the common agricultural policy in the same way as their conventional counterparts.
  280W
  In addition, the Department's Research and Development programme includes a large component dealing with research on organic farming. And there is a programme of free, on-farm advice to prospective organic farmers.

  We wish organic farming to succeed and to this end have already committed £140 million under the England Rural Development Programme which should triple the organic farming area by 2006. To build on this, we intend to product a strategy for the future direction of organic farming when we have the report of the Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, taking account of any recommendations made by the Commission for this sector. The strategy will assess potential growth both for UK production and for the organic market, and will need to take account of the large variation between different products.

  Council Borrowing
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the total borrowing figure for Solihull district council. [23803]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total debt (long and short-term) for Solihull, as at March 2001, was about £85 million.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the average annual contribution to council tax per council tax payer in England and Wales that is attributable to repayments and interest on borrowing. [23805]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to quantify separately the amounts attributable to English local authority debt repayments and interest on borrowing that are financed by council taxes.

  Welsh figures are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average total borrowing is for(a) all and (b) district councils in England and Wales. [23804]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average total debt (long and short-term) for English local authorities, as at March 2001, was about £132 million. This figure covers London boroughs, Metropolitan districts, Unitary authorities, Shire counties and Shire districts.

  The average total debt for Metropolitan districts is about £368 million and for Shire districts is about £14 million.

  It should be noted that authorities with high levels of debt are generally those which have undertaken capital investment and that long-term borrowing to finance capital expenditure is regulated by Government through the issue of credit approvals.

  Water Recreation
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish the findings of the research contract about access to water for sport and recreation. [24403]
  281W
  Alun Michael
  We will be' publishing the research report on Friday 21 December. The research provides information about availability of water space, the effectiveness of current arrangements in meeting the demand for different types of water-based sport and recreation and the scale and nature of potential demand. We shall be looking carefully at the findings to decide what action may be needed. A copy of the report will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Rural White Paper
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the Rural White Paper, what examples of good practice in rural policing the Government recommend should be followed. [20035]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]:
  I have been asked to reply.

  The operational deployment of officers is a matter for individual chief officers of police, but we do know that police forces are tackling rural crime in innovative ways. The additional £30 million per year for rural police forces is to assist them in this, to enable them to increase both the visibility of the police in rural communities and the public's access to them.

  In addition, we set out our proposals for increasing the police presence in the community, including through development of the extended police in the White Paper "Policing a new century", published on 5 December. We believe these proposals will be of particular importance to rural communities.

  Examples of existing good practice include: mobile police stations, established within specific communities, such as a local village, shopping centre or housing estate; establishment of a permanent local 'blue light' police presence—whether by reopening small police stations on a part-time basis, or by sharing accommodation with other emergency services, or community centres, libraries, village halls or schools; the use of rural community beat officers to patrol clusters of villages or neighbourhoods to build strong relationships with the local community; dedicated parish or neighbourhood special constables; and intelligence-led patrols; focusing on local crime hot-spots, to provide a visible presence to deter criminals and troublemakers.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list specialist schools by constituency and specialism at the most recent date. [23103]
  282W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Details of the 685 specialist schools operational as of September 2001 is listed by parliamentary constituency and by specialism and is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools applied for specialist school status in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [23242]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: The number of schools that applied for specialist school status in the previous three years is as follows.

  (a) 1999 : 213

  (b) 2000 : 335

  (c) 2001 : 410.

  Student Support
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support will be available to students in England and Wales in the academic year 2002–03. [23910]

  Margaret Hodge
  The level of support available to students in 2002–03 will be 2.4 per cent. higher than for 2001–02, in line with forecast price increases. I am today placing a Memorandum in the Library giving details of the new loan, grant and fee rates for 2002–03. These rates will be incorporated in the Education (Student Support) Regulations, which cover support for eligible students under the current arrangements, and in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations and Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations, which cover the small number of students who are still eligible for support under the previous arrangements. These regulations will all be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish information by family income bands showing the average contributions of parents to the student support and tuition fee costs of one student(a) before 1997 and (b) in 2000. [22794]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The following table shows for 1996–97 and 2000–01 the assessed parental contributions for dependant students normally resident in England and Wales at illustrative levels of income. The maximum assessed contribution will depend on the level of support available to the student. This will depend on whether the student is living in the parental home or, if living away from home, if they live in London or elsewhere. In addition it will depend on whether they are entitled to any of the additional allowances. For illustrative purposes the table shows the assessed contributions for a single student eligible for the basic rate of support for students living away from home outside London.

  In 2001–02 there were a number of changes to the calculation of assessed contribution including a significant rise in the lower income threshold. The table therefore includes the assessed contributions for this year also.
  283W

  1996–97

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Assessed

  Assessed contribution

  Assessed contribution

  Residual income

  contribution to grant2

  Total

  To fee

  To loan

  Total

  To fee

  To loan

  £16,0503

  45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £17,000

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £17,8054

  180

  45

  45

  0

  —

  —

  —

  £18,000

  195

  60

  60

  0

  —

  —

  —

  £19,000

  271

  136

  136

  0

  —

  —

  —

  £20,0005

  348

  213

  213

  0

  45

  45

  0

  £21,000

  440

  290

  290

  0

  150

  150

  0

  £22,000

  549

  367

  367

  0

  255

  255

  0

  £23,000

  658

  451

  451

  0

  360

  360

  0

  £24,000

  766

  560

  560

  0

  466

  466

  0

  £25,000

  875

  669

  669

  0

  571

  571

  0

  £26,000

  984

  111

  111

  0

  676

  676

  0

  £27,000

  1,092

  886

  886

  0

  781

  781

  0

  £28,000

  1,201

  995

  995

  0

  887

  887

  0

  £29,000

  1,310

  1,103

  1,103

  0

  992

  992

  0

  £30,000

  1,418

  1,212

  1,050

  162

  1,097

  1,075

  22

  £31,000

  1,548

  1,321

  1,050

  271

  1,202

  1,075

  127

  £32,000

  1,681

  1,429

  1,050

  379

  1,308

  1,075

  233

  £32,2186

  1,710

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £33,000

  —

  1,538

  1,050

  488

  1,413

  1,075

  338

  £34,000

  —

  1,660

  1,050

  610

  1,518

  1,075

  443

  £35,000

  —

  1,793

  1,050

  743

  1,623

  1,075

  548

  £36,000

  —

  1,927

  1,050

  877

  1,729

  1,075

  654

  £36,3987

  —

  1,980

  1,050

  930

  —

  —

  —

  £37,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,834

  1,075

  759

  £38,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,939

  1,075

  864

  £38,8568

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,030

  1,075

  955

  1 Assessed contributions are based on parents' 'residual income'. This is based on gross income, for income tax purposes less a number of allowances.

  2 The assessed contribution shown is the initial assessment. This assessment will be reduced if the parents have other dependent children.

  3 In 1996–97 for residual incomes below £16,050 no contribution was assessed.

  4 In 2000–01 for residual incomes below £17,705 no contribution was assessed.

  5 In 2001–02 for residual incomes below £20,000 no contribution is assessed.

  6,7,8 Above this point additional contributions would be required if a student was eligible for a higher rate of support, was eligible for additional allowances or the parent had more than one child in higher education.

  Teachers' Earnings (Inner London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information her Department has on the movement in earnings for teachers in inner London in each of the last three years, broken down into(a) earnings for (i) female and (ii) male teachers and (b) teachers in (A) primary and (B) secondary schools; and how these movements compare with (1) London as a whole and (2) England as a whole. [12994]

  Mr. Timms
  Average salaries of full-time regular teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 (the last year for which data are available) were as follows1,2

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Inner London

  Nursery and primary

  Male

  26,270

  27,530

  28,740

  Female

  24,680

  25,760

  26,830

  Total

  24,940

  26,050

  27,140

  Secondary

  Male

  27,320

  28,550

  29,730

  Female

  26,170

  27,330

  28,460

  Total

  26,670

  27,860

  29,010

  London

  Nursery and primary

  Male

  26,140

  27,240

  28,410

  Female

  23,940

  24,950

  25,890

  Total

  24,270

  25,300

  26,270

  284W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Secondary

  Male

  26,590

  27,740

  28,890

  Female

  25,160

  26,150

  27,210

  Total

  25,800

  26,850

  27,950

  England

  Nursery and primary

  Male

  25,140

  26,070

  27,290

  Female

  22,200

  23,070

  24,000

  Total

  22,690

  23,560

  24,530

  Secondary

  Male

  25,200

  26,160

  27,170

  Female

  23,200

  24,090

  24,960

  Total

  24,140

  25,060

  25,990

  1 Provisional data.

  2 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the total cost of administration of the former Further Education Funding Council in each of the last three financial years. [13337]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Total FEFC cost of administration (taken from the FEFC published accounts) was £23.3 million in 1998–99 and £25.5 million in 1999–2000. Final FEFC accounts for 2000–01 are not yet available.
  285W
  Also, we estimate that in total TECs spent in the order of £240–£250 million on administration of the activities that have now passed to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC).

  As well as the activities previously carried out by the FEFC and TECs, the LSC has also taken on additional activities such as greater involvement and intervention at local level to raise Basic Skills, and managing a 9 per cent. real terms increase in the overall programme budget allocated to post-16 education and training compared to plans for 2000–01. It takes on further responsibilities in 2002–03 such as the funding of school VI forms and local decisions about the allocation of funds on key youth and adult learning programmes.

  In the light of these responsibilities, and the different VAT regime to which the LSC is subject compared to TECs, the Secretary of State has agreed a revised LSC administration budget of £213 million in 2001–02 and £218 million in 2002–03.

  This is significantly lower than the £270–£280 million estimated in total to have been spent by its predecessors, and delivers the commitment given to Parliament during the passage of the Learning and Skills Act that there would be administrative savings of at least £50 million compared to previous arrangements.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) teachers and (b) head teachers there are on each learning and skills council; [14573]

  Local LSC

  Teacher

  Headteacher

  FE college heads

  FE college lecturers

  School Governors

  LEA Reps

  Other LA Reps

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2 Officials

  1 Elected

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Greater Merseyside

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Black Country

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  5

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Hereford/Worcester

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Dorset

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1 Official

  Somerset

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  2 Officials

  West of England

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Elected

  Wiltshire/Swindon

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  286W
  (2) what proportion of those who sit on learning and skills councils are (a) teachers and (b) head teachers. [14574]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: All 47 local Learning and Skills Councils include representatives with relevant experience from the school sector. In total, there are three teachers (0.4 per cent.) and 17 head teachers (2.4 per cent.—this figure includes one headteacher who has just retired from the profession but is still on the council) represented on local Learning and Skills Councils (LSC) and one head teacher represented on the LSC's Young Peoples Advisory Committee. In total 2.8 per cent. of members are teachers or head teachers. However 20 per cent. of all LSC members have an interest in and particular experience of school education either as school governors (14 per cent.), LEA officials (four per cent.) or members (one per cent.). Also eight local Executive Directors (1 per cent.) have either previous LEA or headteacher experience.

  Almost all LLSCs have other local authority representatives (often at council leader or chair of education level).

  There are also 45 FE heads and three FE lecturers who are local council members.

  In April 2002, the LSC assumes responsibility for school sixth form funding, and in recognition of this we will encourage the LSC to appoint further representatives from the school sector as and when council vacancies arise.

  A breakdown showing the number of teachers, head teachers, FE heads, FE lecturers, school governors and LEA/LA reps on each LSC is outlined in the table:
  287W

  Local LSC

  Teacher

  Headteacher

  FE college heads

  FE college lecturers

  School Governors

  LEA Reps

  Other LA Reps

  North East

  County Durham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1 Official

  —

  Tees Valley

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  2 Elected

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2 Elected

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2 Officials

  1 Elected

  Lincoln/Rutland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  2 Officials

  1 Elected

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  1

  1

  4

  —

  2 Elected

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  4

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Essex

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Hertfordshire

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  4 Elected

  London

  Central London

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  East London

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  North London

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  South London

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  West London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1 Official

  South East

  Berkshire

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Official

  Hampshire/IOW

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Official

  Milton

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2 Officials

  3 Elected

  Keynes/Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire

  Kent/Medway

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Sussex

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2 Officials

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Surrey

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  National

  1

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much VAT it is estimated that the Learning and Skills Council will pay in the current financial year. [23926]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have, therefore, asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the projected staff numbers were for the Learning and Skills Council in its first year of operations, and how many staff are in post. [23927]
  288W
  Margaret Hodge
  The set up figure for the Learning and Skills Council is 4,757 posts. At the end of November, it employed 4,575 people. This figure equates to 4,444 full time equivalents and gives a profile of 93.4 per cent. of posts filled.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total projected spend this financial year is on the LSC(a) administration and (b) staff budget and what percentage of its total budget will be spent on administration. [23928]

  Margaret Hodge
  The total projected spend by LSC on administrative costs in 2001–02 is £213 million.

  The total projected spend by LSC on staff costs in 2001–02, included in the above figure, is £138 million.
  289W
  The percentage of the LSC's total budget to be spent on administration is 3.9 per cent.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what date her Department received the LSC request for an increase in its administration budget. [23929]

  Margaret Hodge
  Officials from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) have been in contact with officials from the Department for Education and Skills for many months, to discuss the LSC's running costs.

  The original administration budget for the LSC was set a couple of years ago, based on the then best estimates of the costs of the previous arrangements. The LSC became operational in April 2001 and inherited the majority of its costs from its predecessors (in particular Training and Enterprise Councils, and the Further Education Funding Council). It was always going to be the case that the actual running costs of the LSC would not be clear until it was up and running.

  We now have more up-to-date and accurate estimates of the administration costs of the previous arrangements, which are significantly higher than the earlier estimates. We announced a £25 million increase in the LSC's administration budget on 10 December, which delivers the commitment given to Parliament of at least £50 million savings compared to the previous arrangements.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in her Department in each of the last five years. [17549]

  Local LSC

  Member

  School with sixth form

  North West

  Greater Merseyside

  David Atkin

  Headteacher: Rainhill High School

  West Midlands

  Hereford/Worcester

  Valerie Thomasson

  Headteacher: The Minster College

  South West

  West of England

  Andrea Arlidge

  Headteacher: St. Katherine's School

  North East

  County Durham

  Unica O'Reilly

  Headteacher: Wolsingham School and Community College

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  North Yorkshire

  Rachel Totton

  Headteacher: Whitby Community College

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  John Mitchell

  Headteacher: The Cedars Upper School and Community College

  Cambridgeshire

  Christopher Walford

  Headteacher: John Mansfield School

  Essex

  Susan Anderson

  Headteacher: Hedingham School

  Hertfordshire

  Jane Creasey

  Headteacher: Sir John Lawes School

  Gail Tolley

  Headteacher: Stanborough School

  Norfolk

  Robert Young

  Headteacher: Hamond's High School

  Suffolk

  Neil Watts

  Headteacher: Northgate High School

  London

  South London

  Pauline Cox

  Headteacher: The Tiffin Girls School

  National

  Young People's Committee

  Ian Gartshore

  Headteacher: Downham Market School

  Total

  14

  290W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  It is not possible even at disproportionate cost to identify the value of fairly traded tea and coffee as separate records are not kept.

  Threshold Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers are receiving threshold pay; and how many are expected to be eligible in 2002–03. [19353]

  Mr. Timms
  About 195,000 teachers in England were assessed as meeting the threshold standards in the first (2000) round, which entitles them to be paid on the upper pay scale while they are employed as a classroom teacher in the maintained sector. Applications for the second round of the threshold (November 2001) have not yet been assessed.

  We estimate that about 250,000 teachers in England were eligible to apply for threshold assessment in 2000 and that about 20,000 teachers will become newly eligible to apply for threshold assessment in September 2002.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the heads of secondary schools with sixth forms who sit on each Learning and Skills Council. [21437]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will be taking over responsibility for funding school sixth forms from 2002–03. However, 14 heads of secondary schools with sixth forms currently sit on the LSC. The precise breakdown is as follows:
  291W
  Further sixth form expertise is brought by:
  Two former head teachers (from schools with sixth forms) on LLSCs (1 as an Executive Director);
  One deputy head teacher, one assistant head teacher and one teacher (from schools with sixth forms) on LLSCs.

  In the Secretary of State's Grant Letter to the LSC, she has encouraged the Council to widen representation from the schools sector.

  In addition, further knowledge and experience of schools is brought by:
  Three headteachers of schools without sixth forms, on local councils;
  36 representatives from local education authorities who bring knowledge and understanding of school sixth forms;
  101 members who are school governers

  This is reflected in the follwing table:

  Local LSC

  LEA reps with knowledge and understanding of school sixth forms

  School governors

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington

  1 Elected

  3

  Cumbria

  2 Officials

  2

  Lancashire

  1 Elected

  2

  Greater Manchester

  3

  Greater Merseyside

  1 Elected

  2

  West Midlands

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1 Official

  2

  Black Country

  1

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  5

  Hereford/Worcester

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1 Elected

  3

  South West

  Devon and Cornwall

  2

  Dorset

  1 Official

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Somerset

  2

  West of England

  Wiltshire/Swindon

  1 Elected

  3

  North East

  County Durham

  2

  Northumberland

  1 Official

  3

  Tees Valley

  3

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  North Yorkshire

  1 Official

  3

  West Yorkshire

  1 Official

  2

  South Yorkshire

  1 Official

  1

  Humberside

  1 Official

  2

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  1 Elected/1 Official

  4

  Leicestershire

  2 Officials

  3

  Lincoln/Rutland

  2 Officials

  6

  Northamptonshire

  1 Official

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  1 Elected

  3

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  1 Official

  4

  Essex

  1 Official

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1 Official

  Norfolk

  1 Official

  Suffolk

  4

  292W

  Local LSC

  LEA reps with knowledge and understanding of School sixth forms

  School governors

  London

  Central London1

  3

  East London

  1 Elected

  4

  North London2

  2

  South London

  1 Official

  1

  West London

  2

  South East

  Berkshire

  1 Official

  1

  Hampshire/IOW

  1 Official

  1

  Milton Keynes/Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire

  2 Officials

  2

  Kent/Medway

  1 Officials

  1

  Sussex

  2 Official

  1

  Surrey1

  1 Official

  1

  1 Headteachers without sixth forms

  Education SSA
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reform the education standard spending assessment. [21560]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of the review of local government funding we have set up two working groups, with local government and schools partners, to develop proposals for a new LEA and school funding system. We will be in a position to make proposals for the new system by the summer of 2002 and intend to introduce the new system in 2003–04.

  Teenagers (Health Education)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to ensure that health support and advice is made available through schools to young people in their teenage years. [21814]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are the first Government to introduce a non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) that provides the opportunities for pupils to receive the health support and advice they need to live confident, healthy and independent lives. Through PSHE, schools deliver a range of programmes that include, for example, drug, alcohol, tobacco and sex and relationship education. Schools receive Standards Fund money directly to support these programmes.

  Pre-school Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Ofsted-inspected pre-school nurseries and playgroups have closed in each of the past three years. [21953]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Department collects information on day nurseries and playgroups and pre-schools defined in terms of the full day or sessional care that they provide. It does not collect information on pre-schools separately from playgroups. The available information is shown in the table.
  293W

  Number of day nurseries and playgroups and pre-schools in England1 (position at 31 March each year)

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  15,700

  15,000

  14,300

  14,000

  Day nurseries

  6,700

  7,000

  7,500

  7,800

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Local authorities provided the data. Ofsted did not assume responsibility for registration and inspection of children's day care facilities until September 2001.

  Figures for 2001 for England and Government Office regions were published in Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities as at 31 March 2001", which is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/ and from the Library.

  Small Businesses (Communications)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what structures exist to facilitate communication between her Department and small businesses. [22152]

  John Healey
  My Department is committed to working actively with everyone who shares our aim of building a competitive economy and inclusive society. Small businesses have an important contribution to make to achieve that aim and my Department has regular communications with them both directly, for example with the ICT Industry Club where half of the 150 members are small businesses, and through organisations such as the Learning and Skills Councils, the Small Business Service, Regional Development Agencies and many other national and local organisations. We also run an online forum for small businesses that offers direct access to my Department for all small businesses; the forum is at www.business.dfes.gov.uk.

  The new employer-led Sector Skills Councils licensed from 2002 will lead discussion with Government about skills and productivity in their industry or business sectors, including the needs of small business. The purpose of this discussion will be to develop effective policies and provision that better meets the needs of employers to drive up competitiveness and business effectiveness.

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice she has received from Ofsted on the performance of faith schools. [22321]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has not provided my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with any formal advice on the performance of faith schools. I have received from HMCI a draft paper that examines inspection and attainment data on Church of England and Roman Catholic schools for the period 1996–2000. Ofsted regards this paper as work in progress, not yet ready for publication.

  Schools (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from schools in the Buckingham constituency in ach year since 1997. [22649]
  294W
  Mr. Timms
  The number of pupils permanently excluded from maintained primary and secondary schools and special schools within the constituency of Buckingham is shown in the following table.

  Number

  1997–98

  14

  1998–99

  8

  1999–2000

  6

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters she has received in 2001 on tuition fees from residents of the Buckingham constituency. [22650]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department does not routinely record correspondence data on a constituency basis. To provide this information would involve disproportionate costs.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have been statemented as having special educational needs in the constituency of Buckingham. [22651]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of children having been statemented as having special educational needs and reported to be attending primary, secondary and special schools within the constituency of Buckingham as at January 2001 was 315.

  Class sizes
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the average size of classes in primary schools in(a) the UK, (b) the North East and (c) South Tyneside at the most recent date for which figures are available. [22666]

  John Healey
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Average class size in maintained primary schools: all classes

  January 2001

  Average class size

  South Tyneside

  25.7

  North East

  25.9

  England

  26.8

  Wales

  24.8

  Scotland

  24.4

  Northern Ireland

  23.9

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the amounts(a) allocated to and (b) spent from the Standards Fund in each of the last three years. [22683]

  Mr. Timms
  The amounts allocated and spent from the Standards Fund in the last three years are as follows.
  295W

  £

  Amount allocated

  Amount spent

  1998–99

  618,349,380

  586,812,481

  1999–2000

  1,256,632,332

  1,167,833,535

  2000–01

  2,524,925,580

  2,215,126,768

  The figures include recurrent and capital Standards Fund grants. The Standards Fund includes Government grant and local authority contributions, which have both been included in the calculations. The amounts for 2000–01 will not reflect the full level of expenditure as not all local authorities have yet submitted outtum expenditure details, once they have done so the allocated figure and the expenditure figure will move closer together. In addition, £144 million of Devolved Formula Capital funding for schools was allocated to schools late in the financial year, which meant most schools decided to carry expenditure over into 2002–03. We have reallocated the capital budget underspend in 2001–02 to accelerate spend on improving the condition of school buildings.

  Universities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list, for each university,(a) the number of undergraduate students admitted and (b) the number of units of student accommodation provided, and what is figure (b) as a percentage of figure (a). [22784]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the number of undergraduate entrants is given in the table. Data on the units of student accommodation in each HE institution are not held centrally.

  Full-time and part-time undergraduate entrants to UK HEIs

  As at 31 December 2000

  Entrants

  The Open University

  48,072

  Cranfield University

  215

  Institute of Advanced Nursing Education

  280

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  257

  Bretton Hall College of HE

  925

  Buckinghamshire College of HE

  3,895

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  151

  Chester College of HE

  2,265

  Canterbury Christ Church College of HE

  3,902

  The College of Ripon and York St. John

  1,685

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  666

  Darlington College of Arts

  145

  Edge Hill College of HE

  2,969

  Falmouth College of Arts

  514

  Harper Adams Agricultural College

  618

  Homerton College

  1,127

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  808

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  1,381

  Liverpool Hope

  2,236

  The London Institute

  3,732

  University of Luton

  3,639

  Nene College

  4,288

  Newman College

  599

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  305

  Roehampton Institute of HE

  2,280

  Rose Bruford College

  251

  Royal Academy of Music

  82

  Royal College of Music

  116

  Royal Northern College of Music

  125

  Southampton Institute

  4,608

  St. Martin's College

  2,368

  St. Mary's College

  989

  296W

  Full-time and part-time undergraduate entrants to UK HEIs

  As at 31 December 2000

  Entrants

  Trinity and All Saints College

  692

  Trinity College of Music

  132

  Surrey Institute of Art and Design

  1,193

  Worcester College of HE

  2,047

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  8,384

  Bath College of HE

  1,427

  Bolton Institute of HE

  2,180

  Bournemouth University

  4,361

  The University of Brighton

  6,553

  The University of Central England in Birmingham

  7,004

  The University of Central Lancashire

  9,450

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE

  3,251

  London Guildhall University

  5,115

  Coventry University

  6,274

  University of Derby

  3,930

  The University of East London

  3,578

  The University of Greenwich

  5,769

  University of Hertfordshire

  6,577

  The University of Huddersfield

  5,864

  The University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  4,196

  Kingston University

  5,151

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  9,845

  Liverpool John Moores University

  6,765

  The Manchester Metropolitan University

  9,474

  Middlesex University

  7,955

  De Montfort University

  6,827

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  7,251

  The University of North London

  5,024

  Nottingham Trent University

  7,088

  Oxford Brookes University

  4,437

  The University of Plymouth

  7,633

  The University of Portsmouth

  5,541

  Sheffield Hallam University

  6,321

  South Bank University

  6,060

  Staffordshire University

  6,980

  The University of Sunderland

  4,045

  The University of Teesside

  6,008

  Thames Valley University

  6,231

  The University of the West of England, Bristol

  7,962

  Chichester Institute of HE

  1,334

  The University of Westminster

  7,317

  Wimbledon School of Art

  193

  The University of Wolverhampton

  7,789

  University of Wales College, Newport

  3,603

  The North-East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  2,227

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  3,278

  University of Glamorgan

  6,561

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  1,830

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  993

  University of Abertay, Dundee

  1,283

  Edinburgh College of Art

  398

  Glasgow School of Art

  471

  Northern College of Education

  536

  Queen Margaret College

  1,353

  Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  155

  The Robert Gordon University

  3,061

  The University of Paisley

  3,025

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  5,239

  Napier University

  3,995

  Aston University

  1,667

  The University of Bath

  2,134

  The University of Birmingham

  6,317

  The University of Bradford

  2,791

  The University of Bristol

  4,671

  Brunei University

  3,551

  The University of Cambridge

  5,925

  City University

  3,862

  The University of Durham

  3,744

  The University of East Anglia

  3,917

  The University of Essex

  2,315

  The University of Exeter

  3,365

  The University of Hull

  6,260

  The University of Keele

  2,456

  297W

  Full-time and part-time undergraduate entrants to UK HEIs

  As at 31 December 2000

  Entrants

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  4,025

  The University of Lancaster

  3,712

  University of Leeds

  7,908

  University of Leicester

  2,680

  The University of Liverpool

  5,703

  Birkbeck College

  5,173

  Goldsmiths' College

  2,383

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  2,164

  Institute of Education, University of London

  17

  Kings College London

  4,663

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  1,383

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  2,588

  Royal Holloway and Bedford New College

  1,468

  The Royal Veterinary College

  176

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  917

  The School of Oriental and African Studies

  818

  The School of Pharmacy, University of London

  172

  University College London

  3,928

  London University—(Central Institute and activities)

  88

  Loughborough University of Technology

  3,191

  The Victoria University of Manchester

  6,330

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  4,395

  The University of Nottingham

  6,635

  The University of Oxford

  5,460

  The University of Reading

  3,976

  The University of Salford

  6,944

  The University of Sheffield

  6,635

  The University of Southampton

  6,239

  The University of surrey

  2,796

  The University of Sussex

  4,202

  The University of Warwick

  6,558

  The University of York

  2,643

  The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  1,496

  The University of Edinburgh

  5,102

  The University of Glasgow

  7,601

  The University of Strathclyde

  3,800

  The University of Aberdeen

  3,056

  Heriot-Watt University

  1,666

  The University of Dundee

  3,246

  The University of St. Andrews

  1,595

  The University of Stirling

  2,067

  Scottish Agricultural College

  435

  The University of Wales, Lampeter

  894

  The University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  2,767

  University Wales, Bangor

  2,610

  University of Wales, Cardiff

  6,446

  University of Wales, Swansea

  3,737

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  846

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  231

  The Queen's University of Belfast

  7,251

  University of Ulster

  6,500

  Institute of Cancer Research

  114

  Writtle College

  586

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  276

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  50

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  341

  Stranmillis University College

  358

  St. Mary's University College

  295

  Total

  597,020

  Education Funding Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the proportion of total expenditure on(a) education, (b) higher education and (c) higher education student support met by (i) private funding, (ii) public funding in (A) each EU country, (B) the USA, (C) Australia and (D) New Zealand. [22793]
  298W
  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: My Department does not collate any data regarding spending on education in other countries. Information regarding the proportion of total expenditure on education and higher education met by both private and public funding in other countries is available in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publication, "Education at a Glance", 2001 Edition (Chapter B3—Charts B3.1, B3.2, Table B3.1). A copy of this publication is to be found in the House of Commons Library (POLIS Accession Number: 944669349). No figures are published in the UK on public and private shares of expenditure on student support in these countries.

  Education Funding (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the sources of funding for schools and local education authorities paid by her Department to schools and local education authorities; which of these sources of funding are available in Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [22909]

  Mr. Timms
  Sources of funding provided by the Department in 2001–02 are as listed:

  Standards Fund

  School Standards Grant

  Teachers' Pay Reform Grants (Threshold, Threshold Supply, Deputies' Assimilation, Leadership Group, Performance Pay Progression)

  Education Budget Support Grant

  Nursery Education Grant

  Childcare Grant

  Education Action Zone Grant

  Transitional Grant (former GM Schools)

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  Schools Capital Grants (Basic Need—ACG, VA Schools Grant, Schools Access Initiative, New Deal for Schools).

  All of the sources of funding are available in Worcestershire, with the exception of support for Education Action Zones. There are no Education Action Zones in Worcestershire.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the individual learning account system was not accessible by learning providers between 4.15 pm and 6.30 pm on Friday 23 November. [23107]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 17 December 2001]: On Friday 23 November the ILA website experienced heavy traffic, with 22,481 successful hits. As a result access may have been difficult at any time. From 5.00 pm on 23 November work was carried out to enable the website to be closed at 6.30 pm. During this process access to the system was restricted.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) to ask the Secretary of State for Education, which learning providers attended the individual learning account focus group meeting at the Department for Education and Skills on 25 July; and what recommendations were made; [23113]
  299W
  (2) what action was taken by her Department following the advice received by those attending her Department's individual learning account focus group on 25 July on the exploitation of the system. [23112]

  John Healey
  As part of the workshop on 25 July the specific details of the new learning provider agreement were discussed and providers were asked to comment on what additional guidance they felt would help them comply with the principles of the agreement. We also advised providers of our intent to introduce a learner leaflet to help individuals make a more informed choice about the learning they undertook.

  An initial draft of new learning provider guidance incorporating, where possible, suggestions made by providers at these workshops was produced on 5 October. The final draft of this document was put on hold due to the early closure of the ILA programme. The learner leaflet was completed and from the end of August was issued to all individuals who opened an ILA.

  The individuals who attended the workshop on 25 July were: Libby Woodhatch—Seafish Training Association; Tim Addison—Future Open College; Neil Eades—Best Training; Tessa Mitchell—Manor Community College; Richard Marshall—Imperial College; and Fiona Nouri—Royal College of Art.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether her Department has written contracts with training organisations providing services to ILA holders. [23438]

  John Healey
  The Department does not have written contracts with training organisations providing training to ILA account holders.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many arrests have been made in connection with fraud of the Government's individual learning accounts scheme. [23548]

  John Healey
  39 arrests have been made and one person has been charged in relation to allegations of fraud in connection with the operation of the individual learning account programme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 814W, on individual learning accounts, if she will enable the individual learning account holders to use their accounts as soon as the system has been proofed against fraud and theft. [23583]

  John Healey
  Account holders will be able to pursue any legitimate learning booked before the programme closed on 23 November. However, we have now withdrawn the current ILA programme, and there are therefore no plans to reinstate access to the individual learning account system for account holders.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2001,Official Report, column 814W, on individual learning accounts, if she will make it her policy to give such individual learning account holders priority in the new system after it is established. [23585]
  300W
  John Healey
  We are developing plans for supporting adult learners which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme. It is too early to say who or what learning will be eligible for support under those plans.

  Delegated Budgets
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of Leicestershire LEA' s education budget was delegated to schools in the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what percentage of the LEA education budget Leicestershire schools will receive in 2001–02; [23314]

  (2) what average percentage of the LEA education budget was delegated to schools in England and Wales in the financial years (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02; [23313]

  (3) what progress has been made in delegating LEAs' education budgets to schools in England and Wales for the year 2001–02. [23312]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set authorities in England a target in delegating percentages of the local schools budget (LSB) to schools. In 2000–01 and 2001–02, the Government's target for delegating the LSB to schools was 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. respectively; the average delegation actually achieved by LEAs was 84.2 per cent. and 86.5 per cent. Although there was no national target set in 1999–2000, the average delegation rate actually achieved by LEAs in England was 82.4 per cent. Next year, 2002–03, the national delegation target is 87 per cent. We expect authorities to reach this target, prior to the proposed introduction of the new local authority funding system in 2003–04 when we will be moving towards the publication of separate schools and LEA budgets.

  From 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Leicestershire LEA achieved delegation percentages of 83.4 per cent., 84.2 per cent. and 85 per cent. respectively.

  School funding in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with Ofsted to discuss the performance of schools within education action zones. [23546]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds meetings with HM Chief Inspector every four to six weeks. The performance of schools in education action zones is just one of a wide range of issues that they discuss during the course of these meetings.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with Ofsted to discuss her decision to abolish education action zones. [23547]

  Mr. Timms
  All education action zones will complete their agreed full statutory term. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, EAZs had a maximum statutory term of five years.
  301W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds meetings with HM Chief Inspector every four to six weeks to discuss a wide range of matters including education action zones.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the National Union of Teachers to discuss the performance of schools within education action zones. [23676]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend and I have had no recent meetings with the National Union of Teachers to discuss the performance of schools within education action zones.

  Keystage 2 (Leaked Results)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the joint inquiry by her Department and the Office for National Statistics into the leak of keystage 2 results during the week of 11 September will be(a) completed and (b) made public. [23930]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 782W.

  Teachers' Pay
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what directions she is giving(a) local education authorities and (b) schools on how to finance the higher pay scale for teachers due in 2002. [24016]

  Mr. Timms
  In England we are consulting on a new special grant to help schools fund the cost of performance points, including points on the upper pay scale. The grant—worth £250 million over the next two financial years—will be allocated to local education authorities using a formula that takes account of the number of teachers on the upper pay scale. Local authorities will be expected to allocate the money to schools in the same way. Schools will be free to decide how much to invest in performance points, taking account of all the resources available to them including special grant.
  302W
  Funding for teachers' pay in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to announce the quinquennial review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [24366]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, my Department is today beginning a review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Following Cabinet Office guidelines, the terms of reference for the first stage of the review will be:to review the role and functions of QCA as outlined in its remit letter, the efficiency and effectiveness with which they have been carried out and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DIES and Government objectives;
  to consider the likely need for these functions in the future and whether there is a need for any reduction or expansion in the functions undertaken by QCA;
  to consider what QCA's customers and other interested parties think about its role, performance and responsiveness to their needs;
  to consider whether continued NDPB status is the best way of delivering these functions or whether some, or all, of the functions could be delivered more efficiently and effectively within an alternative organisational framework, including by another private, public or voluntary body or otherwise within Government; and
  to consider the powers, remit, objectives and status of QCA and the membership and role of the Board.

  We should welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the review from all those with an interest in the work of QCA. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by 28 February 2002 to:

  Ellie Reynolds

  Department for Education and Skills

  E3c

  Moorfoot

  Sheffield S1 4PQ

  or. by e-mail to: ellie.reynolds@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

  We have asked that this first stage of the review should be completed by spring 2002.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

House of Lords Reform
Lord Geddesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, they consider that the elected element will constitute a more legitimate body of membership within the House than the unelected element.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I do not consider that one type of Member in the reformed Chamber will be more legitimate than any other type. All Members of this House will be equally legitimate.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He always gives such replies so graciously. Can he advise the House where that reply leaves the doctrine of his immediate predecessor Lord Privy Seal?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, absolutely intact. The reformed House will be the subject of a constitutional settlement approved by Parliament, as the present House is the subject and the consequence of a constitutional settlement approved by Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the Leader of the House on the brilliance of his reply. I want to press him further on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. Does he accept that there is a danger of there being two classes of Peer, one elected and the other appointed? Does he also accept that, to sustain the legitimacy and the appropriate democratic role of this House, there is a strong case that those who accept a party Whip should be elected and that those who decide to retain their independence, on the grounds of their expertise and experience, may be appointed? That would meet the charge that some noble Lords are "cronies", an unacceptable charge and one that should be fully repudiated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there will not be two classes of Member. All Members will be equal,
130
as George Orwell intended to point out. Speaking as one who was put here on the recommendation of Mr Major, I never thought that I had an obligation to be one of his cronies. I say quite seriously that I do not detect any subservience or desire to be ruled by others among any noble Lords, whether Bishops, lifers, hereditary Peers or others.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall return to the matter of legitimacy many times over the course of the next few months, particularly if the Government publish a Bill. It is important to understand the Government's thinking behind this subject. If, as the noble and learned Lord has said, directly elected Members of this House will have no greater legitimacy than appointed Peers, what is the point of having them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, to add a certain degree of variety that may be needed, and to give the representation that is specified in the Royal Commission's report to different sections of national life that may be under-represented at the moment. I stress that if the reform comes about it will be a constitutional settlement agreed and approved by both Houses.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some difficulties could arise as a result of elected Members representing constituencies, whereas the rest will not have constituencies?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. The Bishops of the Church of England as established by law are Members of the House partly to represent a particular constituency of religious opinion. Of course, they also reflect much wider aspects of national life. There is no difficulty, except for those who want to find one.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord ask the Government to open their eyes a little wider so that they realise that elected Members in this House will alter the authority of the House of Lords and another place? The other place will hate the idea of an elected second Chamber and there will be endless trouble.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. It is worth looking at the preamble to the Royal Commission's report and the basis upon which that commission pursued its inquiries and conclusions. That makes it perfectly plain that the House of Commons is to be supreme. It is to be supreme as the legislative organ and if it insists it must have its own way; and it is entirely supreme in relation to taxation. No changes to either of those bases will be proposed.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that votes last week showed quite clearly that the views of this non-elected House represent the views of the public, as was widely shown afterwards, rather than the views of the elected House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not sure about that. It depends on which poll one reads. I take the point made by the noble Lord. This House, although non-elected, discharged what it took to be its duty.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Leader of the House accept that if in future Members of this House—however it is to be composed—are to be paid a living salary, the country will be governed by two Chambers out of touch with real life?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not really. I believe that outside this House most people's aspiration is to have a living salary.

Manufacturing Industry
2.43 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to revive manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government recognise the difficulties that UK manufacturers are experiencing because of the slow-down in the world economy.
We are helping UK manufacturing industry to drive up productivity and to increase competitiveness. We are doing that by providing a stable fiscal environment, by investing in basic science, by pursuing a strong competition policy, by investing in transferable basic skills and in infrastructure, by actively promoting knowledge transfer between universities and industry and by supporting exports, regions and small business.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that after two consecutive quarters of negative growth manufacturing is now in recession? Does that situation not call for other special measures such as exemption from the climate change levy, or has manufacturing ceased to occupy the central position in the Government's industrial and economic plans?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have said, we recognise that there is a fall in output in manufacturing industry. That does not require us to take emergency measures, such as changing the climate change levy. But, as was shown by the fact that we had the manufacturing summit recently, we take the performance of manufacturing industry extremely seriously. We shall continue to support it as necessary to increase its productivity and competitiveness.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept, having been asked this Question probably six times in this House since the Summer Recess, that this is a serious issue? Does he further accept that there are
132
really only two policies that Her Majesty's Government can pursue? The first one, which seemed to be the answer that the noble Lord was giving, is to do very little and allow the decline of manufacturing industry to be left to the market place. The alternative is to have a proactive fiscal and monetary policy in order to preserve our manufacturing industry, including—dare I say—making plans to go into the euro. Which of those two policies do the Government propose to adopt?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for asking that question. He has asked it every time this issue has been raised. I shall give the same answer as I have given before. I do not think that the failed policies of the past, in terms of either fiscal or monetary stimulation, are the right policies to pursue. What industry wants and has always said it wants is stability in these areas. Equally, to go into the euro, which is what the noble Lord has in mind, without the five tests being passed would be a great mistake.
Lord Jones: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my former constituency some £250 million is currently being invested in the Airbus factory? It is a world leader in wing technology and wing production to the tune at the moment of over 4,000 jobs. Is he further aware that the aerospace manufacturing industry in Britain now earns nearly £5 billion a year for our country, employs over 40,000 skilled workers and is the last great reservoir of skills? Therefore, will the Government bring forward their plans to buy the heavy lift aircraft, the A400M? Will they increase the already notable research and development grants that they give to BAe Systems and to Airbus? Without the aerospace industry Britain would be in serious industrial trouble.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that the aerospace industry is one of the best performing industries in this country and is a notable example of where we have world-class manufacturing which can compete against any other country in the world. I do not think that it is the last reservoir of skills in this country. There are other industries, such as the biotechnology industry and pharmaceuticals, which equally are world-class industries. There are many more to which we should give more recognition. The particular measures mentioned by my noble friend are constantly under review.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the letter that his noble friend Lord McIntosh received from the glass manufacturers on 3rd December after a similar Question was asked in the House about the climate change levy? The letter from the glass manufacturers said that a disproportionately large amount of money is taken by the climate change levy—they called it a tax, as I did—from this very delicate industry. Is the noble Lord aware that Pilkington pays £1.75 million and gets £44,000 back and Potters of Barnsley Ltd pays £175,000 and gets only £2,000 back? Do the Government still maintain

133
that what we call a tax and they call the climate change levy is actually still tax neutral especially as far as concerns the manufacturing industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not aware of the letter to which the noble Lord referred. I have been in contact with a number of industries that are in a similar position, such as the plastics and rubber industry. They have made the same point. The position is that the levy is revenue neutral across the private sector. We have never said that it is revenue neutral on a particular industry or a particular company where clearly it is not the case, but across the whole of the private sector it is revenue neutral and therefore not a tax.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what plans the Government have to revive manufacturing industry—or, indeed, any kind of industry—in the North East of England?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad to say that One North East is a good regional development agency and has taken extremely effective action to support particular clusters of industry in the North East. We want to give regional development agencies more scope so that they can play a part in increasing innovation and productivity within regions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our adverse balance on visible trade is now at an all-time high and rising? Of course, that means that we are importing vastly more manufactured goods than we are exporting. Is not that of grave concern? If that had occurred a few years ago, it could have led to a governmental crisis but it now seems to be totally ignored.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is obviously an issue of concern. We now have proper control of public finances, so that does not inevitably lead to a crisis across the whole of the Government's financial policy, as it has done in the past.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the climate change levy is haphazard in its impact? The return—the refund—entirely depends on a firm's number of employees, because it is the return of national insurance contributions.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is not a random situation. There will not always be perfect equity between every company, but it seems to us the best method of recycling the money to companies—no better method has been suggested.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while declaring an interest in training matters, as set out in the Register, is the Minister satisfied that there will be an adequate supply of skilled personnel—especially engineers—for manufacturing industry now and in future?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of the supply of skilled engineers is extremely
134
important. There are severe gaps in some key areas. That is why we are taking action, such as the restructuring of the Engineering Council to turn it into the Engineering and Technology Board, so that we can do more to drive up the supply of engineers throughout the economy.

Rights of Way Maps
2.53 p.m.
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to open up open country and registered common land under Section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 by way of commencement orders on a regional basis as and when the conclusive maps have been published for each region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are carefully considering whether to proceed by way of commencement orders on a regional basis. We expect to announce our intentions soon after the consultation on the draft maps in the first two mapping regions is completed in February next year.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that half encouraging Answer. Will he pass on congratulations from these Benches to the Countryside Agency on the way in which, so far, it is adhering to its fairly rigid timetable? It has issued the first two draft maps for the South East and what is somewhat oddly called the lower North West regions on time. That is extremely encouraging. Would it not cause problems if conclusive maps for those first two regions were published perhaps more than two years ahead of the conclusive maps for other parts of the country, so that everybody knew where the new access land was to be during a long period when access was still not possible? Would that not he a recipe for confusion and confrontation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to pass on the noble Lord's thanks to the Countryside Agency, which has a difficult task but has completed those draft maps. Clearly, we need to consider from the reaction to those draft maps what problems may follow in other regions before we take a definitive decision on whether producing conclusive maps should lead to the commencement orders applying to those two regions or a slightly larger number of regions, or whether we should wait until the full mapping process has been completed. We shall consider that next spring.
Earl Peel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the two areas where mapping has started—the South East and the North West—considerable areas of land have been mapped that have no bearing whatever on open country? That is causing considerable distress to those involved. For example, in Kent, I know of at least two private parks that have been designated.

135
Parks are exempt under the Act. In the north-west of England, much in-bye land, which has nothing to do with open access, has been designated. Will the Minister tell his department to inform the Countryside Agency to inform the mapping authority that it must withdraw its horns and go back to designating open country and leaving land that is totally unsuitable under the Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are exceptions to the designation of open countryside, but the noble Earl will recall, from long hours of discussion, that the Act includes two processes: one is the mapping of open countryside and the other is the exceptions to the mapping. It may well be that land has been mistakenly designated—no doubt comments on the draft maps will make that clea—but, within open countryside, parks, gardens and in-bye land may be designated, some of which may subsequently be exempted under the provision to which the noble Earl refers. Parkland and gardens are exempted, but we are only at the first stage of a two-stage process.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in a Sunday newspaper that reveals an extraordinary case of an internationally known botanical garden that has been classified as open countryside, which it manifestly is not? Will he urge the Countryside Agency to consider the maps with extreme care and to take into account objections to them? If the Countryside Agency turns a deaf ear to such complaints, will it be possible to proceed to judicial review?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is wrong to start talking about judicial review when we are at an early stage of a process on which we spent much time during the passage of the Act. The draft maps are for comment. Exceptions are then made to areas designated as open country or common land. That process will continue as set out in the time-scale announced by the Countryside Agency. Most of the problems with the two regional maps produced so far and subsequent maps should be resolved during that process. The issue of judicial review therefore does not arise.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will recall our discussion during the passage of the Act about the need for adequate resources to be given to the local authorities in the areas in which much open land will fall to provide access—stiles, information points and so on. What assessment is his department carrying out in order to recommend to the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions what extra resources will be needed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we committed ourselves in the Act fully to fund the additional duties that it imposes. We identified the appropriate allocation for local authorities at this point in the process as being between £12 million and £19 million. That is necessary if we are to achieve the rapid enactment of the process.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Countryside Agency has done well in the way that it has produced its maps—in particular, by consulting widely? Wide consultation is under way at present. Does he agree that the consultation and the mapping process should produce something that will enable more people to gain great pleasure from our countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, and the passing of the Act provides that possibility. However, the process under which it is being implemented gives to those who want to use the right of access and to those who are land owners or managers the right to comment on the draft maps. At the end of that process, when a provisional map is introduced, landowners have a right of appeal against it.
I believe that safeguards have been built in for everyone and that the final result will be of great benefit to those who want to use our countryside.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, first, I want to press the Minister on the early introduction of land. Secondly, will he reconsider the definitions of mountain, moor, heath and down, which we were unable to establish? The lack of definition is leading to the inclusion on the maps of areas of land which were never intended for inclusion.
Furthermore, why, as I understand it, are farmers to be charged £15 and £5 respectively for obtaining the maps when previously Ordnance Survey maps were provided free of charge? I cannot overemphasise the disquiet that that situation is causing in the countryside.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. People have recognised that the process is open and will give landowners in particular rights to object or to suggest modifications to the maps.
As we noted during the passage of the Bill, the Countryside Agency has a difficult job to identify precisely where the land concerned begins and ends. It may be, therefore, that modification will be necessary during the process. That is the nature of the process. It is difficult to give too tight a definition.
Access to the maps will be available. However, the provision of free maps is a different matter and one to which we did not commit ourselves during the passage of the Bill. That was never the case previously.

Faith Schools
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations are taking place on the proposal to increase the number of faith schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Green Paper, Schools: Building on Success, and the White Paper, Schools: Achieving Success, set out our policy on faith schools and were the subject of wide-scale consultation. Ministers continue to hold meetings with interested parties and listen to views on the implementation of the White Paper proposals and related matters. In addition, any proposed new maintained school, including any faith school, must be the subject of local consultation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of how little enthusiasm there is outside the Churches for the huge increase in the number of faith schools? Despite what the Government have repeatedly said, is it not evident that such schools can be divisive? We need go no further than Northern Ireland to see that.
My noble friend will be aware that the issue of higher standards in faith schools is often discussed. Does she agree with the findings of the recent independent Civitas report which states that there is an enormous and unacceptable variation in standards in both Church schools and local authority schools?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is important to be clear that, under school organisation committees, faith schools will be subject to the same rules as other schools. Therefore, they would come into being only where there was clear backing from local parents and the local community. That is a fundamental and important part of the policy.
I do not see hundreds of new schools coming into being, but it is important that we look clearly and sensitively at issues connected with the introduction of faith schools where parents and local communities want to see them.
As regards standards, there are differing views. The information which I have seen shows clear signs that some faith schools have been able to work effectively with pupils to their benefit. In education, we are recognising that schools should have a clear and distinct ethos and that schools which are able to find new and interesting ways of working with their pupils are successful.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one aspect which is so admirable in faith-based schools is their culture of hard work and discipline? Therefore, would it not be more widely beneficial to the country at large if, instead of encouraging the setting up of more faith-based schools, there were the encouragement of the spread of that culture throughout the school system?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, many schools have a culture of hard work and discipline, in the best sense of that word, for their pupils. In terms of culture, the introduction of the citizenship agenda into the curriculum is very important.
138
Like good schools of all characters, good faith schools have long taught the value of inclusion, tolerance and the ability and need to work alongside people from all walks of life and to recognise the contribution which every individual pupil should and must make to our society. We believe that making citizenship a compulsory part of the curriculum in secondary schools from next September will be a valuable and important tool in that process.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the policy of the Church of England is that, while being clearly and distinctively Christian, our Church schools should be inclusive and serve the whole community in all its diversity? Is she further aware that a large number of diocesan boards of education, including my own in Gloucester, are in discussion with their partner local education authorities about increasing the number of Church secondary schools in particular?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not aware of those specific discussions but I am aware of the role of the Synod and the Church of England in discussing the issues with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. It is important that Church schools consider very carefully their role within communities. In many cases, such schools have provided for a diverse range of pupils to the great satisfaction of all.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, may I—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the Liberal Democrat Benches rose first.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that every state school in receipt of state funding should serve the whole community in which it is located and not discriminate as regards access in respect of any faith or no faith at all? Furthermore, as regards this matter does the Minister agree with her right honourable friend the Prime Minister or her right honourable friend the Home Secretary, because they do not appear to agree with each other?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am receiving great advice on the question from my noble friend behind me. However, I agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to whom I am responsible, that it is very important to ensure that schools recognise the contribution they make to a community. We have no plans to introduce admission quotas to schools but we want to encourage all schools to ensure that their intake reflects the local communities in all their diversities.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the principles on which the pension credit will be based. Peers who spoke on the uprating Statement welcomed the most important elements while, understandably at this stage, expressing caution as regards other aspects of the policy.
For many pensioners who need it, the pension credit will provide not only more money, but a fairer system which will treat pensioners with the decency they deserve. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was able to say that this would be the answer to his prayers—I am not sure whether that is exactly the right word, given the noble Earl's convictions—because it will abolish the upper capital limit that at present denies some pensioners any help. I look forward to debating the areas of concern over the coming weeks and convincing noble Lords that the pension credit is a soundly based and well constructed social policy.
The pension credit forms the major part of the Bill, but first perhaps I may touch briefly on Clause 18 dealing with the position of widowers. This forms the final instalment of the work we have undertaken to establish bereavement benefits that treat widowers and widows equally. As a result of an oversight in the drafting of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, if a widower is receiving a pension from his late wife's contracted out pension scheme, there is no power to make a contracted-out deduction. That means that currently he receives a pension as though his late wife had not earned a contracted-out pension, when in fact she did. Clause 18 removes the double provision and restores the position that the House intended. I regret the oversight.
Returning to the pension credit, I was grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, after the uprating Statement. In a few sentences she encapsulated the main considerations that were in our minds. First, it is necessary to concentrate on helping the poorest pensioners. Secondly, we must see that those who have saved modest amounts for their retirement are rewarded for their thrift and effort, not penalised. Thirdly, we must tackle the obstacles that put people off taking their pension entitlement.
There is a high degree of consensus in the House about the importance of tackling pensioner poverty. There is also agreement that we must ensure that future pensioners receive a decent income in retirement. Perhaps there is less consensus on how to achieve that, but I am sure that over the coming weeks we shall debate the issue.
The yellow booklet that we published at the time of the First Reading of the Bill—The Pension Credit—The Government's Proposals—sets out the Government's pension strategy and, in particular, the reasons why we
140
are introducing the pension credit. Since that provides the essential background and helps to explain why we are spending £2 billion in this way, I shall summarise the Government's pensions strategy and cover the important role of the pension credit in achieving our objectives.
The 1998 Green Paper, Partnership in Pensions, set out a new framework for reforming both state and private pensions. The aim was to ensure that everyone could enjoy a decent income in retirement. Encouraging saving lies at the heart of this strategy. At the time we said that the pension system, both state and private, was failing to provide enough support for today's pensioners as well as failing to provide security in retirement for tomorrow's pensioners.
In particular, too many of those who could afford to save were not doing so or were not saving enough. Roughly 40 per cent of all employees and workers were not making any voluntary provision for their retirement. Thus they were heading for poverty in retirement.
The gap between better off and poor pensioners was growing. On average, pensioner incomes have been increasing faster than the incomes of those in work, but too many were left behind. Some 2 million over 60 year-olds were living at or below inadequate income support rates. The incomes of the richest fifth had risen by 80 per cent, while the incomes of the poorest rose by only 30 per cent.
For those who could not afford to save, the state provision through SERPS was inadequate because the previous administration halved its value. SERPS did not provide enough support for people on low earnings or for people with broken work records due to caring for children or through disability. Of course, SERPS was always fatally flawed in that it gave the least help to those who needed that help the most.
People also lacked confidence in the pension system following the Maxwell affair and the scandal of pensions mis-selling. The foundation of our reforms was and remains the principle that those who can afford to save have a responsibility to do so. In return, the Government should support those who cannot afford to save.
The House will know what steps we have taken to improve the situation through the minimum income guarantee (MIG), winter fuel payments and other measures. As a result, around 2 million of the least worst off pensioners are better off, while the poorest pensioners are £800 per year better off.
For those who can afford to save, we have improved the options available with the launch of stakeholder pensions in April. For those who cannot afford to save, we shall implement the state second pension from April of next year. As that scheme matures it will provide dramatically better provision for 18 million people on low earnings or who are unable to work because they undertake caring roles or are themselves disabled.
Where does the pension credit fit in with our proposals for a state second pension and for stakeholders? The pension credit is essential to the

141
overall coherence of the pension system. It will form the third piece of legislation and finally complete the jigsaw. It will provide the mechanism for ensuring that we can tackle poverty among today's pensioners without undermining the incentive for future pensioners to save for their own retirement. The principle is that those who can afford to save should do so, but also that the Government should support those who cannot afford it.
But that principle presents us with a difficult structural puzzle. The yellow booklet highlighted the inevitable tension between the present arrangements for lifting today's pensioners out of poverty while also ensuring that today's workers have a clear incentive to save. We must lift the poorest pensioners out of poverty by increasing their income, but at the same time we must restore the incentive for people to lift themselves. How those two apparently conflicting pressures are balanced is the question which the pension credit seeks to address.
The minimum income guarantee is not ungenerous and thus forms an element of the structural difficulty. That is because by 2003 it will lift pensioners from the retirement pension level of around £77 per week to a basic income of £100 per week. However, having ensured that all pensioners receive a decent basic income, we then have to deal with the problem that it is therefore not worth saving for a pension that would not lift the pensioner clear of MIG. To achieve that, a pension of at least £100 per month is needed.
The situation that we inherited means that at the moment it is not worth it for people to save towards a modest occupational pension of perhaps £100 per month, or if they have a bigger pension, for their spouse to inherit it because they would be no better off than if they were in receipt of MIG. We believe that the pension credit will provide an elegant solution that targets substantial sums on helping the least well off and tapers that help for pensioners further up the scale of income distribution. So we shall tackle pensioner poverty in a precise way but we shall also ease the stark disincentive to save that has been inherent in any relatively generous safety net arrangement that has been put in place until now.
The pension credit will resolve the structural puzzle by ensuring that those who save even modest amounts—by saving in a second pension or by putting money aside in a building society account or an ISA—will gain from having done so. At the moment, too many people do not gain.
The pension credit will build on the other long-term reforms that we have already made by ensuring that we reward the thrift of those who have worked hard all their lives, but who feel let down because they are often no better off than people who have saved nothing.
If not today, then at a later date, I am sure that will be told that this will increase means testing. Certainly, many more pensioners—single pensioners living on incomes of up to around £7,000 per year and couples with incomes of up to around £10,000 per year will receive extra pension income. However, to say that the pension credit will be means tested implies that we will
142
treat pensioners as though they were under the dreaded family means test of the 1930s, or that we will perpetuate the post-war discretionary scheme under which the National Assistance Board intruded into every element of a pensioner's financial affairs—looking week by week at every penny they had and monitoring every change, for example, by examining the lustre vase on the mantelpiece. That simply will not be the case. As will become clear, we intend to make a marked cultural shift in the way in which pensioners are treated. I suggest to the House with all due respect that we shall do a disservice to pensioners and their willingness to take up their entitlement if we continue to use the language that serves to stigmatise that which is their right.
For example, from age 65 we will set awards for long periods, normally five years at a time, as opposed to the weekly assessment that lies behind the principle of income support. That will further reduce the intrusion that pensioners rightly complain of and which is an important contributor to the stigma they feel. We shall ask them to report only major changes in their lives such as, for example, the death of a spouse. They will of course be able to ask for their pension credit to be increased at any time should their other sources of income reduce.
There is another element to the Government's strategy which is also relevant, although it is not a part of the Bill. We must do more to ensure that the service we give to pensioners and to people below pension age who are providing for their retirement focuses on what they want and need from the Government. Research—plenty has been undertaken—has helped to tell us what pensioners dislike about the ways in which traditionally they have been treated by the old Department for Social Security. In many cases that reaction has gone beyond "dislike" and has resulted in pensioners not taking up their entitlement. When that happens, they risk and endure poverty.
Research report 100, Overcoming barriers, older people and income support, published in 1999, gives some clear evidence. Attitudes are important. In the past, too many pensioners felt that there was a stigma attached to claiming the old income support. The processes of making a claim, reporting changes in income and so forth put people off. The research showed that the processes people have to go through must be made more dignified. It also showed that the pension service must reinforce the message that pensioners are entitled to this help. We need others in society to make it clear that they believe that this entitlement is legitimate. We must make the information freely available, simplify forms, integrate the process, and back it up with a quality pension service.
The service that we offer makes a huge difference to pensioners' decisions about applying for MIG. We have already improved access to pensioners' entitlements with the telephone service and the claim form, which has been reduced in length from 40 pages to 10. There is much more to do before we can say that the service is excellent, or even yet good enough. But that is our ambition—one which I am sure is shared by the whole House.

143
Over time, we shall integrate our processes so that, at the point of retirement when people are invited to claim their basic state pension, we shall be able to use that opportunity to establish their entitlement to pension credit. They will then enjoy that for five years. As noble Lords will know, the entitlement even to state retirement pension is not automatically a simple one, particularly if people have less than complete pension records. We shall be able to do, so to speak, a waterfront of their income at the time at which they claim retirement pension and then give them a secure income for the next five years.
We are also developing the capacity to write to all 11 million pensioners periodically to ensure that they are kept up to date with changes to pensions and to provide them with information about their entitlement. That is important, because the income of many pensioners declines as they get older. Even those who start above the pension ceiling may find that at some stage they become entitled to a savings credit, particularly if one goes up related to earnings whereas their own pension is related only to prices. We want to make sure that they receive the income as soon as they are entitled to it.
During this debate, not only shall I be told that pension credit is a form of means testing—although I have done my best to address that issue; I shall also be told, with perhaps a little more justification, that pension credit is complicated. Many noble Lords who will contribute to the debate will understand the detail that must go into a pension scheme. But, at its core, pension credit is structurally simple.
First, there is a floor below which a pensioner's income should not fall. That is the guarantee level. A single pensioner will be able to rely on having at least £100 a week to live on, using illustrative rates, and a couple £154 a week. It is simple arithmetic. The pension service will top up their retirement pension, whether it is complete or incomplete, to £100 a week as their basic guarantee.
Secondly, through pension credit we shall reward those over 65 who have made some provision for their retirement above the level of the basic state pension. This is the savings credit. So the guarantee element of the credit takes the level up to £100—the MIG figure—and the savings element is the wrap-around of the modest occupational pension. We shall give them 60 pence in the pound up to a maximum of about £13.80 for a single pensioner or about £18.60 for a couple—again, using illustrative rates. That savings credit will take the thrifty above the floor.
Let us take the example of a pensioner with a modest occupational pension of 100 a month. It might be an elderly widow who is perhaps 80 and who is receiving only half of her husband's pension. At this moment in time, that elderly widow with an occupational pension of £100 a month might just as well not have the extra amount at all. She gains nothing from it; it does not take her above what she would receive if her husband had never invested in an occupational pension. It takes her up to under the MIG level. But with pension credit
144
that same elderly women will receive an additional £60 per month (60p in the pound) on top. That is the reward element. For such people, the point of saving for a pension, however, modest it may be, will become clear for the first time. This is fairly simple arithmetic and I hope that the concept of the pension credit is clear. Of course, the pensioner does not have to do the calculation. The skill is in helping pensioners to know that there is an entitlement for them to apply for.
I suspect that I shall be accused on a third count: I shall be told that the pension credit discriminates against women. Again, I challenge that statement. It does not. Women are the main gainers from the introduction of pension credit. More than half of the recipients will be single women. By comparison, only one-sixth will be single men. In many ways, women will do very well from the pension credit, particularly because they live longer than men and, over time, inflation may erode the value of any second pension or savings that they may have. Pension credit will also be valuable for widows who inherit only half of their late husband's second pension. It is a valuable way of narrowing the inequality that persists, and will persist, until women's pensions catch up with those of men.
However, there is a problem that we have had to tackle, and it is right to share it with the House. The pension system does not yet treat men and women equally. In this instance women are the beneficiaries of discrimination but that does not make it legally acceptable.
State pension age will be equalised at 65. However, that could not be done at a stroke: it was necessary to move to this over time, so that people could build it into their financial expectations. Pension credit must cope with that transitional inequality, while itself treating men and women equally. I ask your Lordships to think about how we were to cope with transitional inequality, knowing that the goal was the equal treatment of men and women at the end of the process, and treating them equally at every point towards that end, while dealing with inequality as it currently stands in terms of retirement age.
Noble Lords will have noted that, at the start, the guarantee element—which takes income up to £100 a week—will be paid to both men and women from age 60. So for the poorest pensioners we are equalising for both men and women at 60. But this will move to age 65 between 2010 and 2020 in step with the basic state pension.
In the mean time, men and women aged 60 and over will all benefit from the fairer capital rules, which have been welcomed, from the streamlined pension service, and from the simplification of the rules, which I am sure we shall debate thoroughly in Committee.
However, the unequal treatment men and women receive in relation to the basic state pension persists in the mean time. This means that there is no way of giving the savings credit—the sums over £100 a week—to men and women under 65 on equal terms,short of reducing men's state pension age to 60, in advance of raising it again in a few years' time for everyone to 65. We cannot do it; we are stuck.

145
Therefore, what we are doing is equalising the guarantee element at 60 for men and women alike and equalising the reward element for men and women alike at 65. That is why we are doing it in this way. That said, I repeat that women are by far the largest beneficiaries of pension credit, but above all it is the older and poorer women who will benefit, who are most in need.
Noble Lords will have noted the commitment to increase the guarantee credit in line with average earnings for the rest of this Parliament. This and rising take-up will increase the cost of pension credit. The cost of the savings credit will rise too. We have projected forward as far as 2050. This shows that expenditure on state pensions will remain largely unchanged as a proportion of GDP. Therefore, we have concluded that pension credit is and will remain affordable and sustainable.
I am sure that I shall also be told in this debate—and I expect nothing less from my noble friend Lady Castle—that it would be better to increase the basic state pension in line with average earnings. I disagree profoundly. That would not lift the poorest out of poverty; all that would happen would be that an amount would be deducted from their minimum income guarantee sums; and it would go to many in this House—possibly in due course myself—which would be unreasonable. It woulddo nothing to help in terms of poverty. It would do nothing to tackle inequality—because the differentials among pensioners would remain the same if all received the same. Furthermore, it would not be financially sustainable. By 2030 the cost of earnings linking the state retirement pension would be £29 billion, more than twice the cost of the changes that we are introducing with pension credit; and most of the money would not go to those who most need it.
Pension credit is a radical departure. It builds on all that we have done to tackle pensioner poverty by raising the level of income pensioners can expect as a minimum. From next year, the Government will be spending £6 billion a year extra on pensioners above the 1997 level, and, of this, £2.5 billion will go to the poorest third. In weekly terms the youngest poorer pensioners on the MIG will, by April, be £23 a week better off. Couples will be £33 a week better off. Pension credit builds on this by adding a further £2 billion to reform the old capital rules, to give pensioners the reward for saving and to protect these gains in housing benefit. So even those pensioners who do not gain from pension credit but receive housing benefit will see the same increase in applicable rates. So they will gain too. Pensioners who qualify will, on average, gain £400 a year.
We have also, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind enough to notice, tackled the long-standing criticism about the way in which income from capital is taken into account. It is important to emphasise that the proposition in the Bill was a product of consultation. It was heavily influenced by organisations such as Age Concern, the FSA and others. The reward for savings, or "savings credit", as it is described in the Bill, is for those with a modest occupational pension that otherwise would not lift
146
them clear by very far of MIG. Pensioners have been asking us for this for decades. It will ensure that those who put something aside for their retirement will be better off for having done so. It is fair and it promotes saving.
Pension credit represents a huge cultural change. We want to put behind us everything that led pensioners to associate income support with charity, poverty and means testing. The decision to set the income assessment for five years at a time is part of that, but we shall debate many other measures in Committee. I welcome your Lordships' suggestions as to how we can further strip the residual stigma out of targeting to ensure that pensioners enjoy that which is their right. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for her usual expert explanation of the Bill and for the various points that she has made. I thank her, too, for the briefing that she has arranged for those who wished to study the detail ahead of the debate.
I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of an occupational pension scheme. The noble Baroness has anticipated some of the arguments that she expects me to advance. I am grateful for that by way of commercial. She even included one that I had not even thought of, or at least not yet.
It is a slightly strange title for the Bill—State Pension Credit Bill. One half of it is not a credit at all, but MIG under another name; and the other half' has nothing to do with the state because it allows people to keep a little more of their hard-earned savings. No doubt we can discuss that issue later, or when we go into Committee on the Motion that the Title he postponed.
One of my arguments which the noble Baroness was right to anticipate was that of complexity and the related problem of take-up. The House will know that Help the Aged has estimated that only 1.7 million pensioners take up MIG, although 2.5 million are entitled to it. That is a serious matter about which all of us should be concerned. Part of the complexity arises because of the constant changes in terminology. We seem to be moving from the now well-known minimum income guarantee to something that in many respects is a part of the pensions credit under a different title.
The issue of complexity needs to be seen in the context of the Government's overall system of social benefits. I suggested when we debated the uprating Statement that we were reaching the stage whereby probably no one in the country understood the system, except perhaps the noble Baroness. I pointed out that since 1999 there had been five new tax credits for families, three of which were then scrapped and two more added. When I raised the issue last time, I thought that if the noble Baroness could enumerate

147
them, that might be a sign that someone in the country understood the system. She did not respond then—perhaps she will on another occasion.
At all events, the points about take up and complexity are extremely important. We discussed earlier the minimum income guarantee form. I hope that the noble Baroness can make the form available to the House, perhaps before Committee stage, so that we can see it with regard to the pension credit provisions. I realise that the Government want to deal with the problem by introducing the pension service in place of existing institutions. None the less the complexity of such forms is a matter of concern. It is argued that under this system, people will do most of the form filling by telephoning the pension service, which will complete the form and send it back to the applicant for approval. That is likely to be an expensive process. My 33 years' experience of Friday evenings spent interviewing pensioners suggests that it will be a difficult system to operate. We shall have to see how it works, but it would be helpful to see the form.
Another matter that causes concern is the fact that much of the Bill will be implemented by statutory instrument. It is sensible in pensions legislation to implement by statutory instrument those parts of the Bill that will be varied in the future. But it seems that many of the proposals that will be dealt with by statutory instrument are permanent, so I believe that they should be in the Bill itself. Again it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could let us have drafts of the various statutory instruments that will no doubt be immensely complicated.
Some other aspects of the Bill are causing concern. Surprisingly paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 refers to "national insurance numbers", which the noble Baroness seems to have overlooked. We know the deficiency of those. Perhaps that is one of the detailed issues that we shall be considering.
Having said that, of course, we welcome the increase in money for pensioners. It would be foolish not to do so, but we have considerable doubts about some of the other aspects of the Bill. The change in capital limits is welcome, as is the abolition of the weekly means test, and so on. We are not saying that the Bill is entirely bad. Extra money for pensioners is obviously a good thing and there are other aspects that we welcome.
However, its scope is comparatively limited. The people who will be helped by the pension credit provisions fall within a narrow range. An article in the Sunday Times of 2nd December reported a number of cases of people on modest incomes who would not gain from the proposals. We are concerned that as people go up the income scale the marginal rate of tax, or withdrawal of benefit, will be as high as 40 per cent. When we discussed that matter previously I said that I was concerned that there would be even higher rates of withdrawal for people on housing and council tax benefits. I understand from the Minister that that will not be the case. It is clear that many people will suffer
148
withdrawal rates of 40 per cent, which is the top rate of income tax, but will the Minister confirm that no one will suffer withdrawal rates of more than 40 per cent?
Some of the people involved in this measure will be those who are compelled to draw their annuities at age 75. If they are on low rates of annuity, which many are as a result of the fall in annuity rates, they will benefit from the pension credit element in the Bill. The issue of drawing annuities at 75 is important. There has been a great deal of publicity, and recently commercial firms have made proposals that would appear to overcome the difficulty involved in having to draw an annuity at 75. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can say anything about that at this stage, but I understand that discussions have taken place between the Treasury and her department.
The noble Baroness is right to say that the question of means testing, which she prefers to call targeting, is important. The basis of the Government's programme on pensions has been to increase means testing time and again. Will she say what percentage of pensioners will now be subject to means testing; what percentage of the total population are subject to means testing; and give us the same figures in terms of absolute numbers? It seems that we have a system in which, to misquote Beveridge, we are being means tested from the cradle to the grave. That is certainly not what he envisaged. That is a problem. I realise that the noble Baroness is rightly seeking to remove the stigma involved. We are in favour of that, but the reality is that we are increasingly building an effectively means tested pensions community that is growing ever more into a dependency culture.
Savings is another important issue. Will the Bill encourage people to save? The Government's system has created a series of different classes. Those who are below the minimum income guarantee level will get nothing if they have any savings. Those on low incomes will not get very much. People affected by the pension credit will certainly gain and those above that level will be taxed.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies takes the view that the growth of MIG in line with earnings will unambiguously discourage savings and believes that the conclusion is ambiguous on the pension credit aspect of the payment. The IFS does not believe that the two parts of the Bill, taken together, will increase savings.
I have a specific question for the Minister relating to the income that is taken into account in the course of the complicated savings calculation. I am not clear about the position of a pensioner in the system with a very low income. They might be entitled to the pension credit if they have savings, but if they do not have any savings and do a little part-time work—helping in a supermarket or something of that kind—will that income in any way attract a credit? I am also not at all clear about the position of savings income from PEPs and ISAs. It is totally outside the tax system, but will it also be excluded from the calculations when assessing whether someone is entitled to a pension credit?

149
I am also concerned about the position of the part pensioner—someone who does not get a full national insurance pension because their contribution record is deficient or for whatever other reason. The issue has been raised by groups as diverse as the National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners and the Association of British Insurers. The AB1 puts the case clearly. It says:
"Under current proposals, less than full entitlement to the BSP"—
the basic state pension—.
"will mean that the first part of a pensioner's personal savings will he used to bring them up to the level of the BSP and will not attract the additional saving credit. For example, if a pensioner has an incomplete contribution history and receives a BSP of only £67, but has £10 from a personal pension, they will receive the guaranteed income … but no credit for their savings".
That is unfair. When I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons, a very long time ago, I was concerned with the people who were left out of the national insurance scheme when it was introduced. I eventually persuaded the then incoming Government, as the first action that they took, to pay to non-pensioners that part of the pension that was not covered by contributions. Alas, those affected are all long since dead. A similar situation arises in this case. It is not right to have the situation that I have just described if the part pensioner is not getting that part of the national insurance contribution that is not covered by contributions. I hope that I have got that the right way round. I hope that we can give some consideration to that point in Committee.
A number of outside bodies have estimated the cost of the Bill. The Chancellor has said that the pension credit will cost £970 million in 2003–04, rising to just over £2 billion in 2004–05. However, we have to look at the cost of the proposals over the long term, when people come to retire in 10, 20 or 30 years. Other estimates suggest that the cost over such a period could be very large—around £10 billion a year in current prices. Given the experience of SERPS, we have to consider whether the overall costs of the Bill are financially sustainable in the long run.
My final point relates to the overall policy on pensions as far as the private sector is concerned. The Government have rightly paid tribute to the role of occupational pensions in our system of private provision, hut there are real problems with the run-down of surpluses because of the state of the stock market, the Chancellor's actions on advance corporation tax, a change in the basis of valuation by the actuarial profession and a change in accounting standards under FRS 17 by the accountancy profession. We are much better placed than any other country in Europe, but all those issues are seriously affecting the bedrock of our system. Some of the people in the occupational system with small pensions will gain from the Bill. That is welcome. However, it is time that the Government paid attention to some of the problems affecting the basis of the pension of many people in the occupational side. They are likely to be adversely affected if there is an increasing move away from final salary schemes towards defined contribution schemes.
150
Overall, the Bill should be welcomed. Its aim is to address a serious problem. However, there are a number of aspects, particularly on means testing—despite what the noble Baroness says—that require careful scrutiny. When scrutinising previous legislation, such as the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, we made great progress, with the co-operation of the noble Baroness. I hope that we can improve the Bill before it goes to the Commons.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I begin, as always, by declaring an interest. I am an employee of Age Concern England. In doing so, I must make it clear that, while the work of my colleagues in Age Concern will inform my comments, as it informs other Members of your Lordships' House, it will not determine the views that I express on behalf of my party.
I am something of a neophyte in pensions debates in your Lordships' House. I was most grateful to the Minister when, a couple of weeks ago, she sought to reassure me by saying that I should not worry because this is really just a technical Bill. Having spent the past two weeks reading copious material on the subject, I am beginning to understand the full horror of her statement. I now know that when the Department for Work and Pensions describes something as "just technical", it is a bit like a character in a Harry Potter book describing quidditch as "just a game".
As we begin our scrutiny of the many proposals in this short Bill, it may be useful to remember the Government's stated aims for their programme of reform of tax-benefit integration and to assess the proposals on that basis. The Government's stated principles for its programme, set out in the consultation document, are tack ling poverty, promoting incentives to work and save, maximising take-up, targeting support on those who need it most, improving customer services and increasing efficiency. Those factors should form the basis of any analysis of the Bill—as should the question of the extent to whichthe proposals fit with the reality of older people's lives.
In short, there are elements within the Bill, such as the abolition of the hated capital limits and the end to weekly assessment which will be very welcome. Other elements, such as the extension of means testing—despite the Minister's comment, there will still be means testing—and the end of the age-related addition will not be welcome, especially when three quarters of the recipients of minimum income guarantee (MIG) are over age 75. So it is our task, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just said, to make the overall package more worthwhile and workable.
It should also be borne in mind that 15 years ago, the value of the basic state pension and of what was then called supplementary benefit was roughly the same. Anyone who had savings on top of the basic state pension was generally better off. However, as it became apparent that the standard of living "guaranteed" by supplementary benefit was very poor, successive governments put money into means-tested support. As a result, a huge gap has opened up

151
between the basic state pension and the guaranteed level of the means test. While that has been good to a certain extent in overcoming poverty, it has been bad news for savings incentives. It is that perverse incentive which this "savings credit" seeks to rectify. I imagine that that part of the pensions credit will be welcomed by many pensioners, when they understand the proposals. However, any joy will be tempered with the realisation that for those on less than the full basic state pension there will be no such reward under the level of £77.50.
As the Minister hinted, it is already apparent that pension credit is fiendishly complex. It seeks to combine three separate objectives—a minimum income for the poorest pensioners; a reward for those who have saved and a future reward for tomorrow's pensioners to encourage saving; and to wrap those up together in one unhelpful title of pension credit. Complexity is a barrier to each of the Government's five objectives. Both the name and the combination of so many different elements seems unlikely to assist potential pension credit beneficiaries to know whether they are likely to be eligible—which does not bode well for take-up.
Many briefings from different organisations have focused on the fact that the word "credit" is itself off-putting. That word implies loans and debts, which many pensioners avoid like the plague. Moreover, there is another element of potential confusion. The term "pension credit" was used in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, to refer to a woman's entitlement to her spouse's pension were they to divorce. What research has been undertaken among older people in respect of that term and what evidence is there that it will either help or hinder take-up? If there has been no research, what plans are there to pilot the scheme and measure take-up? There is great merit in choosing titles that are descriptive. Have the Government therefore considered entitling these proposals, for example "pensions savings reward" which is a good description of their function?
The extension of means testing, as the noble Baroness flagged-up, is likely to act as a disincentive to claim. Five million pensioners are likely to be brought within the scope of means testing. While for new claimants the retirement check will ensure that entitlement is established, identifying existing pensioners who are eligible may be very difficult. It is also questionable whether people will want to divulge their full circumstances when most will be eligible for much less than £13.80 extra per week.
Another potential problem arises from the proposed five-year assessment. While most pensioners' circumstances remain fairly constant for long periods, that is not so for all. The Bill assumes that the Government will know what will happen to a person's pension in the interim—but will they? The Government will probably assume that any income from a private or occupational pension will rise with inflation. However, many people will have worked for several employers and will have retired with a number of small pensions. Each pension scheme may have a
152
different provision. Some will rise with inflation; some will have limited price indexation; some may not rise at all if the fund's trustees so decide. How will the Government identify changes to income? Will there be any restriction on how often an individual or a couple can ask for a reassessment? If at the time of reassessment it is evident that a pensioner has been underpaid, will there be any facility for backdating entitlement?
A major test of these proposals will be the extent to which they encourage people to save for their retirement. As the Bill currently stands, it is difficult to say whether it will have the desired effect or not, as so many different elements are unclear now and are subject to change by the current and future governments. The Institute of Actuaries has observed that the pension credit is really a benefit taper of 40p in the pound and will result in a smaller penalty being applied to some savings than is currently the case. For the group of people at whom the Bill is aimed, would it be preferable to put money into a pension or saving, knowing that it will, in effect, be taxed at 40 per cent, rather than simply spend it? It is difficult to see how people will be sufficiently well informed to be able to make such changes. For example, how will it be possible to predict if and when the £6,000 disregard level will be reviewed or uprated?
The Minister said that the Bill is a building block in a range of Government proposals, and in that respect it is very necessary. In my professional life, I advise the boards of trustees of small organisations about their employment duties. Over the past two years, I have been trying to explain to people that it is ethically correct to provide a pension, even when for them to do so is difficult because they have limited funds. Boards are concerned that they may do their staff a disservice on retirement. That is a huge problem and one that many employers are only just beginning to recognise.
The Bill does not make clear what, for the purposes of pension credit, will be deemed earnings. The abolition of the 16-hour rule will be welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has indicated. However, without a determination of earnings, it will be extraordinarily difficult for individuals to plan retirement income with any coherence. Similarly, the Pension Provision Grou, in its commentary on the pension credit proposals in March 2001, pointed out the need to ensure that the measures do not provide an incentive to retire early. My party shares the Government's aim of enabling people to be economically active as long as possible. Does the scheme acknowledge the need not to penalise people who defer taking a state pension and therefore receive an increment when they finally do so?
A significant flaw in the scheme is the restriction of the savings credit to women over 65. Women between 60 and 65 will not be eligible to receive the savings credit. It seems strange that while entitlements such as the winter fuel allowance and concessionary travel are being equalised at 60, savings credit will be withheld. The Minister may say that the scheme is based around the state pension for men, for which those age 60 to 64 do not qualify. However, men of that age can still

153
claim MIG. If a fundamental principle of the Bill is to encourage savings, why penalise younger older women for doing just that?
Another significant issue is the way that pension credit will relate to other benefits and charges—specifically housing benefit, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Can the Minister confirm that payment of pension credit will not lead to loss of income from either housing benefit or council tax benefit? The current taper for an individual receiving both benefits is 85%. For every extra £1 a week income, recipients only gain 15p. Pension credit will remove the 100 per cent income withdrawal rate that currently applies to MIG. Will the Minister confirm that persons who receive partial housing and council tax benefit could still face a withdrawal rate of 85 per cent or more?
Another area of considerable concern is people who are either in residential care or who receive services in their own home for which they are charged. Any change in the general level of pensioner income may well have an effect on charging policies. I realise that, in an era of joined-up government, any such change would have to be the result of discussion between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health. Nevertheless, as they are issues of significant concern to many pensioners, I would be grateful to the Minister if she will consider the following questions.
Are any changes planned to the charging systems used by the Department of Health in both domiciliary charges and care home charges to reflect the changes proposed for the pension credit and the Government's policy of rewarding those who have saved?
If there are to be no capital limits for pension credit, how will those who are in care homes, or those who are charged the full rate for home care by their local authority—who often find that their capital is quickly run down—be informed when they should claim pension credit?
How will those who are in care homes, or those who pay the full rate for their home care and are on pension credit, he informed when the pension credit should be increased due to their rapidly reducing capital?
Similarly, it should perhaps be pointed out that the introduction of the pension credit will make the current system of hospital down-rating even more iniquitous. When the Government themselves acknowledge that pensioners' circumstances do not vary greatly over time and that most hospital stays are for less than six weeks, and given the disruption to other benefits such as housing benefit and council tax benefit, it seems unduly harsh and administratively expensive to withdraw elements of the pension credit when someone is in hospital, as currently happens with MIG. Does the Minister agree that, with major changes to the pension system in progress, it now makes sense to remove hospital down-rating?
As I said, as this is a short Bill, many of the factors that will determine the scheme's efficacy are as yet unknown. Most detail of the administration will be known only when regulations are laid before the
154
House. It seems from the Bill's current provisions that the Government have based much of the administration on their experience of the working families' tax credit. One of the difficulties in attempting to administer such a complex system is the diversity of the older population. Any system that applies to half the pensioner population—from those who are English speaking and fully computer literate to those who are not literate in any language or have dementia—will have to be backed up by world-class administration.
The Institute for Public Policy Research has described an "advice vacuum" for pensioners and the need to use a range of media in order to reach people. Will the Minister therefore say what opportunities, in addition to a free telephone number, older people will have for face-to-face advice? What messages will he deployed by the Government as they seek to explain this complex system?
Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that the MIG campaign was fronted by the wonderful Dame Thora Hird. In the past few days, I have found myself wondering how the Government will advertise the pension credit, and I think that the Minister may have given me the answer when she talked about simple arithmetic. I suspect that, given its audience profile, the law of this land is that every English-speaking pensioner must watch "Countdown", and that they must videotape it if they go out. They are also required to play against the contestants and mark themselves. The advertising campaign for pension credit could therefore feature Carol Vorderman doing the numbers bit, and contestants could say, "I'll have one from the basic state pension, one from my occupational pension, one from housing benefit, one from council tax benefit, one from invalid care allowance and any two small numbers from the top, please." Pity those for whom the pension credit is an insoluble conundrum.
This is a complex scheme that will be difficult and expensive to administer effectively. Although some of its elements are welcome, it contains significant drawbacks. It does nothing, for example, to safeguard the basic state pension, which is and should remain the cornerstone of any scheme for retirement income that meets the Government's five criteria. However, I give the Bill a guarded welcome from these Benches. I hope that, in our deliberations, it will be possible to improve its many provisions for the benefit of older people.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, this is for me another maiden voyage: it is the first time that I have had the courage to speak on social security. I think that it is also the last time that I shall want to follow a "neophyte" speaker. This may be a technical Bill, but I hope that I will be excused if I stick to the principles and to some of the impacts—as there will be—on elderly people themselves. I must say that, in previous debates, I have been put off by the sheer brilliance of Front-Benchers, which has been counter-balanced by the lustre of Back-Benchers. I can see that the debates on this Bill will be no different.

155
I have been moved to speak because I believe that the Bill tackles one of the persistent failures in social security: the why-save syndrome. We used to hear a lot in the 1970s and 1980s about the why-work syndrome, and that was a very powerful concept, but I do not think that as much attention has been paid over the years to the why-save syndrome. The Bill will make a significant difference to a group of people who have been persistently neglected—those who have saved a little but have lost out for many years for the very reason of their thrift.
Many years ago, in the 1970s, when I began my career as a social policy researcher, we were all very concerned by the failure of the Beveridge report to anticipate the interaction of work and benefits. That failure created so many gaps and inequalities in the system. The crucial problem of the 1970s was to increase pensioners' overall income in relation to general incomes. We were also concerned particularly with women. The link with earnings and the introduction of SERPS were designed to bring a new concept of collectivity and equality into pensions provision. Those moves were welcomed by consensus.
The 1980s saw a reversal of that concept, with the language of the apocalypse, the projection of unaffordable and unfunded pensions, the dismantling of SERPS, and the break between pensions and earnings. The priority was to be personal risk and individual action. That created some very good and some bad outcomes, which your Lordships have had to deal with over the years.
One feature that has remained constant over the past two decades is the growing gap between rich and poor pensioners and the persistent failure to address the issue of pensioners with small savings. Those increasing inequalities have been thrown into sharp relief by the continued failure to reward and support those same pensioners. In recent years, that failure has been exacerbated by the very low returns on investments and savings which have made many pensioners despair entirely about the purpose of saving.
I therefore believe that the Bill is not only overdue but is extremely timely. For those who are just above benefit level—the almost and nearly poor—small lifetime savings have been a positive barrier, not a boost to income. Pensioners with small savings—an additional £20 a week pension earned after years of working in a shop, an office or the public services—have been outlawed from receiving MIG because of their savings, without the consolation of being able to fall back on larger savings. Moreover, as MIG is linked to earnings, the gap between the basic state pension and MIG will grow larger. Pensioners who find it hard to manage are precisely those who find it so hard to save for anything extra either for themselves or for their grandchildren.
I know that my mother will not mind if I pray her in aid in an attempt to illustrate an example; indeed, the pension credit system could have been modelled on her circumstances. The system will make a big difference
156
to her. Indeed, given her savings, it will assure her of an additional income of £6.40 weekly. That sum will pay her newspaper bill and her milk bill, which are not insignificant. Therefore, in the great scheme of things, £2 billion boils down to £6.40 and the payment of bills. If my mother had sufficient savings to receive the maximum credit of £13.40, it could pay her winter gas bill or home insurance bill. As the Minister said, two-thirds of those who will benefit most from the credit are women, and half of those will be among the very poorest.
Therefore, and following the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, my first question to the Minister is on the position of elderly people in care homes. May I be assured that my mother would be at no greater disadvantage should her circumstances change and she went into a care home? Will the assessment remain the same? If it does not, will there be adequate, accessible and understandable ways of explaining the change?
I believe that the Bill will resolve some longstanding issues of principle, not least the concept of a guaranteed income for the poorest pensioners. One of the crucial elements for pensioners is that they know what they are likely to receive in retirement; predictability as well as reliability are so important. The other day, a pensioner was quoted in The Times as saying:
"You feel much more secure when you know you are not going to get less than £100 a week. I am very pleased that the Pension Credit will help people like me who are not on income support but who have a little money coming in from pension schemes that they paid for during their working lives."
I also believe that the Bill resolves some longstanding issues of process. I am delighted with the abolition of the capital limits. Those have led over the years to increasing distress as people find themselves on the wrong end of that sharp cliff of disadvantage with incomprehensible tapers that presume an income which very few have been able to realise, or have known that they have realised. I also welcome the disregard of £6,000, especially in the light of the fact that 85 per cent of those who will receive the pension credit have savings below £6,000.
Critics will obviously judge the Bill on the extension of means testing. Language is a problem. But the reality is that both Age Concern and Help the Aged have welcomed the reward for savings. They have criticisms but they have welcomed the fact that the Bill will,
"clearly address some areas of pensioner poverty today".
That is something on which we can build as the Bill passes through its stages.
I am also pleased that the Government have shown evidence of having listened to so many people in the consultative process. The evidence of that is in the Bill before us. However, as every speaker in the debate so far has pointed out, there are serious questions about complexity and incomprehensibility. The jobs and money editor of the Guardian recently described tax credits as
"a thing of pure mystery".

157
It was depressing to read that because if he has difficulty, I am not quite sure where that leaves the rest of us, let alone the majority of pensioners.
Some fears have been dealt with by the abolition of the weekly assessment. The fact that the pension credit will be calculated once every five years pending any major change of circumstance is clearly a huge improvement. My second question for the Minister is the following. Can she clarify the full extent of what is meant by major changes, particularly those which are bound to turn up in regulations?
Clearly, a great deal will depend on the quality of the new pension service. The simplification of the MIG form is an excellent start but we should not have to make the case for clearer and simpler language, especially for elderly and confused people for whom every form that comes through the letterbox is a threat. If they are like my mother, they put forms straight behind the clock. They do not read them and the next thing they know another, different coloured form arrives which is even more terrifying. We must address this matter at a personal level.
I make the plea that this is an opportunity to make the new pension service a personal service. This may be a counsel of perfection but I believe that every elderly person ought to have his or her own welfare rights case worker in attendance on any benefits negotiation in which they are involved. Too often they realise that their circumstances are deemed to have changed only when they receive a form, a demand or, in the worst case, a summons for repayment of benefit overpayment, or a visit from someone they do not know who speaks a language they do not understand. My third question for the Minister has been mentioned on all sides of the House this afternoon. What steps will the Government take to make sure that the pension credit does not fall prey to all the difficulties we have experienced with other pension arrangements to date?
Noble Lords will be aware that Sue Ward is a considerable expert on pensions. She argued in a recent paper for the Industrial Society that the least we should be able to expect is that pension arrangements will be fair, clear, secure and efficient. In terms of clarity, it would be even more welcome if the Minister were to announce to the House one day that we were to have a system like that of the Danes. Their pension system is as complicated as ours, but they have a single Internet site on which any individual can obtain figures for his or her entire pension entitlement, state benefits and all others without infringing rights to privacy. How very different that is from protracted negotiations with the benefits centre. I speak with a note of weariness having just embarked on such toil.
I say in conclusion that many questions will be asked at later stages of the Bill. There will be questions about designated limits, detailed processes, exclusions, the variable impact and on certain aspects of principles. But those working with and for pensioners have welcomed the Bill for what it intends to do—which is to provide greater security and greater fairness for pensioners. I too welcome it on those grounds.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench on their speeches, which have demonstrated a notable clarity and expertise. I particularly congratulate my former colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on her address today. We worked together on these issues over many years.
Some of the issues addressed in the Bill are ones which I remember working on over the years and discussing with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on many occasions and with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. They are longstanding issues which have been of great concern. I refer to the whole issue of income in later life. One of the most frequent grievances I heard from older people was that they were not rewarded for thrift and felt no better off, and sometimes very much worse off, if they had saved than if they had not.
Although we are talking primarily about people just above the poverty line, that comprises millions of older people who believe that thrift is a good thing—that is a cornerstone of their belief—and are disillusioned bytheir experiences. We have waited a long time for action from all governments. However, if I may use a pun, it is to the credit of the Minister that, along with the Secretary of State and other Ministers, she has been open in wanting to tackle a difficult problem and aims to do so by means of the Bill. As she expected, I, too, believe that it is extremely complicated. I hope that we can simplify it during its passage through the House.
The limits have now changed. For many years the lower capital limit for extra help was only £3,000. In some cases that included the value of a home. In 1997 we even had the situation of one council ignoring the will of Parliament and forcing some older people to spend their assets down to £1,000—enough to pay for a funeral—which was rather depressing. A fine balance has to be drawn in deciding when retirement savings should be used, for example, to pay for long-term care. However, to be left with £3,000 after a lifetime seemed extremely harsh to me.
If sufficient help cannot be given to all pensioners equally through the state pension, primarily for reasons of cost, I agree—as I have said previously—that targeting available extra government resources on the poorest is sensible, first, by increasing markedly the income support levels, as has already happened, and now, secondly, by rewarding thrift. That is one of the reasons I welcomed separating income support for older people—which became the minimum income guarantee in 1998—from income support for others. However, I believe that the minimum income guarantee is rather badly named.
I welcome the principle of giving extra help to older people on top of their state pension entitlement, either to bring them up to a minimum income as of right, as MIG does, or to credit them with extra money to take account of the efforts they have made to save. However, that is the easy part. Turning all this into practice is more difficult. That is what we are now trying to do in considering the Bill.

159
I also welcome the principle of tax credits, which form part of another Bill which your Lordships will soon consider once it has left the other place. I should have liked the Bill we are discussing to be better incorporated with the changes being made to the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency in combining tax and benefits. Through tax credits, even for non-taxpayers such as the vast majority of pensioners, the extra money could be seen as a form of "tax back". I understand that that is the intention eventually, but why not introduce it now?
In practice, I have some reservations about the way in which the state pension credit will be implemented. I hope that the Minister will clarify some points which have largely already been mentioned. I hope that we can tease them out in Committee and at later stages.
I agree with the noble Baroness. Lady Barker, that the word "credit" implies something for many people which needs to be considered carefully. It is already a little confusing to have the department's proposals called the pension credit and this Bill entitled the State Pension Credit Bill. That needs to be sorted out. If the word "state" is not incorporated then many people might believe that they are eligible regardless of their income and savings, which could create more confusion. So the word "state" is important.
I saw comment in the media criticising these proposals because they apply only to those with a private pension income of less than £3,000 and savings of less than £37,000. But I believe that the media are missing the point because the policy is targeted at those with modest savings and income in retirement. Yet the same media complain that it will cost too much and bring too many people into the means test. In my view that is trying to have it both ways. I do not believe that is fair.
However, I would welcome reassurance from the noble Baroness on the long-term costing. I do so with the thought in mind that if it costs more than projected, the money is at least going to older people. Under the terms of the Bill it will not go to the wealthiest, which is the good side of these proposals. It is not just government spending which is going to disappear into a black hole, it will provide additional income to older people who are just above the current benefit levels.
On the extension of means testing, we have to move away from the idea that it is a stigmatising process. It has been. That is because of the way in which the whole system has developed over the years. Will those eligible for the state pension credit claim it? If they do not, we may be creating a new group of older people who will fail to take up their rights. Only if the system is fully automated will it be successful. It is a pity that our experiments so far with fully automated systems, like the Danish one, have not worked so far in this country. But if they did it would do an enormous amount to solve the problem that the Government are aiming to tackle.
160
The old, bureaucratic form-filling processes are so difficult for old people, who are sometimes not very well educated. Even the most educated among us have difficulty with forms. If one is weary and not very well, then it is an extremely off-putting experience. Anything that we can do to make the system simple will help: the five-yearly re-assessment will be a great help. I welcome that. However, we in this House should tease out how the new system of assessing income and capital can be made simpler than the discredited system which is now going to be replaced.
The explanatory notes, on page 5, refer to the pension service which will be set up from April next year and which will administer this credit. Can the Minister update the House on the development of the new pension service? It is important. It is a long-term change and it could be seen as the silver lining to the cloud of last year's inherited SERPS scandal. The way in which the old departments dealt with older people was not very good. The system did not work very well. I should like to be reassured that the new service will be able to deliver, explain and administer the state pension credit well. I, like many others, am concerned at how complicated it is. I have tried to understand how it will operate. I congratulate the Minister on her explanations. It is very important that the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions are able to deal with the scheme so that everyone can understand.
There is still some confusion as regards the age at which the credit will apply. The Minister tried to enlighten us on that. She spoke of the transitional period and the difficulty of applying the scheme equally to men and women, and I appreciate that. It is a very important issue. The difficulty is the age of entitlement to income support and so forth rising to 65 years of age from 2010 for both men and women. It applied earlier to the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act. It also applies to this measure. That Act had written into it eligibility for half-price local bus fares rising from the new age of 60 to 65 from 2010. Will the eligibility age for other benefits for older people also rise to the age of 65 for benefits such as the free eye test and the winter fuel allowance in 2010 and onwards? How will the Government inform people, especially women aged under 52, of these changes? We need clarification on those points.
The Bill is also unclear on earnings disregard. Rising longevity is likely to change work patterns and certainly should do so. It should become the norm that older people can continue to do paid work beyond the now very young age of 60 or 65. Many of us in this House welcome those changes! I hope that that will not be at the expense of losing all the top-up state pension and benefits. I can foresee that many older people would be able to continue to work part-time if they also continued to receive their pension entitlement in full, perhaps with a higher threshold. We need much more flexibility. I very much welcome the undertaking by the Minister, Barbara Roche, to look at these issues. I hope that all these matters can be brought together.

161
Further clarification is needed on how the state pension credit will interact with other existing benefits such as housing and council tax benefits and so forth. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, also mentioned other charges such as domiciliary care charges, carer's benefits and other state benefits. We shall need to look in depth at all these issues.
With those reservations, I welcome the Bill. It will benefit that large group of older people who have saved, but who have been unable to save enough to be comfortable in retirement. It will also go some way towards ceasing to regard people who defer their earnings and who expect to receive them in pension form, from being considered as quite different from the younger population who receive their income from their current employment. That is why I like the basic idea that underlines this Bill. It brings the whole population together regardless of age. I welcome it.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Perhaps I should begin by conveying to the Minister the apologies of my colleague, Lady Turner, for her inability to be present in this debate today. We all know how passionately interested she is in all these questions and her participation in our debates has been remarkable. But at this moment she is undergoing a long overdue operation to her knee at the Royal Free Hospital. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending her our best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: She has asked me to convey her determination to be present during our Committee debates. I am sure that that reassurance will be very welcome to the Minister.
No one would have guessed, on listening to the Minister galloping her indistinct way through her brief, that we were today taking part in a debate on one of the crucial turning points in the development of pensions policy in this country. It is all very low key, is it not? Everybody is keeping it down. The Government have very cunningly timed this debate to take place two days before we rise for the Christmas Recess, when all our minds, including mine, are on whether we have wrapped all our presents, sent all our Christmas cards and yet decorated the Christmas tree.
But I want to point out to this House what is happening. We are going to double the number of pensioners on means-tested benefit as a result of this legislation. That may not worry the Minister but it worries a number of us who do not believe that this country wants to live in the means-testing ethic to which the Government's policy is leading us.
Apart from anything else, how can they be so certain about the take-up? Dash it all, we have just heard in this debate that the Government's take-up campaign for MIG, which involved getting all kinds of celebrities almost on their knees to beg pensioners to take up the minimum income guarantee to which they were entitled, had only led, despite the expenditure of
162
considerable money, to an increase in successful applications of 120,000. You are now talking about 5 million pensioners. Do you really think that you are going to get 5 million pensioners taking up the pensioners' credit? I do not. I think that we shall be asking questions in this place in the coming years which will reveal that the take-up is as laggardly as it has been over the minimum income campaign. As more than one pensioners' body has pointed out, the elderly do not like the stigma of having to reveal their last penny in order to qualify for what they feel should be theirs as of right. I am afraid that we shall find that they will not accept the Government's easy solution of, "Oh well, that is all right. We will just tell them that it is their right".
I was a Labour MP in the House of Commons during the 1960s, when we begged pensioners to take up the national assistance or supplementary benefit. We renamed it almost as many times as this Government have renamed their benefits. First, it was income support; then it became the minimum income guarantee; now it becomes the pensioners' credit It does not matter how often you change the name or how often you tell proud people that this is not charity but their right, they will say, "Then why am I expected to fill in all these forms if it is my right?"
I acknowledge that the Government, as a result of the pressure from behind them in the years of debate on this matter, have reduced the application form for minimum income guarantee from 40 pages to 10 pages. I think that I could just about manage that, but it is hardly an "open sesame" to something that people feel is theirs as of right.
I must say that the Government do listen and sometimes act on what they hear, which is why some of us keep up our pressure in this House and refuse to accept defeat. The pensioners' credit is due to the efforts of people like Lady Turner and the rest of those who have joined in revealing that means testing penalises thrift, penalises people who have saved and put aside something for a second pension and penalises people who have not blown it all.
I remember in one of our earlier debates—I think on the pensions and welfare Bill; there have been so many and they all have different names—reading out a letter that I had received from a pensioner. She said that what she objected to was that having scraped and saved all her life—having got a little house, a little second pension and a few savings in the bank—her friend and neighbour, who had never saved a penny, received more pension than she did. I think that the House was impressed by the sincerity of that letter. She said, "I do not begrudge her it, but why should I be penalised for having been so careful?"
I think that that sort of clarion call penetrated even the Calvinistic heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he suddenly said, "Oh, this Government have made a wonderful gesture—they are going to reward saving". That conversion was welcomed. Mind you, there were no credits given for the conversion to anyone else but themselves.

163
But then, you see, having accepted that we were right to say that means testing penalises thrift, hard earnings and the economic needs of this country for saving and investment, what do they do? What solution do they provide? More means testing. So we have another great paraphernalia for 5 million more.
Incidentally, I will tell you what I find interesting—there is no statement in any of the Government's documents as to what would be the administrative cost of extending means testing to 5 million pensioners. Because it costs, you know, just as private pensions cost. One pound in every £4 that you save goes on administrative costs, while, as the Office of Fair Trading pointed out in its report in 1996, the state pension, SERPS, was the most economical scheme to administer, the most comprehensive in its area and totally portable—something that could not be said about any of the other schemes and systems. But, no, that was awful.
I must tell the Minister that I am not disheartened by her rejection of my policies—not a bit. The more we see the effect of her alternative, the more my position is strengthened. I have a few instances here. It is very interesting to hear the voices that are now coming out. Age Concern has quite rightly stated in its briefing on this Bill that it believes that the best pension system is a nationally-administered state insurance scheme. Quite right. Good old Age Concern! Help the Aged has also said that it thinks the Government's present policy is misguided and believes that it would be better to revert to what we as a movement had so effectively before. The Institute of Public Policy Research—which Ibelieve is a fairly Blairite kind of body—issued a report only recently saying that the Government's whole pension policy is unravelling and that the Government should go back to the drawing-board and see what they can do. I urge the House to take seriously what is happening. The future security of millions of our people is at stake. It said that the policy is unravelling because there is no certainty that the stakeholder pension will hit its target or that it will reach the people who need it. As for the state second pension, it remains dangerously obscure.
I received a lovely boost from an article in the Observer of 9th December, just a couple of Sundays ago. It cheered me up no end. It said:
"It would be fairer and more cost-effective to adopt a nationally run social insurance system, with top-ups paid by the better-off, to co-exist with private saving".
It concluded:
"exactly like the scheme suggested by Barbara Castle 30 years ago".
I do not always feel like boasting about my longevity but it is nice to be remembered after 30 years. I say only this: I did not only suggest the scheme—Parliamentadopted it and the country welcomed it, as did the pensions industry. "At last", it said, "we have got a real public/private partnership that is realistic. It will work and leave out no one".
If the Observer is prepared to look back 30 years, why should not this House? Why should we not have the guts to face up to this patchwork quilt? They say,
164
"Oh yes, means testing is uneconomic, so let's slap on some more means testing". I ask you. If I were still a Minister, I should be ashamed to put that forward. I would get my lads and special advisers around the table and we would say, "What can we do? It has got to be affordable. The sky is not the limit. We all know that we are up against public expenditure limits. What is the best that we can do?" In other words, I call on the Government to listen to the public policy research people and Help the Aged, and to say, "Our policy is unravelling. We will go back to the drawing-board".
4.43 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. The first speech that I ever made on pensions was on her Bill in 1975. Two weeks earlier, I had been appointed to the shadow Cabinet of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, much to my surprise and the great annoyance of my rivals. For the next two weeks, I immersed myself in pensions. I took advice from virtually everyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who made an excellent speech this afternoon. I turned up for the debate in the House of Commons with great trepidation, thinking that it would be one of the great debates of our time. I found that when the Bill was called, the House emptied: 10 people remained on one side and 10 on the othe—that is unlike what happened in your Lordships' House a few hours ago. After a while, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, disappeared as well, to hold a press conference on why we should say "no" to the European Union.
My career has followed that of the noble Baroness in every way. I have gone into every department that she worked in, including those responsible for social services, transport and employment. In those areas, I do not think that we have agreed on anything at all. I pay very sincere tribute—I believe that I speak for the whole House—to a politician who has always fought with great courage for what she believes in.
I turn to the Bill. Not wanting to change the political habits of a lifetime, I fear that I have to say that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. In making policy on pensions and social security, there are two broad choices that any Minister and any government can make. One can give general benefits to everyone irrespective of need. The disadvantage of that is that one obviously gives benefits to many people who by most—virtually all—definitions do not need them. It is vastly expensive and, even with the clawback of taxation, it remains so. Enormous sums are involved.
Alternatively, one can try to target benefits to those who need them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who said that we should get away from the emotiveness involved in describing that process as means testing. In 1985, I carried out a social security review under the Thatcher government. I argued unambiguously for more targeting of benefits. The aim was to produce help for those who needed it and not to put a counterproductive burden on the economy. So we kept, for example, child benefit as a general benefit but we introduced family credit for low-income

165
working families who needed extra support in bringing up children. That policy was accepted and followed by the Major government. It is the obvious basis of today's child tax credit system.
I have to say that at the time and in subsequent speeches I have argued that the natural complement to that policy is the pension credit. That gives an additional pension to those who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to build up an adequate occupational or personal scheme. That may have been because there was no occupational scheme for them to build up or because of the indefensible rules of some of the occupational schemes that used to exist. I remember my father's own experience—or my mother's, as it happened. My father died aged 62, having worked for 30 years for the same company and built up a pension. However, because he had not reached the age of 65, no widow's pension came; all that was returned were the contributions that he had made. Fortunately, as a Minister, I was able to help change that indefensible position.
To be frank, I should have preferred it if my government had introduced the pension credit. I have no intention of jumping overboard just because that proposal comes from the current Government. It is long overdue, and my hope is that it will provide support for some of the most deserving people in this country.
I am of course aware of the counter-arguments. One of the chief counter-arguments is that the system is over-complex. If it can be simplified, all to the good. If it can be paid through the tax system, I am entirely in favour. My party used to be committed to tax credits, and I still believe that there is much in that system.
I also believe that a great deal of nonsense is talked about simplifying social security. When I carried out my social security review, we came across a very simple benefit called the death grant. The condition that triggered the benefit could not have been clearer. One did not need to think deeply about how the benefit was secured. There was no means test—the benefit went to the widow of a millionaire or the widow of someone on low income and in poverty. It was introduced for the very best of motives—to take away the real concern among families that they would be unable to afford the cost of a funeral. A benefit was introduced with impeccable intentions but in practice it turned out to be disastrously inadequate.
By the time that I reached the Department for Social Services, the grant amounted to £30. It was irrelevant to most people and it was entirely inadequate to those who needed it. In terms of spending, it cost £12 million to administer an annual expenditure of £17 That is the position I inherited. No government would increase the benefit but neither would they abolish it because it was regarded as politically untouchable. We did abolish it but, at the same time, we targeted spending on those who needed help. At the time, the policy was opposed by the party opposite, but I see no great rush to return to that old system.
Therefore, I do not go along with the idea that simplicity is all. There is complexity in social security just as there is in the tax system, and for very much the
166
same reason. One is dealing with millions of different people with different incomes, different needs and different positions and conditions. But that is in no way an argument for saying that one should not do as much as possible to clarify the position. We should obviously do that. But I remain the supporter of a system which gives child benefit as a general benefit and, in addition, family credit as a targeted benefit. I certainly support the idea of the basic state pension and of additional, targeted help to those who need it.
I shall retain my detailed criticisms of the Bill for the Committee stage. I believe that the very title of the State Pension Credit Bill is extraordinary nonsense. If anything, it is the taxpayers' pension credit Bill. But we all know why the Government are doing thi—it is so they can say that they have replaced the noble Baroness's state earnings related pension scheme with the state pension credit scheme. I do not believe that the mere fact that the one has next to nothing to do with the other has deterred them.
Needless to say, I believe that there are far more profound and fundamental criticisms concerning the Government's policies. My aim was to create a position in which everyone had a second pension of their own—either an occupational or a personal pension—in order to do away progressively with the need for pension credits. Frankly, I do not believe that the Government's current policy will achieve that end. That is my basic criticism in this Second Reading debate.
Currently, we are seeing companies abandon final salary schemes. There is no question of that. Mostly we are seeing people being discouraged, not encouraged, to save for their retirement. I do not say for a moment that that is all the Government's fault. Clearly it is not. Demographic trends and people living much longer than previously obviously add to the uncertainties of the cost of a final salary scheme. There is no question about that. Nor do new accounting rules, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Higgins, that put perceived actuarial deficits into company accounts have a helpful effect on the continuation of those schemes.
But the Government seem to be fundamentally at fault in at least two respects. First, I believe that the £5 billion a year pension tax introduced by the Chancellor in the 1997 Budget has had a very damaging effect. Five billion pounds a year is being taken out of pension funds, and that affects everyone who saves for their retirement. In many ways I believe that it is amazing that the Government, with so little perceived outrage at the proposal, have got away with an attack which has affected so many people in this country.
I fear that the reason is that pensions and pensions policy are perceived by the public as a rather complex area. Sometimes pension holders do not even know the details of the schemes to which they belong. I remember that we carried out a survey on the state earnings related pension scheme when we considered changing the system. We found that virtually half the people who were in that scheme did not know that they were members of it. That is a fairly dramatic example of the ignorance that I fear exists in relation to

167
pensions policy. If one then begins to talk about changes in advanced corporation tax, there is a great danger that the public will switch off altogether. The fact is that the full impact of what is taking place will not be felt now; it will be felt in the future when pensioners come to draw the pension. That is the real tragedy of what is taking place.
The second reason that I blame the Government is the impact of the rule which states that, if one has a personal pension, one must put one's savings into an annuity at the age of 75. Annuity rates have fallen and I believe that we must take account of that. The position is not the same as it was 10 or 20 years ago. People see that clearly for themselves, and many no longer regard the advantages of saving in a pension scheme as they once did. Again, the consequences will be felt not immediately but, I believe, by people who do not make proper provision for their retirement. So far as that is concerned, we shall again see a delayed impact.
I know that the Government have now said that they will re-examine the position concerning annuities at the age of 75. Personally, I do not expect a great deal from such a review for the following reason. At the TUC conference in October, the Minister for Pensions, Ian McCartney, dismissed the case as applying only to the rich. I believe that that is complete nonsense. I do not consider that it applies only to the rich; it applies to a whole range of middle-income people in this country. I believe that he would be well advised to consider that case with sympathy and with the aim of trying to encourage people to make more and more provision for their retirement. There should be no doubt or debate about that.
Therefore, I fear that many people could face an impoverished retirement unless we change policy. That is the case directly because of the Government's policies. Furthermore, I believe that there will be two nations in retirement. One will be the public sector, including civil servants, Ministers and MPs like Mr McCartney, and former MPs and Ministers like myself. Incidentally, even now MPs are pressing for a further reduction in their accrual rate. They will have their final salary scheme. I guarantee that that will be preserved, and the bill will be picked up by the state and local government; in other words, by the taxpayer.
The other nation will be the private sector and, in particular, middle-income groups which are losing out directly as a result of the Government's policies. I believe that we must face the issue and the problem that exists there.
Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness that I support the pension credit and I congratulate the Government on having introduced it. However, at the same time I deplore the way in which the Government are eroding the financial position of those in this country who save for retirement. We are not talking about rich people; we are talking about middle Britain and millions and millions of people who are trying to save for their retirement. At least the mis-selling of personal pensions could be put right, albeit in a cumbersome and lengthy process. But the £5 billion a year pension
168
tax will not be put right. We all know that. The Government do not have the slightest intention of putting right that tax, and the people who will suffer will be tomorrow's pensioners.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I do not know who decided on the speakers' list today but I have obviously drawn the short straw, speaking as I do after two such formidable experts in your Lordships' House as my noble friend Lady Castle and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler.
In my short intervention I want to concentrate on only one aspect of the Bill—the pension service. I begin by explaining that I shall use the language of entitlements rather than delve into means-testing because it seems that the way that evaluation is being tackled in this Bill is different from the way that it has been tackled in the past.
We have heard much about the complexities of the Bill. However, I want to welcome one proposal in it that should make life easier for pensioners; that is, the pension service. It is a system designed to be both simpler for all to understand and fairer in its implementation. It is on that subject that I wish to concentrate today.
Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, as I read the Bill my thoughts turned to my mother. Without any doubt the current system is extremely complex. Currently my mother lives in a residential home in my home town of Market Rasen. The home is pleasant, well-run and caring. In that sense my mother is lucky, but on the downside she is 89, very frail and easily bewildered. Luckily for her I am able to assist in the running of her affairs. If I were not able to do that, I dread to think how she would have coped with the plethora of forms and questionnaires that she needed to fill in to gain the rightful payments towards her keep in the home.
So that she could receive her entitlement I filled in the forms from different authorities, couched in less than helpful language and I spent hours on the telephone to different parts of the country. My mother could not have managed to do that. Six years ago, when she became unable to care for herself, she had to sell her only valuable possession—her bungalow—to pay for her upkeep in the home. Now the money that she received for the bungalow is running out and again I am dealing with the various authorities to sort out her affairs. Already the nightmare of being pushed from pillar to post has begun.
My mother is only one of thousands of citizens all over the country whose anxieties reach breaking point if they have to deal with bewildering bureaucracy. Anything that can simplify the current unwieldy system must be welcomed. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that one area of simplification must be the forms that have to be filled in, of which I am sure the Minister is aware.
The pension service should not only simplify matters, but it should also establish a system whereby pensioners can receive all their entitlement

169
automatically. The first indication that the Government would introduce a new pensions organisation to deliver services and benefits to pensioners was in March 2000 and two years later it will begin to operate. As I understand it, the proposals are that pensioners will be contacted before they reach pension age to assess future income, to calculate the pension credits and to organise the basic state pension payments. After that first assessment, the pension credit will usually need to be assessed only every five years.
The pension service will deal with all pensioners issues. It will provide one point of contact for pensioners and it will act as a gateway to other services. It will provide a local service, working in partnership with local authorities and other organisations such as the health service, social services and government departments. That is a simple and sensible way to progress. I wonder why it has taken successive governments so long to arrive at this point. If only the pension service had been in effect six years ago my life would have been easier.
I welcome this part of the Bill and hope that it will prove successful when implemented. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that I have understood correctly the main proposals relating to the pension service and that my faith in it is justified.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I intend to speak fairly briefly. It is eight years since I last spoke on social security matters in this House. I believe on that occasion I was sitting where the Minister is sitting and she was opposite me. Since then things have changed a little. The department's name has changed. No longer is it the Department of Social Security, but the Department for Work and Pensions. I find it strange that work and pensions come into the department, but there is no mention of disability matters, income support and so on. Perhaps that is a point to be made on another occasion.
Eight years ago the noble Baroness was already well experienced in social security matters. I believe she entered the House in 1990 and almost immediately became social security spokesman. She has continued to serve in opposition and in government, representing that brief. I believe that all noble Lords will agree that she knows as much about the subject as virtually anyone in the House. All noble Lords are grateful for her detailed explanation of the Bill and for dealing with so many of the problems that she said that my noble friend Lord Higgins and others would raise with her. For that we are eternally grateful. She also assured us that the Bill is not over-complex. No doubt that is a matter that can be explored in considerably greater detail in Committee.
Although I know a certain amount about social security matters, my knowledge is fairly rusty. I want to make four brief points in a broadbrush manner. I hope that in Committee I shall be in a position to consider these matters in greater detail. My first point relates to evidence of the long-term thinking that is
170
necessary in relation to all social security matters, especially pensions. When the Government first came to power in 1997 we were told that they would think the unthinkable in terms of pensions reform. We saw little of that unthinkable thinking. In the end, Frank Field, who was supposed to think the unthinkable, left the department and that appeared to be that. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Bill is a further tinkering at the edges and that it will impose ever-greater burdens on future taxpayers. We have to accept that in the end the taxpayer funds the pensions of the future, through national insurance or whatever.
We have to consider the matter in the long term because pensions affect us all in the long term. Fairly major demographic changes are taking place. When pensions were first introduced at the beginning of the previous century, on average the retired lived for a relatively few number of years after retiring and taking up a pension. Thanks to improvements in medical science and in standards of living—no doubt due to the work of engineers and others—we are all living considerably longer and in many cases we are retiring considerably earlier.
In my days in the Department of Social Security we spoke of there being three people of working age for every pensioner. We also said that by the time someone like myself faced retirement age—in the year 2018—that figure would have changed from three people of working age for every pensioner to two people. Pensions are a means of transferring wealth between the generations, and it seems to me that the burden on my children will be 50 per cent greater for the same degree of provision in 2018 than at the moment.
Can the Minister confirm that those figures are still broadly correct? In the past eight years have they worsened or do we have a clearer view of what demographic changes we shall see in the coming 20 or 30 years? Is the population likely to stabilise? Will there be further demographic changes in terms of the proportion of different people of different ages? That will depend on how many children are born in the future. We know how many are born at the moment, so we can predict matters for a goodly number of years in the future. My first question relates to sustainability. What can the noble Baroness say about demographic changes that are likely to take place in the future and what will be the likely burdens?
My second broadbrush point concerns the growth in occupational and private pension provision, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Fowler. In this country we have, and always have had, immensely strong occupational pension provision. I seem to remember quoting the fact that the total value of United Kingdom pension funds was greater than the total value of all the pension funds in the rest of the European Community put together. That gives us a terrific advantage in that our pension provision can be partly state-provided and partly provided by means of occupational and private pensions. Is there still a growth in occupational pension provision? If not, why not? What will the Government do to encourage yet further growth?

171
I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that not everyone wants standardised nationalised state pension provision. Everyone needs something different to cater for their own particular needs. Therefore, it is very important that we hear from the Government about provision beyond that provided by the state and that provided by the private sector.
My third broadbrush point concerns the complexity of the new benefit and of the Bill. I am not quite like Sydney Smith who said:
"I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so".
I took the trouble to glance through the Bill before coming to the House. I shall no doubt look at it in much greater detail in due course. The Bill certainly seems to be very complex, the benefit even more so.
I accept the points made by my noble friend Lord Fowler, but, of necessity, most social security provisions are likely to be very complex indeed. I accept that there must be a tension between universal benefits, which, by definition, are expensive and fully targeted, but relatively cheap to administer—although my noble friend told us about the death grant which cost almost as much to administer as it paid out—and means-tested benefits which are better targeted but more complex, and then much more complicated and expensive to deliver. There is that further tension within means-tested benefits of those with a long taper and low rates of withdrawal but including ever increasing numbers of people within the benefits and those with a much shorter taper but where the beneficiary can find the marginal rates of deduction very high indeed. I certainly remember the noble Baroness quoting deduction rates of 90 per cent or possibly even higher.
Having said that, we have over the years, and certainly when we were in government, seen a decline in the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits. Between 1979 and 1997 the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits fell from 57 per cent to 38 per cent. With the Bill, and as I understood the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, we shall see a dramatically increased number of pensioners on means-tested benefits, even though the Minister seeks to argue that they are not means-tested benefits and we must not call them so. But I would certainly be interested to hear from her what she thinks will happen in terms of that decline from 57 per cent down to 38 per cent. How will that percentage increase over the years?
My final point concerns the likely effect of the Bill on future pensioners. Any state provision must always be based on the premise that individuals must be encouraged to look after themselves and that it is no good introducing perverse incentives to save. I accept that that is what the measure attempts to do. I have considerable doubts. They were spelt out much more effectively by my noble friend Lord Higgins who quoted the Institute for Fiscal Studies. There will be perverse incentives and people will in many cases be
172
discouraged from saving. There is no need to repeat what my noble friend said, but we must come back to that matter in Committee.
I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill. I am sure that we shall be able to go through what may necessarily he a complex measure in a great deal of detail.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the chairman of trustees of an occupational pension scheme. It is a final salary scheme. I shall come back to that in a minute.
I apologise to the Minister for not attending her briefing session the other day. If I cover some of the points that she wanted to then cover, I apologise now.
On Monday, 10th December, just over a week ago, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked an Unstarred Question relating to the drafting of Acts of Parliament. The noble Lord sought to press for an effort to make Acts of Parliament comprehensible to the averagely intelligent and interested reader. Other noble Lords in that debate drew attention to the paperchase effect where, by following through a reference in a Bill to a provision in an earlier Act, one can find if that particular provision was itself a revision of yet an earlier statute. So one trawls through ever earlier pieces of legislation.
This particular proposal before us today must be a prime candidate for the Renton treatment. It is not an easy read. Therefore, I, along with other noble Lords, fear endless confusion and misunderstanding as it begins to be rolled out to a wider public.
Clearly, we want to ensure that all members of our society have some assured level of income in their old age. We want to do that and at the same time make it worthwhile for people to save.
When I was a member of another place, there was probably no issue that angered my constituents in Walsall more than to find neighbours who had given no thought for the morrow and had spent all their money. However, they were able to accrue the same or better benefits than those who had foregone their spending to build up savings for their old age. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, attributed this fury to means testing. I am not sure that she is right. I think that the fury was directed at the unfairness of it all, rather than at the means testing. But, never mind, whether she is right or I am right, I therefore understand the thrust behind the Bill.
But, as my noble friend Lord Fowler has said, at least part of the problem that we are discussing and trying to address in the Bill has been caused by the Government. I referred earlier to my chairmanship of an occupational pension scheme, a final salary scheme. We have had to close it. From 1st December we shall no longer accept entrants to the scheme. They will have to take a group personal pension plan. We do that with regret because we should have liked to provide the opportunity for the people in this particular company to join the group scheme. But longevity, which is nothing to do with the Government, the burden of

173
regulation, which is something to do with the Government, and the tax changes, which are all to do with the Government, have meant that we have had to move to a system of benefits which, while it offers flexibility, probably does not offer over time necessarily the same benefits as a group scheme would be able to.
So, in my specific comments to the noble Baroness, I address the need for flexibility going forward into the future. We live in a changing era and in very rapidly changing circumstances. Therefore, I should like to think that we could have flexibility built in wherever possible.
The first question that I ask is about qualifying income. The yellow booklet that the noble Baroness had prepared and circulated talks about putting money aside in a bank or building society or by saving in a second pension. I was concerned about the rather narrow nature of these examples. The Bill appears to give a wider definition of income from capital and income of any prescribed description. I want to ask the Minister whether that includes dividends from shares.
My noble friend Lord Higgins referred to the important question of PEPs and ISAs, but many people have taken shares in their company when it has been denationalised or privatised. Not all of them are as sadly afflicted as Railtrack; some of them have quite substantial savings built up.
In my capacity in the City, we have in many cases put ESOPs—employee share ownership plans—into companies, where people of quite limited salary aspirations and limited hours of work are able, over a lifetime, to build up quite substantial savings if the company for which they work is successful. What will he the position of these people under this particular legislation?
The second point concerns the capital disregard. The paper again bravely states that we shall abolish the rule which excludes pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings. That is a brave statement. Am I right in thinking that what has been imposed in its place is a £17,000 limit for single pensioners and £25,000 for couples? A 4 per cent attribution to the maximum amount one can receive under the savings credit would give the amounts of £17,000 and £25,000 respectively. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that when she comes to wind up the debate.
Will she also deal with the question of where the home fits into all that? I am a director of a building society in the West Midlands. It is a blue-collar society. We are talking about not highly but modestly priced homes: our average mortgage is for less than £35,000. Those are modestly priced homes in Telford and the urban West Midlands, often purchased cheaply under the right-to-buy legislation and owned by people who are not necessarily well paid but have scrimped and saved to purchase their homes.
We are being approached by an increasing number of people who, in their old age, are looking to obtain a form of equity release—that is, to use their home to obtain capital to live on, interest free, that will be
174
repaid at their death by the sale of the home. We must know where such people, who have an alternative form of savings, will fall under the savings credit.
Finally, to pick up the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, how often will the assessment of levels—the £6,000 level and the 60p in the pound credit—take place? I leave aside the question of why such people should be charged the top rate of income tax, but if the top rate of income tax were altered, would that provision also be changed? Will the assumed rate of 10 per cent be changed if inflation and other economic circumstances change? If we take the example given in the yellow booklet of the maximum savings of about £16,000, the imputed savings rate is about 6.25 per cent—a good deal higher than is now available on gilts or most government bonds.
I understand and appreciate the objectives behind the Bill, but the detail and complexity will require considerable analysis in Committee.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, rise to make a brief contribution in support of the main thrust of the Bill. I shall then follow those noble Lords who have taken the liberty of making some broader points about pensions strategy.
We have heard a delicate balance of arguments, and ultimately we must all stand up to defend whatever compromise we finally arrive at—especially the overall costings, a point addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The theme of the debate—with the distinguished exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn—has been a growing consensus about the delicacy of the balance that we are designing, rather than any more basic disagreement about architectural faults of design.
As my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen said, that balance extends to the question of the practicability of making the entitlements approach different, and perceived to be different, from a means-testing approach—with the emotiveness that has, understandably, always been associated with that. Nowadays, the debate should not be about the pension credit versus the uprating of the state pension. We certainly need both and are getting both—although there is an upside and a downside to both. The entitlements approach is strong and, as many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, have pointed out, the Government have undoubtedly been doing a formidable amount of listening. The pamphlet on the subject is user-friendly; even I could understand it. It is a much better document than we have been used to in this area. That gives us confidence that when the provision gets off the drawing board onto the streets, the public information campaign that must follow will be one that people can understand.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be going a little far when he implies that the process is just like filling out an income tax form, but that claim is not as outrageous as it would have been about the minimum income guarantee. There has been a growth in segmentation, or

175
variability, of pensions arrangements in recent years and, as many noble Lords have said, that will increase apace in the next 10 to 20 years.
The problem of penalising thrift is addressed quite well and the increased allowances for savings are an essential reform to remove the major objection to the current arrangements. If I may say so, if we do not like the capital limits, it is incumbent on us to say which limits we should prefer, with the relevant price tag attached to them.
The leaflet on the pension service also makes the point that there is scope for people to use the telephone to talk through their application. That is an important point. The Trades Union Congress investigated the question of what people were looking for when it set up a helpline. The problem of complexity and how to get people comfortable when talking through what is inherently a complex situation was the main feature of that investigation. All our lives are complex in that sense.
The point has been made that even for the poorest group of the population—the 2 million to 3 million concerned for the narrow purposes of the Bill—access to a private telephone is now almost universal, whether individually at home or through the warden in a residential home, and so on. In many debates we have heard stories about the financial insecurity of people—especially women—who have been caring for relatives throughout their lives. They will rely exclusively on the state pension and will find the procedure under the Bill far more acceptable and helpful than any previous procedure.
Those are not just minor points and footnotes; they are central to the concerns of people in their real lives. While it may be premature to say that Whitehall has learnt how to be customer-friendly, the new pension service concept is certainly a step in that direction.
The fact that the state pension will go up—even if the retail prices index does not—by 2.5 per cent is part of the two-legged approach that we must always bear in mind when saying that the pensioner credit will rise with earnings during this Parliament. If I may go slightly wide of the Bill, as have one or two other noble Lords, that begins to address the fact that there are serious strategy problems in the wider pensions field.
Unfortunately, it is increasingly perilous for people to look at their future prospects when there are uncertainties about retirement age. The Bill must address a technical problem relating to equalisation, but everyone knows that there is a bigger debate out there. It was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he referred to the ratio of 2:1, or whatever it is. We all know that the situation will be more serious if we live to be 95. The slogan "Don't retire until you're 95" may be a good one for this House. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is not in his place, might like to try that out for size. It will not be a widely popular method of solving people's problems as they perceive them because they may have thought they would be playing golf before they were 95 and perhaps now they will have to join a golf club for the over-95s.
176
I did not hear many noble Lords who mentioned final salary schemes say what they would do to support them. It is a way in which employers can take money out of the employer/employee ratio; they can reduce what they contribute to their companies' pension funds. A typical employer will be contributing less to workers' pensions if we stop new entrants to the final salary schemes. There is increasing anxiety about that issue.
Another increasing anxiety is understandable. If the large pension funds—those amounting to £500 billion—are to decline, what will happen to the chronic problems of short-termism, which have been analysed for many years, in the investment cycle in British industry? If the pension funds decline, will that not have effects on that cycle?
I turn to the concerns which I want to address to the Minister. I am sure that they will not be new to her. The first relates to the IPPR. How far is the guarantee a long-term commitment, because the IPPR and other bodies are saying that it is not financially sustainable? I am sure that it is but we must ask ourselves how, from one Parliament to the next, we can work out the kind of guarantees that must be given for such an arrangement.
Secondly, the front page of the interesting leaflet on the Bill produced by the department points out that pension inequality has grown partly because original income inequality has grown. That is the unmistakable conclusion to be drawn from the graphs on the front page of the leaflet. How far can pensions policy be capable of redressing the growth of inequality in incomes at work? That is the greatest problem we have seen in the growth of social inequity in the past 20 years. Whether we attribute it to globalisation, new technology or the attack on the trade unions is a matter of opinion, but there will be great difficulty in having greater equality in pensions if there is rampantly growing inequality in incomes at work. At the end of the 21st century, we do not want the historians to look back and say that the century rubbed out all the gains made in social equality in the 20th century.
It is possible to use emotive language at both ends of the spectrum. Pension fund managers, Hermes, have called some American-style packages for the very wealthy tantamount to theft from the shareholders. It is warning that that is a contagion spreading to Britain. We must therefore recognise that there is a case for taking a pensions strategy as a whole. That is the context in which we must see this modest but important part of the jigsaw puzzle.
In conclusion, the handling of savings—the poverty trap—will not go away but I believe that it is being handled in as intelligent a manner as can be envisaged. The Government have done a good job in putting the Bill together in the way that they have.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I never thought to express sympathy to a noble Baroness so well able to take care of herself as the Minister. However, I

177
thought it unkind when earlier in the debate she was accused of galloping. Metaphorically there may be a gallop because she is seeking to ride two horses which have a natural tendency to run away from one another; namely, the immediate need to deal with those on very low incomes and the need not to deter others from saving in retirement.
I am anxious about the costs of the proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said that she could find no indication of the administration costs of the new scheme, which will greatly increase the number of pensioners who fall within it. I am concerned about the more general substantive costs. Figures were given to us for 2003 but I can find nothing which relates to a period further ahead.
I understand the hope to be that the need for the various purposes of the Bill will lessen with time as more people are able to have second pensions. However, let us suppose that that does not occur. My noble friend Lord Fowler pointed to serious indications that the increase in occupational and personal pensions would not go according to plan. Therefore, we need to be provided with figures showing a best-case scenario and a worst-case scenario for a period further ahead than 2003. I should be interested if the noble Baroness could indicate the substantive costs as well as the administrative costs.
I now turn to the terms of the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the title of the benefits which are to he given. I am even more concerned about access. However, I am most relieved that I am no longer a constituency MP holding Friday surgeries to which my noble friend Lord Higgins alluded. I would not want to try to explain in detail to bewildered pensioners what is involved for them.
It would be helpful to see the draft form so that we could ascertain whether it was as simple and clear as we would wish. I would not expect to have that at Second Reading but I see no reason why we should not be given sight of it at later stages in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that can be done. A more detailed exposition of how the pensioners concerned will be targeted would also be extremely helpful.
I want to make two other points which have not so far been raised in the debate. The first is something of a hobby-horse of mine. I am dismayed, although not surprised, to see in Clause 1 that the benefits we are discussing would not be extended to anyone living outside Great Britain. I know that I go on about the subject and that it is probably boring, but I have a real concern for British pensioners living outside the European Union who gain nothing from the pension upratings. The arrangement under the Bill will serve only to make the gap even wider. I suspect that all of us shall be receiving further complaints from pensioners' organisations overseas in New Zealand, Canada and Australia when this information reaches them, if it has not done so already.
Secondly, there is an interesting clause covering polygamous marriages and how the benefits are to be distributed in those circumstances. However, we are
178
not given any indication of what the principles or practice might be. It is to be left to regulations. I share the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Higgins when he referred to regulations which deal with a matter that is permanent, as opposed to dealing with changes where fresh regulations need to be made. We have no idea how this will be interpreted. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give at least some indication of how this is to be worked out.
The hour is late and I am aware that many noble Lords are looking towards the wind-up of the debate. I conclude by saying that I think that the Bill is a brave attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. I hope that, in Committee and during the following stages, we might seek to make further improvements to the legislation.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in a Second Reading debate which has attracted so many pensions experts, several of whom have spent their professional lives involved either in policy making or policy shaking for the benefit of older people.
In welcoming the Bill, I should like to refer to some of the observations and concerns expressed in over 400 responses to the pensions credit consultation paper that was produced this time last year. Reactions to the proposals came from a wide variety of organisations, including Age Concern—which has been referred to several times during the debate—the Alliance for Finance, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Fawcett Society, Help the Aged, Scottish Widows, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Pensioners' Convention, the Northampton Afro-Caribbean Elders Society, the National Board of Catholic Women and so many others that I could go on listing them, but I shall not do so.
The vast majority of the responses that I have read expressed in general terms their welcome for the Bill, in particular as regards the issues of capital limits and the weekly assessment. En some cases, the responses went further in acknowledging the context of the Government's activity in favour of pensioners since 1997. In her opening remarks, my noble friend referred to the introduction of the minimum income guarantee to assist the poorest pensioners, the rise in the basic state pension, the recent winter fuel payments and so forth. The cumulative effect of those actions can be seen graphically in the chart set out in Annex B on page 16 of the yellow pension credit document from the Department for Work and Pensions to which my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall referred. It is clear that the impact of government policy on the weekly income of pensioner households between 1997 and 2002 has resulted in a gain of £25 per week for those in decile 1 and a gain of £8 per week for those an decile 10, with an average gain of £18 per week. That includes the pension credit additions, after housing costs and excludes tax changes.
The undoubted beneficial impact: of government policy still leaves the unresolved and urgent issue of low pensioner income for a significant group of older

179
people to whom reference has been made in the course of the debate. I refer to pensioners with incomplete pension entitlement. That will not be resolved immediately by the terms of the State Pension Credit Bill. We know that because the legislation has been directed at rewarding modest savings. However, the Bill will benefit over 5 million pensioners, 1 million from the guaranteed income and 4 million from the savings reward. Furthermore, while welcoming the Bill as a proper response to a social security system that penalises pensioners with modest occupational pensions or savings, many organisations said in response to the consultation that they were extremely anxious to ensure that the legislation would not bring with it even further complexity in regard to accessing benefits. They hope that lessons have been learnt by the Government after the initial problems with MIG and its take-up.
That is where the new pension service, to which my noble friend Lady Gibson referred, should come in. The response paper from Katherine Rake at ESRC Sage Research Group helpfully set out a list of criteria against which to judge a well-functioning pension system. The list echoes to some extent the criteria set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: first, adequacy; secondly, equity; thirdly, protecting incentives; fourthly, transparency; fifthly, stability; and sixthly, administrative efficiency. That list is useful not only to bear in mind as we progress through the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, but also to use as a set of benchmarks when judging the effectiveness of the proposed new pension service.
I understand that the aim of the pension service, which is to commence next April, is to move progressively towards a system whereby pensioners may receive automatically all their entitlements. The calculations involved in assessing people's income will be the responsibility of the service rather than of the individual pensioner. Can I press my noble friend on the Front Bench to point out why she is confident that the new service will do better than the present situation, which still leaves so many pensioners confused about their entitlements? Discussions with my 80 year-old mother and her friends—whom she refers to as "elderly ladies" because they are in their late eighties and nineties—become lively when they touch on the subject of entitlements. Those ladies are clear about most aspects of their lives, but they find the issue of pension entitlements an extremely difficult hill to climb. Is the Minister quite confident that the new service will be able to meet the anxieties that have been expressed in the course of our debate?
Several respondents to the consultation document raised the issue of women pensioners. Again, other noble Lords have also referred to this matter. As the present Chair of the Women's National Commission, I am particularly exercised about improving the retirement income of women. The issue is one of the greater scandals of modern society. So many women see their incomes shrivel as they grow older. By the time they reach retirement age their financial reward, as it were, often bears no relation to the amount of
180
caring, teaching, effort and hard work that they have put into the lives of their families. In many ways the Government have tried to address those problems, which has proved to be a challenging task.
I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the poorest older women in this country. I press her to use her great intellectual capacity within the corridors of power to ensure that that group of people—who by the very nature of the Bill, cannot be covered by its provisions—are not forgotten.
Finally, the Bill will be welcomed by many women. The proportion of single women who are eligible for pension credit amounts to 53 per cent of the pensioner population, compared with a figure for male pensioners of 16 per cent. The Government have estimated that around half of all pensioners will gain from pension credit and that two-thirds of those entitled to pension credit will be women. Half of those women will be aged 75 or over. So the Bill will be greatly welcomed by many women who have struggled to save and who have a small occupational pension entitlement. It goes some way in challenging the scandal of poverty to which I have referred.
Some organisations, such as the National Pensioners' Convention, reflected the on-going debate—which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—about the universality of pension entitlement. In response to consultation especially, they referred to the Bill as part of a reversal of the post-war policy to reduce reliance on means testing.
Like my noble friend Lord Lea, I do not agree with that analysis. The state pension is still the foundation of the pensions system and must be maintained at a level that is meaningful and not derisory in terms of the variety of economic circumstances in which today's pensioners find themselves, or the security in retirement of future pensioners.
However, on top of the basic pension, it is crucial that government policy responds to the reality of older people's lives in Britain today. On average, pensioners' incomes are rising faster than those of any other broad group in the population, but these improvements are by no means shared equally within the pensioner population. Building on the basic state pension by targeting the most significant state help towards the poorest pensioners and at the same time encouraging those with savings is a modern, responsible and realistic way forward.
The Bill follows on from the provision for a state second pension and the new stakeholder pension. I believe that it will be an acknowledgement of so many people's struggle to work hard and save hard during their working lifetime. For that reason, despite the problems that have been aired in the debate, I welcome the Bill.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, after a debate of such quality, in which the Front Benches started off at a cracking pace, most of what I had intended to say has

181
already been said. Noble Lords will forgive me, therefore, if I do not go over all the ground that has been covered. I shall attempt to restrict my remarks to a couple of points.
I have two genuine questions. First, are the implications of this legislation roughly neutral for all those who are in receipt of disability-related benefit? I have found no reference to that point in any of the literature that I have picked up, but I assume that that is the case.
The second question, which the Government have been asked on previous occasions, relates to the limits of £6,000 and £1 2,000 that were referred to. Are those limits to be regularly upgraded? If they become frozen in time—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, which limits is the noble Lord referring to? There are no capital limits. There is simply notional income from whatever capital a person has.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister. The uprating of the income is what we are worrying about.
The next point relates to a serious disagreement. The Government have gone down a means testing—they prefer the term "targeting"—route in an attempt to get resources to those who they believe need them. We on these Benches should prefer a more broad-brush approach. The basic argument between us is that money will have been saved on the bureaucratic nature of the system; therefore, we shall be able to give out a universal benefit, thus getting benefit to those who actually need it. Help the Aged concurs with our policy approach; namely, that an extra £10 per week for those over 75 would achieve much of the reduction in poverty.
I agree that, overall, the Government seem to have listened to the criticisms levelled at them about the complexity of the system and its implementation. However, the main problem is that the system will be difficult. It is not merely a question of the aged being confused by such complexity. Our education system has not produced a large number of people in the lower income brackets who are comfortable with complex literature. It is a historical problem for which governments of all colours must share the blame. But people have simply stopped educating themselves in this area.
I freely admit that I do not like the idea of lots of complicated forms. I am dyslexic and I have a bad short-term memory. There are many like me. There are many others who for other reasons have literacy problems. That is potentially a major flaw in the scheme. The Government have talked about the ways in which they will get round the problem—sending out forms to everyone, a telephone back-up service and various other elements of the system. This is the real challenge for the Government. Assuming that their targeting is correct—and we do not know that—they must make sure that they get to the people in question.
182
The on-going costs of the scheme will increase the costs of the pensions system. It is merely a matter of how that balancing act occurs and how many people are missed. It is not a case of whether people will be missed, but of how many will be missed. It always is. It may simply be that a person is terrified of forms, or is not on the telephone, or does not like approaching an authority. From the age of 60, or even earlier, many people are like that.
I hope the Government will bear that fact in mind and will realise that they do not have the perfect answer. There will be casualties. They will have to be prepared to pick those people up at some point. Ultimately, as always happens in our system, the health service and other services will find themselves picking up the failures of the system if they occur.
I turn to the major flaw in the system; namely, its approach to women aged 60 to 65. The Minister made a very good attempt to square the circle and gave a full answer. However, those on state pensions should be brought into the system. It is worth repeating that there is a significant anomaly here. If a person happens to be receiving a state pension, why is he or she not included in this system? We know that it will come to an end and that there is a series of finite problems. But surely that is a major flaw.
I could talk about this subject at considerable length. However, because other speakers have covered most of the points I had intended to make, I leave the House with just one thought. Unless we are prepared to be slightly flexible and admit that there are faults in this approach—which means going back and putting in place extra layers to correct them—we shall have greater problems. We have gone down a road in this Bill which will probably make matters more complicated in the future, not less so. I hope that all those who have a responsibility in this area, if they agree to this system, are prepared to pick up the tab to make sure that this targeting is at least done with a decent sight.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, as a neophyte on matters of pensions and benefits, I was delighted to find that I was in excellent company with the other neophytes, the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Barker. We were treated to an excellent introduction by the powerful and contrasting speeches of my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, together with many of the other usual experts who regale us in these matters, led by my noble friend Lord Higgins and the Minister. Perhaps the Minister did gallop but I never found her indistinct.
I shall start by talking about complexity. I make no apology for venturing into this area, as predicted by the Minister, and referred to by many speakers. The new pension credit is mind-blowingly complicated. If anyone doubts that, I refer them to the definition of "savings credit" in Clause 3. I shall not read it out but I wager that even with her renowned fluency in benefit matters the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would have

183
difficulty making it instantly understandable to noble Lords. I am well aware that the parliamentary draftsman finds it difficult to draft financial concepts in legal language, but I hope to find a more direct way of expressing these rules in statute as we consider the Bill further.
Complexity is an important issue if we believe that citizens should be able to access and understand the laws that govern them. Some, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, say that benefits legislation is usually complex and that it is important for the Department for Work and Pensions to translate it into practical procedures. Tax legislation has become ever more complex and difficult to understand, but we should not accept inherent complexity without question. We know that with complexity comes error. An example appears in Clause 18, which we are told is to remedy a mistake made in earlier legislation. That is an example of why complex legislation is harmful. I hope that as the Bill proceeds through its Committee stage we shall strive to make it simpler.
Another aspect of complexity is the heavy reliance on regulations, already mentioned by many noble Lords. The Bill lays out the bare bones of the framework for the new pension credit, but to find out how it works we have to refer to regulations. The first three clauses, which deal with entitlement, guarantee credit and savings credit refer to five sets of regulations and seven prescribed amounts or percentages. There is more of that in the rest of the Bill.
The Bill proposes a scheme that has not been worked out in fine detail, or even in much detail at all. Even the simple concept of how income will be taken into account in calculating the savings credit will require reference to regulations made under Clauses 3 and 15. My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked important questions about how dividends or ESOPs will be treated and about equity in a person's own home. There are other questions to be asked. How will PEPs and ISAs be treated? What about pension funds that are not drawn down as annuities and index-linked savings? How will they be treated?
I hope that as we consider the Bill in detail the Minister will tell us what the regulations will contain. My noble friend Lord Higgins asked when the Minister expects to have draft regulations available. I hope that they will be available at Committee stage.
I turn to the question of the direct cost of the new pension credit, about which my noble friend Lady Fookes spoke so clearly. The Explanatory Notes say that the Bill will cost about £1 billion in 2003–04 rising to more than £2 billion in 2004–05. I understand that the difference between the two early years is because the new savings credit will not exist until October 2003—in nearly two years' time. The Government have raised expectations that pensioners will benefit from the new credit scheme, especially those with savings. Why do they have to wait so long? Is it because the department cannot process the claims quickly enough? I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that.
184
What assumptions are being made about overall take-up? The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, spoke about that issue, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to the difficulties involved in getting pensioners to take up means-tested benefits. Is it assumed that all entitled pensioners will have claimed what they are due by 2005, or will further costs emerge as time goes on and further claims are made? We know that about 20 per cent of potential MIG claimants fail to take up their entitlement. What assumptions are being made about the take up of pension credit of £2 billion in the estimates for 2004–05? Can the Minister say what will be the total cost if there were to be 100 per cent take-up, if, as I assume, the assumptions are made on less than 100 per cent take-up?
What are the department's estimates of the long-term cost? I understand that about £2.25 billion is in respect of minimum income guarantee, which will in effect be subsumed into the new pension credit and that the £2 billion is on top, so that when the new scheme is fully operational we are talking about a starting point of around £4.3 billion. Many noble Lords have pointed out that the estimates of much higher costs made by a number of commentators, including the Institute of Public Policy Research, which could not be described by any stretch of the imagination as a Right-wing think tank, are not sustainable. Based on calculations of up to £10 billion of long-term cost, it has calculated that the Government's proposal is not sustainable in the longer term. Does the Minister agree? If not, will she say how it will be funded in the longer term?
I turn to the incentives to save. Most noble Lords will agree that preserving savings incentives is an important aim if we are to avoid a culture of dependency on the state. The Bill takes an artificial approach to capital and income, using a deemed interest rate which the Explanatory Notes say will be 10 per cent on capital that exceeds £6,000. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked a question on uprating. He was possibly referring to the uprating of the £6,000 starting point that is included in the calculations. My question is slightly different. Does it mean that for all purposes the first £6,000 is to be disregarded, or does the 10 per cent rate apply to all capital if it is over £6,000? If a pensioner has £7,000 of capital, is his deemed income 10 per cent of £ 1,000—the excess over £6,000—or £7,000? By nodding, the Minister has answered my question. It is based on £1,000, which is the excess over £6,000. I thank the Minister for that.
Whichever way the figure is calculated it is clear that income deeming provisions will operate against those whose return is less than 10 per cent. That will apply to most pensioners because they will be deemed to have income that they do not have. A pensioner with capital of £25,000 who was lucky enough to receive a 5 per cent return would have an income of about £24 a week. But, under these provisions, he will be deemed to have £36 or £37 a week, which is how the credits will be calculated. He will end up not having the full amount of the deemed income and will be only a few pounds better off than if he had not saved at all.

185
I am far from sure that the new credit scheme will prove an incentive to saving. As my noble friend Lord Higgins pointed out, as the guaranteed credit rises with earnings over the next few years, that discouragement to save will become even greater. I am sure that we all want to avoid that.
The Bill refers to concepts of family. Pensioners who are married will do less well than two single pensioners, but so will an unmarried couple of pensioners living together as man and wife. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that old people are often lonely and, for all kinds of reasons, will wish to share their homes and their lives. Will the Minister explain why, when a male pensioner lives with a brother or sister or with another male, they will both have a single person's entitlement to pension credit, but if he lives with another female he may be deemed to be part of an unmarried couple, with the consequence that they receive less in total? How is living together as husband and wife to be interpreted in the rules? Are sexual relations to be a prerequisite? If so, how is the department to ascertain the information? Is this to be another intrusion into the lives of pensioners? Will the Minister also explain why homosexual relationships are to be favoured by allowing both parties to the relationship to receive a single person's entitlement?
Lastly, perhaps the Minister will say exactly what is intended in respect of polygamous marriages? Is it intended that the regulations that could be introduced under Clause 12 will allow higher pension credits to be paid to men or women who have more than one spouse?
My final topic is administrative costs. My noble friend Lady Fookes touched on the subject and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, remarked on the lack of information about it in the Explanatory Notes, which say that the administrative costs will be discussed with the Treasury in the next spending review. Well so will everything. Are the Government saying that they do not yet know what the administrative costs will be? As many noble Lords have said, the aims of the new pension service seem admirable, but they do not sound particularly cheap, especially in the short term. When will we be told the administrative costs of the new arrangements?
I am sure that there will be many more detailed issues to discuss in Committee. I thank the Minister for the explanations that she has given today and at the very helpful briefing that many of us were able to attend last week. I look forward to hearing her response today and to our detailed consideration in Committee.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am pleased that the Bill has had a broad, if cautious, welcome around the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, this has been an extremely well informed debate, as one would expect with contributions from two former Secretaries of State on the subject and a junior Minister, as well as others with practical experience on pensions or with Age Concern. I would
186
expect nothing less. I am even delighted that my noble friend Lady Castle welcomed the principle of rewarding thrift. I think that she was claiming credit for the concept for herself and our noble friend Lady Turner, whose absence we have missed today. She has helped me very much over the years on pension matters. I hope as a result that the Bill will enjoy their warm support. That view was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who also wanted to introduce such a Bill, having said at one point in his speech that on no occasion did he ever agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Castle.
I am not sure what it means when so many people claim credit for the Bill when on other occasions they never agree. It shows that the Bill is perceived as a serious attempt to address a real problem that everyone has identified. At its simplest, that problem is how to ensure the provision of a basic, decent minimum income for people, in such a way that it does not deter them from seeking to make such provision for themselves.
If that is called squaring the circle, so be it. If it is called galloping horses, in the metaphor chosen—whether elegantly or not I am not sure—by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I plead guilty. It is an insuperable problem in social security. Our suggestion is to adopt a targeted and tapered response, because the alternative of universality not only misses the target, but does so at enormous cost.
I shall address the major issues that have been raised by several speakers. I started counting the questions that were asked, but I stopped at 80 or 90. Noble Lords will understand if I do not reply to all their questions tonight, but I shall write to them. I would love to have an hour to reply to all the questions, but I cannot do so unless I speak even faster than I did to start with.
The big strategic issues are complexity, means testing, capital rules and the pension service. If time permits, I shall also seek to come back on some or the more detailed questions, which are also of interest to the House, including the situation of part pensioners, housing benefit, hospital downrating, residential care, the future of occupational pensions, cost, reassessment rights and the like. I shall see where I have got to by the time that your Lordships are looking distinctly glazed, and/or bored, and/or asleep.
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, conceded, I tried to address the issue of complexity when I started. The structure is simple, but social security and pensions are both complex, and if the two are brought together there is inevitably a geometric increase in complexity. We know that there will be two parts—a £100 basic income together with 60 per cent of the next £23 of income, which is the difference between the £77 retirement pension and the £100 MIG.
Working out the details is complex, but the complexity arises most obviously when people have an incomplete retirement pension record. Estimating that is complex even now. The structure is simple, as I have just said, and the information required is far simpler. I shall come back to that point. The capital rules have been greatly simplified and once the assessment is

187
made it remains in place for five years unless there are major changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked me to elaborate on such changes. They include the death of a partner, going abroad, going into hospital or changing house and having seriously different housing costs. Those are the major life events involved. However, it is a win-win situation for pensioners. They can seek to be reassessed, possibly because their income has dropped, at any time that they wish. They may only need to be reassessed every five years, unless a major event occurs. I shall also come back to the pension service, to which my noble friends have spoken so eloquently.
I have a couple of points to make on draft regulations. This is a framework Bill. It is impossible to achieve the elegance of a modern novel in legislation that amends previous legislation—although, as one of my noble friends said, not all modern novels are as comprehensible as the Bill. I hope to have the draft regulations for your Lordships during Committee stage. They will deal with some of the issues—such as polygamous marriages and so on—which have clearly concerned some of your Lordships, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on uprating. I am not sure why polygamous marriages should suddenly be of such fascination to your Lordships. I can only think that it was either hope deferred or aspiration being pursued. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, also asked about draft claim forms. I hope to have them available in Committee. I have the current MIG forms.
The crucial part of what I was trying to say is that by going for targeting and tapering we are seeking to move away from vocabularies of means testing to vocabularies of entitlement, as my noble friend Lord Lea said.
I was asked whether extending means testing will discourage those who need help from claiming. It is no longer sensible to give everyone the same. The latest figures, for 1998–99, show that the average pensioner income was £272. The bottom one fifth of couples received half that sum. The top fifth received double. Where such disparities of income have grown over the past 20 years, it cannot be right to give the same to all.
My noble friend Lady Crawley pointed out that giving the same to all would not end means testing. My noble friend Lady Castle talks as though if everyone were uprated to MIG and earnings-related, there would be no need for means testing. She is misinformed. Even if there were earnings-related additions, two thirds of recipients on MIG would still be affected. If the earnings link had never been broken, nearly one half of all pensioners would still need an income-assessed, targeted benefit because either they have incomplete pension records or have extra cost disability benefits.
Whatever system is used, there must be targeted benefits. What matters is to remove the stigma, improve communication, and ensure entitlement and take-up. To achieve that, we are seeking to map income at retirement and every five years—so there will not be weekly intrusion. We are not asking pensioners to come into an office for a "Full Monty"
188
assessment. The matter can be dealt with in the privacy of their own home. Some 70 per cent of people already set up and handle their retirement pension by telephone. I am sure that proportion will grow.
With income support, we currently need to know whether any child maintenance payments are being made—particularly in the case of a younger spouse with children from a much earlier relationship. In future, those payments will be ignored. At present, we need to know the number of hours worked. In future, they will be ignored. If a pensioner has returned to college or university for third-age learning, any educational support in the form of grants or loans will in future be ignored. Any personal injury payments, which are taken into account in various ways at present, will be ignored. Charitable and voluntary payments are to some degree taken into account at present. In future, they will be ignored. Rent from any land or second property will be ignored, as will capital sums in building societies, PEPs or ISAs—but the notional income will be taken into account.
I could treble that list but it gives your Lordships some indication that lines of assessment rightly seen as intrusive now will be stripped out of pension credit in order to get the core information needed. The assumption will be that pensioners' incomes stay steady except in the case of life-changing events. We can therefore take that interference and intrusion off pensioners' backs, so that they can enjoy a predictable income as of right.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am puzzled by the Minister's use of the word "ignored". Are we to understand, for example, that income from an ISA will not be taken into account in the calculation—that is, that it will not affect the individual's benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, capital will be ignored but the income from it will be taken into account. At present, where a person has three or four small building society accounts, all that capital comes into play. If it exceeds the £6,000 or £12,000 range, that capital will disqualify the individual from MIG top-up, even though he may have a modest retirement pension.
In future, it will not be necessary to see every building society pass book. There will be an assumption made about the flow of notional income from the capital held by pensioners. There will be no individual assessments based on the capital in each account. All that will interest us is the notional income, not the amount of capital—which could otherwise cut off entitlement. One can have capital of up to £36,000 as a single pensioner. The notional income would still just about bring the pensioner within pension credit, if he or she has no other income. I hope that that explanation meets the noble Lord's point.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not understand. Is the Minister saying that the value of a PEP will be taken into account and that the deemed income derived from it will affect the pension, or will the actual income from

189
the PEP be taken into account? Given what happens to the value of PEPS on equity markets, goodness knows how that will work.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is the deemed income. That is the point of the simplicity of the rules. I will return to that matter after I have addressed other questions. All capital will be lumped together and a deemed notional income will be extracted. The simplicity compared with the existing system is that once an individual's capital holding goes above a certain figure, he or she is denied any support. That will no longer be the case. The notional income, not the capital ceiling, will come into play. That is where the new simplicity and greater generosity comes on board.
We are assuming two thirds take-up in the first year. Take-up in the first year of family credit was about 50 per cent. By 1998–99, take-up was about 80 per cent in cash terms. After moving to working families' tax credit, about half those who could have claimed family credit hut did not went on to draw WFTC. One reason was that the amount individuals would have drawn in family credit was tiny. Any benefit takes time to build. I have no reason to think that pension credit will not build in an equally satisfactory way.
I was curious that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, denounced. the Bill for bringing so many pensioners within means testing because the minutes of the all-party group on disability—my bedside reading—on Tuesday, 27th November, included a contribution from the noble Lord's honourable friend, Mr. Boswell. He suggested that the group should consider ways of targeting the 29 per cent of pensioners in fuel poverty and the 22 per cent of disabled people in fuel poverty instead of the current universal approach to pensioners. Mr Boswell was not calling for no means testing of pensioners but for the targeting—presumably means testing—of the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners.
I wonder whether Mr Boswell consulted the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to ensure even a modicum of consistency between the Opposition's approach in the two Houses on the issue of means testing. Left to Mr. Boswell. we would means test the universal benefits that we already have; left to the noble Lord, we would universalise the means-tested benefits that we have It would be nice if the honourable gentleman and the noble Lord could agree their position on that and related issues before Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that somebody with a part-pension would be treated unfairly compared with someone who made a full national insurance contribution. The noble Lord adopts a curious position. It seems to me that someone who has made the full national insurance contribution all their working life should not be treated in the same way as someone who has not. It is right that retirement pensions and recognition to pension credit should reflect that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in an increasingly global economy many people spend part of their lives working out of this country—for reasons for which they deserve no reproach.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may be so but it is a question of whether such persons are contributing towards the funding of the retirement pension that they will subsequently draw. I refer to the case suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, where someone with a pension of £67 and an occupational pension of £25 would, at the moment, see no advantage because that would keep them below the £100 ceiling. In future, under the new system, they would get a guarantee and a pension credit, and their total income would be not £100 but £109. Therefore, although they would not be in the same beneficial position as someone with a full contributions record, they would still be better off. I hope that the noble Lord thinks that that is a balanced approach.
Some noble Lords have said that the proposals are unfair to those who have deferred pensions. We are treating people as though they are drawing their retirement pension, as it would be unfair to give them a pension credit if they are not drawing their pension. Pension credit follows retirement pension, it does not precede it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about people who are simply living together. I wonder whether her noble friend Lord Fowler might help her on this issue. There are simple, standard and well-defined social security rules on whether cohabiting couples qualify as a household. Those rules will be applied in the operation of this legislation as they are elsewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about the title, and I must say that I too am not awfully keen on "state pension credit". However, her own suggestion of pension savings reward identifies only half of our objectives. We are trying to integrate the guarantee with the savings credit. That is why we chose the title.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that we are being unfair to women of 60 and asked why we cannot provide the pension credit to women when they qualify for the state retirement pension at 60. As I have tried to explain, to do that we would have to extend the provision also to men at 60, regardless of whether they were receiving the state retirement pension. It is a dilemma. Although I understand entirely where the noble Lord is coming from on the issue, as I have tried to explain, we have equalised the guarantee element—which goes to the poorest—at 60 and the reward element at 65. We are seeking to treat men and women fairly at each stage.
I think that I have already dealt with the point on reassessment. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, specifically raised the issues of housing benefit and council tax benefit. As I said, we are carrying over a higher personal assessment allowance in housing benefit and council tax benefit so that people can enjoy the benefit of pension credit. That advantage could be realised by, for example, pensioners who are not eligible for pension credit but who have high rents and receive housing benefit. I therefore think that it is a decent and generous response.
As I have said in previous debates, the point of hospital down-rating, which is a modest sum—I think that it is about £14 for a couple after six weeks, but a

191
more substantial sum after 52 weeks—is to reflect the fact that social security has never gone in for double payment for the same contingency. Therefore, if part of one's costs—for food and laundry, for example—are being met by the national health service, one cannot reasonably expect those costs to be reflected in the retirement pension.
My noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about care homes. I can tell your Lordships that no one will be worse off because of the proposals and that people in residential care or care homes will enjoy both the savings element and the guarantee element. Whether local authorities go on to recover all or part of that in increased charging will be for them to determine in consultation with the Department of Health.
My noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Crawley eloquently described the purpose of the pension service. Although it will be based on a telephone service, a local face-to-face service will also be available for pensioners who need it, particularly those who are frail and find it difficult to leave their home. The service will deal, for example, with winter fuel payments, retirement pensions, the state second pension, and also serve as a single gateway to provide pensioners with access to housing benefit and attendance allowance. It will produce an integrated service that will be highly valuable and help to ensure that pensioners take up the full range of services to which they are entitled. I tell my noble friend Lady Greengross that we expect to start rolling out the service in spring 2002.
I return to capital limits. Clearly, we could have chosen not to have a £6,000 de minimis rule. Instead, we could have established a notional income limit for all capital and said that people are outside the pension credit system when that notional income surpasses the pension credit figure. Such a notional figure would probably have been about 5 per cent, 5.2 per cent or 5.5 per cent. The exact figure is arguable, but those estimates are not unrealistic.
Why did we choose not to do that, but decide instead effectively on a disregard of the first £6,000 and to recover the equivalent figure from the rest of the sum? We did it because pensioner organisations asked us to do it, because 85 per cent of pensioners have savings of less than £6,000. Consequently, our response seemed to be the decent one. By adding the lower notional rate—which we are reducing to 10 per cent from the current 20 per cent—to the savings reward, the savings in pension credit for very low income pensioners will be treated five times more generously than they are currently treated in the MIG. I think that that figure shows the scale of our changes.
I was asked about disability benefits by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has a proud record in protecting those benefits. I am happy to give the assurance that extra-cost benefits will be ignored and that the higher income-related benefits for severely disabled people will of course continue as they are.
192
The costs issue was raised in two forms: programme costs and administrative costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was right to say that we are expecting programme costs to be £2 billion in the early years, increasing to about £3.4 billion by 2010. We shall shortly be publishing an analysis of the long-term costs for pension credit, setting out the assumptions on which our analysis is based. Clearly, different assumptions on prices and other matters come into play. However—in reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—we are confident that those costs are sustainable, not only as a proportion of GDP, but because investment in the private pensions industry has served us well. I pay some credit to the previous government on the latter point. Moreover, given that the United Kingdom demographic explosion has already occurred, we do not have a pensions crisis. We continue to have a better ratio of those in the labour market to those who are retired than most other European countries.
Your Lordships might be interested in the figures on administrative costs. Setting up an initial claim for the retirement pension costs on average £31, and we do not expect that the initial cost of setting up the pension credit will be very much higher than that. Although it will be a little higher, it will not be much more. In reply to my noble friend Lady Castle, the annual administrative cost of the retirement pension is essentially nil, and the cost of up-rating pensions will be essentially nil as it will be done by computer. The five-year review will obviously bring into play different factors.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Higgins, Lord Fowler and Lord Hodgson, have dealt with the fate of occupational pensions. They seemed to sense a vulnerability in occupational pensions because of what they allege are moves by employers to close final-salary schemes in favour of money-purchase ones. Although I think that such a move is beginning, the schemes that have closed so far are fairly small ones. The NAPF report, however, suggests a rather different story. In the past year, about 46 per cent of all employers in final-salary schemes either had a pension contribution holiday or were able to make reduced pension contributions, which they did not actually pass on to their employees.
The current state of the equity market and the transparency required by FRS17 are requiring employers again to meet pension promises in relation to which some of them have not had to make contributions in recent years. They are really rather perturbed by the size of those promises, although, three to seven years ago, they took it for granted that they would have to contribute towards meeting them. Consequently, as the NAPF report makes clear, employers are moving to money-purchase schemes, not only to reduce the risk, but to reduce the contributions that they should make. That is the problem.
Something like 88 per cent of employers in money purchase schemes contribute less than 10 per cent. Some 47 per cent, or thereabouts, of employers in final salary schemes contribute less than 10 per cent. In

193
other words, almost double the number of employers in money purchase schemes contribute less than 10 per cent. If employers were to contribute to money purchase schemes in the way that they contributed—when they contributed fully—to final salary schemes, the problems of long-term pensioner poverty for occupational pensions would not be of the size or order that have been described. The returns would be broadly similar.
In other words, the problem is not one of FRS17 but the fact that employers are using the move to money purchase schemes to reduce their contributions. Unless that shortfall is made up by employees, they will get a smaller pension. As far as I can tell from the NAPF report, that is where the responsibility resides.
I return to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, when she referred to a technical Bill. Inevitably, it is a technical Bill as it is both a social security and a pensions Bill which deals with highly complex matters. But behind it lies a simple principle; that is, how we ensure that pensioners are lifted out of poverty to a decent income and how we build on that by rewarding the thrift of those who have modest pensions. In other words, we are protecting the poorest pensioners from an impoverished standard of living while helping to reward the thrift of those who would otherwise be nearly poor.
It is incumbent upon the whole House to give the Bill full scrutiny and I am sure that it will do so. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, this is a good and decent Bill. I believe that it is the final bit of our jigsaw to ensure that both those saving for their future pensions and current pensioners can look forward to a decent and comfortable future. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Athletics
6.42 p.m.
Lord Glentoran rose Lord Glentoran rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider to be the future of athletics in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the previous two debates on sport in your Lordships' House in which I took part were introduced by the late Lord Cowdrey. Therefore, it is with some temerity and a touch of sadness that I follow in the footsteps of that great and much loved friend. However, although one great sportsman has left us, another has joined our number. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, is to make his maiden speech today in this debate. I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say as there can be few, if any, who can speak with his knowledge and expertise on these matters.
A great deal has been written and said in the past few years, and particularly in the past few months, about national stadiums being linked to events such as the football World Cup, the World Athletics Championships and hosting the Olympic Games. The
194
2000 World Cup hid was included in the Government's 1997 election manifesto. Sport England has given £120 million to the FA to build a stadium capable of holding international athletic events as well as international football of all kinds and to bid for and host the World Cup. It was also the Government's stated intention to support a bid from the AAA for the World Athletics Championships in 2005. That bid was won for London, but that, as we all know, was not to be. The story of "Unpicking the Lock" can be read in Hansard of another place of Tuesday 11th December and, of course, in the Select Committee report itself. The facts are that we have no national stadium—not that I think that that is any kind of a disaster as I shall explain later—and no world cup for either football or athletics. But what of the 120 million? That is still held by the FA.
I shall say a few words on stadiums. Some of the best football nations in the world do not have a single national stadium. France has the Stade de France. Others do as we have been doing since the demise of old Wembley; that is, use Premier League grounds for football internationals alternating around the country. That gives access to a much wider spectator group geographically. If that were to become a national strategy, some of these stadiums might need enlarging by up to 10,000 or so seats.
Athletics do not lend themselves as spectator sports to large stadiums. There is too much going on in the arena at the same time for anyone other than a real aficionado to be able to see, understand or follow from the back or even the middle of a large stadium. I suggest that it is only events on the scale of the Olympic Games that need a 60,000 seater stadium or larger.
What facilities are already available for promoting international athletics in this country? We have Gateshead in the North East; Crystal Palace in London; Birmingham in the Midlands and Sheffield in Yorkshire. I understand that all those stadiums meet IAAF requirements for international events. So what went wrong with the Government's plans? I shall attempt to give your Lordships a flavour of the debate in another place where the right honourable Mr Kaufman referred to the Select Committee report "Unpicking the Lock", as a "sorry and convoluted saga". He went on to say that the DCMS involved itself beyond its locus and vires in decisions on both the national stadium and an athletics stadium. His advice to the Secretary of State for the DCMS as regards stadiums was,
"to keep out and shut up; it is none of her business".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/01; col. 743.]
I have to say that I agree in the most part with the right honourable gentleman. Of course, he was right when he said that there has never been a co-ordinated policy under any government in relation to national bids for the Olympic Games or for any bids for other major events such as the World Cup or the World Athletics Championships. In these days of high cost expectancy and the high level of commercialism in international sporting events, should these decisions be left to the various governing bodies and private

195
sector funding? I believe that there must be a role to be played by governments here in support of the private sector in co-ordinating and facilitating the hosting by Britain of world events. In the same debate in the other place Kate Hoey said that,
"The way we run sports and major sporting events and build—
or do not build—
"national stadiums is a shambles".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/01; col. 758.]
I hope that your Lordships will agree that that state of affairs must end.
I turn to the "devolution effect", as it has had an effect. Devolution has led to divided loyalties and a proliferation of government bodies involved in sport each with its own agenda and funding sources. I refer to Sport England, Sport Scotland, The Sports Council for Northern Ireland and The Sports Council for Wales which all report to their respective devolved Parliaments. England has Sport England and the English Institute of Sport, which are lottery funded with a capital budget of £120 million, in nine regions to provide a wide range of facilities for elite athletes. UK Sport and the British Olympic Association are the only United Kingdom and Northern Ireland overview bodies. The United Kingdom competes only as a single nation in the Olympic Games once every four years. What should the role of those bodies be? The British Olympic Association, as its name suggests, is Britain's lead organisation for the Olympic Games and must be factored into whatever strategy evolves in a way that allows it to carry out its role most effectively. It seems to me that Sport England could become its link to government.
As regards finance for sport, I submit that any government extolling or interfering with national sport must be prepared to fund their exhortations. The share of the lottery money for sport has reduced considerably on account of the Government's new beneficiaries; that is, the New Opportunities Fund and NESTA, and also because the lottery is providing less funds. In 1997 Sport England received £250 million from the lottery and for 2002, the estimate is £185 million. The Exchequer's grant for Sport England is only £35 million when compared with grants to the Arts Council of £237 million and to English Heritage of £115 million. The figure of £35 million is a pittance.
The Exchequer's share of sports funding needs to rise in real terms. I do not mean just a bigger grant from DCMS. There should be better use of "joined up government"; for example, the Home Office contributing to anti-drugs schemes or young offenders' schemes. Incidentally, a preliminary preview of eight of the jointly funded Sport England/Home Office "Positive Futures" projects demonstrates significant successes. I suggest that more such schemes are needed.
It has been demonstrated again and again that as regards the Department for Education, schools with good records in PE and school sports report higher attainment overall. Turning to the Department of Health, it has been estimated that 37 per cent of
196
coronary heart disease could be attributed to inactivity. Sport can be used to tackle obesity, for example, which is currently a problem costing the National Health Service £500 million a year, to say nothing of days lost to industry from the same problem.
As regards the environment and communities, sport can play a key role in helping to create communities and a community spirit, but it will need proper funding and management to achieve that.
"Joined up government" for sport means cross-departmental funding, cross-departmental support in providing the infrastructure for elite sport, school sport, club sport and, by no means least, sport for all, including the handicapped. Most important of all, I believe that British sport needs a clear, all-encompassing strategy led by the Government and implemented by the governing bodies and the private sector.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his Unstarred Question, which gives us an opportunity to debate this important issue. But before beginning, perhaps I may express my absolute delight at the running order in tonight's list of speakers. I am surely going to be one of the very few people in the world who will be able to say, "I finished ahead of Seb Coe!". I look forward enormously to his contribution. It has already been said that it would be impossible to find anyone with greater knowledge, experience and expertise in athletics. We are indeed fortunate to have him with us in the Chamber today.
Tonight's question asks about the future of athletics in the United Kingdom. Looking round the Chamber at the speakers on all sides, it is clear that every one of them has played a positive and enthusiastic role in sport in the past. Therefore, I believe that it is inappropriate to bite chunks out of each other with recriminations as to who did more damage or who has more commitment. I wish to take a broader view of athletics. But of course we cannot ignore the past nor the mistakes that have been made which have damaged many sports.
In 1996 the collapse of the British Athletics Federation was indeed a significant low point. To some extent that culminated in the decision to scrap Picketts Lock, with all that that entailed. But looking back much further to the 1970s no less, we can identify the last major build of sports halls and complexes. The circumstances were bizarre. Local government reorganisation meant the scrapping of old councils and new ones put in their place. The old hated the new and as vengeance spent all the balances and reserves rather than hand them over to the successor councils. I was a new, inexperienced councillor in Banbury and I saw it all happening at first hand. A new sports hall and complex, Spiceball Park, was built. More accurately, it should perhaps have been called Spiteball Park. But it was much needed and welcomed. It improved the facilities in the town. The only athletics track of any merit built in Banbury in the

197
1980s was on a school campus, but only after a swathe of the school's playing fields were sold off to developers to pay for that facility. So there were two good outcomes from two bad processes, but that should not be used as a template for the future.
Neither could or should we ignore the damage done to school sport throughout the 1980s and the 1990s. The national curriculum acted like a cuckoo in the nest tossing PE out of the timetable and wrecking after-school activities. Local authorities, cash strapped and capped, had no capability of improving facilities for sport or initiating athletics programmes.
Having looked back, what of the future? What lessons have we learned and what should we improve? We must acknowledge the financial support provided by lottery funds. It is difficult to find any major project which has not benefited from them. The Government have put sport, with health, education and social inclusion, at the very heart of their programme. Resurrecting school sport, with a minimum of two hours per week, with school sport co-ordinators and trained PE specialists, is going to be the first part of that programme. Giving £581 million to sports facilities in every LEA in England and a further £130 million for Space for Sport and primary schools, are surely tangible examples of progress for sport in general and inevitably for athletics in the future.
Turning to the heart beat of British sport, we need to look no further than amateur clubs run by volunteers. They may well have helped the noble Lord, Lord Coe, reach his potential. There are also small tennis clubs like the one that helped my daughter on her way to play tennis at Wimbledon. These are at last being recognised, whether by tax concessions or charitable status. They will find new impetus in the years to come as a direct result of government intervention.
The UK Sports Institute is an exciting project which will give the essential skills and training opportunities to improve the performance of our most gifted athletes. We have witnessed similar schemes abroad. Our own centres of excellence are long overdue.
We are also bringing in new guidelines and are determined to stop once and for all the sale of playing fields. There will be no more getting around the rules. It has to be done. At the same time that legislation will make it easier not only to provide new sporting facilities, making it mandatory for local authorities to provide a full audit, but also to alter the planning balance so that existing clubs can upgrade facilities providing playing and training opportunities fitted to this century and not to the middle of the last. Stupid objections to floodlights and simple basic improvements can bring small clubs to their knees. They will now get better government support.
There should be hats off to Richard Caborne who said recently,
"In sport, as in many other areas, one-size-fits-all programmes imposed from London are not the solution to problems which take different forms in different places".
Amen to that. Let us see flexible local delivery of programmes with a mix of public and private funding, with schemes wanted by local residents. There should be more region and less regimentation.
198
Finally, I shall go completely off-message in the belief that, so near Christmas, no one will read Hansard, and tell noble Lords my two Christmas wishes. First, the Minister for Sport, far from having too much power, has far too little. He should have more power to be a force at the heart and at the beginning of major projects, rather than trying to pick up the pieces of damaged schemes. Secondly, we should take a very good look at the facilities in the rest of Europe. How come every large village or small town has almost certainly a stadium and a range of sporting facilities funded and maintained by local government? Cannot we do the same? We can and do host world-class events such as Wimbledon, Open golf championships and so forth. Next year we shall host the Commonwealth Games.
There is much to celebrate. Let us build on our positive initiatives and enable talented performers to emerge not despite of but because of excellent sporting opportunities. We look forward with confidence and eagerness to the next Sebastian Coe, or even Sabrina Coe, and make a reality of the slogan "Sport For All" for all abilities and in all activities.
7 p.m.
Lord Coe: My Lords, I should declare that I am currently President of the Amateur Athletic Association of England and non-executive chairman of Fasttrack, a company which promotes the commercial interests of British athletics.
I rise to address this House for the first time in what, judging by the list of speakers, promises to be a debate of extremely high quality and on a subject obviously dear to my heart. I immediately compliment my noble friend Lord Glentoran on not only initiating such a timely debate but on so eloquently and elegantly making his case. It will have come as no surprise to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Glentoran, with his own distinguished and unique contribution to British olympism, should have spoken with such passion and great common sense on the current difficulties faced by the sport of athletics, arguably the cornerstone of the Olympic Games; I say "arguably" before I am laid siege to by swimmers, rowers and gymnasts.
My noble friend Lord Glentoran made his own sporting history by sliding with considerable style to Britain's first and only Olympic gold medal in the two-man bob at the winter Olympic Games in Innsbruck in 1964. I slid, less elegantly, from the House of Commons in 1997. But, like all retired athletes, I am now happy to settle for a more sedate pace in a more rarefied atmosphere.
British athletics and Olympic sport have much to be grateful for the past endeavours and contributions made by many Members of this House. My noble friend Lord Higgins was part of the British Olympic team in 1948 and 1952 and the Empire Games in 1950. The late Lord Luke, the father of my noble friend, was a formidable and independent member of the International Olympic Committee. Some have even made it from the committee room to the silver screen:

199
Lord Burghley, the Sixth Marquess of Exeter, was a gold medallist in the 1928 Olympic Games and a silver medallist in 1932—exploits that inspired the character of Lord Lindsay in the great film, "Chariots of Fire".
Beyond athletics, I feel that I really must mention my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who, as a cox in the eights, won silver medals at the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games and the 1991 world championships. Your Lordships will no doubt remember the occasion when the rudder broke and my noble friend was faced with an unpredictable boat that could veer off course at any moment—an event that undoubtedly helped to prepare him for government!
Athletics has never been our foremost national sport. The British love of soccer has been a long affair. But athletics has given us some of the most memorable moments in the history of British sport. Who can forget Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams in Paris in 1924; Roger Bannister shattering the four-minute mile in 1954; Lynn Davies's and Mary Rand's Olympic titles in 1964; Daley Thompson, Sally Gunnell and Jonathan Edwards in more recent times; and Tanni Grey Thompson, with a remarkable achievement of 14 medals in four successive paralympic games.
The strength of British athletics, the foundation stones of past success in major championships and the envy of much of the sporting world is the work done by the 1,500 athletics clubs. One of the most distinguishing features of this country is the voluntary work to be found in a raft of activities. There is no better example of this voluntary ethos than that found in British sport. In athletics, there is no better example than the work done by the army of unpaid coaches and administrators, often in our hard-pressed inner cities and our facility-starved rural areas, where coaching is commonly combined with some of the most sensitive and targeted social work to be found in any community. Nor must we ever lose sight of the role that these clubs have played in the crucial identification and sensitive development of many of those that are now on the roll call of honour. For them to go on playing that vital role, they will need proper resourcing and fiscal support. I ask the Government to look again at their refusal to place voluntary sports clubs on an equal footing with charities on their business rates.
There are many in this House, and not just those who have been involved in sport, who understand the powerful force for good that sport brings into the lives of the people of this country and their communities. Athletics is not alone in this process, but it can claim almost uniquely to be a truly multi-racial sport with roots deep in all communities. The recent reports on the riots in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham found that:
"Sporting opportunities can play an important role in re-engaging disaffected sections of the community, building shared social capital and grass roots leadership through improved cross cultural interaction".
That is a description of athletics.
At this moment, up and down the country, there are athletes and coaches striving to be the best. Over the past few years I have seen them in their thousands.
200
They would never let anyone down. But today they are themselves being let down by poor organisation and serious shortcomings at national level. As Lamine Diack, the President of the International Association of Athletic Federations, told me last Friday:
"I simply don't understand how Britain, a country with such a history in athletics, can get it so wrong".
British athletics, on the record of the past 30 years, athletics has been this country's most successful sport. But, for all its strengths—we are ranked fourth in the world behind only the USA, Germany and Russia—it has not been without its problems.
For all its successes on the track, when athletics has needed political help, it has had difficulty getting off the starting blocks. We won the right to stage the 2005 World Athletics Championships, but we lost that right through our inability to build an athletics stadium to host the event. I believe that our failure to host it is a serious and damaging blow to British athletics and a further dent in our already battered international reputation.
When the Prime Minister said in January 2000 that Britain would look forward to hosting the World Athletics Championships in 2005, he stated:
"World class facilities will be ready, our athletes will be ready and our people will be ready. We look forward to welcoming the world athletics family to London".
Well, the athletes would have been ready but the facilities would not. So, if anyone wants to go to watch the World Athletics Championships, they will now have spend their money in some other city, which will no doubt gratefully receive it. It is hardly surprising that, within days of the London bid collapsing, serious offers were received from Berlin, Stuttgart, Munich, Budapest, Brisbane, Barcelona, Madrid, Brussels and Rome. The Secretary of State has said that the Government,
"acted decisively to put in place a first class alternative in Sheffield, which will deliver the games … as a long term legacy for athletics in the UK".
No one who knows anything about the world of international sport could possibly have thought that, having won the right to hold a world championship, you can casually move it to another city without reopening the bidding process.
Those who talk of grass roots funding as an alternative to hosting these games should remember that there could be no bigger boost for the grass roots than a world championships broadcast on prime time television, blue-chip sponsorship and worldwide exposure for Britain. Imagine the inspiration for tomorrow's stars seeing the finest athletes competing in their own back yard. It would also have been a crucial platform for a British Olympic bid for 2012. The events of the past two years have made the task of putting together a serious Olympic bid not impossible, but certainly more difficult.
I find it sad that a country that has helped to construct a global coalition against terrorism is unable to construct a domestic coalition to build a stadium. I find it depressing that a country that boasts the fourth largest economy in the world cannot afford to

201
host the third largest sporting event in the world. And I find it alarming that a country that has produced so many top-flight athletes can so easily let down the athletes of the future.
We need politicians on both sides of the House to take the time to understand sport in depth. Soundbites are simply not enough. We need politicians and administrators to understand the competitiveness and administration of the modern international sporting industry. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that gold medal athletes need gold medal administration. Let us hope that on all sides of the House we have learnt the lessons and are ready to deliver.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it is an immense privilege and pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coe. He and I first met when we served together on the Sports Council in the late 1980s. He was already by then a sporting superstar—an icon for young British athletes. He had won the BBC "Sports Personality of the Year" award in 1979 and had been elected the sports writers' "Sportsman of the Year" four times.
There is not time for me this evening to cover all of his achievements on the running track. However, what sticks most in the memory were his 1,500 metre gold medals in the 1980 Moscow and 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, his silver medals for the 800 metres in both games and the succession of world records that he held between 1979 and 1981—for 1,500, 800 and 1,000 metres and for the world one mile record. In six astonishing weeks in the summer of 1979, he broke three world records—two of them at the Bislett Stadium in Oslo. For that, the Norwegians awarded him the Bislett medal and, according to their people at the embassy, accorded him something approaching god-like status in that country. Never has there been a Member of your Lordships' House who has run faster than he, not even when running late for a Division.
Since he retired from professional athletics, the noble Lord has had two further successful careers—as a businessman and as a politician and public servant. I referred a moment ago to his time on the Sports Council; he was also a member of the Health Education Authority for five years. He was elected to the other place in 1992 for Falmouth and Camborne, served three Ministers as their Parliamentary Private Secretary and became a government Whip in 1996. After the 1997 election he was private secretary to William Hague, and his judo partner. Honours and recognition continued—deservedly—to come his way. That is summed up in the sports writers' award in 1998 for the:
"Most outstanding contribution to sport in the last 50 years".
We are very lucky to have him in this House. Having heard a maiden speech from him of such quality and perception, we all look forward to hearing from him again on many future occasions.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for asking this Unstarred Question. As the noble Lord, Lord Coe, reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord
202
Glentoran, himself has a very distinguished sporting record. He is allowing us to look at one of the most difficult areas within the remit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It would be untrue to say that the handling of the Wembley and Picketts Lock saga has been an unqualified success, and I fear that none of the parties or individuals concerned emerges with their reputations unblemished. I have attempted to make some sense of the various reports and public announcements surrounding these issues. It seems that there will never be agreement between the various dramatis personae on what went on.
One inescapable fact is that most of the people who were in positions of responsibility at the beginning are not there now. Mr Ken Bates is no longer chairman of the national stadium company; Mr Derek Casey has left his job as chief executive of Sport England; Mr Bob Stubbs resigned as chief executive of Wembley National Stadium Limited; Mr Tony Banks MP left office as Minister for Sport half way through the saga. And the entire DCMS ministerial team departed immediately after the general election in June.
All the former Ministers with responsibility for sport spoke in a fascinating debate in the other place last week, to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred. That debate was on the report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on Picketts Lock and the world athletics championships. That report is famous for its adjectives, which include "bizarre", "inept", "cavalier" and "scandalous".
I guess that tomorrow's expected decision to confirm the rebuilding of Wembley as the national stadium will close the debate on whet her athletics and football can co-exist in a new national stadium. I assume that Sport England will not have to wait any longer for the return of the £20 million out of the £120 million that was granted to the Football Association. I might add that my understanding of the original deal was that the three sports—football, rugby and athletics—would co-exist in the national stadium. Since one of the three partners now appears likely to be excluded, it seems odd that the amount to be returned is not one third of the public funding but only one sixth. I just wonder how much football, which is our country's richest sport by miles, would have received from Sport England if it had said at the outset that it was going to build a stadium that made no provision for athletics.
An important lesson that we should learn from all of that is that we would be better advised, certainly in the short term, to look at ways in which we can improve assistance to individual athletes and to increase sports provision generally, rather than spend all of our resources on big and unrealistic projects and on bids for events that we are unlikely to bring to this country. Here, I am afraid, I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Coe, because I include in that the Olympic Games and the football World Cup Finals.
In that context, I applaud the efforts of the current Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, who has set himself the target of investing in grass-roots sport, increasing participation in schools by young people

203
and ensuring lifelong participation by adults. In the debate in the other place last week, he said that he also wanted,
"to place emphasis on the need to improve coaching and talent identification, to refurbish community facilities, to ensure that there is adequate maintenance of existing facilities, and to provide better support for our top athletes".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/01; col. 773.]
Imagine, my Lords, that you are a 12 year-old child who is watching the Olympics on television. You show great promise as an athlete, and you say to yourself, "I want to become the next Jonathan Edwards, or Denise Lewis". But at school your facilities are only average. Sports are part of the curriculum but there is no specialist teaching for a child like you with a bit of talent. The local athletics club seems to spend all of its time fundraising just to buy basic equipment and to keep the club going. If a national athletics stadium costing £100 million is built you might one day get to visit it but, unless we invest in nurturing your talent, you certainly will not be performing in it in a few years' time. With our poor record of staging international events, you are unlikely even to be a spectator at a world athletic games.
The truth is that there is no point in having a modern, well-equipped national athletics stadium if children at local schools have no opportunities to do well at track and field events. Most schools do not have a decent running track or field. Many sports pitches are in a terrible state of repair, often because no full-time groundsman is employed to look after the pitch or track, whose condition therefore deteriorates. So they become unsafe and unusable. Changing room facilities are often awful.
Other countries do better and invest in athletics at grass-roots level, as my noble friend Lady Billingham said. In France virtually every small town and large village has a stade municipale, which offers a running track, a football pitch and a modern changing pavilion. The New Opportunities Fund, which is chaired with such distinction by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, is investing £581 million in England in physical education and school sport. There is also a huge expansion in the school sport co-ordinator programme, particularly at primary school level. Those two initiatives will, I hope, make a huge difference. But we have a very long way to go.
By contrast, one thing that we seem to be getting right is our support for top athletes. UK Sport is in the lead in terms of providing lottery funding for the world class performance programme—it is giving almost £2 million a year for four years. Eighty athletes are named as part of the world class performance programme—27 athletes are on Commonwealth Games packages for England and 140 athletes are on the world class potential programme, which is supported by Sport England.
That approach builds on the pioneering work of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts carried out in the first half of the 1990s. I declare an interest in that I am now a trustee of that body, as are my noble friend Lord Attenborough and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of
204
Tara. In those days, the foundation had the money to make 4,250 grants to individual athletes, totalling £3.6 million. Then, recipients included Steven Redgrave and Matthew Pinsent.
The difference made by the funding of athletes has been immense. In the past, a budding athlete had to combine a job with training. That meant not only getting up at the crack of dawn to train before work and for hours after work and at weekends; young athletes also had to depend upon the generosity of employers and supporters to help to raise the funds for their training.
That has changed, and the investment in athletes has already paid dividends. In the Sydney Olympics, Britain won 28 medals—11 of them gold—which made it the most successful games since Antwerp in 1920. Therefore, the lesson is: concentrate on the grass roots and the individual athletes and do not be obsessed and side-tracked by the big, unrealistic and grandiose projects.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, we are all deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Glentoran for initiating this debate today and for telling us the facts so clearly. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Coe on a brilliant maiden speech. This House is often derided for being out of date, and so on. But I doubt whether many legislatures in the world can produce in one debate two speeches from Olympic gold medallists sitting on the same Bench. That certainly cannot be equalled down the corridor in another place.
I declare various interests. I was Minister for Sport and the Minister with responsibility for sport in Scotland, and for five years was shadow Minister for Sport opposite Dennis Howell. He and I got on extremely well together and often discussed many of the appointments to the Sports Council and the detail of other policies before he made them. I believe that that is a policy that has rather disappeared in recent years. I have also been president of the three governing bodies of rugby football. motorcycling and shooting, and a member of the BOA and the CCPR.
I am afraid that I want to talk more controversially about the sorry story of incompetence and muddle concerning Wembley and other fiascos. Last week we had a Question on the subject of school playing fields. The matters raised took us a long way from the manifesto of the Labour Party in 1997. The tax exemption policy promoted by the Treasury last month has caused a shock wave through the CCPR and the National Playing Fields Association. I heard Sir Steven Redgrave say that, too. That is not what people wanted. They did not want a complicated tax exemption policy. They wanted something more along the lines of a mandatory rate relief, as applies to charities. That is certainly the most disappointing step to have been taken by the present Government.
Of course, people are highly critical, too, of the percentage loss of lottery money, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. They are critical not only of the total but because a percentage of the total has

205
been taken away from sport and given to the New Opportunities Fund. That fund contributes to all sorts of things. But the Government should be making those contributions and not taking money from the lottery. Fortunately, this week the Government appear to have recovered their poise, but they had been dragging their feet seriously over the British Grand Prix in relation to the infrastructure at Silverstone.
But the main interest in the debate this evening is athletics and stadiums. The Government seem to have lost their way and caused turmoil, which I fear will take years to put right. I certainly do not need to repeat the withering criticisms of the Select Committee or of many Members of Parliament in the debate that took place last week in the House of Commons.
As noble Lords have said, we did well in the last Olympics. Great credit should be given to the British Olympic Association, UK Athletics and the governing bodies of the individual sports—sailing, rowing, cycling, equestrianism, and so on. All those sports did exceptionally well. Indeed, in recent years this country has done well in world sports. The sporting bodies certainly have not deserved the slap in the face that they have received from the Government over the past year or two.
It is sad to reflect on the loss of our world influence in sport and sports bodies. I refer to Sir Stanley Rous, Lord Exeter, Lord Killanin, who was Irish but was very much in the British Isles context. It will be a long haul to regain the prestige that we had in world governing bodies. The Government must do their share to help through diplomacy and social activities. We must give cocktail parties to visiting sports officials in order to make them feel wanted in this country. In time, they will elect some of our members to the major governing positions.
In October the Government gave their response to the White Paper, Staging International Sporting Events. I must say that it was very disappointing. Throughout their response to the Select Committee they seem to find a difficulty for every solution and do not show much enthusiasm. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Coe and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. We must have a focus to bring world events to this country. If we do not make an effort to do so, the reward that we reap will be very disappointing.
We must take a risk, as Sydney did. One has only to look at how the success there reverberated throughout Australia, both in terms of prestige and financially. We must be prepared to look ahead as the Australian Government did and to help ourselves rather more than we are doing at present. We should not concentrate always on cost-effectiveness, value for money or nit-picking over the last dollar.
I turn to matters of wishful thinking and nostalgia. My noble friend Lord Higgins will well remember the great days of the White City, when Bannister, Chataway, Kuts and Zátopek hurtled round on an old cinder track but drew enormous crowds. That is something we no longer have. We must try to bring
206
those crowds back to athletics, while bearing in mind that television was in a far more infantile state in those days than it is today.
However, we have a basic problem in that a 400-metre running track cannot go round the outside of a full-sized football or rugby ground. That would cause immense problems inside a stadium. If an eight track and another track or a jumping pit is built around a pitch, the spectators will be too far away from the football action. Therefore, it is almost impossible to have a good football stadium and a good athletics stadium at one and the same time. I remember that when the Commonwealth Games came to Scotland, we asked whether we should try to put a running track inside Murrayfield instead of building, as we did eventually, Meadowbank. But it involved digging out half the terracing and a great deal of the seating around the stand and making a mess of one of the finest rugby grounds in the world.
I now turn to what the Government tried to do. They hatched the Wembley plan together with the athletics configuration for the World Championships for 2005, which had been promised. But taking the athletics aspect into account would have cut the number of spectators to 67,000. That would have been insufficient for an Olympic bid, which needs 80,000 or more spectators. Therefore, the Wembley proposal was finally scrapped. In passing, many of us asked why the event needed to take place at Wembley. Why do we not continue the idea of going round the major, impressive football grounds throughout the United Kingdom, which will be enhanced in a few years by new grounds at Arsenal and Liverpool? Despite all the handicaps, the Government tried to press on with a £650 million project, which would have covered the infrastructure as well.
I want to raise a point which was referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I cannot understand how Sport England allowed £120 million to go to the FA at an early stage before any final decisions were made. I say that that money should be repaid in full by the FA to Sport England so that it can be regenerated into sport generally. After all, football seems to be a very wealthy sport—one has only to look at the transfer fees and at the weekly salaries of the many great players. One wonders why football cannot pay for its own stadium if it is determined to have one.
When all that fell through the Government set course for Picketts Lock. We know how impractical that turned out to be. That then fell through and with it went our application for the World Games in 2005. As the noble Lord, Lord Coe, said, it was naïve of the Government to suggest to the president of the IAAF that we should transfer our application from Picketts Lock to Sheffield. That was the height of indiscretion and highlighted the lack of understanding of international procedures in the world of athletics. The episode of Wembley, Picketts Lock and all the other options put forward by the Government was disgraceful.
We do not know what the statement by the Football Association will say tomorrow, nor do we know what the future holds for athletics in the world situation. We

207
have Tyne stadium, Meadowbank, Gateshead, Manchester, Birmingham, Crystal Palace, Sheffield, Antrim and others, but none of those is big enough to take world or Olympic competitions. We have to find a way to enable those competitions to come to this country. To have international competitions in this country means so much to our young people. They follow the success of international competitions, which is to be encouraged. If we do nothing else in this debate, we must encourage the Government to put their house in order and to make the correct decisions to forward the interests of the youth of this country.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is an interesting and timely debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on undertaking a job that I did not want at any price. When I heard that the noble Lord, Lord Coe, was to make his maiden speech today, I did not want to have to sum up his achievements in athletics in a debate on the subject.
This debate has been overshadowed by the disaster of the national stadium, whether at Wembley or Picketts Lock. After everything went wrong all those involved are still pulling out the splinters. It will colour the debate on sport far into the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said that we should concentrate more on grass roots and talent development. He is right, but he missed one point. For sport to be successful one important component is necessary: sport has to be fashionably acceptable. Generally that is achieved in any sport by exposure and by success. If that is not present, the interest is not built up and people do not become involved. We often overlook that. Even in our sporting culture, we have had upturns and downturns in our major sport, football.
For a brief period England's Rugby Union team, conquering all before it, made rugby a fashionable sport. Unfortunately, due to arcane laws, Rugby Union was forced to open up rather than staying a strictly amateur game, the money boys came in and they nearly destroyed large sections of it. Suddenly the sport stopped being fashionable because the success dried up.
Success and the culture around sport is vital. That is probably the best argument that I can think of for holding a major championship. The Commonwealth Games, in which all sports come together, is a wonderful event and will give us some of the glamour and success, but it does not have the bite of the World Athletics Championships, the Olympics or the soccer World Cup. Those big events are required to keep the interest and the focus alive, so that children will say, "I want to do that". That is why such events are so important.
Dozens of other spin-offs are involved. Big events bring an immediate boost to tourism and the economy. I totally agree that we have to fund amateur clubs properly to ensure that people can take part in sport at
208
some form of competitive level or as recreational pursuits. If patterns and habits are established, we can ensure that we cut down on our health bill.
We have pumped large sums of money into the National Health Service, but we do not appear to take on board the idea that many diseases from which we suffer are caused by our sedentary lifestyle. We also are paranoid about children walking anywhere, and to do so probably is not much more dangerous than it was in the past. People refer to children adopting a "Gameboy culture" rather than running around outside. Making sport fashionable and providing good coaching will help the health bill and benefits will be reaped in terms of a healthier society with less loss of production. For that reason it is important to have an overview.
I feel that we have wasted one of the greatest opportunities in terms of sports funding that we shall ever have. The slices of the cake from the National Lottery have become smaller due to the New Opportunities Fund. Initially we were told that some things would not be paid for out of the New Opportunities Fund. As everybody predicted, a smaller amount of money is being received from the National Lottery. It was almost inevitable that that would happen.
I now turn to the expensive part of funding sport, ensuring that things are run properly and coaching. It is difficult to raise funds for matters of that kind. Building a stadium or a new facility is comparatively easy; running one is the difficult part. That was made clear in the old Soviet Union. That country could always build structures, but could not repair them.
We shall have to look closely at whether sport and other good causes can live together in the New Opportunities Fund or whether something will happen to push the matter back into government funding. It does not matter which ones go where as long as they receive the resources required.
This is an important period in sport. Sport has to be taken seriously and the vision and the will to see through the mission are necessary. At the moment we are saying, "Let's do everything", and in the end we have changed our minds and failed. Unless we have an overall vision that takes into account the whole economy and the way in which we live, and unless we bring in joined-up government, we shall continue to miss the target because there will always be a new fashion icon.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for giving us the opportunity to consider how to ensure that athletics has a healthy future as a sport in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that we should enable young people to have the opportunity to develop excellence in athletics. It is also important that we make it possible for those of us who will never be a Seb Coe to develop our skills as far as possible and to enjoy doing so.

209
I was privileged to be present to hear my noble friend's maiden speech. He reminded us that athletics has given us some memorable moments in British sport. I certainly remember him taking part in some; I never thought that I would be a colleague of his, which is certainly a pleasure.
Hosting international events can raise the United Kingdom's sports profile internationally and raise the profile of a particular sport within the UK. The World Athletics Championships is the third most important international sporting event after the Olympics and the World Cup. Hosting it raises our international sporting profile. Vitally, as pointed out by noble Lords today, it has an important impact on the thousands of young people who see an event taking place in their country and are then inspired to take part in that sport, and perhaps to develop their skills to the full.
A home venue also gives athletes a competitive advantage. The World Athletics Championships would have brought significant benefits to our sports people. But we have lost any chance of that with the Government's meddling in and mishandling of the issue of where the 2005 championships should be held.
As noble Lords have mentioned, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of another place recently published an excoriating report which details its catalogue of evidence of the Government's culpability in the story of the Picketts Lock fiasco. As my noble friend Lord Monro pointed out, the report describes how a national athletics centre at Picketts Lock was plucked out of the air by the Government and then abruptly dropped. It describes how the Government got involved beyond their scope and powers in conjuring up a project that the Select Committee judged to be unviable from the start.
In July 1999 the right honourable Chris Smith launched the Wembley project saying that the new stadium,
"will be a magnificent venue for athletics as well as for football".
Yet just a few months later he told Parliament that the venue was a dud. It was no good as a basis for an Olympics hid and,
"it seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate venue for the world athletics championship".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/99; col. 306.]
It was at that stage that the Government decided to remove athletics from Wembley and find another venue. The Select Committee concluded at paragraph 23 that,
"the initial decision to remove athletics from Wembley was beyond the proper responsibilities of the then Secretary of State and was taken in a hurry on flimsy and subjective grounds".
The report added that the national stadium concept was developed precisely to solve the problem that an athletics-only stadium for the largest of the events would be economically unsustainable. To abandon that solution precipitately and propose in its place an athletics-only stadium was therefore, it said, perverse. To abandon athletics at Wembley on the grounds of its possible unsuitability for an embryonic Olympic bid, and then to substitute efforts to build an athletics-only stadium which was, by design, not suitable as a main
210
Olympic venue, can only be described as—the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to this earlier—bizarre. That was one of the interesting adjectives used by the committee in its report.
By the time that the IAAF council had accepted London's bid, Picketts Lock had been identified as the venue for the championship. The IAAF only accepted the UK bid on the condition that UK Athletics could demonstrate that clear progress had been made on the stadium by October of this year. Ministerial confidence in the project continued unabated, even though the problems of Picketts Lock grew daily.
Indeed in the committee's third report, an earlier report to the one mentioned by noble Lords, published on 30th March, highlighted the problems that had beset Picketts Lock: a shortfall in the assembled capital funding; the lack of an underwriter for the event; a question mark over the quality of the stadium and its long-term sustainability; transport and infrastructure issues—bad 30 to 40 years ago, as I know having grown up in the area, let alone now; and a short timetable because the plug had been pulled on athletics at Wembley.
But the Government's manifesto this year was still clear. It stated:
"We will maintain the elite funding we put in place for individual athletics with a first-class athletics stadium for the World Athletics Championships in 2005".
But the first act of the Prime Minister after the election was to sack his existing ministerial team at CMS. The new Secretary of State commissioned Patrick Carter to look at the problems of Wembley and of Picketts Lock.
The Government finally woke up to the problem at Picketts Lock. It was a project in terminal difficulty. They pulled the plug on it and tried to shuffle the world championships off to Sheffield. The Government's last ditch attempt to divert attention away from their meddling in the whole issue simply set up Sheffield to be knocked back by the IAAF. It quite rightly said that it could not simply shift such championships without reopening bidding. It at least had to follow proper procedures.
So today we have no Wembley, no Picketts Lock, no Sheffield and no 2005 World Championships in the UK. The effects of the U-turn by Ministers are far-reaching. The International Olympic Committee president said:
"Of course the Picketts Lock situation was a very serious one. A country not being able to fulfil its pledge to host a major competition is not a trivial matter".
It is a mess. How do we get out of it for the future good of athletics and the athletes in this country? There are urgent questions that the Government should address. Are they seriously considering the recommendation, at paragraph 67 of the report, of whether there is a last opportunity to return to the original strategy of a national stadium at Wembley for football, rugby and major athletics events? As the report points out, without that it seems clear that there will be no suitable venue for athletics in London capable of staging the world championships or the Olympics and therefore

211
little prospect of attracting these events to the capital for the foreseeable future. My noble friend Lord Monro carefully described how difficult it is to combine athletics and football in the same stadium. It is a problem to which I assume the Government will want us to return tomorrow, but I hope that the Minister will give some response on these issues with regard to athletics today.
Do the Government accept that they must state clearly whether or not they want the UK to be a host for the larger sporting events as a facet of their wider sports policy, including the encouragement of grassroots participation, and as an element of the way that the UK is perceived internationally? How will the Government respond to the plea by UK Sport for a coordinated world-class facility strategy for the whole of the UK to underpin any bids for international events?
I noticed that the Secretary of State announced a review on 23rd October by the Performance and Innovation Unit within the Cabinet Office of the policy in relation to the bidding for and staging of major events. What is the timetable for that? Some while ago I tabled a Written Question with regard to this matter. I am still awaiting an Answer. It may be that the noble Lord will give me a pleasant surprise today and be able to provide it.
Do the Government accept that they must now establish a proper relationship between the managing body that bears the responsibility for delivering sporting projects and a government which should be an enabler. They should enable and help the project to deliver without interfering in the way that they have done so far. My noble friends Lord Glentoran and Lord Monro clearly pointed out how important it is for a government to assist and to support organisations deliver sporting events but not to interfere in them.
Whatever the Minister's response today, it is clear that we have lost the World Athletics Championships. That is a terrible blow. However, it is important now that we move forward; the Government must work with Sport England and all the athletics bodies throughout the UK to ensure that there is a positive legacy for athletics. Our athletes need it and they certainly deserve it.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for introducing the debate. It has been well informed with some outstanding contributions, but also it has reflected the deep interest, indeed passion, of those who participate in sport.
Not all of us in the House can boast of the outstanding achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Coe, who has taken this occasion to make his maiden speech. But he communicated effectively just how much athletics has meant not just to him but, as he has discerned it, to the nation. All of us who have participated in the debate today have also in our own less distinguished ways sought to reflect the
212
commitment to sport and, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised, to the question of sport for its own sake but also for the health of the nation. We all recognise the valuable role that sport has to play in that.
Let me begin by emphasising that the Government do not have policies for individual sports, but we have published a detailed strategy for developing sport as a whole in this country. How those policies are best applied to individual sports is a matter for the sports councils working in partnership with the governing bodies of the sports concerned.
The Government seek to provide an environment in which sport can thrive and, through the sports councils, to offer leadership and co-ordination to an important, but diverse and fragmented, field of activity. I may add to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that we intend—it is in our published expenditure plans—to increase expenditure on sport from £66 million to £103 million in 2003. Our policy is backed up by Government resources, as well as funds available from the National Lottery.
As has been emphasised this evening, athletics is one of our major sports. The noble Lord, Lord Coe, said—with a slight air of regret—that athletics has never been our foremost national sport and paid tribute to football in that role. However, in recent surveys, achievement in international athletics ranks second only to achievement in football, so we are discussing a sport of major concern to the nation. Therefore, the Government greatly regret the circumstances arising from our withdrawal from the 2005 World Athletics Championships bid. Those circumstances have been explored in the House today, in numerous parliamentary questions, and in Select Committee and debates in the other place.
The Government recognise that we have a significant obligation to the development of athletics. Let us derive good from misfortune. The loss of the athletics championship through the failures regarding the stadiums is to be regretted. Nevertheless, it releases funds for us to cherish and develop opportunities for athletics. Several noble Lords have said that the Government need to pay attention to that and the appropriate bodies.
The money that would have been spent on Picketts Lock is now available to spend on sport in schools. Several noble Lords have mentioned the tremendous importance of improving our schools' facilities. My noble friends Lady Billington and Lord Faulkner emphasised how much they welcome the attention being given to improving facilities for school sport. That is costly; the Government are committed to a considerable expansion in schools' sports facilities, some of which is made possible by funds that would have been used elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Coe, also emphasised the crucial role of sporting clubs. We all glory in our athletics and sports clubs. After all, they are the basis of a great deal of volunteer support in the community and develop our subsequent high-level talent. Of course they need support. In reply to the penetrating

213
speech, drawing on substantial experience from his previous role as Minister for Sport, made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, of course the Government are considering how to support sports clubs.
I emphasise that the Government's mind is not made up on how best to afford that. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has signalled his intention to provide support, and it is for sports bodies to explain to the Government how they think that that can best be effected. It has been recognised by the Government at a high level that support for sports clubs is necessary and that the interface between school sporting opportunities and clubs is of colossal importance.
It is still to be regretted that not only are many of our young people leaving school and other educational facilities far too early, but far too many of them have their last sporting experience at school and do not take up such opportunities thereafter. It is our task in the wider society to ensure that facilities are available for that to occur.
That is not just to provide the great achievers of the future, but it is important for us to recognise sporting excellence at the highest level. That is why resources to develop elite competitors is of great importance. Lottery funded programmes are investing more than £40 million a year in elite sport through the World Class Performance programmes run by UK Sport and Sport England. They target funds at top sportsmen and women—as my noble friend Lord Faulkner said. That provision is there to ensure that we achieve excellence at the highest level and recognise the inspiration given to our nation by high-level achievement.
I think that every Member of the House has reflected with gratitude on all those who have hit the highest level in athletics and thrilled the nation in the past. We pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coe, and others for their achievements. There is no doubt that inspiration from such achievements has a significant impact on sport.
I am a little more reserved on the question of whether hosting great sporting events in the country necessarily brings an automatic spin-off in sporting achievement—or even sporting enthusiasm—among the young and older people in the country. I am conscious of the fact that the world's greatest lawn tennis tournament has taken place in this country for many years. I share with so many others our deep disappointment that that is not reflected in tennis achievement at the highest level, and has not been since the days of Fred Perry. So we should not think that great events and occasions produce such a spin-off, but there is no doubt that it would be remiss of me not to say that there is regret in government that the Wembley Stadium and Picketts Lock projects foundered.
The analysis of the Wembley Stadium project given by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, was entirely fair. There is a real difficulty in the present day and age with combining the requirements of modern football and the expectations of spectators at modern football
214
events with an athletics stadium. The attempt at Wembley Stadium to solve that problem was unsuccessful. I entirely reject the idea that the Government could just have stood back from a project to which so much public money of one kind or another had been committed. But of course, the then Secretary of State did not take a unilateral action, he was involved in deep consultation with the bodies concerned on the feasibility of the project.
That led to the attempt to develop Picketts Lock. That stadium foundered not on the construction of the stadium but on the provision of support facilities—especially accommodation for athletes—in the time available. All noble Lords must recognise that we could not have provided a first-rate opportunity for international athletes if almost an hour of every day on which they sought to compete had been consumed in travel to the arena because of the inadequacy of accommodation around Picketts Lock.
That has released significant sums of money to be invested in school sport and sports clubs and to provide government support in increasing the opportunities for athletic prowess. I have no doubt that all those aspects take a considerable time before producing results. We all recognise that top athletic achievement is not produced overnight but is the product of considerable support over a number of years.
In once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for introducing the debate, I want to emphasise that despite the many charges which have been made against the Government, they are firmly committed to enhancing the opportunities for athletics. The resources now available as a result of their release from the national stadium project can be devoted towards increasing athletic opportunities at grass roots and I have no doubt that the country will benefit from that development.

Flood Defences
8.1 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking for long-term defences against floods, including the restriction on the building of new houses on flood plains.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I decided to raise the subject of flood defences and building on coastal plains as a result of visiting a doctor's surgery in Lewes a month or two ago and picking up a pamphlet informing residents where to obtain sandbags, how long they had before receiving a warning call and where they were to go in the event of another flood. I came to the conclusion that it was time we moved on from what the Norwich Union has called "the sandbag culture" of inadequate defences and poor planning to a more rational and, I accept, more expensive approach to flood defences.
I shall speak primarily about Lewes and Sussex. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me but that is the part of the world I know best. I realise that other

215
noble Lords will speak about other parts of the country which have experienced the same problems. My wife and I are lucky because we live halfway up the hill outside Lewes and were not affected. Other people we know well were. It is worth remembering that during 24 hours on 11th and 12th October 2000, 134 millimetres of rain fell and there was a two-hour flood warning. As a result, 600 homes were dispossessed and 200 businesses evacuated. Some people have not returned to their premises either because there was too much damage, because they cannot afford the insurance or because sewage was in the floodwater and there is still a health and safety risk. That problem is faced by people in the neighbouring towns of Uckfield and Robertsbridge.
I have great respect for the work being done by the Environment Agency. It is examining a number of plans for Lewes which involve options such as upstream storage, new dams, altering the course of the river and even evacuating houses in the lower part of the town. However, the agency hopes to do that in a shorter time than usual. Its last big project in West Sussex was in Chichester where it moved the River Lavant sideways. That took seven years. The view is that the project in Lewes would take at least five years and that it is not a capital spending priority.
That brings me to the position of East Sussex County Council. It has a 5.7 per cent increase in this year's standard spending assessment for flood defence. But that has to be set against an increase of 10.5 per cent in the precept for the Environment Agency for flood defences and proposed increases of 14 per cent next year. The flood defence committee which met two or three nights ago—it comprises East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton and Hove—decided that it could afford only 9 per cent. Therefore, despite all the difficulties, dangers and worries, there will be underspending on capital assets which need restoring because the local authority cannot afford to take the money out of its current short-term spending. Where assets are rebuilt or restored, that will probably be done to an inadequate standard.
I wish to put two or three specific recommendations to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. First, I know that there has recently been a review of the Bellwin rules, but I suspect that the issue of capital spending is still not adequately covered. The Bellwin rules need reviewing to see how local authorities should be helped more in relation to necessary capital spending which arises out of emergency or disaster.
The Environment Agency needs to interfere more at the local planning level. I see no reason why, when it gives a flood direction to a local planning authority but that authority ignores it, stating that it will none the less go ahead and build on the land which the agency sees as unsuitable, it should not have the ability to appeal directly to the Secretary of State for the decision to be reconsidered. PPG25 is certainly a step forward: it is well-intentioned and it has greatly strengthened the hand of local authorities. However, it has been suggested to me that it should be made
216
retrospective. It is argued that where developers already have outline planning but have not proceeded they should fall under PPG25.
One of the most depressing and frightening statistics in all the material sent to me when it became known that this debate was taking place is that in the year 2000–01 year 27 per cent of planning applications by value were on coastal plains. In the light of what has happened in the past year or two, that figure is incredible.
As regards individual people, there is a problem of insurance. We know that the Norwich Union and other insurers have stated that they will continue to cover people until the end of 2002, but two difficulties arise out of that. First, as some local businesses pointed out to me, the cover has remained but the excess has risen from £100 to £2,500. In the case of one small shop in our town, if it were flooded it would have to pay the first £20,000 and that would put it out of business.
Furthermore, as some who have returned to their houses have said to me, "It is all very well our having insurance cover but if we want to sell we can't. A buyer will not get a mortgage without insurance cover and the insurance companies will not give cover to a new owner entering a previously flooded house". I cannot believe that in this day and age those problems are tolerable.
I turn from the consequences to the causes. West Sussex is an extraordinary example of difficulties which arise in respect of land use. Thirty-six per cent of the land will be in the new national park where maximum building protection is given. At the same time, West Sussex has been told that it must build 46,500 new homes during the next 15 years, far more than the county council wants to build, and that 60 per cent of that development must be on previously used land. Of course, in Sussex so much of the previously used land is around Lewes, Uckfield, Chichester, Arundel and Newhaven, it predates the planning system and it is all on the flood plains. One therefore has a paradox of three contradictory objectives which need to be examined. I suggest closer examination of land availability and suitability to meet housing targets.
One cause of the problem in the South Downs is without doubt the effect of intensive agriculture, especially as a result of the sowing of winter cereals. They are often sown on steep slopes which are unsuitable for such crops. The ploughing and winter sowing lead to soil erosion and the rainwater then carries silt and debris down the hills. Small gullies turn into big ones and in October and November in particular, the rainy season, the water floods off the hills on to the flood plains and into the towns. It is essential to have new environmentally sensitive agreements which leave the land fallow during winter and encourage farmers to leave the autumn stubble. That will revert to grass or remain as stubble so that the land continues to act as a sponge, a moisture absorber, rather than what has been described as

217
"sponges turned into draining boards" allowing the water to run off the hard compacted land on the hills that has been sown and down on to the flood plains.
Finally, I turn to the most difficult point of all; that is, how to predict whether the rainfall of the past year was a freak or whether it will occur more frequently in the coming century. It seems to be commonly accepted that floods are now occurring about twice as frequently as they used to and that climate change will bring more rain. Some have even forecast that flooding will take place as much as 10 times more frequently in the century ahead. I believe that we have to consider the matter on that basis. It will cost money, but it is necessary to spend that money, as it is necessary to spend money on the NHS. It will have to come out of taxes.
Equally, this is not only a question of defences. We have to go back to the sources and consider building on flood plains, look at the effect of agriculture and winter cereals and evaluate how, in tackling those problems, we can try to turn nature to our advantage, as we have done with wind power, rather than simply to react in fear and terror. I often wonder how many times Shem, Ham and Japheth told Noah to build his Ark before he actually did so.
However, when one has to deal with such a diverse bunch of people, as I have had to do over the past week—the Environment Agency, the Association of British Insurers, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, chartered surveyors and engineers—and finds that they are all singing the same song saying, "Beware of the real dangers ahead", then that is a song worth listening to and one that any government should take very seriously indeed.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for tabling the Question on flooding, which is probably the greatest disturbance facing British communities at the present time. Around 10,000 properties were flooded during autumn 2000 at an estimated cost of £1 billion. But more than a quarter of a million properties were at risk and were protected by various measures. No other physical danger even comes close in its magnitude.
Fortunately, in this country those dangers can be considered only as disturbances causing great inconvenience and cost, but with little loss of life. However, in other parts of the world floods are fatal and each year many thousands of people die as a result of tropical storms and cyclones hitting vulnerable communities on the coasts of America and Asia. However, as I shall explain briefly, technology and science are making many contributions to the reduction of flooding, or at least to reducing its impact on communities. Those advances involve all areas of science, including agriculture, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
A well-attended meeting was organised recently by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. I learned about some of the latest
218
developments and looked at the future prospects. In November an excellent document funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and drawn up by the Institution of Civil Engineers entitled "Learning to live with rivers" was published.
I should like to make two points. First, the forecasting of floods is improving both in accuracy and in the length of warning given. Warnings depend on forecasts of rainfall and how the rain drains into rivers, requiring a combination of meteorology and hydrology. Whereas well-publicised targets and performance indicators are set for weather forecasts—they have to improve by a few percentage points each year and steadily extend the accuracy of longer-term forecasting; that is set out in the annual report of the Met Office—such specific and technical targets are not available in the case of forecasting river flooding, either in the UK or in any other leading country.
However, evidence suggests that warnings are improving, in particular as regards reaching more people in a timely fashion. I should add that the freedom of information approach taken last year enabled far more information about the risk of flooding to reach the people who needed it. I hope that the Government will press the Environment Agency and the United Nations agency responsible for the prevention of flooding—the World Meteorological Organisation—to move further in this direction. It will certainly help the public to gauge the reliability of flood warnings, as well as to act responsibly once they have been issued. The BBC, the Met Office and the Environment Agency are to be congratulated on the effectiveness of the short-term flood warnings that were issued in the media.
However, the report from the Institution of Civil Engineers recommends one important change in regard to public information on flooding; that is, to abandon the practice of describing floods in terms of their "return period". A one in 100 chance is far more understandable, in particular to a gambling British public, than a 100-year return period. We all know that one or two lucky or unlucky events can occur one after the other. It is the same with floods.
The second point I wish to make is in part reflected in the ICE report. The practices of assessing the risk of flooding and the forecasting of particular events by engineers and government organisations are not as advanced as they should be, given the scientific and technological progress made and the considerable investment that has taken place. It is a stimulating experience to be subjected to a Public Accounts Committee inquiry—as I have learnt myself. It makes one conscious of the need for public investment to be used effectively. In the UK, Europe and the United States it has long been noted that despite the huge investments made in weather radar—at £1 million to £2 million each—and in satellites to measure clouds, precipitation and river levels, their data have not been fully utilised or have not been utilised in the same way in different parts of the country. Sometimes they have been ignored by those responsible for gathering flood statistics and producing forecasts. Just as meteorology has improved through a combination of better

219
observation and more powerful computer calculation, such developments are now imperative for the study of river levels. The investment that was made 30 years ago in meteorology—with the remarkable understanding of HM Treasury at the time—needs to be repeated for flood warning systems.
Better understanding and prediction of flooding should lead to better planning for housing, agriculture and flood defences. That is essential not only to ensure that new urban developments associated with a growing economy and changing patterns of habitation—the noble Lord pointed out the example of Sussex—are not vulnerable to flooding, but also to allow for the effects of climate change, which are likely to increase the intensity of winter rains as well as to cause sea levels to rise, up to 0.8 metres in the coming century. Many international and government reports have emphasised that climate change will result in more frequent flooding of coastal communities and quite possibly the total abandonment of some of them by the middle of the century. A study of those drastic changes, which will affect the health and welfare of the affected communities, should encompass not only climatology, hydrology and oceanography, but also social, medical and political issues in order to explore how such potentially difficult decisions will be reached.
I was pleased to learn recently that the Government Chief Scientist is taking an interest in these wide-ranging matters, but it is even more wide-ranging than that. Parliament will need to keep both the decisions and the decision-making process under continual review. That is particularly important in light of the current policy which states that these are essentially local issues. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Technology and engineering can also contribute greatly to the direct reduction of flood damage through fixed and moving barriers, allowing controlled flooding into designated areas. Since those measures are expensive and may not always be funded in time, it is important to note that temporary barriers are now being considered for wider use in the UK, as they have been used to good effect in river basins on the Continent. The Government should be encouraged to conduct extensive trials here in the UK in order to familiarise engineers and the public and to ensure that the systems are used effectively in combination with appropriate and timely warnings. I suggest that the Environment Agency and DEFRA should encourage more public discussion and information on this development.
Finally, perhaps I may ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are likely to change their policies on insurance against flooding in the UK, in particular whether in future those living in exposed locations will have to face much higher insurance premiums. No doubt the UK insurance industry will continue to behave responsibly both here and abroad, but it has expressed its wish to make changes and the Government will need to set out the overall structure.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, there can be few of us who did not "brush" with the wide-ranging effects of flooding in this country last year. Many experienced the personal misery of a flooded home. Added to that has been the huge financial cost, not merely to individuals but to communities and businesses. Many Members of this House suffered disruption to transport. All that had a big effect on the economy. Less publicity is given to the ongoing effects of last year's flooding, including effects on the health of many people. Not only were the problems still being felt a few months later; they are continuing.
The scale of the problem has been amply demonstrated in the increase in the number of areas that have become uninsurable for flood risk. Many factors contribute. British insurers highlight three: the frequency of rain; the fact that when it comes, there is much more of it because of climate change, which was referred to in the previous speech; and, it is claimed, poor maintenance of our flood defences and the inadequate protection of properties built in areas at high risk of flooding.
I want to highlight a number of other factors which I believe are important. In recent years, there has been increased density in building. It is not merely a matter of the buildings themselves, but of the higher proportion of hard surfaces in many modern estates. And dare I mention the fashion for "hard gardens" that we see on many television programmes? All of these result in greatly increased run-off of water into the drains. People do not have to live on a flood plain to be affected. Furthermore, as a result of modern building there is a great deal more water going down the drains of individual houses. These days, people do not merely want one bathroom; they want two or three. Although modern estates will have new drains, they often feed into very old drainage and sewerage systems. We do not build them very differently, and we do not maintain them. Many are relics of the Victorian age. That point needs to be examined.
More resources are needed for flood defence management systems. Maintenance plays an important part. As we have heard, climate change means that there is a need to spend more in this area. I want to refer to two matters which I believe can alleviate the risk of flooding, not merely in flood plains but in other areas. I shall refer to planning—in particular to building design and estate layout—and also to building regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, to whom we are grateful for introducing this debate, mentioned PPG25. I understand that this directive means that the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material consideration when planning consents are considered. Local authorities are also asked to take a sequential approach in the planning of house building, based on risk assessment. But as the noble Lord said, 27 per cent (by value) of planning applications which have already received consent are for areas where the land is known to flood.

221
I understand that, under PPG25, the Environment Agency will monitor progress on planning decisions. However, it will not be able to direct planning authorities where it believes there is a high risk of flooding on land to be developed. I wonder whether the Minister heard a discussion on Radio 4 in October on the situation in Cambridgeshire. The county council has been deliberating on whether to build a new town near to the village of Oakington, which was recently the scene of severe flooding.
Lawrence Rag, vice chair of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, voiced his concerns about the weakness of the planning system and also the weakness of the Environment Agency in that process. He was particularly critical of the inability of the Environment Agency to veto planning decisions when it knows very well that the site under discussion is prone to flooding. When the Minister replies, will he clarify how PPG25 will assist in the planning process as regards minimising the risk of flooding for new homes? Secondly, how can we deal with planning consents which have already been given in areas where there is a high risk of flooding?
I turn finally to site planning and building regulations, with particular reference to drainage. What consideration have the Government given to the role of design in minimising run-off? What research has been done? Even new drainage systems are not designed to cope with low severity flood conditions. For example, in times of flooding, back-up through toilets and baths into houses could be avoided if we always built with one-way flat valves. Are the Government considering changes to the building regulations to take account of these matters? They affect not only those who live on flood plains, but people all over England. My noble friend Lord Greaves may refer to the fact that he lives on the side of a hill and has seen houses above him flooding as a result of run-off.
I recognise that flood defences play an important part in limiting flooding. However, we need to examine planning and building regulations. They are just as important. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I hate to say it, but I harbour a suspicion that the Government do not wish to know much about flood dangers, much less instigate measures to tackle the evil. Yet the appalling difficulties of having flood waters in one's house are almost incalculable. The misery of seeing treasured carpets ruined, soft furnishings, chairs and tables stained beyond redemption, and one's home becoming impossible to live in are almost unbearable. And let us not forget the foul, ghastly smell that pervades the whole house when it has been flooded.
I must declare an interest, which is in no way a pecuniary one; and, thank god, I have never suffered the effects of flooding. I am president of the Nene
222
River Flood Prevention Alliance, a group of interested people in my home area. They come together to try to ensure that planning committees recognise where local flooding can take place, but also to stop permission being given for new homes to be built in such areas.
Northampton is one of the many areas which have suffered grievously from flooding in recent years. The alliance has worked and researched extremely hard, and I admire its members greatly. They have submitted firm evidence of a head of flood water gathering above Northampton. They have told the local authority that a drainage scheme which will store or drain the flood water is essential. They feel strongly—and, I believe, reasonably—that until that is done there should be a moratorium on further development in the area. Alas, no such moratorium is in sight. More and more houses are going up.
I do not believe that the question of possible flood danger is considered properly when planning permission is granted for housing developments. In one area, warning was given that either a pond should be constructed before building commenced or pipes should be laid to the local river. But the river had no capacity to absorb further water and the pond was never made. However, the houses went up just the same. I should not want to live in one of them.
I am told that the Environment Agency does not provide accurate surveys, merely computer-generated maps, and often old ones at that. Some are from 50 or 60 years ago, although many changes have taken place, not least house building. Many people do not realise the extent to which putting new houses in an area increases the flood danger, or makes it even more certain that there will be floods as more people move into the area.
Old maps do not give a true picture. There should be a complete up-to-date survey of all river areas in the country, but I fear that that will not happen. Accounts of big money to be made are welcome, and heard, but no one wants to hear warnings of bad consequences. It is better not to listen. Builders or, dare I say it, Ministers know to be well out of the way before anyone notices the dangerous position that certain new houses are in. There is money in development and builders are aware of that.
The Secretary of State is sometimes called in to give the go-ahead. But I am told that he sees no reports of flood dangers when he gives the green light. No survey of the dangers is submitted with the application or structure plan. The Water Resources Act 1991 says that the Secretary of State should have such information, but that Act appears never to be invoked. Much more notice is taken of house building quotas. Every local authority is virtually ordered to build a certain number of houses but the question of whether those houses will be safe from flooding never arises. Ministers never see reports on that, or so I am told. I should be delighted if the Minister were to contradict me.
Mr Elliot Morley, the relevant Parliamentary Secretary, recently issued a press release on flooding. He made no mention of funding for infrastructure of

223
flood storage reservoirs, although I should have thought that any press release on flooding would include that. He announced a funding increase for flood defence, which is up from £76 million last year to £114 million in 2003–04. But an insurance company, Norwich Union, pointed out that the £200 million already spent by local authorities on building and maintaining flood defences is barely half of what is needed. We still go on building homes in areas that are likely to flood.
As my noble friend Lord Renton and others have said, the question of insurance is deeply worrying. The insurance companies are just not interested in paying for mistakes or in the lack of proper care in building housing estates. I fear that within a measurable time thousands of homes will become uninsurable and unsaleable. Then what will we do? Will social security help? Will people be rehoused on council estates? Will there be health care for depression? Many problems could arise from this issue.
Last Wednesday I obtained from the Printed Paper Office the new White Paper on planning in local government regions. I rushed along to get it as quickly as I could. I welcome its intention to speed up the planning process and I am pleased that the flaws and inefficiencies in the present system will be attacked. But I was disappointed not to see anywhere in its 64 pages a reference to the vital need to bring flood hazard scrutiny into planning. Page 31 gives 12 points that should be included in a model planning application. There should have been 13, and the thirteenth should have mentioned land drainage and flood dangers. It is said that 13 is an unlucky number, but it will be worse than unlucky if someone buys a house that is sitting on a swamp.
I should perhaps give notice that I have further criticisms of the White Paper, but I shall reserve those for another day. My motive tonight is to support my noble friend and to beg the Government to recognise the seriousness of what we are saying.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, we have heard some fascinating speeches about the problems of flooding. I want to refer more widely to the problems of the management of river basins and rivers generally. We are talking about flooding on coastal plains and fluvial flooding from water courses. Floods can happen anywhere, as my noble friend Lady Maddock said. I live on a steep Pennine hillside and we were astonished a few years ago when it opened up and turned into a mass of foaming water. Fortunately a row of houses above where we live managed to act partly as a dam and the water poured through the back door and out the front, and was fortunately diverted into the lane.
Most flooding occurs on flat land and areas that most people recognise as flood plains. It occurs mainly in the lowlands where the rivers flow across wide plains that turn into coastal flood plains, which are dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry.
224
There almost certainly has been increased flooding because of climatic change. But we should remember that only about 10 years ago we were all concerned about summer droughts and falling water tables. Everyone was worried that the rivers were drying up. That may happen again because climate patterns are cyclical. There is a danger that we may experience a dry period in a few years' time and everyone will think that flooding is a thing of the past. It is important to regard it as something that will happen even if there are short-term fluctuations.
Flooding is part of the natural processes of river basins. That is now beginning to be understood much more widely by agencies and government. Ten years ago no one thought about looking at flooding as a whole across the river basin, from the catchment areas to the run-off, and infiltration that occurs and which often reappears further down the system as ground water. What happens in the upper reaches of rivers is integrally linked to what happens in the middle reaches and the lower flood plains as they enter the sea. That is vital to this question.
We have to understand that the present drainage network is not natural. It looks and feels natural and people think that the rivers are natural, but the streams and rivers in this country have been controlled, straightened, contained and, in many cases, modified by development. Some of it is large-scale such as industrial development in cities and some of it is small development, such as bridges, and so on.
The flood plains that we now see are unlike those that would have existed a few thousand years ago when the river courses were split up and braided. There were lagoons, flood channels and lakes, and all kinds of natural flooding occurred. That has been stopped in order to allow efficient farming, urban development and communications.
The issue is now much more widely understood. The flooding last year in the Vale of York and the drainage basin of the Ouse and the Derwent is closely related to what happens in the uplands where the famous Yorkshire tributaries of the Ouse and the Derwent in the North York Moors originate. Flooding occurs in ways that we do not want because of the lack of a sufficient amount of active flood plain, or washlands. Often it is connected with developments lower down in the estuaries.
PPG25 is welcome in that it recognises these processes. It states that
"planning policies and decisions should recognise that flood risk management needs to be applied on a whole-catchment basis and should not be restricted to flood plains".
The introduction states:
"High-water events in rivers and coastal waters are natural processes that play an important role in shaping the natural environment. The flood damage that results to people and property is a consequence of previous human decisions about settlement and land use"—
and, indeed, the decisions that we are still taking.
That is a vital concept when dealing with flooding, but we need to go much further than merely controlling new developments and considering

225
whether they are in appropriate places and of the appropriate type. In some cases we may need to reduce the nature or intensity of the agricultural land use in the catchment area where the rivers originate. Draining moorlands, draining and improving upland pastures and increasing the run-off, which are all thought of as improvements to land, may be having a significant effect on what happens downstream. If so, there has to be a system for looking at the issue as a whole.
We may need to allow some intensively cultivated farm land on flood plains—perhaps some of the best farm land in the country—to revert to much less intensive land use. It might revert to grazing land, as used to happen on marshes and meadows, so that it can act as overflow and as reservoirs. We may be looking at creating new wetlands, which would have environmentally desirable spin-off effects. That type of habitat has been severely reduced over the past 300 years, and particularly in the past 50 years. If that is to happen, the people who own, farm or otherwise use that land now have to be compensated for the new uses. At the moment there are very few ways in which that can happen.
There was an interesting discussion in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in another place on 28th November, when Elliot Morley, the Minister, was quizzed about the subject and asked whether the model of the national forest could be used for that purpose. His answer was:
"Not at this stage but all options are open as far as I am concerned. The idea of flood storage catchment and using farm land for that is a very interesting one, and it is certainly one that we are giving very serious thought to in river plains and river catchment areas".
It is good news if the Government are looking at the issue seriously. It may currently be possible to use some agri-environmental money for that, but the scale and nature of it is nothing like what is required. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on how far the Government's thinking is going.
My final point is that any management of river basins has to have an administrative basis. One of the problems of current flood control and management is the large number of different agencies and bodies involved. River basins by their nature rarely coincide with neat administrative boundaries. They would not be suitable as administrative boundaries in many places because of far more important factors. My party's policy of regional government, which seems now to have some favour with the Government, would be a way of integrating many of the agencies and organisations involved in dealing with flooding. That should be seriously considered as part of the responsibilities of new democratic regional authorities in England if, as we hope, they are eventually formed.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Renton, on initiating a most interesting debate. I do not have first-hand experience to declare of having been subject to a flood—yet—but I am a civil engineer and I look at the issues from my experience in the construction industry.
226
Two problems have been identified tonight. One covers the existing problems of houses, run-offs and agriculture and the other relates to new developments on what might be called flood-susceptible areas or flood plains.
It is extraordinary that many existing properties on flood plains may have to be abandoned because they are uninsurable or uninhabitable. It is also extraordinary that we have not done more to sort out the agricultural problem that several noble Lords have mentioned, because it is not as if we are short of food in this country any more and have to cultivate every square foot of land. There is plenty of land that could be used.
Several noble Lords have referred to the problems caused by increased quantities of roads and paved areas. I recall a major flood of the River Mole in the lower Thames area about 30 years ago, which flooded vast areas of Molesey near Kingston. It was obvious that the enormous development in the 1930s had caused all the water to run off into the river rather than being soaked up in the good old bog.
We should not forget the problem of sea floods. My understanding is that the Environment Agency is no longer protecting land in certain areas. That is fine for those who do not happen to live in those areas. Occasionally we see high profile buildings falling into the sea. I was interested in the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt that the sea level is going to rise by 0.8 metres—that is about two feet and six inches—in 100 years. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister can hazard a guess as to how much of England and how many properties will be flooded if that happens. I do not have a clue, but it would be interesting to think about.
That leads on to the question of whose fault it all is. Is it a question of caveat emptor? Should compensation be payable? Should the taxpayer be asked to compensate those who suffer from higher floods and higher seas? Would they then argue that governments collectively were responsible for the cause—global warming—and should therefore contribute to some general compensation? That is an interesting question. I do not know whether my noble friend has an answer, but the question will come up more and more.
I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, say that 27 per cent of planning applications are on coastal plains. That confirms my view that the pressure on local authorities for major development is very hard to resist. I have also started to read the new planning documents referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. There are proposals to remove or reduce the scope of county councils, which are probably better placed than district councils to have a view on the consequences of floods. We shall probably debate that next year.
Another example close to your Lordships' House came to my attention a year or two ago. There is a great big development in Battersea. The river wall along both sides of the Thames was built before the Thames flood barrier was completed. It was designed to keep the river out of London. The developer was

227
supposed to build the flood wall all the way along, but he decided to put a nice cast iron fence by the Battersea development instead so that those living in the ground floor flats could see the river. That is fine, as long as you do not live in the house one row behind, as I do sometimes. I wonder what might happen if they do not shut the door. Why did not the council, the Port of London Authority or somebody tell the developer to put the wall up? It may be that they did and that it has been sorted out. That is another example of the enormous pressure on local authorities, which I am not sure they are strong enough to resist.
As to assessing the risk of a flood, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Institution of Civil Engineers no longer refers to a 100-year flood but to a one-in-100 risk. My experience of construction sites near rivers is that one might have planned for no floods during a two-year period but there always were. I reached the conclusion that the risk was of a two-year flood. That exemplifies how difficult it is to get the calculations right. I am not sure what can be done because floods are a combination of rainfall and runoff. It is nice to get flood warnings but it is much nicer not to have a flood at all. I am not sure how we get there.
What are the Government doing to prevent the causes of flooding? Your Lordships have mentioned run-off, rain and high sea levels—probably all caused by global warming related to CO2 and energy policy. There is currently a government review, presumably being undertaken by the Department for Trade and Industry, but it appears that there is a parallel report from the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit, which the Financial Times summarised on 13th December. Perhaps my noble friend can explain why two reports are being produced simultaneously and the relationship between them. I am sure that there is a terribly good reason. The Financial Times reports that the report
"proposes a substantial increase in investment in wind-farms and other renewable energy projects, greater energy efficiency and more investment in energy efficient combined heat and power projects".
The report says that the PIU report attacks
"the institutional barriers to progress. These include heavy financial penalties imposed by the new electricity trading system on small and intermittent (typically wind) generators".
Lord Montagu and I visited a house in Oxford that had solar power panels installed on its roof. It cost quite a lot of money but not an enormous amount. What stunned me was that the electricity board generously offered to buy the power at less than three times the price that the board charged. The board was also going to charge £30 every time the meter was read—which could be done at least every hour. Things may have got a bit better since then but there is a long way to go before people will be encouraged to build wind farms.
The Financial Times commented also that
"the government may have to return to its previous support for congestion charging if development of new fuel technologies based on hydrogen fail to deliver"
228
Does my noble friend agree that congestion charging in London and elsewhere is a good thing? It is a tenuous argument but the question is worth asking.
I remind your Lordships that the recent Environment Agency discussion paper suggested that it should be possible to reduce the UK's primary energy input by 50 per cent by 2050—which would cut enormously the risk of floods as well as the risks posed by CO2.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I come from Somerset which, as one of the lowest lying counties of the United Kingdom, has long experience of flooding. I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor and because my husband is chairman of the flood defence committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned working with nature. The Government need to pursue that approach with all speed. I would have felt happier if the Unstarred Question had asked the Government what measures they are taking for the long-term management of floods. We cannot continually defend ourselves against what is clearly a huge flowing-down and flowing-in tide. It is a question of making sure that the floods are in the right places, not the wrong ones.
Somerset is starting to pilot that approach in the River Parrot catchment area. I am delighted that Sir Don Curry's Policy Commission on Farming and Food and the Minister with responsibility for flood management, Mr. Elliot Morley, have been to Somerset and were encouraged by what is happening there. I hope that will become a national model.
I was surprised by the report "Learning to Live with Rivers" from the Institution of Civil Engineers because, like many people, I imagined that engineers take purely an engineering approach to problems. Instead, the report identified that we must learn to live with rivers and that we cannot always control them. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the ICE's belief that there is a great skills shortage and on whether there is a sufficiency of people to cope with the volume of work that must be undertaken.
Local drainage boards, flood defence committees and others bring years of local experience but Government financing for their work has become extremely opaque. When priorities are set, local people need to know why those choices were made. Rivers do not necessarily respect local government boundaries. Somerset's river catchment covers the whole county but Surrey and Sussex have to share resources. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, may agree that while Surrey may understand the problems of Sussex, the democratic input is opaque.
I shall not rehearse the issues surrounding PPG25 except to say that retrospective applications are extremely important. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views.
What is also important is the Minister's ability to consider how to shift payments to farmers for long-term flood storage. At present, only environmentally

229
sensitive areas that can benefit waders and similar birds qualify for flood storage payments. If we expect farmers to store floods on land in areas where the water wants to be, we must move away from that approach. It may benefit the wildlife but we cannot be so selective as to allow only environmentally sensitive areas to qualify.
As to agricultural practices, perhaps the Minister agrees that countryside stewardship or a completely new scheme should be introduced, to compensate farmers who undertake flood storage on their land for the good of the public and towns downstream. The name Somerset derives from the fact that it was agriculturally useful only in the summer, as it was essentially a county of islands in the winter. Although I would not want to return to those days, I believe that we can learn something from previous conditions and that we can benefit from controlling water in a natural manner when it is possible to do so.
The RSPB believes that continually seeking to repair sea defences is a losing battle. It has also strongly stated that it would be much better if the Environment Agency were given power to purchase from farmers land that is immediately adjacent to the sea. As the agency is currently unable to buy such land, it must continue instead to repair flood defences. Substantial sums could be saved in the long term if the agency had the power to buy such coastal land from farmers who wish to sell.
I have a couple of specific points on finance to which I should like the Minister to respond. The 2000 comprehensive spending review allowed a notional increase of 4 per cent for flood defences, whereas spending by flood defence committees increased by 10 per cent. Although the Institution of Civil Engineers has suggested that the budget for flood control should be doubled, nothing in the Pre-Budget Report suggests that there will be such an increase.
Currently, councils obtain money for flood defence in precepts. Therefore, those sums count in the figures used to calculate the council tax benefit limitation subsidy. In the recently published paper entitled Strong Local Leadership, the Government proposed to phase out that limitation. Although the proposal is welcome, the limit may not be removed for a couple of years. Consequently, local authorities that are responding to the Government's call to do more about flooding may well be penalised.
I ask the Minister to reply to those two points. Additionally, does he think that the next comprehensive spending review is likely to provide the type of increase that we shall need to tackle the problem? Although it is very likely that the spend will be very high in the next four or five years, it will taper off as we become better at long-term flood management.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry for asking this Question and allowing us to have what I hope the Minister will agree is a very comprehensive and objective debate.
230
Last year, 10,000 properties were flooded. Such devastation is sufficient to remind us that flooding is a problem that cannot be put on the back burner. Time is running out for proprietors whose insurers have imposed a time limit on their policies, and for those whose property remains unprotected against flooding the possibility of material damage and real distress is high, especially at this time of year. Promises of long-term solutions alone are not enough. As many noble Lords have pointed out, although long-term strategy has a crucial part to play in the broader approach to the flooding problem, we should now ask ourselves whether vulnerable areas are any better protected than they were last year.
The good news is that some of them are. The report of the Institution of Civil Engineers suggests that 270,000 properties are now successfully protected. However, although that progress is most welcome, there are numerous reports from forecasters, from residents who suffered such misery last year and from professional bodies such as the association of insurance brokers suggesting that the problem is likely to become much worse. I should declare a small interest as, last year, my nephew in Hampshire was twice flooded out. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, clearly explained, in the not too distant future, sea levels could rise by, I believe, two and a half feet. He also said that freak storms occur no longer every 100 years but—at least in his experience— whenever he is on site.
Seriously, we have to ensure that a carefully considered and adequately funded policy is in place so that we are ready for the storms when they come. That entails thinking about protecting property now, in the short term. Residents and businesses already feel abandoned. Although they acknowledge that flooding is a natural phenomenon and cannot be prevented—your Lordships may not agree with that, as some speakers have suggested ways in which floods could be prevented—they feel that the Government are not doing enough to protect them. We should not allow that impression to remain, however difficult it is to deal with those concerns.
I turn now to the more long-term possibilities. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry also for focusing on the building of new houses on flood plains. Many noble Lords have spoken about various aspects of such building, which is an important issue. I understand that, earlier in the year, the Government issued guidelines on the subject. The principle encapsulated in those guidelines is both simple and welcome, directing development away from high-risk areas in a risk-free and preventive manner. The consequence is that money will be saved and distress avoided.
The Government acknowledged at the time that such guidance was overdue, and I agree. However, guidance alone will not be effective in dealing with current concerns. Nor is it likely to be put into practice uniformly across the country. The guidelines will do little to stop development in areas that already have planning permission. In this debate, however, several

231
noble Lords suggested what action should be taken in areas where planning permission has already been given although it is known that there is a flood risk.
In his Answer to a recent Starred Question on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that development on flood plains has been "tightened up". He also said:
"It is up to individual planning authorities—
we have heard a lot today about individual planning authorities and the pressures that local authorities are under
"when considering particular planning applications, to bear those matters in mind".—[Official Report, 7/11/01: col. 199.]
I wonder whether the division of responsibility between local authorities, DEFRA, the Environment Agency, DTLR and internal drainage boards will mean that guidelines are not followed as closely as they might be. That is hardly joined-up government. I understand that the Government are considering the need for a flooding direction under planning Acts. I should be interested to know whether the Government have made any progress in their consideration.
The Institution of Civil Engineers report also called for the establishment of a new executive agency which would have extra powers over other operating authorities. The authors clearly saw the drawbacks of the current division of labour and responsibility. They suggested that it might have money allocated to it directly as part of an overall increase in capital investment. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us some idea of the Government's thinking in that area.
There is another concern that the planning guidelines do not address. If we continue to build on greenfield sites outside flood plains, the ability of land and rivers to absorb excess rainwater will reduce dramatically. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, talked about "hard gardens" in that respect. Government building targets are such that development is going ahead on greenfield sites. As long as that continues, it will detract from any positive measures such as those outlined in July—yet more evidence to suggest that flooding policy will be most effective if we are mindful of a broad range of issues.
I mentioned insurance a few moments ago, as did, I believe, the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Knight, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The Association of British Insurers has commented on numerous occasions on the severity of the flooding problem. Insurance firms have said that they will not cover beyond the end of the year for more than 1.7 million homes unless the Government take drastic action to boost flood defences. The economic implications for those areas are significant, dare I say awful? It would be a dreadful state of affairs if almost all properties located near rivers became uninsurable, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. The industry has hinted that that may become a reality in the future.
232
The consensus is that more money is required and required quickly if vulnerable areas are to be protected from material and economic disaster. As well as emphasising how serious the situation is, and is likely to become, the Institution of Civil Engineers has made two additional points that I wish to raise. The first concerns abandonment. It has been suggested that residents and businesses might abandon those areas that are most under threat, allowing the areas to return to their natural role as emergency reservoirs. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke of a strategy for settlement and land use in the future and the management of it. I should be interested to know whether the Government are considering abandonment as a possible course of action.
The second point concerns the inclusion of human distress as a factor in future policy calculations. It has been argued that a wholly economic approach to assessing the benefits of flood mitigation has overlooked the human misery caused by flooding. I wonder whether that has been considered by the Government in their assessment of future flood mitigation measures.
Finally, I should like to reiterate my concern that this is not just about future development but about properties that already exist and are already under threat. People living in vulnerable areas should not feel abandoned. In the longer term, by taking a broad view of the problems associated with flooding, we are perhaps more likely to come up with a series of measures that address people's real concerns and problems. By a broad view, I mean considering the implications of flooding in every aspect. The AA, for example, warned recently that long-term flood damage to Britain's roads was responsible for an increase in the number of accidents across the country. Last year's widespread flooding caused severe damage to the foundations and surface quality of many roads and several are in need of extensive work as a result. We should address that in the context of other concerns.
Promises for the future have been plentiful. New guidelines are welcome, although, as I have mentioned, their effect could well be limited. I hope that swift action can also be taken to avoid a repetition of last year's costly experience in the short term and in the future.
9.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for raising this debate, which has been wider ranging than perhaps he or I anticipated. I hope that I can answer some of the points, but certainly not all of those raised tonight.
The key issue here is that flood defence, and the way in which we deal with the growing problem of potential floods, is a long-term business. There are clearly short-term issues, but we have to have a long-term strategy. We need to look ahead and to consider what defences

233
will be needed in 10, 20 or even 50 years time. As the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, said, that requires a long-term strategy.
It also means that there will be some areas that we cannot defend. It is no use committing future generations and current resources to maintaining unsustainable defences or unsustainable management systems. As my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Hunt pointed out, sea levels are rising and climate change is bringing an increased incidence of extreme weather. We need to ensure that we have a viable long-term approach to the matter. We also need to ensure, both in the long and the short term, that defence in one place does not create additional pressures and problems elsewhere. So sustainability and a long-term approach are core to our strategy.
It is true that the floods last year were the worst most of us can remember. Indeed, it may be a sign of things to come with the increased unpredictability of the weather. We cannot prevent all flooding whatever management systems we introduce, but we can and must prepare for it. We also need to keep the problem in perspective. At present there are about 1.8 million people living at risk of flooding in England alone. Approximately 300,000 properties—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put the figure at 250,000, but it is slightly higher than that—were at direct risk last year, but the vast majority of them were protected by defences. The flooding of 10,000 properties—tragic and devastating as it was for those living in them—needs to be seen against those numbers. The devastation to residences is clear and all of us have sympathy for those affected, but it is also clear that there is a balance of risk here.
The nobles Baronesses, Lady Knight, Lady Maddock and others, pointed out the cost of the disruption and the terrible devastation, which was graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. That indicates what people experience in such circumstances. But we need to look at how we can identify better those areas which are at most risk and how we can develop a strategy for dealing with them.
The increase in flood risk is in part to be dealt with by improvement in flood defences, in part by approaches through planning policy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, indicated, through fluvial area management. PPG25 marks a new and more sustained approach to planning guidance which the department hopes local authorities will follow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, emphasised the need for accurate flood plain maps and for anticipation of flood risk. That is possible in some cases. More information is now being made available, both through local information and the Internet. Those measures are constantly being improved arid updated. A great deal of that information is therefore available to residents and authorities.
PPG25 contains guidelines on developments as regards flood plains. They are clearly identified and local planning authorities are paying increased attention to flood plain risks. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, indicated that she believed that the Government were perhaps not giving as much
234
attention to this matter as is needed. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others indicated that they thought the resources were inadequate.
We are investing very substantially in flood and coastal defences. Over £400 million a year is being spent in England. That will increase to £450 million by 2003/4. The Government fund the lion's share through DEFRA funding and through DTLR local government funding. DEFRA funding is to increase by 70 per cent over the next couple of years. Local authority funding is also increasing significantly ahead of inflation.
The defences damaged last autumn have been repaired and reinstated. The Government have met most of the cost. They provide as least as much protection as last year and, in many places, better protection than last year. We have also provided additional funds to accelerate major river flood defence schemes in a number of areas. That would not have happened for a number of years had we not stepped up the provision of resources We have also been able to put in place new catchment flood management plans to ensure that a strategic approach is adopted to flood risk and flood management on a catchment basis. This follows the line of the earlier initiative on shoreline management plans for the coast.
Building new and improved flood defences is, of course, a very important means of reducing flood risk. It is not always a sustainable proposition to build defences against every eventuality, but the impact of flood risk, even in those circumstances, can be reduced. That is the object of these plans. The Environment Agency is developing the initiative through five pilot schemes, with a view to preparing a plan for each new catchment area in the medium term.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was concerned about the overall catchment approach. I can assure the noble Lord that that approach is being developed substantially and that flood storage areas already form a significant component part of the flood defences of both rural and urban communities. In the urban context, for example, the scheme for Lincoln was developed in the early 1990s and was first used in earnest in response to last year's floods. The Environment Agency is required to exercise a general supervision of all those flood management schemes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, reminded us that we cannot expect to remove all flood risk, but that we should introduce a flood management approach. We agree. In particular—
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, before dealing with that point, will the Minister comment on my suggestion that the Bellwin scheme should again be considered, which would give local authorities a greater possibility of obtaining payment for the replacement of capital assets? The recent report on Bellwin showed that inadequate money is available for the restoration of capital assets, as a result of which some local authorities will severely suffer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have significantly increased the formula in relation to Bellwin from the 85 per cent payment by central government to a 100 per cent payment in post severe-flood situations. I agree that there is some concern about balancing the way in which that money is spent and we shall certainly keep that matter under review. In particular, we need to ensure that the bulk of the money is paid in effective schemes—not all of which will be capital and some of which will be revenue management. However, we need to ensure that money given through the Bellwin formula is deployed effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, mentioned Lewes—an example of a particularly difficult area for which we need a long-term approach, especially having regard to the severe complications relating to heritage requirements as well as the straightforward defence of buildings. The noble Lord also referred to the role of county councils and the amount of precept that they had determined. County councils and flood management committees bear some responsibility to raise adequate resources, and there is a responsibility on central government to support those schemes. The situation in Sussex was particularly bad last year. Over the next few years we shall need to develop an overall strategy for protecting Lewes and other neighbouring areas in East Sussex.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also raised the question of the impact of soil erosion on effective intensive agriculture in Sussex, a problem which also occurs elsewhere. That matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley. It is certainly true that last autumn's exceptional rainfall led to a much more widespread and noticeable erosion and run-off from farmland in many parts of the country, particularly in the South-East. That was a demonstration of a localised, but nevertheless very severe, long-term problem. The Government have therefore taken a number of initiatives to improve soil quality, including issuing best practice guidance and information packs to farmers and managers to try to develop an approach that limits run-off from agricultural land. The problem of diffuse origin of soil erosion and its effect on the water system is significant, and we need to take it into account as we develop a new approach to the management of agricultural land as a whole.
Flood warning arrangements are also being improved—322,000 more people had flood warnings this year, compared with last year. That indicates an improvement in the prediction system at local level.
Many noble Lords have referred to the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which we in DEFRA commissioned. It gives some indication of the way in which we need to move forward, and we need to take its recommendations into account.
Several noble Lords referred to insurance and development controls. Clearly, there is a problem with the availability of flood insurance, which is of great concern to many in the flood plains and to the
236
covering local authorities. We maintain close links with insurance companies and are determined to ensure the continued availability of affordable flood cover. There is agreement among ABI companies that in all but exceptional circumstances they will continue to provide flood cover over the next two years. They have undertaken to investigate any alleged breaches of that agreement by members.
However, there is clearly a long-term insurance problem. Insurance companies say that more resources from local authorities and central government should be used in flood defence. They are also concerned about development controls. However, they apply by and large to future property rather than property that is already there. In that regard, there is a difference in terms of what our approach can deal with. PPG25 deals with future developments more robustly than was the case with earlier planning guidance. We also have a responsibility for ensuring the sustainability of the flood defence arrangements in relation to those areas that have already been built on.
Future building on functional flood plains should be wholly exceptional in all circumstances. That is the responsibility of planning authorities. We have a responsibility for those who already live on flood plains—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am conscious that we are about to finish, but the Minister has not discussed planning permissions that have already been given in flood plains but where the property has not yet been built. We should deal with that serious matter, and I hope that he will comment on it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give a general answer. Planning authorities and the call-in system have some responsibilities in that respect, in terms of the Secretary of State and the local authority. Where only outline planning permission exists, there is a responsibility on planning authorities to review the situation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I realise that we are nearly out of time. Will the Minister undertake to write to me on the question of council tax benefit subsidy limitations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that matter is not the direct responsibility of my department but I shall ensure that the noble Baroness gets a reply.
I believe that I have gone over my time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and other noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, will he clarify one matter? After September 11th, when insurance companies refused to cover airlines because of the greater risks, the Government

237
stepped in and contributed to premiums to keep people flying. If insurers will not insure people's homes—the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the figure of 1.7 million—should not the Government step in to ensure that people can continue to live in those homes?
Lord Whilty: My Lords, I had occasion to say to the House in an entirely different context that the Government are not the insurer of last resort. A temporary—and somewhat unique—exception to that was made in relation to airlines, but that is not
238
a sustained or sustainable position. It is not the Government's job to provide insurance for householders, but it is perhaps the Government's job, along with the insurance industry, to try to ensure that, so far as possible, such insurance is available and that local and national government observe their responsibilities in relation to flood management and flood defences, where that is sustainable. Where if is not sustainable, some degree of strategic retreat occasionally has to form part of the strategic plan.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  China: Human Rights Dialogue
  China: Human Rights Dialogue
  Tajikistan: Opening of UK Embassy
  Tajikistan: Opening of UK Embassy
  World Trade Organisation: Doha Meeting
  World Trade Organisation: Doha Meeting
  Scottish Parliament: Consultation on Size
  Scottish Parliament: Consultation on Size
  Treasury Economic Policy Textbook: Choice of Publisher
  Treasury Economic Policy Textbook: Choice of Publisher
  Terrorism Act Prosecutions
  Terrorism Act Prosecutions
  Houses of Parliament: Waste Recycling
  Houses of Parliament: Waste Recycling
  House of Lords Working Practices
  House of Lords Working Practices
  32 County Sovereignty Movement
  32 County Sovereignty Movement
  Ordnance Survey Maps: Contour Lines
  Ordnance Survey Maps: Contour Lines
  Millennium Dome: New Ownership
  Millennium Dome: New Ownership
  Embryonic Stem Cells
  Embryonic Stem Cells
  Gender Reassignment Surgery
  Gender Reassignment Surgery
  Health Authorities: Information Management and Technology
  Health Authorities: Information Management and Technology
  National Health Service: Pay Recommendations
  National Health Service: Pay Recommendations
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Fifth Report
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Fifth Report
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Hunting Permits
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Hunting Permits
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Lessons Learned Inquiry
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Lessons Learned Inquiry
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Movement of Livestock
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Movement of Livestock
  Public Guardianship Office: Performance
  Public Guardianship Office: Performance
  Government Bills: Human Rights Issues
  Government Bills: Human Rights Issues
  Higher Education: Participation
  Higher Education: Participation
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Effect on Tourism
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Effect on Tourism
  National Lottery Funding: Land Purchase
  National Lottery Funding: Land Purchase
  Immigration and Asylum Legislation
  Immigration and Asylum Legislation
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation