Sitting of 7 February 2001

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

    Brazil
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support her Department is giving to encourage sustainable development in Brazil. [147638]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): Brazil is an upper-middle-income country with very great inequality. Nearly a quarter of the population live in extreme poverty. We believe that there is a great deal that the Brazilian Government can do to resolve the situation and promote sustainable development. We are glad to see that they are making progress, but they still have a long way to go.
    We are providing £8 million this year and £10 million next year in technical assistance to promote sustainable livelihoods and health services for poor people in the wider Amazon region, and to support Brazilian efforts to increase transparency of government. We try to maximise our strategic impact by working alongside major programmes such as those of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, which each commit around $1 billion to Brazil each year.
    Mr. Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well in his new role.
    We all know that Brazil contains some of the world's most sensitive environment, but the people who live there obviously want their economy to develop and become more prosperous. What can we do to help Brazil achieve the right balance in that respect?
    Water management is a very important part of sustainable development. What can my hon. Friend do to support the implementation of the new federal water law and the work of the new federal water agency in Brazil? We in this country have considerable expertise in that regard.
    Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. I look forward to serving with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of whom I have long been an admirer:
    910
    she is one of the most effective Ministers in the House. I am also happy to relinquish my title as king of the Adjournment debates.
    I understand that the national water authority to which my hon. Friend referred was set up only in December to implement national policy on water resources. It is therefore a little early for us to comment on its developmental needs, and we have no current plans to develop activities in the water and sanitation sectors.
    Our basic strategy is to focus scarce resources where we can have the greatest impact. That generally involves helping the poorest people in the poorest regions to enjoy sustainable life styles. We are a major contributor to, for example, the pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest.
    Mr. John Bercow: In pursuit of sustainable development in Brazil, does the campaign to eliminate illiteracy focus primarily on the phonetic approach?
    Mr. Mullin: To be quite honest, that is a matter for the Government of Brazil. I happen to speak for Her Majesty's Government.
    Brazil is actually quite a rich country, and we believe that it could do much more to help to deal with the huge inequalities in Brazilian society. We are always willing to help, and we think that Brazil has made progress recently under President Cardoso, but we feel that there is a good deal more progress to be made.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that although Brazil is correctly designated a developing country, some parts of the Brazilian economy are very developed? For instance, nowadays Brazilian steel is of high quality and, in terms of both quality and cost, it competes very well with western-produced steel. I realise that it is difficult, but will my hon. Friend try to ensure that money is given to Brazil for development only, and not used to develop areas that are already competitive?
    Mr. Mullin: I entirely understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. As I have said, our aid is targeted on the poorest people living in the poorest parts of the country. That does not include help for the development of its steel industry.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of the scam whereby people in Britain have been sold plots of land in northern Brazil, ostensibly to save that land from being developed? If so, he will know that those concerned have been arrested; but what advice can his Department give people in the United Kingdom about buying plots of land to ensure that they are maintained for sustainable development, and not simply for racketeers?
    Mr. Mullin: My advice to people in the United Kingdom would be not to buy plots of land in Brazil. Any scams are of course a matter for the Brazilian Government, but we are anxious to ensure before we start giving aid that it is going not to feed a scam but to feed the people who need it, and to help them develop sustainable life styles.

    Third World Debt
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What progress has been made on the eradication of third world debt. [147639]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are 41 countries that are so poor and indebted that, without exceptional help, they will be unable to escape from their debt overhang, to focus Government spending on poverty reduction and to borrow wisely for sustainable development. In 2000, 22 of those countries qualified for exceptional debt relief totalling more than $50 billion. That will reduce their debts by around two thirds, on average. Of the 13 remaining countries, we hope that as many as four will qualify for relief this year, but many others are affected by conflict, and are unlikely to qualify without making progress in ending that conflict and focusing on the needs of the poor.
    Mr. Dobbin: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the present Government, Britain has taken a lead internationally not only in areas of debt reduction, but, more generally, in areas of development? That is because of the Government's increased investment in debt reduction. I believe that that commitment will be on-going. Does she agree that it would be a disaster for development if the Conservative party were to assume power, with its in-built commitment to getting rid of debt reduction and to making cuts—particularly cuts in taxation for the wealthy—which would affect millions of people throughout the world?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree; I am most proud of the record on debt relief, for which people both in Britain and throughout the world have campaigned, but the big change is that the IMF and World Bank now back countries' strategies for their macro-economies, revenues, debt relief and aid to reduce poverty systematically. We led on that; everyone can be proud of the United Kingdom's general effort.
    I agree that the Conservative party is talking nonsense economics. Its figures do not add up. It says that it will cut taxes and increase spending—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As I have mentioned before, it is not for the Minister to concern herself with the Opposition's figures. She is here to answer for the Government.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The right hon. Lady will no doubt be pleased to know that, now that we have identified £8 billion worth of savings, not a single penny will come from the Department for International Development's budget. I am glad that she raised the matter.
    The right hon. Lady will remember that, in March 1999, I raised with her the issue of debt relief for Nigeria. What progress has the international community made in enabling Nigeria to qualify for debt relief? It is, after all, a country of 120 million people, with £30 billion of debt overhang, racked up by a military dictator who has now gone. Is that not an example of where the heavily indebted
    912
    poorest countries initiative is too slow and bureaucratic? What is she doing to ensure that Nigeria qualifies for some debt relief?
    Clare Short: I remind the House of the Tory record on development assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am simply trying to answer the question. We inherited a shrinking aid budget. We have reversed the cuts. I do not believe that the Tories can cut taxes and protect the aid budget: the arithmetic just does not add up.
    Nigeria is not an HIPC country. Because it is an oil producer, it is enjoying a big increase in revenues; but it has been dreadfully run under the military dictatorship. Poverty is very great. Major reform is needed, so that its resources can be used beneficially for its people. It has a debt rescheduling agreement with the Paris club. The delay now in Nigeria is in economic reform; it is desperately important that it should reform. It is a big country. Its president has fine motives, but there has been no economic reform as yet, which is very worrying.
    Mr. Streeter: I find the Secretary of State's answer very complacent and worrying. If she is not prepared to take effective action on debt relief in Nigeria, will she at least take effective action to ensure that the new Nigerian Government can recover funds that were illegally stashed away by outgoing President Abacha? Several other countries are taking effective action to ensure that those stolen funds are recovered. Why are not the British Government taking effective action to help the poor people of Nigeria?
    By the way, in our policy document, which was launched this morning, a copy of which I will send to the Secretary of State, we make it clear that there will be no cuts in a Conservative aid budget.
    Clare Short: Every time the hon. Gentleman gets up, he shows his ignorance—so I do not know what will be in that document. For Nigeria to prosper, its oil resources, which have been ripped off by a corrupt elite, thus distorting the country's whole economy, need to be deployed to benefit the people. Debt relief from outside, when Nigeria will not refocus its own resources, would not help the people of Nigeria. The policy that he advocates is foolish and not in the interests of the poor of Nigeria. He should look more closely at the documents that my Department publishes—he might learn something.

    Arms Trade
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What assessment she has made of the impact of the arms trade on underdeveloped countries; and if she will make a statement. [147640]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): There are very few applications for licences for exports from the United Kingdom to developing countries. Where relevant, my Department assesses whether exports would hamper the sustainable development of such a country. If we believe that they would, we object to them. However, many developing countries have bloated and ill-disciplined armed forces.

    913
    Since March 1999, therefore, we have started to engage in security sector reform to help those countries to build responsible armed forces.
    The Government will shortly publish a draft Bill to strengthen controls on arms exports. We are also working to ensure that the very important United Nations 2001 conference on small arms leads to comprehensive action, including the removal of small arms from the continent of Africa, where they are fuelling conflict.
    Mr. Cohen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important answer. Has she seen the new report from the Campaign Against Arms Trade which shows that, every day, that trade kills or maims 2,000 children around the world? Has she seen the Oxfam briefings on Mindenao or the Congo which state that tens of thousands of people, many of whom are children, are being killed by the small arms trade? Is not the trade dramatically undercutting her otherwise excellent international development policy?
    Could we have more detail on what action the Government will take against the illegal small arms trade? Will she also use her weight in Government to press for registration and regulation of the brokers operating from this country?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that, on his last point, he will be pleased with the contents of the forthcoming Bill. There is no doubt that conflict in Africa, for example, is desperately holding back the development of that continent. In fact, 20 per cent. of its people are affected by conflict and becoming ever poorer. Small arms are the means of perpetuating that conflict. Massive numbers of small arms have already been traded and distributed across the continent, where there is also the capacity to produce ammunition.
    As small arms are not coming from the United Kingdom, we want the United Nations initiative to work to ensure that arms are handed in and that exports from the Ukraine, for example, are stopped. We need the United Nations conference on small arms to be as powerful as the conference on land mines and to make a real effort to remove small arms from areas affected by endemic conflict.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Secretary of State tell the House to what extent the Department for International Development was consulted in the preparation of the draft Bill on the control of arms and arms brokers? Will she say why, four years after the Scott report, we have still not seen the promised draft Bill? Is that just laziness on the part of other Departments, or is she concerned that the Government have been influenced by the arms industry?
    Clare Short: I give the House an absolute, 100 per cent. assurance that the Government have not been influenced by the arms industry. My Department has also been fully consulted on the Bill to be published shortly. It has not yet been introduced because we have had Queen's Speeches stacked with legislation that we have had to pass. We have much more good legislation to come. That is why it is very important that we be returned at the next election.

    Balkans
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What projects her Department is supporting towards the rebuilding of communities in the Balkans. [147641]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): The UK effort in the Balkans is designed to help to build democratic government and effective economies. We focus on technical assistance that encourages best possible use of European Union, World Bank and other large-scale resources. Overall, we have committed more than £100 million to long-term development programmes in the next three years. Additionally, we are a major contributor to European Community reconstruction programmes that are worth about £3 billion over the next six years.
    Mr. Marsden: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I add my congratulations to him on his appointment? May I also pay tribute to the work of our forces in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans? In the case of the engineers, they are literally rebuilding communities. Does he agree with the view of Oxfam and other voluntary agencies that one of the most crucial roles we can play in that area is to rebuild small-scale economic communities, and particularly to build up civil society and non-governmental organisations? Will he assure us that the Department will give priority to considering the support and funding of those types of projects—not least because the successful regeneration of small-scale economies in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans will reduce the pressures on migration?
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his justified comments about the work of the armed forces. I agree with him that strengthening democratic institutions and civil society is essential to the creation of healthy democracies in Kosovo and Serbia. We are in discussion with a wide range of NGOs and community-based organisations about ways in which we can assist. In Kosovo, we have a programme to reform public administration that will include co-operation between local government and community-based organisations. For example, last November we funded two Kosovar NGOs to monitor the local elections and to train election officials. We intend to repeat that exercise for this year's provincial elections. We have also been helping to fund the Army's reconstruction work, and we have extended the help to the small enterprises that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of the Opposition, may I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate him on his promotion to dealing with international development matters? Will he, in turn, join me in congratulating the organisations helping to rebuild the Balkans, and the British Council in particular? The council operates throughout the Balkans, but especially in Belgrade and Kosovo.
    The Department for International Development has drastically reduced the number of contracts that it places with the British Council. Moreover, the council's budget has been cut, and it will have to spend £18 million on making 900 people redundant. Will the Minister guarantee

    915
    that no more cuts will be made to the council's budget, and that its valuable work in the Balkans will not be affected?
    Mr. Mullin: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. I certainly join her in congratulating the British Council on its work around the world. As she is aware, the council is funded by the Department. Although there has been some reorganisation, the council's budget has not been cut and it will continue with the great deal of good work that it does around the world.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend, and thank him for the commitment to spending £100 million in Kosovo? May I also alert him to the fact that the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal is grateful for the £3 million that it received from his Department, the United Nations, the USA and the EU? That money will enable the charities to help thousands of people to rebuild their homes and their lives.
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Scottish charities' Kosovo appeal which, along with many other organisations active in the area, has played a very constructive part in the process of rebuilding that shattered economy.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: When she expects to make a decision about constructing an airfield on the island of St. Helena. [147642]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): We received the draft summary report of the comparative study of options for sea and air access to St. Helena at the end of December, and the draft full report at the end of January. We will now discuss the findings with the St. Helena Government. No presumption should be made that the report will lead to support being offered for construction of an airfield. The study is intended to identify the most cost-efficient solution to St. Helena's international passenger and cargo transportation needs.
    Mr. Russell: I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio, and thank him for that very full reply. However, I am disappointed: I had hoped that he would fly to St. Helena with me in May next year, on the occasion of the island's 500th anniversary. Does the Minister have any idea when the airport could open, once work on it has begun?
    Mr. Mullin: I am happy to fly anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, we have only just received the draft summary of the report, so it is still a little too early to start making firm commitments. The Government are committed to ensuring continued access to St. Helena. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed already that the Department will provide funding equal to the least expensive capital options. The choice, of course, is between replacing HMS St. Helena, and building an
    916
    airport with related infrastructure. The decision will depend on the outcome of the study that we are considering.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that when I had the pleasure of going to St. Helena on behalf of the then Government, more than a decade ago, a delegation of the island's elected councillors told me that they did not want the airstrip that was on offer? Airstrips are not compulsory.
    Mr. Mullin: I certainly agree that airstrips are not compulsory, and we shall, of course, take into account the wishes of the islanders. However, we are being pressed quite hard on the subject by people with various interests, including some of the islanders. We are studying the options and will consider which is best.

    Disease Treatment
    Ms Julia Drown: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans to encourage investment in research and development of drugs and vaccines to treat the major diseases which affect people in developing countries. [147643]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working with others to encourage the development of better drugs and vaccines for the major diseases of poverty, such as HIV/AIDS—for which there should be a vaccine within 10 years—malaria and tuberculosis. We are also focusing on the development of universal primary health care systems. Most of the poor of the world are not in touch with a health system that can deliver drugs to them, let alone improved drugs. We must develop on both fronts.
    Ms Drown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the good work that the Government are doing in this field. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although drug companies need to make profits, they are under a moral obligation to make life-saving drugs available? Rather than mounting legal challenges against poor countries which are trying to import cheaper drugs, should not drug companies be making life-saving drugs affordable for the millions of people at risk from AIDS and other diseases?
    Clare Short: I agree that we must ensure that the best drugs are available to people across the world. However, the World Health Organisation has a list of the 90 basic drugs that a country needs; almost all of them have no patent or copyright. The problem is that people are not in touch with health systems.
    Anti-retroviral drugs simply delay death from HIV, they do not cure the disease. Glaxo and other companies have said that they will make such drugs available at cost price. Even so, they are still expensive and most developing countries cannot afford them. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's fundamental point that there should not be legal clashes between companies and Governments. We should reach agreement to look at the benefits to the poor, and that is what we are trying to encourage across the world.

    HIV/AIDS (Southern Africa)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent representations she has received regarding help needed to tackle HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. [147644]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): HIV/AIDS infection rates among pregnant women average 25 per cent. in southern Africa. That is a cause of great human suffering and a major setback to development. For example, life expectancy in Botswana—a very successful economy in Africa—is projected to fall from 71 years in the mid-1980s to 42 or under by 2010. HIV/AIDS prevention and better care are a major focus of our work in southern Africa. Since January 1999, we have committed £74 million to this work there.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend, who is visiting South Africa next week, knows that this issue in southern Africa is extremely important to the economy of the whole region. More than a third of the known cases of HIV/AIDS are in southern Africa. Clearly, education and prevention are essential to stopping the spread of the disease.
    Will my right hon. Friend speak to the drugs companies and the South African Government to try and end the present legal proceedings, so that progress can be made in ensuring that the necessary drugs are made available?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must take action on anti-retrovirals, but prevention is more important. In Uganda, which has been a leader in education, infection rates among young people are dropping, which looks as if there has been a significant change in behaviour. That kind of programme must be put in place across Africa.
    I shall be meeting representatives of the South African Government, and I have talked with the drug companies here. The legal action is very regrettable, and if we can do anything to reach agreement instead, we will.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the right hon. Lady accept that the fight against HIV and AIDS in southern Africa has been hampered by the attitude of those in power in such countries as South Africa and Zimbabwe? Will she try to impress on those countries the need for prevention, education and treatment, and do all that she can to assist the people suffering from these dreadful conditions?
    Clare Short: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Lady—that may be a first, but I hope not the last. What has been achieved in Uganda, and the reduction in infection rates among young people in Lusaka in Zambia and in Nairobi show that the big efforts made in prevention and education are paying dividends for the younger generation. Across the world, it is predominantly young people who are being infected, more of them women than men. Such efforts are therefore saving the next generation. We must persuade all the Governments of Africa to do what the best of them are doing. There has been progress in South Africa recently, and we hope that Zimbabwe will move forward too.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagement
    Q 1. [147668] Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    I also spoke on the telephone to Mr. Sharon, the new Israeli Prime Minister, and offered our help in the difficult times that may lie ahead for the middle-east peace process.
    Mr. Edwards: The decision by Corus last week to shed 6,000 steel jobs will have a devastating effect in south Wales, especially at the Llanwern steelworks in my constituency, where 1,300 jobs are about to be lost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the management of Corns, and especially its chairman Sir Brian Moffatt, have treated the work force appallingly and have not co-operated with the Government? May I urge him to put pressure on Corns to work with the Government, the work force and the National Assembly to save those jobs and secure British steel production in the future?
    The Prime Minister: We hope that, even at this stage, Corus will be prepared to rethink its decision. We are in close touch with the company, the work force and Members of the Welsh Assembly who have been active on the issue. The Corns work force are highly productive and highly skilled, and they deserve a decent future. I know that it is no consolation to them or to people in other parts of the country where jobs have been lost, but I was pleased at the announcement of new jobs at Bridgend earlier in the week and at Ellesmere Port. We must do everything possible to safeguard highly skilled, productive jobs in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. William Hague: The Foreign Secretary repeated this week that the Government, if re-elected, would make an assessment on joining the euro early in the next Parliament. Does "early" mean in the first two years of that Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: "Early in the next Parliament" means exactly what it says. It would of course be within two years.
    Mr. Hague: Ah, progress. The Prime Minister is more forthcoming than the Foreign Secretary, who said that early meant early, or the Trade and Industry Secretary, who under the helpful headline "Byers reopens cabinet split on single currency", reiterated his support for the single currency last night. If "early" means within two years, could it mean within months of a general election?
    The Prime Minister: It has been made clear already that it does not mean that. What is important when that assessment is made is that the economic tests are met.

    919
    What is absurd is the right hon. Gentleman's position, which is that he will rule out the single currency in principle, but only for one Parliament.
    Mr. Hague: It is no good the Prime Minister trying to distract attention from his policy, which is under scrutiny this afternoon. The Government have not known what "early" means. They do not know whether it means months or years, so when he says—[Interruption.] Let us get this clear. When he says that he will make an assessment on abolishing the pound early in the next Parliament, is he ruling out that being within months of a general election?
    The Prime Minister: I did that about a year or 18 months ago. Of course we will not move immediately, but we will do it within a reasonable time frame. Surely the issue is what the sensible policy to have is. Is it to judge according to the economic tests or to rule the single currency out on political grounds? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend said that if we were to rule out the euro on political grounds, which is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, we would lose massive inward investment. [Interruption.] No, it is not waffle; it is jobs in this country. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps he will comment on it when he gets back up—that Nissan said in terms that if we ruled out the euro for the next Parliament on political grounds, the investment in Sunderland would not come.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has a cheek to lecture anyone on manufacturing jobs when 6,000 manufacturing jobs have just been lost under his Government and one third of a million have been lost in this country since he took office. Now that the Prime Minister has partly adopted the policy that he has always criticised—of ruling out joining the single currency for a certain period—because he will not make an assessment until many months after the election, and as he is so clear about the timing, will he tell us, on this central point in his coming manifesto, how the question in that referendum would be phrased?
    The Prime Minister: The question can be phrased at a later time, but the issue is perfectly simple: whether we join he single currency or not. The question is, what is the right policy? We have made it clear that the tests should be the economic tests that have been set out and the convergence of the economy. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain to the House why, if he is against the single currency as a matter of principle, he is against it only for five years.
    Mr. Hague: There is only—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman. There is only one honest policy: to tell the country what a future Government would do. The Prime Minister is unable and unwilling to tell us what he will do because he does not want to admit that he wants to scrap the pound after the coming election. He is not able to be more forthcoming about the timing. He is not able to say what the question will be. It would be easy to conclude that he does not know very much; actually, he does know the answer to
    920
    those questions but he does not want to admit it. Why does he not have the courage to tell the country that he wants to scrap the pound after the next election?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that, in principle, we favour Britain joining a successful single currency; in practice, the economic tests must be met—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer!"J I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question when he first put it—rather to his surprise. The final decision will be for the British people in the referendum. That is all absolutely clear. What is not clear is how one can be against it as a matter of principle, but only for five years. The real agenda was let out of the bag—rather well—by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in a speech yesterday. He said:
    "I urge my fellow countrymen and women to agree with me that we must renegotiate this unhappy relationship"—
    with the EU—
    "before it is too late."
    Conservative Members are nodding.
    I have explained our policy: to make a judgment according to the tests, and to do it in a way that allows the British people the final say in a referendum. There is no question of our renegotiating our basic terms of membership of the European Union. Given that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is again one of the party people at Conservative central office, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would like to get up and disown him.
    Mr. Hague: Our policy is to be in Europe but not run by Europe—a policy supported by the vast majority of people in this country. The Prime Minister's European policy is like his Minister for Europe—not trusted by anyone, giving no straight answers, and half the Cabinet wants to get rid of it. Everyone knows that his European policy is to keep the Minister and dump the pound. Should not his policy be to dump the Minister and keep the pound?
    The Prime Minister: These stirring speeches in favour of the pound would be much more convincing if the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not ruling it out for just five years. That is an absurd position to be in. Of course, he did not answer the question about the right hon. Member for Wokingham, because the right hon. Gentleman was not the only one to say that. At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition was forced to intervene with Baroness Thatcher. He was forced to stand up to her, which, for him, took a lot of courage. He slapped her down and said:
    "I'm pleased to say I enjoy excellent relations with Lady Thatcher".
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! I am sure that he does. The truth is that our policy—to judge, according to the economic tests, what is good for British jobs, British business and industry—is the right one. The final decision will be for people to make in a referendum. The real reason the right hon. Gentleman rules it out, in principle, as a matter of politics, is that he knows—as we saw a moment or two ago—that a large part of his party want out of Europe altogether. If we did leave, we would lose jobs,

    921
    investment and influence. The truth of the matter is that it is not I who have to explain my policy; the right hon. Gentleman has to explain his. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Steve Pound—
    Hon. Members: Keep the pound—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Being loved by the entire House is an experience that is completely new to me.
    Did the Prime Minister see the report in The Times today listing the Cardinal Wiseman high school in Greenford as one of the most improved high schools in the country, notwithstanding the fact that my wife is a governor and my daughter a pupil of that school? Will the Prime Minister pay credit to Paul Patrick and his staff at Cardinal Wiseman and agree with me that here is graphic evidence of an education system that is improving and a Government who are delivering?
    The Prime Minister: There is one pound that we shall definitely keep.
    In relation to the education system, yesterday's Ofsted report showed that nine out of 10 secondary schools are improving, that primary schools have made a huge step change and that there is improvement in the standard of teaching. Of course, it also drew attention to problems in the schools, but that is precisely why it is important that we make the extra investment. Over the next few years, massive investment will go into our primary and secondary schools and into university education. We will put that money in, and the Conservative party would take it out.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the subject of education and following on from his response to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not put up student tuition fees if his party wins a second term of office?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to top-up fees, we have already made it clear that we do not favour top-up fees.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister should surely recognise, because the Government's own research demonstrates, that students and potential students are being disadvantaged and put off going into the tertiary sector as a result of his policy. We have got rid of tuition fees in the Scottish context. Why does he remain wedded to that tax on learning in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: First, actually there have been 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since we came to office. Secondly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the following words very carefully:
    "We support the Government's proposal to end maintenance grants and replace them with income-contingent loans as the fairest way of securing a greater contribution from students."—[Official Report, 16 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 995.]
    922
    That was said, during the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the Liberal Democrat education spokesman.
    Ms Dari Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is more than aware of the anxieties being felt by steel communities throughout Great Britain, which of course includes Teesside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cancellation by Sir Brian Moffatt of a meeting with Back Benchers representing steel communities is a continued sign of his sheer indifference to the devastation that he has caused?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago, it is important that we carry on working with the company and we hope that, even at this stage, it can reconsider. I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many of her constituents when she talks of their anger, because these are well-paid, highly productive and skilled jobs, often in areas of high unemployment; but we will stand ready to help, as we have done before, in any way that we can.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Is the Prime Minister proud of a record that has seen the number of vacancies in secondary schools double in his term of office? Is he proud to see secondary school class sizes at their highest for 25 years? Is he proud to see an inspector's report, published yesterday, that says that indiscipline in our schools is getting worse year by year, and that teacher recruitment over the lifetime of this Parliament is down by about 14 per cent? Is the 3.7 per cent. that the Government have given teachers adequate reward for that endeavour? The £200 million that local authorities will have to find to bridge the gap between what the Government have given and what they will have—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister knows what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    The Prime Minister: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on the facts. The inspector's report actually found that nine out of 10 secondary schools were improving. It is true that he found, in a minority of schools, that there was an increase in disruptive behaviour. He then went on to say, however, that the Government were taking action to deal with that, and that that action would deal with it. We are putting in an additional £200 million to deal with some of the unruly pupils and some of the excluded pupils.
    In respect of class sizes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been an increase of something like 0.3 of a pupil since the election. Class sizes in secondary schools have been going up for a very long period of years. However, in primary schools, class sizes have fallen as a result of the additional money that we have put in. Now, we are making a £5 billion increase in investment in education. Of course, there is always more that we can do, and we have to do more. However, given that we are spending

    923
    five, six or seven times more on education than they ever asked us to spend, it really is absurd of the Liberal Democrats to accuse us of not spending enough.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Israel, and obviously many outside, hold the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel to be indirectly responsible, as he knew what was going to happen, for the massacre by a Christian Lebanese faction of Palestinian men, women and children—even babes in arms—in September 1982? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happened yesterday will make it that much more difficult to have a peace process working in Israel and for the Palestinians, and that one of the ironies is that Sharon's victory yesterday will bring satisfaction to many terror groups in the Arab world?
    The Prime Minister: The fact is that Mr. Sharon has been elected Prime Minister, and it is important now that we, as a country, do everything that we can to further the peace process in the middle east. It is important for the middle east, and for the security of the whole world. Whatever differences there have been before, it is important that we work with the duly elected Prime Minister in Israel. The process is in a very fragile state indeed, and not just Britain, but the European Union and the United States of America, have to do everything that we can to put the process back on track and work with Mr. Sharon to deliver it.

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the military advantages of a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure.
    The Prime Minister: I have already made the position clear.
    Dr. Lewis: For the sake of those who might find that answer obscure even by the Prime Minister's standards, the question was: what are the advantages of having a European rapid reaction force outside the NATO structure?
    Does the Prime Minister accept that the first world war certainly, and the second world war arguably, grew out of crises that escalated out of control without the Americans being involved? Does he also accept that the great achievement of NATO was to guarantee American involvement? If he does accept that, how can he possibly justify creating such dangerous arrangements, which would pave the way for conflicts in which the Americans would not be involved on the side of the European states?
    The Prime Minister: Let me read what the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said yesterday:
    "I think if we approach the European security and defence initiative … with an understanding that it is firmly embedded in NATO, and we're not duplicating planning capabilities, and that we're adding to the overall capacity of both NATO and the EU … then there's no reason to see this as destabilising NATO in any way. In fact, I think it's our common belief that it will strengthen NATO."
    Colin Powell's words reflect not just American policy, but British policy. Once again, I shall state the facts for the hon. Gentleman. This is for peacekeeping and
    924
    humanitarian missions. It is for circumstances where NATO is not engaged. It is perfectly sensible that Europe should have the capability, in circumstances where NATO is not engaged, to engage in those missions.
    Let me give a classic example from the past 10 years. In Bosnia, in the early 1990s, because there was no European defence capability and because, at that time, the Americans did not wish to be involved, literally thousands of people were slaughtered right on the doorstep of Europe, so I regard the hon. Gentleman's comparison with the first and second world wars as absolutely fatuous. I am afraid that it is an example of how anything with the word "Europe" does something to the mentality of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in discussion with NATO colleagues concerning the European rapid reaction force, will he make it clear that there is no possibility whatever of this country or, I hope, any other European country signing up for, agreeing to or participating in national missile defence, because it would be a nuclear proliferation that would be a danger to the whole planet?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that it will not surprise my hon. Friend that I cannot make such a statement. As I have said in exchanges with the Leader of the Opposition, it is sensible to wait until we have a proposal, but I have no doubt at all that, as ever, we shall work closely with our American allies.

    Engagement
    Sir Robert Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept that the poorest pensioners in our society today are those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee, but who fail to claim it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but who do not claim it are in poverty. We have introduced it and hundreds of thousands of people claim it. We are mounting a campaign now to increase the take-up, and those pensioners, like all the other pensioners, will get the benefit of the winter allowance of £200 and, if they are over 75, of free television licences. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that we can always do more, but we have to do more within the resources that we have. We have many claims on those resources and, at some point, the Liberal Democrats must come to the realisation that there is a limit to the amount of money that any Government can spend.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that setting universities free of all Government regulation would mean lower teaching quality, spiralling student costs and top-up fees through the back door?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I should perhaps educate some Conservative Members about their policy. The position that they will take at the election is to cut—[Interruption.] They shake their heads, but I have not even said what it is yet. Their spending cuts to fund their tax plans include

    925
    £1.3 billion taken out of public provision for universities, which will mean a rocketing tuition fee for any student. They have no way of paying for that policy and that is yet another reason why people will not vote for them at the election.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the Prime Minister for his letter today about the Krishna Maharaj case. Although I understand that he has necessarily reproduced much of the Florida state case, may I ask him to go forward on the point that he made about doing all that can be done?
    May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in Germany, a similar case cost $1 million for its national to be able to get his case properly represented at federal level and state level? I am not asking the Prime Minister to say yes or no today to such an approach, but will he encourage his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—perhaps also the Home Office in view of Mr. Maharaj's possible repatriation—and Law Officers to meet the Bar Council human rights people and others working for Krishna Maharaj to make sure that his sentence was justified and that, if any more can properly be done, it will be considered?
    The Prime Minister: We will of course do anything that we can and should properly do in relation to this case. I understand that representatives of the Foreign Office will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I shall ask them to contact him to arrange the meeting. We can then take whatever meetings are appropriate from there. I also understand that representatives of the Foreign Office previously met Mr. Maharaj's lawyer, and consular officials will of course be happy to set up another meeting with his legal team. As I say, subject to what is proper, we shall do what we can in respect of this case.
    Mr. Paul Goggins: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this week's opening of the second runway at Manchester airport, which is now able to handle 40 million passengers a year? Does he agree that, once the new capacity is fully utilised, it could help to reduce the increasing pressures on London's airports as well as create thousands of new jobs in my constituency and throughout the north-west?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. Opening the second runway is important for jobs in the area and for business, not only in the north-west but throughout the United Kingdom. I am delighted to congratulate all those who worked on the project.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Prime Minister accept that the task of restoring public confidence in public life is as important in this Parliament as it was in the last? In view of the widespread perception that political honours are sold to party contributors on a scale unknown since Lloyd George's time, will the right hon. Gentleman fulfil his promise to clean up politics?
    The Prime Minister: We accept the duty to ensure that our political life is clean, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about political honours.
    Maria Eagle: When outlining the Government's public expenditure plans, does my right
    926
    hon. Friend believe that it is essential to explain their funding to the people of the country? Does he also believe that every other party that presents plans should be able to provide similar explanations and that any party that does not is unfit to govern?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ensure that any proposals that we make as a Government are properly costed. That is the right way to go about it. On the Conservative party, I could not put it better—[Interruption.] We have noted some sensitivity from Conservative Members on a certain subject. Earlier this week, the Conservative health spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), said:
    "A party that cannot realistically say how it intends to foot such a substantial bill is not fit to govern."—[Official Report, 5 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 740.]
    I agree.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Prime Minister knows that the inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport ended nearly two years ago, lasted more than four years and cost approximately £12 million. When can my constituents and people throughout south-west London expect to see the inspector's report, which is public property for which they paid? When will the Government tackle the environmental damage caused by unrestricted growth of air transport?
    The Prime Minister: The inquiry is due to report on the latter point. It is important to realise that, although the inquiry has taken a long time—no one is surprised about that—and it will take time for us to consider the details of the report, as soon as we have done that we shall publish it and our response.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to read an article in today's edition of The Guardian, which questions the probity of a bookmaker who funds an election campaign for a political party while running a book on the election outcome? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a top politician accepts £5 million to act as a glorified bookie's runner, we need a steward's inquiry?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the company took a different view from the individual about the outcome of the election. However, my hon. Friend makes a serious point. It is no wonder that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) espouses his policy on the euro; the money that the Conservative party receives is conditional on retaining that policy. The donor sets out stipulations for future Conservative party leaders. There are 5 million reasons why it will not change its policy.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Prime Minister will know about the release this morning of Stephen Downing after serving 27 years in jail. The counsel for the Crown admitted in court that the conviction was unsafe. Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to Stephen Downing's family and the editor of the Matlock Mercury, who have stood by him steadfastly throughout the campaign? There have been several delays

    927
    in the case. Will the Prime Minister ensure that Departments address expeditiously any future action that they may need to take?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to study the judgment itself, although I know of the case. I also know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned long on this issue and has asked me about it before. I would simply say to him that of course I am happy to pay tribute both to the work of the family on behalf of Mr. Downing and to the Matlock Mercury editor, who has championed the cause. I am only pleased that, after such a long time, this case is finally at en end.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Does the Prime Minister agree that the thousands of jobs lost last week in British manufacturing underline the monumental folly of any policy that would keep Britain out of the euro? The Tories may keep their pound, but how many thousands of British jobs would be lost as a result?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, as I said a moment ago, ruling out the euro would indeed mean an immediate loss of jobs in Britain. There is absolutely no doubt about that, which is why the decision should be taken on economic grounds. However, there is another thing that would put jobs at risk in this country—a return to Tory boom and bust. We know how that started last time: with promises of Tory tax cuts that ended up in high interest rates, tax rises and spending cuts. That is what they did before, and that is what they would do again.
    Mr. Eric Forth: When will the Prime Minister end the scandal of English subsidies for Scottish benefits?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that matter. At least we can agree on one thing: he has an honest policy for the euro. He wants to rule it out for ever, and that is the policy that he wants to push on his party.

Points of Order
Mr. Robert Key: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At about 8.10 this morning, Portcullis house was evacuated because of another fire alarm. Within minutes, I was told that it was a false alarm. There was also a false alarm yesterday, and since the building has been occupied there have been fire alarms about twice a week, most of them false.
The helpful man at the company that put in the fire system, Surefire Systems, said that the system was fine and that it would be perfectly all right if only people would not go into the building. He said that the problem lay with the design, and that he was just the subcontractor following the design provided by Ove Arup. I was told by the Department of the Serjeant at Arms that the system had been forced on the designers by the Home Secretary.
Not only are hundreds of people disadvantaged by this problem every time it happens, including Members and the staff who run the place for us, but the entire system is put under strain. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to try to ensure that those false alarms stop? It is embarrassing enough having press reports every week about the cost of the building that one works in, but when that building does not work, it is worse.
Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with Members and staff in that situation. There is nothing more annoying than being evacuated from one's workplace because of a false alarm. I understand that the alarm was due to a faulty detector head, and that a full investigation of the fire alarm system in Portcullis house is being undertaken. Meanwhile, the system is now being operated manually, and I trust that there will no further such incidents.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, after a flagrant abuse of Question Time by the Secretary of State for Health, you said, at column 783 of the Official Report,
"may I say this to Ministers? First, attacks on the Opposition are not really what I am looking for … Ministers are there to account for their Departments."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 783.]
You repeated that point today to the Secretary of State for International Development.
Today, the Prime Minister, in attempting to evade answering proper questions to him about his responsibilities, attacked the Opposition on 10 separate occasions—I counted. Is the Prime Minister bound by the same rules as other Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister is bound by the same rules as everyone else, but he gets a bit more leeway, and so does the Leader of the Opposition.

BILL PRESENTED
  EDUCATION (FUNDING)
  Dr. Nick Palmer, supported by Liz Blackman, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. David Kidney, presented a Bill to make provision about the distribution of funding between local education authorities: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed [Bill 40].

  Homes Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  3.34 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Homes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2001:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lord
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this evening. The programme is supplemental to the one that was approved for consideration in Committee, which finished as planned on 1 February. I pay tribute to the members of what was an eventful Committee, coinciding with the addition to the family of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and the promotion to Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). I feel sure that the resident of 74 Acacia avenue, who featured in many of the exchanges in Committee, celebrated both events in his local premises licensed for entertainment and the sale of intoxicating liquor.
  In all seriousness, we had a constructive debate, with valuable contributions from both sides of the Committee. I am grateful for that. There was full discussion of all the relevant matters and the debates were completed within the time set by the previous programme motion.
  In Committee, a limited number of minor drafting amendments were approved to simplify and clarify the Bill. The Government have proposed a few more amendments of a similar nature, and some that respond specifically to concerns raised by hon. Members in debate in Committee. We are not introducing by way of Government amendments any major new issue of principle. Therefore, one day should give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. For these reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: Here we are yet again. The Government want to drive through the Bill—
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course.
  Mr. Waterson: In many ways, the Bill is a perfect example of the Government's approach. It is all hype and no delivery. Before the general election, Labour promised that it would tackle gazumping, but the Bill does nothing of the sort. It is a perfect illustration of the nanny state at work. It will over-complicate and add extra costs to the process of buying and selling a house. It will criminalise ordinary citizens in private contractual dealings, making them subject to the same level of penalties as apply to the carrying of a flick knife. The Government are seeking again to suppress debate in the House and to ignore informed criticism.
  The Minister began with a string of in-jokes, which I think will be familiar only to members of the Committee, Acacia avenue being one of them. The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that the Committee finished as planned on 1 February. I do not know what alternative he was suggesting. Was it that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I should have hired a Committee Room to continue the debate regardless?
  Even after the date set for the close of proceedings in Committee, I applied the usual poetic licence to allow the Minister to make his kind remarks. As is normal and appropriate on such an occasion, he thanked the joint Chairmen for their chairmanship and for their skill in bringing the Committee to an end at 5 pm on 1 February. With all due respect to those two able Chairmen, that had nothing to do with them; we finished on 1 February because the Government said that we should do so.
  The Government did not say at the beginning of consideration in Committee that we should finish on 1 February—they said within days, if not hours, of the Bill being published that that would be the length of the Bill's consideration in Committee. That started as a proposal, and I use that word with some care, that there would be 12 sittings, and we had 12 sittings. Had it not been that rather unexpectedly at the last minute the Liberal Democrats withdrew a group of new clauses, we would not have reached the debate on, or would have finished in the middle of debating, an important new clause that was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there was no request from the Opposition for the Committee to meet after dinner on any of the evening sittings? Indeed, quite the opposite: the Opposition Whip requested that we should finish early on one occasion.
  Mr. Waterson: I do not recall that, but I do remember that, on one or two occasions, we sat until rather later than 5 o'clock.
  The answer is clear. The Government said, as soon as the Bill was published, that there would be 12 Committee sittings. Then they produced a programme motion which did not change at all. They tried to make out—although I think that the Minister has abandoned this tack—that it was agreed by the usual channels. Nothing could be more wrong. Of course, there were discussions through the usual channels and we tried to be constructive—the Minister was good enough to use that word in Committee and just now—and ensure that most of the Bill was properly debated. If one is given a certain length of string, one is going to make the best use of that length. It is
  932
  unfair and unreasonable of the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that we had a full discussion of all aspects of the Bill. How does he know what other arguments Opposition Members might have deployed in Committee? By whose definition was there a full discussion of every aspect of the Bill? In some cases, the discussion by Opposition Members was downright perfunctory because we wanted to get on to meatier aspects of the Bill.
  I am certainly not going to take criticism from Ministers if, in the final sitting, we tried to get on to the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on the important issue of shorthold tenancies. The Minister said, rather grandly, that we would have ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill today. I suppose that we should be mildly grateful that we do not have a statement on a weighty matter, but are starting business with the programme motion, debate on which can last for 45 minutes. All of that period comes straight out of the time for Report stage. We will then have Third Reading at the end of the evening. The current proposal is that we limit that to an hour, minus time spent on any divisions that might result from debates before 9 o'clock.
  It is therefore extraordinary that the Minister should claim that there is ample time for debate. How does he know? I see that there is relatively little interest in this issue on the Government Benches. Ministers think that they are running not a democracy, but a Swiss railway system. The Bill will come into the station at 10 pm; that is all that Ministers are interested in.
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is characteristically generous and understates his case with his usual subtlety. If this were a one-off, it would be bad enough, but it is becoming the rule or norm, not the exception, and is happening day in, day out in this Parliament. As a result, proper debate is being truncated and the people of this country are not getting the hearing that they deserve for issues that are pertinent and, in this case, important to them for the reasons given by hon. Friend. This is a serial crime, not a one-off offence.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes his point with great power and conviction.
  I repeat that the Government are in the business of bringing the Bill into the station on time. They cannot do that with a real railway network, but they seem to be able to do it with their legislation. It does not matter how many issues right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise, they have to fit all of them into the time which the Government have decided is sufficient. I have a shrewd suspicion that not only did they decide from the outset, when the Bill was published, that 12 Committee sittings would be ample—to use the Minister's word—but that they would rush through all the remaining stages in one day, as they are seeking to do today.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House which parts of the Bill the Committee was unable to scrutinise or, indeed, which amendments tabled by the Opposition could not be debated in those 12 sittings?
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. He will remember that there were points of

  933
  order from Labour Back-Bench Members—I think that he was one of the hon. Members, but if not, I do him an injustice—complaining about the amount of time that we were taking in Committee on part 1.
  Let us remind ourselves that part I deals with seller's packs and a transaction entered into by about 1.5 million people every year. It is extremely important to many people. For most people in this country, it is the biggest transaction they will ever undertake, yet hon. Members including, I think, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) were bobbing up and down, complaining about the length of time that we were taking on the matter.
  We took a little longer on part I and probably rather less time on part II than we might otherwise have wanted, and possibly than the hon. Gentleman might have wanted. Paradoxically, because of the procedural situation, the opposite could be the case today. Because of the weight of new clauses, many of them Government new clauses, relating to part II, we may well run out of time to deal with part I if we are not careful.
  Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If members of the majority side had realised how little the Opposition had to say about part II, we might not have moved procedural motions to end discussion on part I.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman might remember that we spent almost half our time on part II, which I do not complain about. I suspect that he felt a little short-changed, as did some of us, at the way that that came about.
  It is typical of the Government that they have no intention of ensuring that both parts of the Bill are fully debated. Not only are they trying to suppress debate in the House yet again, but throughout the Committee stage they chose to ignore informed criticism, and in some cases to denigrate it. Any informed person or organisation, let alone an hon. Member, who seeks to disagree is dismissed as wrong or worse. Sometimes, perhaps, such people are regarded as being slightly detached—to use a familiar phrase—or unfocused.
  The Law Society was one of the first to fall foul of the Minister's liverishness on one occasion. The Law Society represents some 80,000 solicitors in England and Wales. When the Opposition in Committee quoted—no one on the Government side would do it—the Law Society's concerns about and criticisms of the proposals in part I, what did we get from the Minister? He said:
  "I would take the wider issues of the Law Society with a slight pinch of salt. It may have been preoccupied with different things in recent months and perhaps has not focused"—
  that word again—
  "enough on the local experience of the seller's pack."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 186.]
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall what I told him in Committee: that the chairman of the Law Society in Bristol—where the seller's pack pilot took place—was one of the strongest supporters and advocates of the seller's pack. I suggested to the Opposition, who seemed to have difficulty understanding this, that it was probably
  934
  better to listen to people with practical, on-the-ground experience than to others perhaps defending a vested interest.
  Mr. Waterson: Ah! Now we are getting to that. The Minister will no doubt remember what I said in Committee: that of course the president—we have nothing so humble as chairman in the legal profession—of the Bristol Law Society is an enthusiast. I said to the Minister, and I repeat the invitation, that if he would like to give £360,000 worth of taxpayers' money to the Eastbourne legal profession, I can guarantee him that the president of the Eastbourne Law Society will be a convert. The only problem is that the Minister cannot go round the entire country running pilot schemes in every town and city.
  We will deal in more detail with the seller's pack, and I do not want to stray beyond the bounds of this debate, but if the Government are handing over such money to a local Law Society, and giving a great shot in the arm at taxpayers' expense to the local legal profession and local estate agents, of course they will all have smiles on their faces, just as the people who participated in the scheme have smiles on their faces—they were given their seller's packs, including their surveys.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman realises that he is going beyond the scope of the programme motion.
  Mr. Waterson: I allowed myself to be led down another path, there, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. John Bercow: For the benefit of the taxpayers who pay our salaries, will my hon. Friend confirm that there are no fewer than 74 new clauses and amendments to be considered? Will he also confirm that, on the assumption that we take one hour to debate Third Reading, the Government have the audacity to expect us to devote fewer than four minutes to the consideration of each new clause and amendment?
  While my hon. Friend is about it, will he also provide an invaluable lesson on the British constitution to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who seems fondly to imagine that just because the Standing Committee considered matters in some detail, that somehow discharges our obligation to do so? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the importance of this occasion is that the Standing Committee's deliberations are being reported to, and may be pronounced on by, the rest of the House?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes two very important points, and he is absolutely right. The Government do not think that people such as my hon. Friend should be in the Chamber debating all these new clauses and amendments—let alone those that have already been considered, albeit only by the Standing Committee. The Government think that Back Benchers should be either in their constituencies trying to get re-elected or sitting in their offices dictating into machines. That is the role of Back Benchers under this Government.
  Mr. Bercow: Well, it is not my role.
  Mr. Waterson: I know that it is not my hon. Friend's approach, and all credit to him for that.

  935
  My hon. Friend touched on an issue that I have mentioned only in passing. That is the weight of the new clauses and amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the Liberal Democrats. It is important that there should be the opportunity, on Report, to have a rethink and to take stock. Progress on the Bill has been made at a gallop since it was published just before Christmas; it is now only the beginning of February.
  It is right for people—even, perhaps, the Government—to have an opportunity to table new clauses and amendments, but the Government must allow such proposals to be properly debated when appropriate. There is an exact parallel with the debate on the original programme motion—to which I think this is a supplement or amendment—in that the Government had already decided on the length of time needed in Standing Committee before a single amendment or new clause had been tabled. That is precisely the same attitude as we see today.
  Before I was led down the path that took me slightly off the subject a moment ago, I was saying why I thought that debate on the Bill was being suppressed. I gave as an example not only the way in which the matter has been dealt with in the House, but the way in which major, serious bodies, organisations and individuals—I shall come to an example of that in a moment—have been dismissed out of hand by Ministers during the course of these debates.
  I mentioned the Law Society earlier. Another good example came from Mr. Nigel Holt, the director of the Independent Association of Estate Agents. That is not some little group of eccentric estate agents out of kilter with the rest of the profession; it is a body that represents 18,000 estate agents across the country. When Mr. Holt had the temerity to write to me, I had the even greater temerity to read out some of his views.
  Mr. Raynsford: Lack of judgment.
  Mr. Waterson: Let me come to that very issue. Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to comment on this part of the Bill, not only as an individual but as the representative of 18,000 fellow members of his profession. However, the Minister's comment on Mr. Holt was:
  Opposition Members often dredge out some extraordinary people who have written long letters, possibly in green ink.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 January 2001; c. 187.]
  Mr. Holt obviously has a sense of humour, because he has since written to me using green ink. However, he is not at all impressed with the Minister. It is hopeless if we are trying to have a serious debate that affects a lot of people—both parts of the Bilk in their different ways, affect many people—and Ministers are not prepared to take seriously the views expressed in a constructive fashion by people such as Mr. Holt, bodies such as the Law Society, and others.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what led to my comments? Will he confirm that Mr. Holt's letter accused the Government of behaving like Mussolini? If that is the case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with that judgment—and whether he
  936
  agrees with another ill-judged comment, by an Opposition Front-Bencher, who described local authority trading standards departments as being like the Gestapo?
  Mr. Waterson: We shall come on to what I have termed the conveyancing Gestapo in due course. It is true that Mr. Holt made a passing reference to Mussolini, which I took to be jocular; but it was in the context of the application of a set of criminal sanctions to people who failed to get together their seller's packs in time. We consider that to be one of the most objectionable parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Holt is perfectly entitled to express his views, and perfectly entitled to express them in trenchant terms. It certainly caught the Minister's attention, and he has been banging on about it ever since—but Ministers are not paid to dismiss the views of professionals and others with genuine opinions as simply the views of people with an interest in these matters.
  Mr. Hayes: The comparison with Mussolini does not, in fact, bear much scrutiny: Mussolini made the trains run on time, whereas the Government have done precisely the opposite. Leaving that aside, however, may I suggest that it is organisations of that type—independent outside bodies—that look to the Report stage of a Bill for the raising and debating of their considered views by Members? That is not always possible in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Report stage is vital if the House is to take into account that broader appreciation.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend puts in a nutshell the role of the various stages of scrutiny of legislation. It is up to us not simply to make points that may occur to us, but to act as a conduit through which organisations and individuals can make their concerns known. The Government have not made it easy for outside bodies to comment; they published the Bill just before Christmas and it went straight into Committee on 8 January, when we returned from the recess. Some organisations were caught very much on the hop.
  I shall not labour the point because we dealt with it at length in Committee; but the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which represents some 98 per cent. of lenders dealing with properties, also received the ministerial treatment. It was clearly hectored and bullied by Ministers into withdrawing many of its objections to the Bill.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the case with the gentleness and restraint for which he is renowned in all parts of the House. On the subject of arrogant authoritarianism, however, will my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) confirm that in the Programming Sub-Committee he specifically asked the Government for an additional seven hours of debate in the final Standing Committee sitting, and that the Sub-Committee—meeting hole-in-corner, in private—chose to vote down that proposed change in the timetable on the strength of a Government-whipped vote?
  Mr. Waterson: I was about to deal with the issue of the Programming Sub-Committee. My hon. Friend, I believe, has his own experience of these strange new bodies that meet in secret and are barred to hon. Members

  937
  who may wish to participate, other than those who are members of the bodies concerned. Not even all members of the Standing Committee are entitled to attend. Moreover, no record is kept of their proceedings.
  It is true that we tried to extend the scope of the sittings motion. We spoke of the complexity of the Bill, and made a number of points on which I have already touched. We also stumbled across the fact that a secret deal had been made between the Government and the Liberal Democrats to limit the time spent on debate.
  One of the major points we made was that an awful lot of the powers to be taken under the Bill would be taken by way of regulations. The Minister has been unable to produce draft regulations, which one sometimes has available. In fairness, he produced a document that set out some of the thinking behind some of the possible regulations, but even that shopping list was added to as the Committee went on.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the main thrust of his argument is that he wants more opportunity for genuine debate on those issues? If that is the case, why has he occupied more than half the total allocated time for debate on this issue?
  Mr. Waterson: I do not know why the Liberal Democrats are taking up that matter with us. They should take it up with their friends on the Government Benches, instead of kowtowing at every possible opportunity to the Government and doing little deals behind the scenes to reduce the amount of debate. I am not surprised. I doubt whether we will see many Liberal Democrats during this debate, no matter how long or short it is.
  I have set out the history. There has been no delay, filibustering or anything remotely close to it by Conservative Committee members. The Minister was good enough to describe our contributions as constructive. We ended up spending less time on part II than part I, which was contrary to the wishes of some Labour Members. We have many additional Government amendments and new clauses to deal with. As I have said, because of the quirk of our procedure, we could run out of time to debate part I, which will occupy the minds of some 1.5 million people a year. Sixty-nine per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers.
  Mr. Raynsford: In view of the hon. Gentleman's response to the question from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), will he tell the House why, on the penultimate day of the Committee, he personally wrote to the Government Whip to ask that we should agree to try to get to the end of clause 26 on that day and finish then or at 7 pm, whichever was earlier? If that was his view in Committee, how can he come out with all that synthetic indignation about a lack of time for debate?
  Mr. Waterson: It is simple. It seemed to be for the convenience of Committee members to finish that part of the Bill and start afresh. It was clever of the Whip to keep the note, but the Minister seems to be trying to say that he wants those matters to be debated in the middle of the night. Is that what he is saying? We are not going to take any lessons from Ministers. They think that we have had ample time to debate all the issues in Committee. They think that we have ample time today. We sensibly
  938
  allocated the time as much as possible within the limits of the original programme motion. The Minister is trying to make much the same point that he began with—that the Committee finished on 1 February. Of course it did. It had to finish on 1 February. It had to finish at 5 pm on 1 February because that is what the programme motion said.
  At least there is no suggestion from the Minister that this has all been agreed between the usual channels. Agreement subject to duress is no agreement at all. That was our attitude at the beginning of the Bill, it has been our attitude throughout, and it is our attitude today. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to be given the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but I have to correct him on three points. First, there was no secret deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Secondly, there was a deal between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives: we voted for the motion to extend by seven hours the business of the Committee, as the hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge. I see the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), nodding. Thirdly, no one could accuse the Government of being like Mussolini—the trains do not run on time.
  All hon. Members who have participated in this short debate have had the disadvantage of not being a member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I have been a member of it and have been involved throughout in the discussions on the way in which we should seek to make our business more business-like.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Eastbourne have completely missed the point. Although the Government are entitled to pass their business if they have a majority in the House, which they clearly have, and to set what they believe should be the target date for completion of that business, they have no right to set in stone the way in which that business should be considered in Committee or on Report.
  In our report to the House, which it accepted, the Modernisation Committee proposed that programme motions should be used as I have just described, but that has not happened in this case or in several recent cases. Consequently, my colleagues and I have voted against those motions. Liberal Democrat Members are still very much in favour of programming our business, but the Government have imposed those motions on the Opposition parties rather than allowing us to say precisely how we should consider each of the Bills.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I shall not take any interventions. There is very little time because of the long interventions by the hon. Gentleman and the long speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).
  This programme motion raises another issue. As has already been acknowledged, the Bill is an important measure with two very important parts. The first part deals with changes to the overall procedure by which we buy and sell houses, which is very important to our fellow

  939
  citizens. The introduction of seller's packs is extremely important to individual citizens. Although there might a good case for introducing some elements of the provisions as suggested, other elements are still extremely controversial. I am sure that that view is shared by Members on both sides of the House. Liberal Democrat Members oppose, for example, the idea that the failure to have a seller's pack should be a criminal offence. Such a provision seems outrageous.
  The second part of the Bill—it has had insufficient attention until now, but it will certainly require attention today—deals with the preparation and implementation by local authorities of homelessness strategies. Those provisions will require very careful consideration.
  As hon. Members have said, the time being provided to discuss eight groups of amendments—74 amendments and new clauses—is insufficient. I really do wonder why the Government thought that it was necessary to complete this business by 10 pm. Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to be here until midnight. The business that we are considering is extremely important. It is far more important than some of the debates that we have had to listen to, when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has kept us here on intrinsically less important issues.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Tyler: No.
  Of the 74 amendments, 28 are Government amendments, demonstrating the Government's acceptance that the measure is unfinished business. Although we may welcome many of those amendments, we do not welcome others and believe that they should be carefully considered.
  Previously, the Minister has referred to the measure as work in progress. It is unsatisfactory that, all too often, the House does not complete proper consideration of its legislation and sends that unfinished business to the other place. That is intrinsically inefficient and not a good way of handling our business. This motion does not reflect the Bill's importance, and my colleagues and I shall vote against it.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have not been following the Homes Bill in great detail, but I have been following in considerable detail the Government's practice of tabling programme motions. I have spoken to five or six such motions since the practice began and I wish to renew my protest.
  The House will have only four and a half hours to consider the Bill on Report. There are eight groups of amendments. On any view of the matter, some of those amendments are important. There is no point in the Minister saying that some or most of the amendments are but a reflection of what was said in Committee. Although that may be true, this is the first opportunity on which the House as a whole will have an opportunity to discuss the amendments. It is quite wrong that a practice should be adopted by which the House as a whole does not have the opportunity either to discuss or to vote on a number of substantive amendments.
  940
  Although I do not usually agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), he is right on this issue. The consequence of this programme motion is that some substantive amendments will be discussed first in the other place and will return to this place, if at all, essentially as Lords amendments. That cannot be right. It is an abuse of the process of democracy.
  My final point is one that I have made before, but it is of cardinal importance. Democracy depends on the electorate believing that legislation has been carefully scrutinised by their representatives in Parliament. That is the assumption on which the political compromises of life stand. If parliamentary representatives are not able to carry out that scrutiny, that assumption falls. If we fail in our duty of scrutiny of legislation and the consequences of Government action and policy, we undermine the basis of accountable government.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: The Minister has repeated Ministers' habitual refrain—that our obligation is merely to tidy up the Bill and engage in a little minor drafting. We are also told that the Government amendments have been tabled to meet Opposition concerns expressed in Standing Committee or on Second Reading.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is not the case.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but he appears to be in disagreement with himself. Members of the Government often disagree with each other; more often than not, Ministers disagree with Conservative Members, and it is not entirely unprecedented for members of Opposition parties to disagree with each other. However, when a Minister on the Treasury Bench disagrees with himself, it signals a new departure. The Minister said that the amendments cover relatively minor matters accommodating drafting changes and Opposition concerns: for him to deny that is, even by the Government's standards, spectacularly foolish and contradictory.
  Mr. Eric Forth: One group of amendments deals with energy efficiency. The amendments concerned strike me as bureaucratic, interventionist and regulatory nonsense. I should not be surprised if they had been penned by Friends of the Earth. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate this rubbish and vote against it.
  Mr. Tyler: They are Conservative amendments.
  Mr. Forth: I know. I simply want to illustrate the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—that the assumption that our task involves merely routine and trivial tidying up could not be more wrong. The amendments contain some real nonsense, to which we should give detailed attention.
  Mr. Bercow: There are important matters to be considered, and much nonsense. There is probably a superfluity of nonsense in the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been devised by a discredited, nanny-state, interventionist, mollycoddling Labour Government of the worst variety.

  941
  I apologise sincerely to the House for my understatement. My abiding problem is that I do not speak clearly or loudly enough so that my message is unmistakeable. I am sorry if my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thinks that I have displayed a certain inhibition and wetness in what I have said, but he will know that I do not propose to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), even to the extent of the dotting of an i or crossing of a t.
  As a member of the Conservative Front-Bench team, I sign up with enthusiasm and alacrity to the principle of collective responsibility. Therefore, it is to be assumed that I am in agreement with my Front-Bench colleagues in every particular and at all times. However, I am but one small and humble—[Interruption.] Whether or not I am humble, I am certainly small. I am only one of the 659 hon. Members in this House, and I repeat the important point that other hon. Members should be able to consider the amendments—Government, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—that have been tabled. That is especially true for hon. Members who did not have the privilege of belonging to the Standing Committee. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend has views on each of the 74 new clauses and amendments, and he should have at least a modest opportunity to express those views.
  It is both salutary and illustrative of the attitude of the new robots who pepper the Labour Benches that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who said that we need not trouble ourselves with any significant consideration because these matters had been debated in detail in Committee, has—entirely appropriately, in one sense—absented himself from the Chamber. He was apparently on the Standing Committee, and we congratulate him on the status he thereby acquired. He thinks that the Government have got it right. He thinks that there has been enough discussion. He thinks that his assessment should suffice as the assessment of the House as a whole.
  If other right hon. and hon. Members take a different view, what do the Government propose? Do they seek to persuade and convert by power and argument? No. What are those pigs I see flying before my eyes? Instead, they propose to ram through their intended truncation of debate on the strength of a whipped vote, with all the new robots going through the Lobby on the strength of the payroll vote, the knuckle-crunching, the threats, the favours, the offers and the denials that are within the power of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—the Patronage Secretary—and her underlings on the Treasury Bench.
  The majority of Labour Members of Parliament are probably aware of, at best, one tenth of the contents of the Bill—generosity tends to get the better of me. The betting is that they care about an even smaller proportion of the provisions than that. Some of us do care about the provisions, however. Some of us are inclined to pursue—it is relevant to homes, the involvement of local authorities and the state of local government expenditure—the implications of measures that the Government might take for the state of local finances.
  I would welcome the opportunity to express a view and to hear that of the Minister on, for example, the effect of the change in the rules governing the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses on the size of interest repayments on local authority debt. I might be tempted to expatiate on that subject because it is important
  942
  to council tax payers, the future of housing provision, the credibility of local government and the relationship between local and central Government. About that, I suspect, unless the Government reconsider their draconian proposal, we will have very little opportunity, if any, to say much of significance.
  The Government's attitude is, "We have our view; we have the majority; we simply do not care what you think." I emphasise that whenever we mention the public, who might be interested in our proceedings, the unfailing reaction of Members on the Government Benches is to snort and say, "How many?". They do not think that members of the public are interested in our debates. If they are not, it is because of the sheer disdain, indifference and contempt with which this anti-parliamentary, new Labour, quack Administration treat right hon. and hon. Members. Quite frankly, their attitude is plastic, supercilious—
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 169.

  Division No. 109]

  [4.19 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Alexander, Douglas

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Battle, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cox, Tom

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cranston, Ross

  Benton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cos'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Edwards, Huw

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Chaytor, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Church, Ms Judith

  Fisher, Mark

  943

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flint, Caroline

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Fit Hon Derek

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foulkes, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Galloway, George

  McWilliam, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hanson, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Healey, John

  (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heppell, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hesford, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robertson, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rogers, Allan

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Salter, Martin

  Lepper, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Love, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  McDonnell, John

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  944

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tynan, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Watts, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  (Swansea W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wills, Michael

  (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Amess, David

  Flight, Howard

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baker, Norman

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Ballard, Jackie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Beggs, Roy

  Gibb, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gray, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Green, Damian

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brady, Graham

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Brazier, Julian

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hayes, John

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  (NE Fife)

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Collins, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith,

  Cotter, Brian

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Key, Robert

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lansley, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  945

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lidington, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Livsey, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Loughton, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, William

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Townend, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyler, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Page, Richard

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Pace, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Rendel, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Homes Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2001:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Homes Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Homes Bill
    New Clause 15

      APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT TO EXISTING TENANTS
      'For subsections (5) and (6) of section 159 of the 1996 Act (application of Part VI of that Act to existing secure and introductory tenants, to existing tenants of registered social landlords and to certain other tenants) there is substituted—
      '(5) The provisions of this Part do not apply to an allocation of housing accommodation to a person who is already a secure or introductory tenant unless the allocation involves a transfer of housing accommodation for that person and is made on his application.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.33 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 46.
      Amendment No. 56, in clause 27, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '() In any scheme, the local housing authority shall state its policy for ensuring that people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed above, and who are existing tenants shall, all other things being equal, have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants of the local authority, provided that first time tenants can still be offered adequate accommodation.'.
      Government amendment No. 51.
      Mr. Raynsford: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51 and new clause 15 seek to simplify the provisions in the Bill that ensure that existing tenants in the social housing sector who seek a transfer of accommodation from a housing authority must have their application considered under the allocation scheme. In other words, they have a right to have their application considered, a right for reasonable and additional preference to be considered, and a right to seek a review of decisions about their application.
      The policy intention has not changed, but we have identified a simpler way of achieving it. Amendment No. 46 removes clause 24, which is unnecessarily complex. It is replaced by new clause 15, which in turn substitutes for the current subsections (5) and (6) of section 159 of the Housing Act 1996 a new subsection (5).
      Amendment No. 51 will make a minor consequential change to schedule 3.
      Under amendment No. 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), existing tenants would be given priority over new tenants in the allocation of new-build accommodation. I find it extraordinary that he considers such detail appropriate to the Bill. We are setting up a robust framework in which local authorities can operate choice-based lettings

      947
      schemes. The framework will provide authorities with the discretion to make local decisions, based on local knowledge, and appropriate to local circumstances.
      The framework sets out the principal issues that authorities should take into account in drawing up their priorities and preferences. They are, in the main, closely related to need, but the framework is not prescriptive—nor should it be. Local authorities should have discretion. It makes no sense to direct every nuance, to insist on every detail and dot every i and cross every t. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats' suggestion is curious because considerable discretion would be removed from local authorities by amendment No. 56, yet the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) speaks frequently about diktats from Whitehall and the Government's centralising tendency.
      Hon. Gentlemen should be clear about their objective. Do they wish to allow local authorities more discretion, or do they wish to be centralisers? I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey shows himself to be a centraliser, and amendment No. 56 is inappropriate. I hope that he will not press it to a Division, and that the House will support new clause 15 and the Government amendments.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I do not wish to detain the House. I shall deal first with amendment No. 56, tabled by the Liberals. For once, I agree with the Minister. The amendment would include in the Bill an incredibly detailed, micro-managed proposal, despite the Minister's reluctance to include many other proposals that we think should be in it. However, the last thing I want to do is to intervene in an argument between the Government and their Liberal Democrat allies. Of course, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will make his own case in a moment.
      As for the unlamented demise of clause 24, we agree that new clause 15 represents a much less clumsily drafted approach to what the Government want to achieve. We have no difficulty with new clause 15 or Government amendments Nos. 46 and 51—the second of which is a drafting amendment, so far as I can tell—and we shall not therefore seek to divide the House on any of them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendment No. 56. There is of course no difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and me, on any occasion, in any circumstance. The Minister knows that that is true, but he likes making the odd bit of mischief, so I shall forgive him.
      I represent—I still think that the figures are accurate—more council tenants as a proportion of my constituents than any other English Member of Parliament. Therefore, this debate and these provisions are of crucial interest to my constituents and me. The Minister may not have spotted the fact that amendment No. 56 was not intended to determine what the policy should be, but to ensure that local authorities state their policies. I am keen to ensure that each local authority puts out its policy clearly in the shop window.
      948
      The objective of the proposal is slightly different from the one that the Minister suggested. Importantly, amendment No. 56 deals with
      "people in need of a move on any of the grounds listed"
      elsewhere in the Bill. There is no argument about those grounds. People may need to move if they are overcrowded, or on medical grounds, or whatever. However, when existing local authority tenants need to move,
      "all other things being equal"—
      that is an important phrase—they shall
      "have prior claim to new built property over those who would be first time tenants".
      The reason why I tabled the amendment—I shall not press it to a Division—was to get the Government to think about such issues, and to ensure that local authorities are required to address the controversial question of how they choose between long-standing tenants who live in accommodation that is inadequate by the local authority's own definition, and people who would be new tenants.
      From his experience in his present constituency, and from the one that he previously represented—they are both in inner London—the Minister will know of one of the great complaints that tenants who live in overcrowded and damp accommodation frequently make. They desperately need to move because they are ill, or they live in an upstairs flat with no lift. However, people then come off the housing list; the existing tenants do not begrudge those people being housed, but they move into brand new properties. Meanwhile, the existing tenants remain on the fourth floor of a block with no lift, or in a flat that is damp, overcrowded and inadequate for them. They have no chance of moving into the new properties, and that is the cause for their complaint. It is a matter of equity.
      I accept that this is not the time and place to be over-prescriptive, and that local councils should be able to exercise their discretion. That is why people vote councils in and out; they choose between policies. I merely ask that the local authority publish its policy on this matter, so that people know what its policy is, and can decide whether to vote against the party in power at the next election. I ask for clarity so that we can remove one of the major causes of grief, aggravation and concern that existing tenants, many of whom have paid their rents for 20 or 30 years, feel towards local authorities.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Like my hon. Friend, I represent many council tenants, and many of them have great problems understanding the housing policy that governs their ability to transfer. My hon. Friend's amendment is a good one, apart from the use of the words
      "all other things being equal".
      The point is that things are not equal, and there is not a great deal of transparency. Most housing authorities fail to explain the transfer system, what the criteria for existing tenants are, and how new applications are dealt with.
      Mr. Hughes: I know my hon. Friend's constituency quite well, and I have visited the flats there when supporting his election campaigns. We are all the same boat, in that we are dealing with people who are trapped in a home and want to move.

      949
      The purpose of the debate is to get the Government to consider the issue, and I accept my hon. Friend's proposition. Provided that adequately sized accommodation with adequate facilities is offered, the best system would not offer the best properties to first-time tenants. They should start with the old property and work their way up the quality ladder. Long-serving tenants should get the new properties as a reward for their years in the old property wilderness. That is a matter of equity, irrespective of people's background, culture or anything else.
      The Minister understands that I do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that he will consider the issues involved.
      Mr. Hancock: People find themselves in a trap when, having been on a housing waiting list, they are made an offer of accommodation. The problem is particularly difficult for homeless people who, in the main, are made only one offer. Invariably, they take the first available property, and in many instances, it is not suitable. They remain in that property for several years, and inevitably, their family circumstances change. However, they are trapped in a property that they have little or no hope of leaving.
      My local authority has a housing transfer list nearly as long as its housing waiting list. Fifteen years ago, it had 30,000 council properties at its disposal, but it has fewer than 18,000 today. As one can imagine, the vast majority of good properties have been sold off and the rump that remains is, in the main, made up of pre-war properties that require major renovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, many families have been trapped in a property for a long time, with little or no hope of ever getting out. That is because—quite rightly in some respects—the housing authority believes that they are adequately housed. However, many authorities refuse to recognise the conditions in which many of those families live.
      Surely the Minister has a responsibility to recognise that the Bill should offer hope to people who are trapped in properties while their children grow up. I hope that when he replies, he will tell us that the Government are considering the issue realistically and sympathetically, and that they intend to do something to help.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: This short debate has identified two main issues. First, it has shown the importance of simplifying the provisions, which is what the Government amendments will do. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for his support. Secondly, the debate has highlighted the position of existing tenants against that of new tenants.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) emphasised that there were two parts to amendment No. 56. First, the council should state its policy. The Bill provides for exactly that. It requires authorities to prepare a detailed policy that will apply to people who seek transfers. The measure gives them greater involvement in the allocation of accommodation than is currently the case.
      The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) both made an important point about the respective needs
      950
      of existing tenants and new tenants. We all know the sense of extreme injustice that many existing tenants feel when they are trapped in properties in poor condition, yet see new tenants getting more attractive properties ahead of them. That is worrying. We therefore want to make two important changes to the allocation system.
      First, we want to ensure that, unlike what happened under the Housing Act 1996, the allocation process takes full account of the needs of those who want a transfer. Secondly, we want to make a significant shift from bureaucratic allocation systems in which officials make the decisions, often with little regard for the feelings and interests of the tenants, to a more choice-based system. We acknowledge the constraints that are inevitable in areas of high demand. Nevertheless, we want to try to involve those who apply for council or housing association homes more in decisions about their future.
      It is important to give more choice to the public and more respect to their views. That will probably lead to the results that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Portsmouth, South want. When the public exercise more choice, the system has to respond to the wishes and aspirations of people who are aggrieved about the current arrangements. I hope that both hon. Members realise that the Bill is in line with their objective, but that we do not propose to achieve that objective through centralising diktats from Whitehall. We are providing the framework, but each local authority must develop its own system.
      Mr. Hancock: The Minister has made a helpful point, provided that local housing authorities take note of the framework and intend to introduce transparent policies. An existing tenant has the right to know that his or her application for transfer has been considered according to proper criteria. Tenants should also have the right to know why applications are rejected. How does the Minister intend to ensure that local authorities effect that policy?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is fairly new to the debate; he was not a member of the Standing Committee. We had detailed debates in Committee about methods of ensuring that the new allocation policies were made available and that people had an opportunity to appeal against the assessment of the facts on which their allocation had been determined. It is not appropriate for every allocation to be subject to an appeal; that would not be feasible. However, every applicant must be confident that the basis on which his or her priority is being assessed can be challenged. We have provided for that.
      We have invited bids from local authorities for imaginative new choice-based lettings systems. We have received substantive bids from 94 local authorities, and we will make decisions in the near future about the allocation of the £11 million in funding to support those initiatives.
      Mr. Hughes: Will it be possible for the Department to state the new policy in simple, easily accessible form? Anyone who wants to take part in a tenants organisation debate on the subject can then obtain from a common website details of comparable systems, and be well informed for a local discussion. Tenants will be able to

      951
      say, "This is what we've got at the moment, but we'd like you to do what Leicester, or Liverpool, does." Can the information be readily accessible?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman two undertakings. First, we certainly want to ensure that the new policy introduced by the Bill is fully understood, and we will arrange for appropriate publicity to ensure that tenants groups, local authorities and registered social landlords throughout the country are aware of the new arrangements.
      Secondly, one issue that is exercising us at the moment is how we ensure that, with the great interest that I have described—94 bids for new innovative choice-based lettings schemes—information is shared throughout the country, and good practice in one area can be understood by others. We are giving a great deal of thought to that, but we have not yet reached conclusions about how best to achieve it. I hope that, having heard that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will accept that his amendment is flawed and agree to withdraw it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may recall that a week or two ago we had a debate in this House on the Government's new regulations on secrecy in local government, on a prayer tabled by Conservative Members. The Liberal Democrats tabled a prayer in the Lords, which we supported, and which was to be debated tomorrow. It has just come to my attention that the prayer has been withdrawn. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to come to the House to make a statement as a matter of urgency, explaining the Government's attitude, and whether this is another example of Lib-Labbery in action.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have had no such information, and in any case this House cannot be concerned with procedures in another place.

    New Clause 16

      PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE HOMELESS WHO ARE AT RISK OF VIOLENC
      '(1) In section 177 of the 1996 Act (cases when it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation)—

      (a) in subsection (1), after "domestic violence" there is inserted "or other violence"; and

      (b) for the words following paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there is substituted—

      "(1A) For this purpose "violence" means—

      (a) violence from another person; or

      (b) threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out;

      and violence is "domestic violence" if it is from a person who is associated with the victim."
      (2) In section 198 of the 1996 Act (conditions for referral of case to another local housing authority), for subsection (3) there is substituted—
      "(2A) But the conditions for referral mentioned in subsection (2) are not met if
      952

      (a) the applicant or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has suffered violence (other than domestic violence) in the district of the other authority; and

      (b) it is probable that the return to that district of the victim will lead to further violence of a similar kind against him.

      (3) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) "violence" means—

      (a) violence from another person; or

      (b) threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out;

      and violence is "domestic violence" if it is from a person who is associated with the victim.".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation—
      '( ).—(1) Section 177 (whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to violence on racial or other grounds against him, or against—

      (a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or

      (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.

      For this purpose "violence on racial grounds" in relation to a person, means violence from another person by reason of a person's race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out.".'.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) moved an amendment aimed at strengthening the homelessness safety net in respect of people forced to leave their homes through no fault of their own because of racial harassment.
      This is a matter of genuine concern and I undertook to review the current provisions in part VII of the 1996 Act and table an amendment to make it clear that a risk of violence towards someone, or threats of violence which were likely to be carried out, would be grounds for a decision that it would not be reasonable for that person to continue to live in their current home.
      The current legislation provides in general terms that a person is to be treated as homeless if it would not be reasonable for them to continue to live in their present home. There is specific provision concerning people who would face a risk of domestic violence if they continued to live in their present accommodation. The latter provision, introduced by the 1996 Act, is important, since every support must be given to those who are vulnerable because of domestic violence. However, on reflection, it could perhaps be construed rather narrowly as implying that while it would not be reasonable for someone experiencing domestic violence to remain in their home, it might be reasonable for someone to do so where faced

      953
      with a different kind of violence. Of course that would be nonsense, but the possibility of that construction is a weakness in the current provisions.
      All forms of antisocial behaviour ruin people's lives. The Government are committed to tackling the unacceptable level of antisocial behaviour in our communities. Through crime and disorder partnerships we are working with local authorities and the police to achieve that, and encouraging best use of antisocial behaviour orders and injunctions. We are combining effective prevention with tough enforcement.
      At the same time, we want to provide adequate protection for victims of antisocial behaviour, including racial harassment. As part of that, it is important to make it absolutely clear that it would not be reasonable for anyone to remain in their home if continued occupation would bring with it a real risk of any kind of violence, or a threat of actual violence. That must include not only domestic violence but all other forms of violence, including racially motivated violence. That is what new clause 16 does.
      The clause will amend section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 to make it clear that it is not reasonable for someone to continue in their present accommodation if to do so would result in violence or a real threat of violence towards them. As with the current provisions concerning applicants at risk of domestic violence, the new broader provision will apply whether there is a risk of violence, or threat of actual violence, to the applicant himself or to a member of his household.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow moved an amendment that would have amended section 198 of the 1996 Act with the aim of ensuring that people who flee from harassment in one area and make a homelessness application in another are not referred back to the area where they would be at risk.
      There are specific provisions in the 1996 Act that prevent such a referral taking place if the applicant, or a member of his household, would run the risk of domestic violence in the other area. Currently, there is no provision to prevent referral where there is a risk of some other form of violence in the other area. The new clause will make that necessary provision.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) tabled new clause 19, which has the same broad intention as new clause 16, although his proposal focuses rather more specifically on racially motivated violence. As I have said, the Government's proposals will embrace all forms of violence, and that must be the right approach. That includes racially motivated violence, which unfortunately is far too often the type of violence that hounds people out of their homes.
      In light of the fact that we have tabled new clause 16, I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will withdraw new clause 19.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: All parties in the House and individuals will be grateful to the Government for responding positively to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) by bringing forward a new clause. That is welcome. The Minister was right to say that the general thrust of new clause 16 is in the same direction as new clause 19, which I tabled. I accept that the Government's new clause goes
      954
      further than mine because it amends both sections 177 and 198 of the Housing Act 1996. Properly, in my view, the Government have added to the domestic violence provision, which gave protection before, the wider violence category, which is described in the new clause. I welcome that and I am grateful. The intention was exactly the same from my perspective, from that of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and from that of the Government.
      We are dealing with a huge and real issue. Far too many people are receiving threats in their own homes. These are most frequently threats of a racial character or are the result of a domestic dispute. Occasionally, there are other sorts of threat. There are occasional threats—happily, they are not made nearly as often as the others—of homophobic violence. Every year since I have been a Member of Parliament, people have come to me and said, "I cannot stay in my home. I am being persecuted on the ground of my race"—or of their sexuality or for some other reason. I am grateful to the Government for responding positively.
      I am keen to ensure that the tenant, the normal resident, is covered. I have also included,
      "a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family"—
      and, because it raises a specific issue,
      "any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
      I ask for that to be included, again from practical experience. On two recent occasions, the threat has been not to the tenant but to the tenant's partner. In one case, the tenant was safe while alone, but when the partner, who was of different race and had a home elsewhere, came to stay at weekends, the violence occurred. The other case is familiar to us all, and occurs when there is shared custody or responsibility for children. Occasionally, difficulties and threats arise because of a domestic breakdown in the past. People may feel that, if the child of the family stays with them, they will be under attack because the other partner has never accepted the child's right to stay with that parent or grandparent.
      5 pm
      I am happy not to press my new clause, but I am keen that, by end of the process of getting the legislation right, we should have covered the tenant, the normal resident and people who, perfectly properly, come to stay. Ministers will understand that it is fine and good to protect the tenants themselves, but if their sons, daughters, parents, partners, wives or husbands are under attack when they come to stay, then a tenant's right to stay and to be protected is no good. Tenants need protection for their household, which should be properly defined. I am therefore keen to make sure that the legislation covers the household in all circumstances in which there is a threat of violence, whether domestic or otherwise.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: In common with other speakers, I welcome the enlargement of the provisions in new clause 16. However, there is an issue that I would like to raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Some of my constituents have suffered from domestic violence, racial harassment or harassment because of their sexual preferences. They feel strongly and deeply that they are being made to move from their

      955
      home and from an area which they and their children know well and—certainly in cases of domestic violence—where the children are attending school and have made links with other children.
      While welcoming the potential for a place of safety for people who suffer the worst excesses of mindless violence, I should like to raise with my hon. Friend the need to examine the possibility of ensuring that the victims of violence can be properly protected in homes in which they may have lived for a considerable period. There should be rather more joined-up action across what I acknowledge is a wide range of statutory responsibilities, to ensure that those who would do those people harm are precluded from doing so.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I wish to make a brief point. The Under-Secretary will know that I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee, and my point—which, I hope, he does not think pedantic—may have been dealt with exhaustively then. As I understand it, new clause 16, which I support, amends section 177 of the Housing Act 1996, by adding the words "or other violence" after the words "domestic violence". It then goes on to define what violence—not "other violence"—means.
      Why is it necessary to add those words—I fully agree that the concept should be added—rather than deleting "domestic"? The new clause could just refer to violence, which could be domestic, racial or any other violence. I have a little campaign to try to ensure that legislation is no longer than it need be. In this case, that small point may just help.
      Mr. Waterson: May I begin by congratulating the Under-Secretary on what, I think, is his first ministerial appearance at the Dispatch Box? Of course, he was promoted during the Bill's Committee stage—one of the many events that enlivened our debates.
      We support new clause 16. There was a debate on the general subject in Committee and there was general cross-party support for the proposal that we should be clear that we are addressing all types of violence. We agree with the Under-Secretary that it is certainly possible to put a narrow construction on the existing wording. As the hon. Gentleman said, it would be quite wrong for people to be disadvantaged in housing priority terms if they were in genuine fear of violence, whatever the cause of that violence was said to be. We heard an eloquent speech in Committee from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on the issue.
      Whether we represent Bermondsey, Eastbourne or anywhere else, we all know of the problem of violence and the threat of violence in social housing in some parts of our constituencies, and of the fact that people can be systematically terrorised over a long period. We recognise that there are different types of violence and different reasons for it.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) noted that the reasons for the violence may be domestic, and that all too often, the flash-point is access to or custody of children, or marital discord. Equally, the reasons may be racial or homophobic, or we may be talking about neighbours who
      956
      simply do not like each other. We will discuss later the so-called neighbours from hell. That issue should be addressed more than it has been in the Bill.
      Antisocial behaviour bordering on the violent, and sometimes turning into violence, is an increasing problem in estates, blocks of flats and so on across the country. We agree that no distinction should be made between different types of violence.
      It is bad enough that people may be forced to flee their homes because of violence or the threat of violence, but it would be absurd if they then found themselves at the back of the queue for housing. I doubt whether there are housing authorities that apply the rules so narrowly, but the Minister is right: we should not leave it to chance. We are therefore happy to support new clause 16.
      Mr. Hancock: I welcome new clause 16, but I see in it problems that could persist into the future. Those of us who represent large numbers of council tenants have encountered cases involving all types of violence. Sadly, domestic violence is usually one of the easier cases, as it is clear who is perpetrating the violence and who is on the receiving end.
      Other types of violence are not so straightforward—for example, the threat of violence from the drug dealer in the block of flats against other tenants. I have a block of flats in my constituency where the Post Office has refused to deliver mail because of the intimidation and the hypodermic needles that are discarded almost daily around the block. It is a scandal that people in the block knew what was going on, but were so frightened to come forward because of the fears of violence that the matter went unattended to for a considerable length of time.
      There are many instances in which the threat of violence is a compelling reason for people not to say anything about what is going on, and to allow the criminal elements and the neighbours from hell to continue to make other people's lives a misery.
      A further issue is the malicious claim of violence. On more than one occasion, people have come to me with a fairly plausible story about a threat of violence, in the hope that that would be sufficient to get them rehoused. It is extremely difficult to prove such a thing, and the assertion was subsequently shown to be malicious. The people concerned were simply trying to work a scam to get rehoused. People may be desperate, but that is not acceptable.
      There should be a mechanism that allows people who have a genuine fear of violence to ask the local housing authority to move them because they are at risk. The housing officer may ask what proof they have and how often the police have been called. In most cases, the mere fact of the police turning up would be enough to ensure that violence ensues—perhaps not that day or the next, but within a short period.
      We need to assist local authorities in obtaining proof of what is going on, and we should give them some guidance about how to collect evidence of the violence that has supposedly been threatened. That is a very difficult issue that must undoubtedly be addressed. How right the Government are to have tabled new clause 16, but that will not be the end of the process. Sadly, the problem is going to get worse. On some estates, the threat of violence has become an epidemic, and is an essential part of the way in which those estates are run. We must find a mechanism to free people from the fear of violence.

      957
      Any hon. Members who grew up on council estates where violence was the norm will know how awful it is to live with that fear hanging over them. Fear accompanies people on their journey home from school; parents worry about whether their children will arrive home, because of the threat not of abduction but of violence being dished out; people come home late in the evening and are afraid to go upstairs: some go and stay the night somewhere else because they are afraid to enter a block of flats and go up four flights of stairs, because gangs of violent youths are sitting on those stairs. The police cannot respond to every phone call from someone asking to be escorted home. We must find a mechanism to deal with the problem. New clause 16 starts the process but, sadly, does not end it.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked whether other people in a household would be covered by the measure. He will find the definition that he seeks in section 177 of the Housing Act 1996, which the new clause will extend. The present definition includes
      "(a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or
      (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."
      The definition that the hon. Gentleman asked for is therefore covered by the original Act and by the extension proposed in the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) asked why we could not simply use the word "violence", rather than the terms "domestic violence" and "or other violence". The reason is that we have to comply with the requirement for referrals under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, in circumstances in which it applies to domestic violence. It is far easier to identify the perpetrators of domestic violence—and their places of abode—than other perpetrators of violence, so there is a different procedure in such cases.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) largely spoke on the same subject. On that issue, we are proposing that a person living in a home where they have been subjected to violence or are clearly under threat of violence—no matter what the reason or motive—can be classified as homeless and given priority if it is necessary to move them from their home.
      Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate, will know that a complaint we often receive is that the victims of violence, rather than the perpetrators, have to be moved. Furthermore, there is always an issue of proof. The Government are trying to introduce other measures to deal with those problems. In relation to that, we must consider the adequacy and enforcement of tenancy agreements and the use of antisocial behaviour orders.
      The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South clearly illustrated that it is not always possible to prove allegations of violence. Sadly, it is all too often necessary to move the victim out of the way of the threat because the allegations against the perpetrator cannot be proved.
      Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister also agree that another important strategy—to which more publicity
      958
      could perhaps be given—is the role of third parties in giving evidence, to preserve the anonymity of a neighbour who might otherwise have to give direct evidence, with all the consequences that that might have?
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Ainsworth: Some of the measures that the Government introduced recently were designed to introduce a working relationship between police and local authorities, to enable third parties to give evidence in many cases of this kind. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The point I wanted to make is that in some areas an individual local authority cannot tackle the problem. In the case of certain acts of violence, there should be a strategy involving several authorities.
      When one local authority tenant visits violence on another tenant of the same authority, although the difficulties that have been enunciated are very real, it is in some ways easier for the authority to deal with the problem. When the violence is perpetrated by a tenant of a contiguous authority, however—or even an authority further away than that—there should be a strategy that a group of authorities can define.
      Mr. Ainsworth: What my hon. Friend says is inevitably true. Wherever possible, we are trying to encourage cross-border co-operation between authorities, as well as co-operation within them.
      As we all know, this is a difficult issue. It is often not possible to prove violence or threats of violence, which means that victims go on suffering needlessly. We are introducing a provision enabling such people, in extremis, to be classed as homeless, and to move away from the threats or the actual violence that they face.
      Ms Jackson rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has probably finished.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      CO-OPERATION BETWEEN REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS AND LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES
      '.—() For section 170 of the 1996 Act (co-operation between registered social landlords and local housing authorities) there is substituted—
      "Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority's allocation scheme, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies—
      '().—(1) Section 213 (co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      After subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "() Where a local housing authority request a registered social landlord to assist them in the discharge of their functions under this part, the landlord to whom the request is made shall co-operate in rendering such assistance in the discharge of the functions to which the request relates, if to do so is compatible with their constitution and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of their functions."
      (2) In subsection (2)(a) the words "a registered social landlord or housing action trust" shall cease to have effect.".'.
      Amendment No. 57, in clause 16, page 10, line 27, at end insert—
      '(8) In formulating its homelessness strategy, a local authority shall be required to show that its policies meet housing needs before meeting housing demands.'.
      Amendment No. 18, in clause 17, page 10, line 30, after "homelessness", insert "including rough sleeping".
      Amendment No. 19, in clause 18, page 11, line 45, after "organisations", insert—
      'people living within the authority's area including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.'.
      Amendment No. 15, in page 11, line 46, at end insert—
      'to include organisations recognised by the Secretary of State as specialists in representing people with physical and mental disabilities.'.
      Mr. Foster: We are now dealing with the important issue of the strategies and reviews of homelessness for which local authorities are to be responsible. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Government's proposals, although I am sorry that they were not prepared to accept the importance of uniting authorities housing and homelessness strategies.
      In Committee, we made a great deal of progress in determining what should be the content of the reviews and strategies. The new clauses and amendments are intended to make further improvements. I shall not comment on the Conservative amendments, but I commend them—particularly amendment No. 15, which suggests that consultation during the development of strategies should include consultation with organisations representing people with mental and physical disabilities. We discussed that issue in Committee. Amendment No. 19 concerns another issue that we discussed then: the importance of involving homeless people in the development of strategies. I especially commend amendment No. 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which suggests that the primacy of housing need should be stressed in all allocation strategies.
      New clause 2 and new clause 3, which is intimately linked with it, raise an issue that was touched on during our Committee deliberations. However, because it was linked with many other issues, we perhaps did not have the opportunity to give it the attention that we might have liked.
      The Committee became aware during its deliberations, as I am sure the House is aware, that the registered social landlord sector is playing an increasing role in the
      960
      provision of affordable housing. As we discovered from information provided by various organisations, by 2004, because of continued progress by local authorities in selling their council houses to RSLs, the majority of affordable houses will be in the control of RSLs. Therefore, if a local authority's homelessness strategy is to be successful, it is important that there be an intimate relationship between the local authority and the RSLs in its area.
      The existing legislation, the Housing Act 1996, requires co-operation between RSLs in a local authority's area and the local authority, but the problem is that, within that legislation, the nature of that relationship is largely based on the RSLs deciding what it shall be reasonable for them to do in respect of that co-operation.
      Clearly, if an RSL is not prepared to co-operate in the provision of affordable housing for people in need in a local authority's area, there can be serious consequences. Some people will stay longer in temporary housing. It could mean that some people are in less satisfactory housing. It might even mean that some people are not housed at all. The test, however, is whether that co-operation is deemed by the RSL to be reasonable. It is clear that the RSL would decide whether the relationship was reasonable. Indeed, the Minister, in relation to advice and assistance given by a local authority, said:
      "the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such 'advice and assistance as is reasonable..' to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 429.]
      Under the current legislation, co-operation between the two is expected, but it is for RSLs to decide whether the level of co-operation that they are providing is reasonable.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose contributions we so enjoy.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that unsought compliment.
      If a local authority changes its social housing priorities in the course of one financial year, either because of a change of administration or for any one of a number of possible reasons, how quickly will the hon. Gentleman expect a registered social landlord to respond in terms of the provision of accommodation?
      Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It raises a more complicated point than I suspect even he is aware of. A large number of local authorities have transferred their housing stock to RSLs. At the time of the transfer, it was assumed that the RSL would abide by the allocations and priority procedures of the local authority. Over time, however, as local authorities change, registered social landlords have not been required to change their procedures. Therefore, there is not even a requirement for RSLs to change their procedures, let alone to change them quickly.
      I acknowledge entirely the concern that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may have that registered social landlords will be required to make changes overnight. Consequently, if he carefully reads new clause 2, he will see that I have included various

      961
      caveats to ensure that although registered social landlords will be required to co-operate more fully with the local authority, they do not have to do so if that is against their constitution or if they can demonstrate that it would in some way subvert their main purpose and key activity. I am grateful to him for making that point and allowing me to expand on it.
      Some people may argue that registered social landlords will certainly want to co-operate. In a majority of cases, they do want to co-operate. Unfortunately, however, evidence from across the country has shown that some RSLs are not as co-operative as one might hope. In Committee, we heard of research done by Shelter that demonstrated that of the 61 large-scale and partial transfer authorities with which it was in discussions, 26 per cent. said that, after the stock transfer, it was less easy to house homeless households and people on the register. Interestingly—although I do not think that we should make too much of that relatively small sample—89 per cent. of the authorities surveyed said that they would favour greater statutory powers in the matter.
      The purpose of the two new clauses is clear. They would strengthen the current statutory arrangements for registered social landlords to co-operate in offering accommodation under the authority's allocation scheme and assisting in the discharge of the authority's homelessness function. As registered social landlords are an increasingly important part of the affordable housing sector, that relationship is vital. That relationship needs to be strengthened, and the new clauses propose ways of doing just that.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I should like to speak first to new clauses 2 and 3, and then to our own amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 15.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to recognise the increasing importance of housing associations and other non-local authorities in providing housing. He is also right to welcome, as Conservative Members do, provisions that provide homelessness strategies and encourage local authorities to take a more preventive approach to homelessness. Our objection to the Liberal Democrats new clauses is their rather vague—I probably should not be surprised at that—way of approaching the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. We do not know why we need provisions "to strengthen co-operation", as the hon. Gentleman describes it, between registered social landlords and local authorities. We trust registered social landlords to decide what is reasonable.
      I echo the concerns expressed by the National Housing Federation about new clause 2. It states
      "Whilst it is right that RSLs offer assistance in meeting local housing needs, it is also important that they remain able to offer housing to people in need through other routes. By offering referrals to specialist agencies, RSLs are able to ensure that a wider spectrum of needs is met. Vulnerable single people or couples on low incomes, for example, are often helped into affordable housing in this way.
      It is also vital that RSLs are able to consider whether a property on offer is suitable for the applicant, given their household's needs and the available support."
      We want to avoid a move towards sink estates, and so cannot support the new clause.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I agree on all the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. There is great diversity among registered social landlords, and it is important to allow them to have regard to their constitution and key purposes. The new clause provides that those criteria can be used as exceptions, enabling RSLs not to co-operate if they believe that to do so would not be in their interests.
      Mr. Loughton: I do not disagree with much of that, but the new clause would not guarantee that local authorities could not press registered social landlords to act in a way that would be unreasonable and prejudicial to the provision of housing for other potential tenants. We believe that section 170 of the Housing Act 1996 is adequate for the task. It states:
      "Where a local housing authority so request, a registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority on the authority's housing register."
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the emollient advocacy of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and his helpful reference to the caveat in the new clause that a registered social landlord should not be obliged to prejudice the discharge of its other functions, it is important to know who will arbitrate disputes when they arise? As yet, that is unclear.
      Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The flow of complimentary language between him and the hon. Member for Bath is most unseemly and unexpected. However, Conservative Members will not support the new clause.
      Far more important is the matter of the three amendments that we tabled in Committee. The Government greeted them with warm words then, but do not appear tempted to make those warm words more explicit in the Bill. We therefore feel it necessary to tease from Ministers more action and commitment than they have so far offered.
      Amendment No. 18 would add rough sleeping to homelessness as a requirement for housing authority reviews. In Committee, we discussed at length the problems faced by rough sleepers, which are different from those faced by other homeless people. Rough sleepers' problems include dependency on drugs or alcohol and difficulties with social services, and their requirements with regard to the housing authority's review policy should be included in the Bill.
      In Committee, we also discussed the role of the rough sleepers unit. We used the example of the rough sleepers initiative so ably introduced by my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when they were housing Ministers in the early 1990s. They did a great deal to tackle the problem of rough sleepers.
      We believe that devoting a budget of £200 million to a quango filled with well-paid people is not the best way to concentrate resources on rough sleepers, and that it would be better to endow local authorities with the task. That is why we want the Bill to specify that rough sleeping should be part of a homelessness strategy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his unwillingness to accept the amendment. We are not convinced by the reasons that he has produced so far.

      963
      Amendment No. 19, which is perfectly sensible, deals with homelessness strategies and whom local authorities should consult. The issue was covered in Committee at some length, and we congratulated the Government on the more holistic—that ghastly word, which we all vowed not to use—and comprehensive approach to including other partners in formulating homelessness strategies and using partnerships to execute policies to deal with homelessness. We thought it was simply an error or drafting omission that nowhere in the Bill is there an undertaking that when formulating or modifying homelessness strategies, the very people those strategies are to help—homeless people—should be consulted.
      I mentioned in Committee the work done by organisations such as Shelter, which we all congratulated. It has been very supportive with regard to the homelessness measures in the Bill. Its report, "Closing the Gap", is a prime example of good practice and the way in which needs are translated into action. For that report, Shelter consulted the victims of homelessness. To consult homeless people seems a straightforward proposal. I should be grateful if the Minister explained to the House why he has not felt able to include such a provision in the Bill thus far.
      Amendment No. 15 deals with local authorities consulting specialist organisations that represent people who have physical and mental disabilities. As chairman of the Conservative disability group, I spoke with some concern in Committee. I think that what we are trying to achieve fits in neatly with what the Government are trying to achieve and with the spirit of the Bill. I cannot see why such a provision has not been included.
      Statistics show that more than 40 per cent. of homeless people, including rough sleepers, are over the age of 50. They are therefore much more vulnerable to the mental and physical effects of poor accommodation or rough sleeping and have a higher proportion of physical or mental disabilities. They have less easy access to mainstream advice services.
      In terms of physical accommodation, it is straightforward stuff—wheelchair and door access, ramps and rails. People in wheelchairs should not be put in flats on the fifth or 15th floor of a tower block, making them prisoners in their own home. We have all seen people at our surgeries who have been offered wholly inadequate accommodation.
      It is also a question of the area in which physically disabled people are housed. They need accommodation where an eye can be kept on them—where sympathetic neighbours, be they wardens or others, will look out for them or provide them with companions.
      When people with mental disabilities are able to go back into the community, where they are placed and whom they live next to are very important. Families with young children will be less understanding and sympathetic to their situation. Organisations such as Mencap raise the problems of the resettlement of people with learning disabilities who remain in long-stay hospitals due to the absence of suitable accommodation for them when they come out—another form of bed blocking, effectively.
      964
      The Local Government Association report, "No Place Like Home", made certain proposals. It stated:
      "Social services and, where relevant, health authorities should be involved in the allocation plan for households deemed to be in particular need of settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds in order to ensure that the need for support is both assessed and provided as part of the allocation process … Housing, social services and health authorities should jointly agree hospital discharge planning arrangements … Local housing authorities should maintain a register of wheelchair adapted properties in the council and housing association stock and, where feasible, in the private sector."
      So on, and so forth. We agree with those proposals.
      In Committee, we were given undertakings that argument A, which was cited by the hon. Member for Bath right at the beginning of the Committee proceedings, would not be trotted out as the all-encompassing excuse for not including measures such as those proposed in the new clause and amendments in the Bill. Argument A is essentially that if we mentioned certain groups of people, we would have to mention everyone—but we are talking not about a small special interest group, but about a large proportion of the population.
      According to DSS figures, up to 8.5 million people have disabilities of varying severity. That is one in five adults. Even if we think that that is too broad a qualification, we should remember that there are 700,000 wheelchair users in England and Wales alone. That is 700,000 people for whom special accommodation must be provided. If it is not, they will have varying degrees of problem in gaining access to and egress from the homes allocated to them.
      Why the Minister cannot concede on reinforcing the necessity to have regard to people who are specialists in dealing with people who have mental and physical disabilities, I do not know. We do not want to place enormous restraints on housing providers; nor are we asking for an enormous amount of extra resources. All we are asking for is that the Bill should state that regard must be had to the particular needs of a large part of the population—possibly the largest special interest in the population.
      During our consideration of people with mental disabilities, the Minister quoted the Housing Act 1996. That Act was panned by the then Labour Opposition when it was introduced. It was remarkable how much of it the Minister was able to cite as the reason why our amendments should not be accepted. He said that our points were already adequately covered by the 1996 Act. The Minister said that mental illness was a priority category under the 1996 Act. We are talking about delivering strategies on including physically and mentally disabled people—not just acknowledging as a priority that they exist.
      Our amendments are straightforward and not contentious. We mostly agree with the thrust of what the Bill is trying to achieve. However, we cannot see why the Minister, despite the warm words that he trotted out in Committee, has not felt able to stipulate in the Bill first, that the victims of homelessness should be consulted, and secondly—and perhaps more important—that local authorities should have greater regard to disabled people of various descriptions in formulating their homelessness strategies. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to refer to the amendment in my name. I should be grateful to know whether the Government support the view that local authorities should be required to meet housing need before housing demand. I shall give an example that prompts my concern.
      Local authorities own land. There is often pressure on them to sell it to realise the value of the land. Land is often needed for social housing, whether it is owned by the council or by a registered social landlord. I often get the impression that the Government are putting pressure on local government to get rid of housing and land. The result is that housing for those who need it, which does not bring the dowry that housing built by developers might bring, is squeezed out because land is developed for houses for those who may love them, but do not need them. Second and third homes should never be a priority when housing need remains unmet. When about 14,000 people are on the waiting list, as they are in Southwark, we should not be developing land in the borough for second or third homes.
      I have a question about the perfectly acceptable Conservative amendment No. 18. Under the Bill, or under the amended Bill if the amendment is accepted, will local authorities have to take into account the circumstances of people who, because they are single adults or are not rough sleepers, are not priority homeless? I offer two examples of people in my constituency who have fallen through the net in the past three months. The first was a young, single woman, aged 21, who was sleeping in a car. She was training as a nursery nurse. She did not have housing priority as a homeless person. As she could find nowhere to live, her training was at risk; training and undertaking placements when one has to sleep in a car every night are hardly an easy life style. During the wet and cold winter period, she was extremely vulnerable.
      5.45 pm
      The second case involved a young man, aged 19, who was also sleeping in a car, in Camberwell. He was holding down a cleaning job for four hours a day—his first job. He was unable to live in his home with his mother and her new partner because the partner would not accept him. He was unable to stay at his girlfriend's home because he had once committed self-harm there—a suicide attempt, or a call for help. Understandably, the family were nervous about that and told their daughter, "No, you can't have your boyfriend here".
      Neither of those people had priority for local authority housing, nor did they qualify under the rough sleepers initiative, because they were not unemployed and had not been rough sleepers for six months. We must ensure that we do not leave that category of people in such a predicament.
      When I went back to the local authority, it accepted, to its credit, that the case of the young man was a priority. As someone whose father and uncle had committed suicide and who had himself attempted self-harm, he should have been categorised as vulnerable and thus given priority need status. Thankfully, he has now been awarded that status—at my request—and has been given accommodation while his needs are assessed properly.
      Sometimes, however, going through those hoops for six months, three months—even one month—might be too much for such people. Both those people were in dire
      966
      circumstances. My colleague in my constituency office, who daily copes with such cases—as do the constituency staff of many parliamentary colleagues—will testify to the acute urgency of ensuring that people in such desperate circumstances are not left homeless, because of the great risk of suicide and other problems.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I declare an interest inasmuch as I am the adviser on homelessness in the cabinet of the London Mayor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) describes his amendments as unconten-tious. As he is a member of a party that, in government, was almost singlehandedly responsible for the huge explosion in the number of rough sleepers on the streets of London and for the large number, within that group, of people with serious mental health problems, and as that party constantly turned its face away from creating any rights for people with disabilities, I find much of his argument unbelievable. I am delighted that perhaps he is beginning to acknowledge that those matters warrant everyone's consideration. As in so many matters that have to do with compassion, the Conservatives are late to the party, but if they have arrived, that is good.
      Mr. Loughton: The hon. Lady can be forgiven as she was not a member of the Standing Committee, but perhaps she will acknowledge the figures that were eventually accepted by Ministers. Between 1991 and 1996, under the Conservative Government's rough sleepers initiative, the number of rough sleepers in central London alone fell from more than 1,000 to 286. Does she agree with those figures? If so, her argument is completely bogus.
      Ms Jackson: I did not serve on the Committee, but I have read all the Hansard reports of its proceedings, and it seems to me that what was essentially wrong with the previous Conservative Government still characterises the Conservatives' approach. They still get bogged down in putting their faith in figures that, in the main, compare unlike with unlike, which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were so keen to do. No, I do not accept the reading of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham of the policies that the Conservative Government instituted to try to tackle the problem that they had created—too little, too late and, in my view, grudgingly.
      I am astonished by the hon. Gentlemen's grudging response to what the present Government have done, and especially to the work of the rough sleepers initiative. If they are worried about this issue, they should offer firm thanks to Louise Casey and that initiative, who are on target to reduce rough sleeping in the capital by two thirds by the date that they have set.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham argues that the additional funding that the Government have given should be returned to local authorities when the RSI winds up in 2002. That would simply increase the burdens of rough sleeping that are borne, in the main, by only four boroughs in this city. We should consider ways to prevent, not encourage, rough sleeping.
      I heard the story about the two constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who had to sleep in their cars. I was

      967
      surprised that the first example that he cited was not immediately recognised by his local authority as requiring prioritisation on the grounds of vulnerability.
      I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are holes in the fabric. They result from the previous Government's failure to replace, or to allow local authorities to replace, housing stock that had been lost, and their failure to allow local authorities to enter into partnerships or even to repair and maintain their existing stock. We have too few affordable properties in this city. In the medium and long term, steps must be taken, but there is also a need in the short term.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not need my advice, but he might be interested to know that organisations that have received contracts from the rough sleepers initiative tell me that an increasing number of young people who are coming into the centre of London—thank God, no longer from other parts of the United Kingdom, but certainly from the outer London boroughs—are under the misapprehension that if they take up rough sleeping they will be prioritised for housing. We must make it abundantly clear that that is not, nor will it be, the case. The purpose of the rough sleepers initiative was, rightly, to prioritise the most vulnerable of those who are on our streets. The initiative is working effectively and well, and that is the strong view of the majority of those long-established charities that have worked in the area for many years.
      However, in London at least, there will have to be an integrated policy that takes account of the fact that, in many instances, rough sleeping by people who are particularly vulnerable, either as a result of mental illness or physical disability, is not a problem exclusively of bricks and mortar. It is also a problem of maintaining people when they eventually achieve a form of permanent housing.
      In my constituency it is not unusual for a person who has been rough sleeping, and for whom one has eventually managed to find permanent housing, to run away when the first electricity or gas bill arrives, because they cannot yet take absolute control of their life. It is not unusual for those in the older category of rough sleeper especially—many of whom have been in the armed forces, so they have been used to camaraderie and a life in which the individual does not necessarily have to take day-to-day responsibility for living—to be overwhelmed, when they are in their own property, by the sheer loneliness. Someone said to me the other day, "You look at a wall at 4 o'clock in the morning and there is no one to talk to; I go back to the street."
      For that reason, there is great need for a pan-London strategy, to ensure not only additional affordable housing but additional support. I am not arguing, and those organisations that already have excellent schemes in place would not argue, that the most vulnerable people must have someone living in their flat or bedsit 24 hours a day, to ensure that they know how to turn the gas off and the light on, pay the bills and wash themselves. I am arguing that there are schemes that work well and that, as has been said at other stages of the Bill's progress, it is important that central and local government start to disseminate across a much wider field examples of best practice so that we do not go through the pointless, time-wasting and expensive process of reinventing the wheel. Equally, to
      968
      return to the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I am arguing that to disburse the additional funding that the Government have put into the rough sleepers initiative among, in the main, the four local authorities that carry the largest rough sleeping burdens is not the way that we can most actively and cohesively prevent people from returning to our streets.
      In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I do believe that there will be difficulties for local authorities, because in some there will be an element of nimbyism. They may not necessarily want people who have been rough sleepers, who may be recovered alcoholics or recovered drug users, in their locality but, speaking exclusively from the perspective of a London Member of Parliament, we simply must ensure that there is a cohesive, integrated strategy that ensures that we never again have people with nowhere to rest their head other than a shop doorway, and that those who are mentally ill are properly supported: a long-term strategy that ensures that we create truly integrated communities where local authorities, registered social landlords and anyone and everyone that we can attract into this field will provide the housing that, at least in London, we desperately need.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Our proposals for homelessness reform require local authorities to take a more strategic approach to tackling and preventing homelessness. Such a strategic approach will be effective only if it harnesses the efforts and activities of all the organisations operating in each authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people.
      We have made it clear that a partnership approach is central to our proposals. We require local housing authorities to take a multi-agency strategic approach to preventing and responding to homelessness. There is a logical corollary: other agencies, statutory, voluntary and private, will have to play their part, and the voluntary sector includes registered social landlords.
      Registered social landlords will be central to the development and implementation of homelessness strategies. In some areas, they provide the majority of social housing, and the transfer programme is increasing their importance in delivering services to tenants and in supporting local authorities in the performance of their statutory duties.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) quoted what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in Committee, but he quoted him on a different point. Registered social landlords are subject to the Housing Corporation. If registered social landlords do not co-operate with the strategies drawn up by local authorities, the Housing Corporation can ensure that they do.
      New clauses 2 and 3 seek to strengthen the statutory duties on registered social landlords to co-operate with local authorities in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authorities' allocation scheme, and to assist authorities in the discharge of their homelessness duties by depriving them of their discretion to consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. We have covered that ground pretty thoroughly now and in Committee. Registered social landlords are already under a duty to co-operate with local authorities to such an extent as is reasonable. That allows some discretion, but the provision is given teeth by the sector's regulator—the Housing Corporation.

      969
      6 pm
      In guidance and through its policies on investment, the corporation can influence and provide incentives to associations to ensure that they work constructively with authorities. The corporation is reviewing its guidance and will ensure that local authorities' strategic roles are highlighted and that registered social landlords should endeavour to help authorities to deliver that role.
      Registered social landlords serve an important social purpose, but they are independent, voluntary bodies even if regulated and monitored under statute. I do not believe it appropriate, or necessary, to prevent them from exercising their discretion in relation to their statutory duties. It is essential that we respect their independence, but we certainly will look to them fully to support local housing authorities in the development and implementation of homelessness reviews and strategies, and the Housing Corporation will strengthen its guidance in that respect.
      It is odd that those hon. Members who generally welcome the greater freedoms that we are giving to local authorities in carrying out their functions are seeking to place stronger statutory duties on registered social landlords. There is real value in the sector's independence and diversity. That has come about not by Government diktat, but by steady evolution, with associations informing and voluntarily supporting and contributing to the social housing agenda. Independence allows self-motivation, greater innovation and a vision that goes beyond statutory duties. In seeking to limit that vision, the hon. Member for Bath risks losing much of what is best in the sector. I believe that new clauses 2 and 3 would do more harm than good, so I ask him to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Don Foster: I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not joining the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in congratulating him on his first outing at the Dispatch Box, but many of us in Committee had the opportunity to congratulate him on his promotion. Having said that, I found this outing rather disappointing, because he claims that, under new clause 2, some of the freedom and flexibility of registered social landlords would be removed, which would be appalling, and that we should respect the sector's diversity and flexibility. However, at the same time, he categorically told me that I need not worry because, in fact, all registered social landlords were under the control and dominion of the Housing Corporation.
      The Under-Secretary admitted that such landlords were regulated by statute and that they have statutory duties, but he now tells us not only that the Housing Corporation will issue new guidance but that there will be strengthened guidance. I want to provide a mechanism to strengthen the relationship between local authorities and registered social landlords. However, having told me that I could not do that, he now describes an alternative by which that will be done. Of course, in doing so, he generously answered—so avoiding my having to do so—the question about who would have control over such issues, asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The answer is that those who hold the purse strings control the issues. Given that the Under-Secretary has given that response, I intend to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I confused him; I certainly did not mean to
      970
      do so. I thought that he wanted to intervene, so I gave way to him. Although I am new to the Dispatch Box, I hope that I never fall into the habit of making such long interventions.
      Mr. Foster rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene, or does he want to make a speech?
      Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way now. I assumed, by the way in which he ended his previous remarks, that he had finished his speech and was seeking to persuade me to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is not at like the hon. Gentleman to be so self-centred; he should realise that the group contains other amendments, which have been tabled by other hon. Members.
      Amendment No. 57 is misconceived. It would set up false alternatives and suggests that meeting need is not compatible with meeting demand. However, meeting need does not preclude promoting choice. For example, facilitating transfers within an authority's stock does not increase demand for social housing, but it does increase choice. Offering choice to homeless applicants is not incompatible with meeting need—they can occur together. The Bill will establish a robust framework for prioritising claims on social housing. It will allow need to be met and choice to be promoted.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cited a couple of examples from his constituency. He will be aware that we are extending the priority categories to cover all 16 and 17-year-olds and all 18 and 19-year-olds leaving care. I should have thought that those categories, as well as a properly used definition of vulnerability, could cover those examples in a reasonable, caring and thorough local authority and that such people should be considered in those priority categories.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: At least the hon. Gentleman makes it clear that he wishes to intervene.
      Mr. Hughes: On the Under-Secretary's response to amendment No. 57, in the Government's view, should local authorities meet need before demand?
      Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, we do not see a contrast. Local authorities must not only meet need, but provide choice. That is the core purpose of our proposals. We do not believe that there is a conflict between those matters.
      Under amendments Nos. 18, 15 and 19, we need, yet again, to consider what should, and should not, be included in the Bill. We expect local authorities to seek the views of tenants, residents and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, including rough sleepers. Their views will be central in informing, from a consumer perspective, the homelessness reviews and in helping to draw up the strategies. We expect local government to engage people in the area, to work in partnership and to

      971
      be customer focused, but such matters need not be stated in the Bill. Homelessness includes rough sleeping, so adding rough sleeping, as suggested under amendment No. 18, would be meaningless. There is no need to imply, by including one group, that its needs were necessarily more pressing than another's.
      I share hon. Members' concern about the welfare of those with mental health needs, but we shall ensure that such needs are carefully addressed in the code of guidance. I repeat that, no matter what problem a group faces, or how large the group may be, it is not necessary to state every detail in the Bill. Indeed, that is not always desirable, as we have discussed elsewhere.
      The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) refers to the fact that such people are not mentioned in the Bill, but the Housing Act 1996 states that they are exactly the people who need to be looked after. Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 defines exactly the categories of people that he wanted to include in the Bill. The issues are covered, and I hope that he will accept that assurance.
      Mr. Loughton: The Minister appeared to be perorating, but I wish to intervene on his reference to section 189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. That section refers to identifying people in priority need, but it has nothing to do with consulting specialist groups that represent people with mental and physical disabilities on the best strategy for dealing with them. As I pointed out in Committee, they are two entirely different issues, so my point is not covered by referring to a section in the 1996 Act.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In drawing up their strategies, local authorities will be obliged to consult groups representing those with priority needs. As the hon. Gentleman can see, the groups are identified in section 189(1)(c). As he rightly said, we are back to what was known in Committee as argument A. If we include one group in the Bill, that might relegate the priority given to every other group. That might be an unforseen consequence of including one group without making the broader provision that is needed.
      Mr. Bercow: In the context of amendment No. 18, and assuming the veracity of the Minister's words about local discretion, how can he seriously suggest that the inclusion of the words "including rough sleeping" would either circumscribe that discretion or, still less, prove justiciable?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Homelessness is covered and rough sleeping is a part of homelessness. To mention it separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve absolutely nothing. On that basis, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: There is an obsession with the phrase "rough sleeping", although I accept it gives rise to real needs. Many rough sleepers have multiple needs, and one could argue that they could be covered by every single category that one might care to name. However, the bottom line is that they are homeless.
      Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. Rough sleepers are already covered within the category of homelessness. As I said, to include them separately in the Bill would be superfluous and would achieve nothing.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALL
      '.—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
      "(7A) an offer of accommodation under Part VI is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if it is made in writing, states that is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available to the applicant for not less than three working days from the date of the offer, or such longer period as the authority consider reasonable in all the circumstances.".'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Right of review of eligibility for allocation of housing accommodation—
      '—() If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsection (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'.
      New clause 6—Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need—
      '().—Section 188 (interim duty to accommodate in case of an apparent priority need) of the 1996 Act is amended as follows.
      (3) After subsection (3) for the words "The authority may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review" there is substituted—
      "The authority shall, if the applicant requests a review of the decision, consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant pending a decision on a review, and shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

      (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;

      (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;

      (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".'.

      New clause 7—Right of appeal to county court on point of law—
      '.(1) Section 204 of the 1996 Act (right of appeal to county court on point of law) is amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2), after the words "decision on review" there is inserted "or such longer period as the authority and the applicant may agree or as the court may allow.".
      (3) For subsection (4) there is substituted—
      "(4) where the authority were under a duty under section 188, 190 or 200 to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation, they shall consider whether to continue to secure that accommodation is so available—

      (a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision, and

      (b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined

      and they shall take into account all the circumstances and in particular—

      (a) any new information provided by the applicant since the authority's decision was notified to him;

      (b) whether a decision not to continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation will substantially affect his ability to pursue his request for a review;

      (c) the merits of the request for a review, as they appear to the authority at the time the request is made.".

      (4) After subsection (4) there is inserted—

      "(5) A county court may, in any case where an applicant appeals under this section, require the authority to continue to secure that accommodation is available until the appeal (and any further appeal) is determined.".'.
      New clause 10—Guidance by the Secretary of State—
      '.—() In section 169 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to the allocation of housing accommodation in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State.
      (4) Directions under this section—

      (a) shall be given in writing; and

      (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

      New clause 11—Guidance by the Secretary of State (No. 2)—
      '.—( ) In section 182 of the 1996 Act (guidance by the Secretary of State) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
      "(3) Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, a local housing authority or social services authority shall exercise their functions relating to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness in accordance with such directions as may be given to them under this section by the Secretary of State.
      (4) Directions under this section—

      (a) shall be given in writing; and

      (b) may be given to a particular authority, or to authorities of a particular class, or to authorities generally.".'.

      New clause 12—Provision of advice and assistance—
      '().—(1) The Secretary of State may by order specify matters to be taken into account in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, and make provision as to the procedure to be followed in the provision of that advice and assistance.
      (2) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult with such associations representing relevant authorities, and other persons as he considers appropriate.
      974
      (3) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      New clause 17—Persons with priority need—
      '—() In section 193 of the 1996 Act (entry to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
      "(7A) An offer of accommodation under Part VI is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if made in writing, states that it is a first offer for the purposes of subsection (7) and states that the offer shall remain available for five working days from the date of the offer or such longer period if the authority consider reasonable and shall include an opportunity for the person receiving the offer and an independent adviser to inspect the property.".'.
      New clause 18—Independent review—
      '.—( ) If a local housing authority decides that an applicant for housing accommodation is ineligible by virtue of subsections (3) and (5) of section 160A for an allocation by them, they shall inform him of his right to request and receive an independent review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.'.
      Amendment No. 52, in clause 20, page 12, line 31, at end insert—
      '(6A) People unable to stay in or who are obliged to leave the previous home owned or rented solely or jointly by them and where after relationship breakdown it is agreed that they are the partner to leave the home and the other partner will continue to live in the home are not to be held intentionally homeless.'.
      Government amendment No. 47.
      Amendment No. 16, in clause 27, page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      'to include particularly families with dependent children'.
      Amendment No. 60, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      'in particular, to provide for those who need to be allocated new accommodation, whether or not they have previously been local authority tenants, either on the grounds that they are at risk for their mental or physical safety or that their rehousing is a precondition of them being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings.'.
      Amendment No. 53, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
      '() It shall be the duty of the local housing authority to provide or secure accommodation for people who need it for their personal protection within 28 days of a request by the police for such accommodation to be provided.'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 17, leave out lines 25 to 40 and insert—
      '(2A) A local housing authority may defer an allocation of housing accommodation to a person falling within section 160A(2) of this Act where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—

      (a) an allocation of housing accommodation to that person would cause significant hardship to other persons;

      (b) if allocated housing accommodation, a person would fail to comply with his obligations as a tenant, having regard to resources and services which may be available to that person in the authority's district (whether available from the authority or otherwise);

      (2B) An allocation of housing accommodation shall not be deferred in accordance with subsection (2A) above where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances and to the need of the person for an allocation.'.
      Amendment No. 17, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '() any record of behaviour of a person (or a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 17, line 34, at end insert—
      '(d) the length of time people have been occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing, or otherwise living in unsatisfactory conditions, or that they have needed to move on medical or welfare grounds, or who need to move to another locality.'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 18, line 12, at end insert—
      '(2G) The authority shall be able to suspend subsection (3) where it can reasonably show that to operate its term would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.
      Mr. Foster: The time that it took you to read out the items to be debated, Madam Deputy Speaker, shows just what a long and complex group of amendments and new clauses this is on the subject of housing applications and allocations.
      The group covers three themes. First, some of the amendments and new clauses seek to ensure that the law is applied in practice, and in ways that meet policy intentions. Secondly, others seek to apply minimum standards to ensure that bad practice improves, and that there is more consistency, where appropriate, between local authorities. Thirdly, others seek to achieve a proper balance between local authority discretion and meeting housing need.
      6.15 pm
      Some of the new clauses and amendments are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), but others have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I shall draw the House's attention to some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend's amendments that were not discussed in Committee.
      For example, amendment No. 52 deals with the level of support that should be given when a relationship breaks down and one party is left without accommodation. Equally, amendments Nos. 60 and 53 raise the important issue of the level of support that should be given to people whom the police believe need protection because they have reason to fear violence to their person. No doubt my hon. Friend will air those issues should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      New clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself. New clause 4 deals with the minimum time that a homeless person should be given to consider the final offer of accommodation made by a local authority. The issue was debated in Committee, and I pointed out that a homeless person, when presented with a final offer, needs time to consider the offer and to take into account the implications of accepting it for working arrangements, and the effect on the arrangements for his children's education. He also needs to be given time to find out whether the local authority is prepared to carry out any repairs to the property that might be required.
      During our deliberations, the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary suggested that they would not accept such an amendment. However, the Committee clearly took the view that the practice of many local authorities, which allows only 24 hours for a homeless person to make a decision, was unacceptable. We referred to several authorities, including my own, that operate such a 24-hour policy. The Under-Secretary described it as unreasonable and said:
      "in the overwhelming majority of cases, three days is too short a period in which to expect a person to decide on a final offer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 30 January 2001; c. 356.]
      976
      His argument was that if three days appeared in the Bill as a minimum period, it would in many cases become the maximum.
      I do not accept that argument. Many of us might prefer a longer period, and in new clause 17, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests a minimum period of five days. That suggestion is attractive. However, a minimum of three days, provided that it is backed up with strong guidance making it clear that it is a minimum, will at the very least ensure that the practice of allowing only 24 hours, which is currently followed by far too many authorities, is outlawed.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He said that it proposed a period of five days, but did not explain why that relates to the first, not the final offer. Why do Liberal Democrats believe that five days should be allowed for a first offer but only three days for a final offer? Can the hon. Gentleman explain that curious logic?
      Mr. Foster: That is a matter for my hon. Friend. Indeed, we look forward to his explanation. However, it will not have escaped hon. Members' attention that all too often, the first offer and the final offer are the same. Too many local authorities do not provide homeless people with the range of choice that the Minister would like. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make that point when he replies to the Minister's question.
      New clause 5 deals with the right of review. I place on record our gratitude to the Minister for agreeing, under pressure from Liberal Democrat Members, to include a review period in the Bill. We have tabled new clause 5 to clarify the Minister's exact intentions for the review. In the original measure, people's eligibility for housing assistance and the priority that they would receive were not subject to review. It provided for the local authority to decide; there was no review period to deal with cases in which someone did not agree with the decision and did not believe that the correct information had been used to make it. The Government have now acceded to our request for a review.
      Did the Minister mean what he said in Committee when I asked whether the review period covered eligibility? He replied:
      "The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 February 2001; c. 419.]
      I took that at face value. I hope that I am right, and that it means that the review process covers eligibility.
      Decisions about eligibility are made under clause 25 whereas the right of review has been included in clause 27, which covers priority. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the same opportunity exists for reviewing eligibility as for ascertaining the priority of an eligible homeless person. Such a clear statement would persuade me not to press new clause 5, at least.
      New clause 6 deals with another issue that we discussed briefly. What happens to homeless people during the review period? Will the local authority ensure that they are given accommodation? Section 188 of the 1996 Act provides that local authorities have the power, but not a

      977
      duty, to provide accommodation for a person who is undergoing a review. In most cases, the power is not exercised. When I raised that in Committee, the Minister said that requiring local authorities to provide such accommodation in all circumstances would place too great a burden on them. I hope that he has noted that I have taken his anxieties about my earlier formulation into account in new clause 6, which would place a less stringent duty on local authorities. It would require them at least to consider whether to accommodate the individual who is undergoing a review. Given that significant watering down, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
      New clause 7 relates to a review or an appeal in a county court. It deals with the length of time that should be allowed before an appeal is made to a county court, accommodation during the appeal and the period for the appeal. Under the 1996 Act, those who are dissatisfied with a decision about support from a local authority can take the matter to a county court, but must make the appeal within 21 days. I do not intend to repeat the lengthy debate that we had in Committee, but there are good reasons why a 21-day period may not be long enough for a person to assemble the details that are required for an appeal to be heard, let alone to succeed.
      Mr. Bercow: Notwithstanding the brickbat that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) for my tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I genuinely enjoy his advocacy of the argument. However, given the preponderance of cases in which local authorities choose not to provide accommodation pending the outcome of an appeal, what assessment has he made, in his constituency or more widely, of the financial and logistical burden that falls on others?
      Mr. Foster: Thereby hangs an interesting tale. It is difficult to make such a calculation because current arrangements, whereby local authorities often do not even provide accommodation for the period of the review, let alone for the time required to develop an appeal, mean that many people cannot prepare for a review or an appeal because they have to worry about the more urgent matter of trying to get a roof over their heads.
      Research shows that few appeals have taken place. It would be difficult in current circumstances to assess the increase in the number of appeals and thus in the cost. I regret that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. However, he knows that there will be hundreds of appeals throughout the country. If accommodation is to be provided for a few weeks in each case, he can calculate the approximate magnitude of the figure. He has made an interesting point, which shows that a 21-day time limit can put people off.
      The Minister was worried about over-prescription. He will note that new clause 7 shows much greater flexibility than a previous amendment that I tabled. Under current legislation, it is not possible to extend the period beyond 21 days even if both parties want to do that. At least new clause 7 provides for an extension with the agreement of both sides. It also deals more flexibly with providing accommodation during the appeal period.
      978
      6.30 pm
      As for new clauses 10 and 11, I suspect that the Minister has been honing his quotes to demonstrate how my hon. Friends and I frequently stress the importance of giving freedom to local government. No doubt he has a third quote up his sleeve. He will say that the problem with the new clauses is that Liberal Democrats want to impose things on local government, which is contrary to what we say on other occasions.
      The new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to housing and social services departments to ensure that there is an adequate level of service, and consistency in key areas of practice. New clause 10 would apply to the allocation of social housing by an authority under part VI of the 1996 Act, and new clause 11 would apply to a local authority's homelessness functions under part VII.
      During our deliberations in Committee, the Minister referred frequently to the crucial importance that he attached to the guidance that will be issued by the Department. Yet he will acknowledge that where the law is incredibly complex, as it is concerning homelessness and allocations, guidance is a vital instrument for implementing policy intentions. Unless there is direction on some of the specific issues contained in the Bill, there is a real danger that some authorities will ignore the guidance. In some authorities, therefore, the quality of provision would be well below a minimum acceptable standard.
      Before the Minister tries to jump down my throat to tell me that it is wrong to issue directions and guidance to local authorities, I ask him to be careful. Were he to say such a thing, I would remind him of occasions when the Government have done just that, not least with social service departments. Were he to challenge me, I would say that often such directions are given to social service departments without any additional resources being provided to enable them to carry out the functions demanded of them.
      Finally—the House will no doubt be pleased to know—I shall talk about new clause 12, which deals with the importance of setting out a basic minimum set of standards in regulations, to ensure that the provision of advice and guidance to certain groups of homeless people by a local authority is acceptable. That is a key issue.
      In Committee, the Minister was more than willing to accept that the level and quality of advice and guidance offered by local authorities varies enormously. He acknowledged that the research findings in reports undertaken for the Department, and by organisations such as Shelter, have demonstrated that huge variability. I hope that, as it has been accepted that this should appear in the Bill as one of the duties of a local authority, he will also accept that it would be sensible specify minimum standards of service delivery.
      I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for having taken a fairly long time to introduce the new clauses. I am sure that you will be aware that there are many important issues involved. The House will be aware that there are more to come, and no doubt we shall be hearing about some of them from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for dealing so fully—I might almost say exhaustively—with his various new clauses and amendments. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not express a view on every one of them—at least not in any detail.
      Mr. Bercow: Go on.
      Mr. Waterson: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is eager to do just that.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Bath has not been persuaded by any behind-the-scenes deal not to press new clause 4 to a vote. If he does press it, as I hope he will, we shall be supporting him. That is not because the new clause represents an earth-shattering change to the Bill. It is because, if we divide on it, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be able to register our support for those of our amendments that are included in this group. If we do not, they will fall, and will have to be voted on later under the programme motion, taking up time that might otherwise be used in debate.
      Mr. Don Foster: I have always believed that our procedures mean that we listen to the debate before deciding whether to press a matter to a Division. However, having heard the Minister's response to similar amendments in Committee, I doubt whether I shall be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Waterson: Let us hope that the Liberal Democrats stick to that resolution. They will have our support in the Lobby if they do so.
      Dr. Brian Iddon: That is a back-room deal.
      Mr. Waterson: It is a front-room deal. It could not be more open—though it has been said that the best way of keeping something secret is to make a speech on it in the House. I am sure that, even these days, that is untrue.
      I will be speaking to amendments Nos 16, 17 and 20. Before doing so, I shall comment briefly on two of the more significant new clauses that the hon. Member for Bath has tabled. In Committee, when we debated the substance of new clause 4, I think everyone was horrified at the prospect that authorities were giving people 24 hours to make up their minds on a housing offer. The Minister took the view that that was unreasonable, and so did we. It is perhaps not untypical of the Liberal Democrats that they seem to be proposing two different periods, one of three days and one of five. We seem to be in period inflation. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has the opportunity, I have no doubt that he will explain the merits of five days. I shall not trespass on that internal argument among Liberal Democrats.
      Turning to new clause 5, people such as Chris Holmes, the director of Shelter, and the London Government Association have expressed their concerns about removing rights of review and rights of appeal. In Committee, we consistently supported the argument that these rights should be preserved in such circumstances.
      980
      We said that the Government could be going too far in sweeping away the position that is set out in the Housing Act 1996.
      It will be most useful if I touch on amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 20, which feature a range of concerns that we debated in Committee. It is right that we should return to those issues on Report because the Minister did not take them on board in Committee. I know that there are Members in the Chamber who were also members of the Committee and who may wish to speak on these matters.
      Amendment No 16 to clause 27 would insert the words,
      "to include particularly families with dependant children."
      I know the argument that the Minister will advance. I can almost hear it now. He will say that we should not be too prescriptive in Bills, particularly when dealing with categories of people who are given priority. However, we felt strongly that messages should be sent out. In Committee, the debate on allocations and priorities, for example, was driven by a series of press leaks by the Department to the effect that released prisoners would be given some sort of priority in terms of homelessness.
      Mr. Raynsford: Not true.
      Mr. Waterson: The Minister made that clear in Committee; that is why there is not an amendment that touches directly on the matter. We are taking the Minister's assurances at face value, as is only right. We are pleased that there has clearly been a rethink on the issue within the Department, and that the Government have backed off, no doubt having received much critical comment. This matter has featured in the media on at least two occasions. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that that was nothing to do with him but, as the Government think they are good at the art of spinning, somebody obviously thought that it was worth spinning.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, once again, my clear and categorical assurance that not only is there no intention to give prisoners a direct priority in housing allocation—a point I have made repeatedly—but there was no leak from the Department on the issue? If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will probably recall that one bout of press speculation followed a press release that he himself put out making that unfounded allegation. When we are thinking about where press stories come from, Conservative central office is probably the answer.
      Mr. Waterson: I do not think the Minister can get away with that. First, I have accepted his assurance, but if it makes him feel better, I will say again that I acknowledge that that is not now the Government's intention. Whether it ever was is perhaps academic. We certainly did not think the issue up; it featured in the media, which is why we commented on it. In fairness, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions said in a debate in the House that, if the matter was going to be spun, it was an odd thing for the Government to spin. Sometimes, though, as we have seen in recent weeks, spin doctors get out of control. In any event, we are delighted that, at this point, the proposition does not form part of the Government's proposals. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

      981
      We still think, as we did in Committee, that we should not move away from a principle set out in the Housing Act 1996. The Minister will say that this is an opportunity to simplify matters in the light of that Act, which we accept. Under the Act, authorities are required to produce allocation schemes that give "reasonable preference" to numerous categories, including families with dependent children. I say again that I see the argument for making some simplification. However, we take the view that if only one category is to be singled out, it should be families with dependent children. Parliament is entitled to send that sort of message.
      I referred in Committee to the useful work of the Catholic Housing Aid Society. I shall not refer to it again in any detail, except to say that, among other things, it shows that, of all local authority acceptances of priority need, nearly 60 per cent. are households with dependent children. That chimes with my mailbag and surgery and is a perfectly legitimate issue which could be included in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 17 raises the important issue of so-called neighbours from hell. There was near unanimity in Committee that perhaps the most difficult sort of issue in which we are asked to get involved as Members of Parliament concerns people who behave antisocially. It is often significantly easier to deal with the problem if such people are in social housing rather than in private housing. Having said that, we all face such problems in our constituencies. The Bill should send out a much clearer message that people should not and cannot behave antisocially.
      Earlier, we talked about violence and the threat of violence, and the effect that that can have on neighbours. We are now talking about a range of activity from the mildly antisocial through to genuine violence, which encompasses people breaking windows or making a lot of noise and encouraging their children to be noisy and difficult with certain neighbours. Such activity may even involve repairing cars and motorcycles on the front lawn or hanging out washing in a certain area. All those things can make a difference to a neighbourhood and to people's neighbours. There are also problems of racial abuse and other issues, which we have already discussed in relation to a different group of amendments. Such activity is one of the biggest causes of unhappiness in many estates throughout the country.
      6.45 pm
      Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 gives landlords grounds to evict people from shorthold tenancies. Section 162 of the 1996 Act gives local authorities the power to apply for injunctions against antisocial behaviour. The Government have introduced antisocial behaviour orders but, on any view, their use to date has been disappointing. I will not repeat the experience of the Irwell Valley housing association in Salford, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) dealt with it at length in Committee. The association's approach, which involves being tough with antisocial people and trying to reward those who behave as good neighbours, produces high levels of customer satisfaction and low levels of arrears, and so on.
      982
      The Committee also discussed a scheme by Wandsworth council—so often the trailblazer in these matters—for contracts between it and its tenants to cut down on criminal and immoral acts in council housing.
      Mr. Andrew Love: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty that many local authorities face with the kind of tenancies that he described. There was considerable cross-party agreement on that in Committee. However, does he not accept that the wording of amendment No. 17 is rather woolly and open to interpretation?
      Mr. Waterson: Like everything in this Bill or in any other piece of legislation, the amendment is subject to interpretation. We hope that local authorities will apply the measures reasonably. However, the point of the amendment is that we need to give them a steer so that they can—and should—take account of people's previous behaviour.
      If people have a record of bad behaviour, rent arrears or whatever—we went into that in detail in Committee, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will remember—that could and should be taken into account. That does not mean taking into account a criminal conviction such as a speeding fine, as some councils do. It means taking into account the fact that there are genuine grounds for concern that tenants who have behaved badly vis-à-vis their neighbours in the past may well do so again.
      Mr. Bercow: It is right that my hon. Friend should focus, as the Committee did, on obviously antisocial and, in some cases, even criminal behaviour. In that context, will he take the opportunity to distinguish between behaviour which, we all agree, should be denounced and counteracted by public agencies—and, possibly, be the subject of police investigation—and cases of honest disagreement and dispute between neighbours? On the latter, would he not commend the important contribution to the resolution of those conflicts that can be made be mediation services, of which there is an excellent example in Aylesbury?
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is another excellent example in Eastbourne. We discussed in Committee—and I am sure that this will have wider resonance across the House—the problem of receiving one set of neighbours at one's advice surgery one week and then, to one's horror, seeing on one's list of appointments the next the people about whom they were complaining. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my experience: we are seen as arbiters of these problems, which are extraordinarily difficult to resolve.
      Mr. Bercow: They are invidious.
      Mr. Waterson: Indeed. We should set aside the situation in which two perfectly respectable and responsible sets of neighbours, neither of whom are behaving criminally or particularly reprehensibly, simply do not get on with one another. Whatever they do, there will always be a dispute about something—whether an overhanging tree, an uncut lawn or a badly parked car. We all know of such cases—I certainly have experience of them—which have gone on for years, blighting the

      983
      lives of both sets of neighbours and sometimes costing them an enormous amount in legal fees and causing other problems to no eventual purpose.
      Finally, I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 20 which, on the face of it, would provide a dramatic power for an authority effectively to suspend the operation of a certain provision when it can show that continuing to operate it would have a detrimental effect.
      I explained in Committee, but perhaps I should do so again, that we have in mind the clear distinction that exists between authorities that have an excess of supply over demand in respect of social housing, and those where the opposite is the case. I understand that there are parts of the country, particularly but not exclusively in the north, where someone looking for a new flat or house will go to the local council and be shown two or three nice options that afternoon.
      I discussed the situation in Eastbourne recently with Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, who is the lead cabinet member for housing under the new and highly successful Conservative administration of Eastbourne borough council. The average wait in Eastbourne can be three to four years, which is phenomenal. When people contact me and come to my surgery, it is extremely depressing to write off to the housing department knowing that one will get a letter back stating that those people will have to wait three to four years.
      The council hopes to reduce the waiting time to two to three years, which may not seem like a great leap forward, simply by changing the rules so that children can be put into council flats, which has not been allowed so far.
      May I take the opportunity to remind the Minister that Eastbourne is one of the 90-odd authorities that have applied for the pilot scheme for choice-based allocations? As I recall, the arithmetic was rather depressing. It seemed that only about a third of those that had applied would be eligible for the scheme. None the less, it is an interesting concept. We had a longish discussion in Committee about the so-called Delft system. Closer to home, Harborough is ahead of the game, having undertaken a particular pilot scheme.
      My only comment—and this is the point of our amendment—is that a choice-based system is all very well and up-to-the-minute and trendy, but how is it to operate in a place such as Eastbourne, where there is a vast excess of demand over supply? I can see that it would make a difference in some cases. That is why I am particularly keen that Eastbourne should be successful in becoming part of the pilot scheme and getting some of the dosh out of the Minister—we get precious little else in Eastbourne.
      It will be fascinating to see how the scheme would work in such places. If I were the Minister trying to decide on a wholly dispassionate basis how to allocate the resources for the pilot schemes, I would consider Eastbourne a particularly good example of one end of the scale, where there is great demand and a thoroughly inadequate supply. I hope that the Minister will look warmly and encouragingly on the Eastbourne bid, although there is a more serious general issue at stake.
      Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Minister also to look favourably on the bid from Bath
      984
      and North-East Somerset, where there is a much greater mixture of housing provision than I imagine is the case in Eastbourne?
      Mr. Waterson: Before we get to that stage, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman's local council electors do what the voters of Eastbourne have done, and get rid of a thoroughly incompetent, inept Liberal Democrat administration. I shall not go further down that path, as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, probably would not allow me to do so. There are questions about how a choice-based system would work in areas such as Eastbourne. That is the point of the amendment.
      I commend our three amendments to the House. As I explained, because of the quirks of our procedures, it is unlikely that we shall press those amendments to a Division. Hence my support—breaking the habit of a lifetime—for the Liberal Democrats' new clause 4.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to be called, and I shall speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name.
      However, I begin by observing that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) started his speech by having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for speaking for 20 minutes on seven new clauses. The clock shows that the hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke for 20 minutes on three amendments. We must take care not to be over-critical of colleagues doing their job.
      On new clause 17, the Minister again sought to make mischief, but I shall disappoint him. Unless the Minister responds positively, I shall happily support new clause 4 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, and I am glad to hear that the Conservatives will do so too.
      New clause 17 is entirely compatible with new clause 4, for three reasons. First, unfortunately—because of my own bad handwriting, I concede—the text as printed is not the same as the text as drafted. It should have read "final offer", not "first offer". We always speak of the final offer in this context, so I hope that the Minister will accept my explanation.
      Secondly, new clause 4 refers to a minimum of three days for an offer to be considered. I suggest in new clause 17 that a period of five days should be set. That is not inconsistent. The important thing is that there should not be a 24 or 48-hour turnaround. People are often on a list for a long time, and the offer may come with no warning. They may be away, visiting family or on holiday, so they must be allowed a reasonable period within which to receive the offer and respond to it. That should be at least three days, potentially five days, and possibly longer, if the local authority considers that appropriate, after consultation with tenants.
      In many cases, people receive only one offer. The Minister must know from his personal experience that it is entirely unfair to give them a ridiculously short time within which to accept it. I hope that he will be positive and accept the new clause moved by my hon. Friend.
      The third specific point that I included in new clause 17—I had seen new clause 4 before I drafted it—allows people to inspect the premises with an independent adviser. It is no good expecting them to accept the offer without looking at the premises, or, if they are allowed to

      985
      go in, to be accompanied only by the housing officer, who will clearly be determined to tell them that the property is acceptable and that that is the only offer that they will get. People must be allowed to inspect the premises, to be accompanied by an independent adviser and then to judge whether the offer is reasonable.
      That leads to new clause 18, which would require the local housing authority to inform applicants of their right to request a review, independently of the local authority, if they are told that they are ineligible for housing. One of the great causes of complaint is that people make an application, the local authority decides and that is the end of the matter.
      I have tabled four amendments, all of which derive from issues regularly raised by people who come to my surgery and to others. It is often the case that people who experience a relationship breakdown in a home that they rent or, much more frequently, in a home that they own are told that they cannot be housed by the local authority and that they are intentionally homeless.
      If, for example, people bought their home under the right-to-buy scheme and the marriage comes to an end, one partner will usually stay in the home. The other partner may leave, possibly with some finance. However, it may not be possible to raise any finance. The partner staying in the home cannot raise it, so there is no money available at that moment.
      I ask Ministers to accept that, when the family home can no longer be the family home, the person who leaves should be able to look to the local authority for housing. Such people may or may not have children, but if they are parents, they may want the child or children to stay with them for a weekend, the school holidays or whatever, yet they find that they have nowhere to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those amendments.
      7 pm
      Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 60 relate to a later part of the Bill.
      Mr. Love: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled separately from those of his Front-Bench colleagues. Given that there is no Liberal Democrat Whip available in the Chamber at the moment, will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) passed over to him as to why he is tabling a separate set of amendments? Is this another example of Liberal Democrat anarchy?
      Mr. Hughes: I knew that I should not have given way to what was clearly going to be a silly intervention.
      People are entitled to table amendments from the Back Benches. Our Front-Bench colleagues do their job and all my hon. Friend's new clauses and amendments have my support. However, I represent more council tenants than any other Member of Parliament in England, including all the Labour Members, and I hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) will accept that these issues are of huge interest to my constituents. I have tabled amendments, as the hon. Gentleman could have done, although I notice that he did not.
      Mr. Don Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Committee, a number of amendments were tabled by
      986
      Labour Back Benchers? That seems to be a perfectly appropriate way for all hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend must have been blessed in that Committee, because I have served on many Committees in which not a peep comes from Labour Back Benchers and they all happily toe the Government line.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to make the point that it is legitimate for Back Benchers and Front Benchers to table amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is unfamiliar with that basic constitutional fact after spending nearly four years in the House, it is about time he became aware of it.
      Will the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at least accept that, while there is a case for the three-day period and for the five-day period, it is stretching a point to say that they are not incompatible with each other? Will the hon. Gentleman, who is rather self-effacing, accept from me that his preference for a five-day period proves that, by comparison with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he is simply more liberal?
      Mr. Hughes: Those are judgments that must be made by others.
      The Government have a policy that all the Opposition parties find unacceptable. The good thing is that they now have two alternative proposals that they could buy off the shelf. One contains a word that was misread, and the other has the endorsement of those on the Conservative Front Bench. The Minister has no excuse for saying that he has no choice, and I sincerely hope that he will buy one of our options. I seriously look forward to that happening.
      The other amendments relate to serious matters, and have been referred to supportively by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath. Some people need personal protection, often urgently. I am trying, with the help of my local authority, to have someone in that predicament re-housed. Indeed, four families who are trying to get re-housed are on the books in my constituency office, having visited my surgery.
      I would like it to be the law that, when the police say to a local authority that people must be moved for their own safety, and that their safety cannot be guaranteed where they are because there is a serious risk to their life, the local authority must have a duty to move them within 28 days. That should have an priority overriding other responsibilities. I know that such a proposal would have the support of the police, who get very frustrated in these circumstances, as do local authority officers trying to juggle all kinds of competing priorities.
      Amendment No. 60 is linked to that proposal. The issue of people at risk from violence has been dealt with and we have received a positive response from the Minister. However, people whose mental or physical safety is at risk sometimes need to be moved. Those circumstances might involve threats rather than actual violence.
      I am dealing with a case at the moment involving a serious assault that took place not far from the Elephant and Castle. The youngster who was seriously injured is not able or willing to give evidence if he still has to live in the area in which he was assaulted. That is perfectly

      987
      reasonable. The family will not support him in giving evidence, and the police understand that. The Crown Prosecution Service's clock is ticking away, and it insists that there is a date by which it will have to decide whether it can proceed. The prosecution will not be able to proceed without the evidence of that individual. My proposal is that, if re-housing is a precondition of someone's being able to give evidence in criminal proceedings, he should be re-housed within the time limit required by the criminal justice system.
      Amendment No. 55 relates to the circumstances in which councils have to juggle competing priorities—as they all struggle to do—and requires that they assess the length of time someone has been in a particular category of need, in their list of considerations. They would have to form their own view about that; I am not trying to dictate to them. For example, account should be taken of the length of time someone had been ill, suffering from the after-effects of a stroke, and therefore been unable to go up and down stairs, or of the length of time that a family of seven had occupied a one-bedroom flat.
      The amendments relate to practical matters, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to all of them. I also hope that he will accept a new clause in the form of—or similar to—that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.
      Mr. David Heath: I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in so far as they are compatible.
      I want to raise a specific point with the Minister, relating to agricultural tied cottages and the effect that the Bill will have on them. A couple came to see me in my constituency surgery in Wincanton last week—my constituency could not be further removed in character from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Mr. Brice and Ms Parsons came to see me because they had been served notice to quit an agricultural tied cottage. Mr. Brice had previously been made redundant from his post at a farm.
      The difficulty in the case is that the landlord is trying to introduce a market rent, having given notice to quit in the interim. The local authority would normally have a duty to re-house the couple as homeless, and there is some urgency about the situation because the lady in question is due to give birth within two weeks. However, they cannot be re-housed because the matter has to be reviewed by the agricultural dwelling homes advisory committee under the terms of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. The notice to quit is not valid until that review has taken place.
      That is a conundrum to which the Minister may not have an answer immediately and, if that is the case, I would be glad if he wrote to me on the matter. It seems perverse that a provision intended to give protection to tenants is, in this instance, doing precisely the reverse by preventing the local authority from doing what is clearly necessary—that is, re-housing a couple in need as priority cases because they are effectively homeless. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the matter his consideration.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate involving a considerable number of amendments and new
      988
      clauses, and a number of speakers. I shall try to do justice to all of them in the shortest possible time that I can. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time to deal with the large number of issues raised.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the issue and write to him.
      New clauses 4 and 17—there are some interesting textual problems here—return to an issue discussed thoroughly in Committee. As I said then, I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment to ensure that people accepted as unintentionally homeless and who are temporarily accommodated by a local authority have a reasonable period in which to consider a final offer of an allocation under Part VI. That is important because by making it a final offer the authority will have in effect given notice that they intend to bring the homelessness duty to an end.
      Applicants will need time to give the offer careful consideration. If they are not immediately taken with the offer, they may well feel that they want to consult with family, friends or, in some case, their legal advisers. They should be given a reasonable time in which to do so.
      As I said in Committee, my genuine fear is that specifying a minimum of three or perhaps five days would make that period the yardstick according to which many authorities might decide to operate. It could, in effect, be construed as a Government-approved maximum period for consideration, which, in my view, would be an unhappy outcome. In some cases, three or five days will not be enough. Flexibility is required, so that account can be taken of the circumstances of individual cases: the situation does not lend itself to narrow prescription.
      I shall not comment on the lack of clarity on the part of the Liberal Democrats, who have specified both three and five days. If I had not understood from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he had intended his new clause to refer to a final offer, I would have asked him why he thought it reasonable for a time limit to be placed on a first offer but not on a second or third offer.
      New clause 5 requires authorities to notify applicants of a right to request a review of a decision that they fell within an ineligible group, and of the time allowed for the making of such a request. The Bill gives applicants the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of their case. That includes decisions about eligibility based on the applicant's personal circumstances, including immigration status.
      I can tell the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that there is no confusion about the scope of the review. As I made clear in Committee, the eligibility issue is covered. There cannot, of course, be a dispute about circumstances in which someone is validly deemed ineligible, but the basis on which the decision is reached—the facts of the case—will be open to the review.
      The hon. Gentleman's proposal would take that two steps further. It would ensure first that when an applicant was made aware that he had been deemed ineligible he would be informed of his right of review, and secondly that a time limit would be imposed on that right. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention, but I would like to consider further whether the ends we both wish to achieve might be better achieved through an

      989
      amendment or through guidance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his proposal, in return for my undertaking that I will give further thought to the issues that it raises.
      As for new clause 18, I have begun to wonder whether, as a child, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was ever caught copying at school—and copying rather sloppily too. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath seem to agree strongly about some things, but not about everything. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is clearly keen to assert his independence, and appears to be trying to shift his party's housing policy from the policy to which his shadow Home Office responsibilities relate.
      Amendment No. 18 seeks to give applicants a right to be informed when a decision on eligibility has been made, but also requires such a review to be independent. Let me say a little about the conduct of reviews. When undertaking a review, a local authority must provide for a proper or appropriate review in the light of the circumstances. It must take into account the laws relating to human rights and to judicial review; it must pay attention to what rights it is considering, and what procedures are appropriate. Having considered all those matters, it will be able to decide what is right in the circumstances. In his amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks again to determine the minutiae of arrangements. We think it right to leave the authority a measure of discretion, and I therefore do not propose to support the amendment.
      New clause 6 provides for circumstances in which a local housing authority has decided that it no longer owes an interim duty to accommodate, and notifies the applicant. It would place a specific duty on the authority to consider continuing to secure accommodation for those seeking a review of the decision.
      The current legislation gives authorities powers to ensure that accommodation remains available to applicants pending a decision on a review, but does not place an obligation on them to do so. It is for an authority to consider—on the basis of the facts of the case, and with regard to the resources available—whether to exercise those powers. The authority must exercise its discretion reasonably and with consideration, but the new clause seeks to specify in some detail how it should exercise its discretion.
      7.15 pm
      In Committee we discussed, on many occasions and in different contexts, the need to strike the right balance between giving authorities discretion in the carrying out of their functions and specifying in detail what they must do. It is never easy to draw the line, but our approach in the Bill has been to establish a clear framework in which authorities can make their own judgments, informed by local knowledge—knowledge of the facts of individual cases, in the context of the many pressures that authorities have to balance. I believe that, ultimately, the exercise of local judgment will lead to better outcomes than detailed, inflexible instructions set out in statute.
      It is not that the issues for consideration specified in the clause are inherently implausible; they are not. They could be incorporated in guidance to authorities on issues that they may wish to take into account. Important factors have been missed out, however—not least the other
      990
      pressures on accommodation in an authority's area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will probably be more aware of those than most hon. Members.
      The new clause would also have unwanted and adverse effects. It would perversely encourage appeals against authorities' decisions even when there was no realistic chance of success, simply because that would guarantee a continuation of accommodation for the period of the appeal. It would have resource implications for authorities, which could in some cases result in cases of lesser need gaining priority over those in greater need.
      As I have said many times, it is a question of getting the balance right, and we do not believe that the new clause gets it right. It is too prescriptive; it would encourage vexatious requests for reviews; it would add to bureaucracy; and it would take away an important discretionary power from local housing authorities.
      In a recent press release headed "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns", the hon. Member for Bath said:
      "Whitehall tanks are still on town hall lawns. Labour's centralising tendency is undermining local democracy."
      I must say to the hon. Gentleman "Get your Liberal Democrat tanks off local government lawns".
      New clause 7 seeks to amend the provisions on right of appeal to the county court on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. It would allow an extension of the current appeal period of 21 days. Like new clause 6, it would place a detailed duty on authorities to consider continuing to ensure that accommodation was available to applicants who sought a review of the decision under section 202.
      I have just dealt with the issue of consideration, and I believe that the arguments here are the same. Authorities should be given the tools with which to do their job and discretion to make difficult judgments, and they should be accountable for those judgments.
      We dealt in Committee with the proposal to extend the appeal period beyond 21 days. As I made clear then, I do not think that the current 21-day period is unreasonable, and it is important for appeals to be dealt with quickly. The new clause, however, raises one point that I think merits further consideration. Part VII of the 1996 Act introduced a right of review of homelessness decisions, and a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if the applicant was not satisfied with the authority's decision on review. The aim—rightly, in my view—was to allow grievances concerning homelessness decisions to be heard locally by the county courts, rather than the applicant's having to go through the more costly and remote processes of judicial review in the High Court.
      My understanding is that in considering appeals against homelessness decisions by a local authority, the county court has powers equivalent to those of judicial review by the High Court in every respect, save the power to require an authority to accommodate the applicant pending the appeal. That means that applicants are required to make a separate claim for judicial review to the administrative court in London, if they wish to seek an injunction requiring their local authority to accommodate them on an interim basis.
      As I have said, authorities currently have discretion to decide to continue to accommodate pending an appeal to the county court, if they wish. Any court would need very

      991
      clear evidence that an authority had acted unreasonably before granting a mandatory injunction; indeed, it would be inappropriate for a court to do otherwise. Nevertheless, there will always be a number of applicants who seek leave to apply for judicial review, and the court must give careful consideration to such cases. I should like to consider whether there is a case for giving the county court power to require an authority to accommodate, so that consideration of homelessness cases need not be taken to the High Court. As I am sure the hon. Member for Bath will appreciate, that will require discussions with colleagues in other Departments, but I undertake to engage in such discussions. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the motion.
      New clauses 10, 11 and 12 seek to provide the Secretary of State with the power to give directions to local authorities on the exercise of their powers in relation to homelessness. Again, that raises the question of how to balance local discretion against central policy. I am surprised that hon. Members are so attracted to provisions that give powers to the Secretary of State to determine how local authorities shall conduct their business. I have already referred to one quote from the hon. Member for Bath. I give him one more:
      "Our problem derives from the decision by the current Government and the previous Conservative Government to adopt a model that is designed to keep as many hands on the tiller as possible, denying local authorities freedom."—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 369.]
      Get those Liberal Democrat hands off the tiller. Give local authorities more discretion.
      On amendment No. 52, the breakdown of a relationship can be one of the most distressing and traumatic events in a person's life. If children are involved, it may be especially wretched—for each partner and, above all, for the children—but whether, on break-up, either partner is intentionally homeless is surely a matter of particular circumstance. Relationship breakdowns vary in their emotional impact, their financial impact and in the way they impact on each partner. Some can be amicable, but not all are, as we know. That surely is the point. No two cases are alike and there is a need for each circumstance to be assessed on the individual merits of the case.
      I do not agree that it should necessarily fall to the local authority to accommodate one of the partners in every case of relationship breakdown, particularly where the relationship may have been a casual one and has not lasted for any length of time, but that would be the effect of the amendment. It would place an unacceptable and unreasonable burden on local authorities and send the wrong signals to people who were experiencing difficulties in their relationships, but were capable of resolving their problems and housing themselves. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will accept that the amendment is not appropriate.
      On Government amendment No. 47, one of the Bill's aims is to facilitate the development of allocation schemes that can be framed so as to give more choice to applicants. That should include, wherever possible, more choice about the properties that they wish to apply for, and more choice to make a trade-off between holding out for a more desirable property and opting for something perhaps less desirable, but more easily available.
      992
      For applicants to be in a position to exercise that choice, letting schemes will need to offer as much transparency as possible. People in the housing queue, particularly in areas of high demand, should be given an idea of how long they are likely to have to wait for particular properties in particular areas.
      To facilitate that, it will be important that authorities provide as much feedback as possible about the level of priority and length of waiting time of successful applicants. That will help others to make a judgment about how long they may have to wait for a similar property. Such feedback can, of course, be couched only in the most general terms. It is essential that there are safeguards against the release of confidential and sensitive personal information.
      As drafted, clause 26 does not quite achieve that policy. That amendment will allow authorities to let applicants have general information about those households who have been successful in their application. It will not, however, allow authorities to divulge the fact that someone is currently applying for accommodation. The Data Protection Act 1998 will ensure that authorities cannot divulge sensitive personal information.
      At first sight, amendment No. 16 seems reasonable, although a little thought rapidly shows it to be flawed. It seeks to give additional preference to families with dependent children. Its effect would be always to place the needs of families with dependent children above those of the elderly, the disabled or other groups. In Committee, we heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) make an eloquent plea for the needs of elderly people to be met. In the House, we have heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a passionate plea for the needs of people with disabilities to be met. We recognise the wide range of needs. I hope that they will recognise that, if we give additional priority to one group, by definition, it downgrades the others. Many families with children are not in need. Many affluent families with children would not deserve priority over a poor or disabled household. Therefore, it is not appropriate to pursue the amendment.
      I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments Nos. 53 and 60, which are to ensure that authorities respond quickly to the immediate rehousing needs of people whose personal safety may be at risk. However, the Bill already facilitates that. Clause 27 requires that allocation schemes must be framed, so that reasonable preference is given to people who need to move on welfare grounds. That will include people who need to move to alternative accommodation because they are at risk or are under police protection. The clause also gives authorities the power to give additional preference to particular descriptions of applicants who fall within the reasonable preference categories.
      The provisions will ensure that authorities continue to be in a position to respond promptly to requests for housing assistance from the police. I would be very concerned if an authority did not respond positively to a formal request from the police to assist in the rehousing of someone whose safety was known to be at risk, whether as a result of agreeing to testify in proceedings, or otherwise. From my experience in my constituency, there was close and quick collaboration between the police, the local authority and the Home Office to rehouse the families whose identity was unintentionally and unfortunately revealed in the annexe of the Stephen

      993
      Lawrence inquiry report and who might have been put at risk by that disclosure, so I know that the arrangements can work. I would be alarmed if they were not working. I invite hon. Members who have evidence that they are not working to let me know.
      Amendment No. 21 addresses the case of an applicant whose behaviour is so unacceptable that an authority, taking account of the rights of other residents, refuses to allocate accommodation. I make it clear that the Bill, as amended in Committee, already provides authorities with the right to refuse an application in such circumstances. Section 167(2A) to (2D) will make it clear that such a person need not be awarded any preference whatever. Therefore, there is no need for any further amendment.
      Amendment No. 17 seems superfluous. It proposes that account be taken of any record of behaviour that has affected the terms of a previous tenancy. That is already covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant.
      Amendment No. 55 seeks to place further statutory prescription on allocation schemes. It would add a fourth factor to the three already specified in the Bill. We know that unsatisfactory housing conditions or medical or welfare considerations are currently taken into account a great deal by local authorities, which already consider the length of time that applicants have been waiting. It is probably one of the most common factors used by housing authorities throughout the country. Because of that, it is not necessary to make particular provision to make it clear that that factor may be incorporated by local authorities. It is already widely known by authorities that they may do so.
      Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary and, if accepted, would be open to abuse. It would, in effect, allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. I am not sure that that was the intention in tabling the amendment—I sincerely hope it was not. Although some authorities in high-demand areas face real challenges in managing applications, all are still able to allocate some housing through the register. Under the Bill, transfers within the authority will be handled through the provisions of the allocations or lettings schemes. I cannot think that hon. Members want to remove that sensible framework. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.
      I apologise for the length of my response, but the number and detail of the amendments made that necessary. I hope that hon. Members recognise that the amendments are unnecessary and that none should be accepted, with the one exception of Government amendment No. 47, which I commend to the House.
      Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the Minister on that tour de force, but there would have been no need for him to rush if we had had a decent programme motion. I thank him for his willingness at least to reconsider aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. However, I am completely horrified by his lack of confidence in the Government's legislation, which is such that he believes that provision for a minimum of three days could be interpreted as the Government agreeing to a maximum of three days. If that shows the faith that he has in this Labour Government, it is all the more reason why we should press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, that the clause be read Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes151, Noes 255.

      Division No. 110]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Allan, Richard

      Hayes, John

      Amess, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Horam, John

      Baker, Norman

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baldry, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Johnson Smith,

      Bercow, John

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Key, Robert

      Blunt, Crispin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Boswell, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brady, Graham

      Leigh, Edward

      Brake, Tom

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brazier, Julian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Lidington, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Livsey, Richard

      Burnett, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Burns, Simon

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Loughton, Tim

      (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter

      Cash, William

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chope, Christopher

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maples, John

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter, Brian

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Norman, Archie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Öpik, Lembit

      Duncan, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Rendel, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ruffley, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gidley, Sandra

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gill, Christopher

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gray, James

      Spring, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Steen, Anthony

      Streeter, Gary

      Greenway, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Syms, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      995

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Willetts, David

      Willis, Phil

      Townend, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tredinnick, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Trend, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Tyler, Paul

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Adrian Sanders and

      Whittingdale, John

      Sir Robert Smith.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Allen, Graham

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Austin, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Banks, Tony

      Denham, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Barron, Kevin

      Doran, Frank

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Drew, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Edwards, Huw

      Berry, Roger

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Betts, Clive

      Ennis, Jeff

      Blackman, Liz

      Etherington, Bill

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      (Dunfermline E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foulkes, George

      Browne, Desmond

      Galloway, George

      Burden, Richard

      Gerard, Neil

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cox, Tom

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      996

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Primarolo, Dawn

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rapson, Syd

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Robertson, John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lammy, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Laxton, Bob

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Love, Andrew

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Macdonald, Calum

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Snape, Peter

      McIsaac, Shona

      Soley, Clive

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Spellar, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stringer, Graham

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Maxton, John

      (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Timms, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Tipping, Paddy

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Todd, Mark

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Touhig, Don

      Morley, Elliot

      Trickett, Jon

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      (Bham Yardley)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      (Aberavon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Tynan, Bill

      Mudie, George

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Norris, Dan

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      White, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Olner, Bill

      (Swansea W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pearson, Ian

      Winnick, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pike, Peter L

      Woolas, Phil

      Plaskitt, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Pope, Greg

      Wyatt, Derek

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question according negatived.

      DEFERRED DIVISION
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
      On the motion on Companies, the Ayes were 329, the Noes 7, so the motion was agreed to.
      [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Homes Bill
  New Clause 13

    ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT (No. 1)
    '. The Secretary of State shall by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Loughton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.43 pm
    Mr. Loughton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Energy efficiency report (No. 2)—
    '. The Secretary of State may by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
    New schedule 1—'Energy Efficiency Reports—

    '1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, it shall be the duty of any person in whose favour a mortgage of any legal estate in a dwelling is granted (in this Schedule referred to as "the lender") to ensure that, if any qualifying survey of the dwelling has been undertaken by him or on his behalf in connection with that mortgage—

    (a) a report on the energy efficiency of the dwelling (in this Schedule referred to as "an energy efficiency report") has been prepared by or on behalf of the lender in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 on the basis of the physical inspection undertaken for the purpose of the qualifying survey, and

    (b) the person granting the mortgage (in this Schedule referred to as "the borrower") has been provided, before the grant of the mortgage, with a copy of the energy efficiency report.

    (2) No duty arises under sub-paragraph (1) unless—

    (a) the mortgage relates only

    (i) to a single dwelling, or

    (ii) to a single dwelling together with premises occupied or intended to be occupied for business purposes,

    (b) the loan to which the mortgage relates was made in pursuance of an application made to the lender by the borrower, and

    (c) the dwelling is occupied by, or is intended for occupation by, the borrower as his residence.

    (3) The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, take into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report, but the duty in sub-paragraph (1) arises whether or not the borrower has paid, or agreed to pay, any such additional costs.

    (4) In sub-paragraph (1) a "qualifying survey", in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling.

    2. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise in relation to any dwelling which was provided (by construction or conversion) less than three years before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

    999

    3. The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where, before the grant of the mortgage, the borrower has obtained, or been given a copy of, a report which—

    (a) relates to the dwelling,

    (b) complies with regulations under paragraph 5, and

    (c) was prepared less than twelve months before the date on which the borrower applied for the loan to which the mortgage relates.

    4.—(1) The duty in paragraph 1 does not arise where—

    (a) the lender is a member of the borrower's family and is not lending in the course of a business carried on by the lender, or

    (b) the lenders are the trustees of a trust created by an individual for the benefit of members of his family and their descendants.

    (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if—

    (a) he is the spouse of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife, or

    (b) he is that person's parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

    (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—

    (a) a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

    (b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, and

    (c) the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child.

    5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying the requirements which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report.

    (2) The regulations may, in particular, require a report to include—

    (a) information as to the presence or absence in the dwelling of specified measures for improving energy efficiency, and

    (b) a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency.

    (3) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases and different areas.

    (4) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection.

    (5) Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report in respect of a flat to contain information about the common parts of the building in which the flat is situated.

    (6) Before making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult—

    (a) such mortgage lenders or persons appearing to him to represent mortgage lenders as he considers appropriate, and

    (b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

    (7) In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report.

    (8) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

    (9) In this paragraph—

    "common parts", in relation to a building, includes the structure and exterior of the building and common facilities provided, whether in the building or elsewhere, for persons who include the occupiers of one or more flats in the building;

    1000

    "flat" means a dwelling which is a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, divided horizontally from some other part of the building;

    "mortgage lender" means a person who, in the course of a business, lends money secured by mortgages of dwellings.

    6.—(1) If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1, the borrower is entitled to compensation for that loss from the lender.

    (2) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether the borrower has suffered loss as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) and, if so, the amount of that loss, a court—

    (a) shall assume that the borrower would have taken every measure that would have been recommended in a report complying with paragraph 5,

    (b) shall have regard to the cost that would be likely to have been incurred in taking those measures if they had been taken immediately after the grant of the mortgage,

    (c) shall determine the likely expected life of each measure and apportion that cost rateably over that life, and

    (d) shall calculate the savings that would have been made during the relevant period if the measures had been taken.

    (3) In sub-paragraph (2) "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the day on which the mortgage was granted and ending immediately before the sixth anniversary of that day or, if earlier—

    (a) in relation to any measure falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) which has in fact been taken by the borrower, with the day on which the taking of the measure is completed.

    (b) in a case where the lender provides the borrower with, or with a copy of, an energy efficiency report complying with paragraph 5 prepared not less than 12 months before the day on which it is provided, that day,

    (c) the day on which the borrower ceases to own any interest in the dwelling,

    (d) the death of the borrower, or

    (e) the day on which any proceedings under this paragraph are first determined by a court or by the award of an arbitrator.

    7. In this Schedule—

    "the borrower" and "the lender" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1;

    "dwelling" means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, outhouses or appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it, but does not include a mobile home;

    "energy efficiency report" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1:

    "mobile home" means a caravan within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (disregarding the amendment made by section 13(2) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968);

    "mortgage" means any mortgage or other charge on property for securing money or money's worth which is made by deed.

    8.—(1) Paragraph 5 and this paragraph shall come into force on the day on which regulations made under section 7( ) take effect.

    (2) The remaining provisions of this Schedule shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes or different areas.

    (3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) includes power to make such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

    1001

    (4) The Secretary of State shall consult the National Assembly for Wales before making any regulations under this schedule which relate to Wales.

    (5) This schedule extends to England and Wales only.'.

    Mr. Loughton: At long last, we reach the part of the Bill that deals with the seller's pack. There has been great cross-party consensus on the matter, although not unanimity. Some progress has been made. The Committee as a whole—including the Minister for Housing and Planning—supported the proposals regarding energy efficiency. We discovered that the right hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Environment Select Committee and that, long before this Bill came along, he had endorsed the idea of energy efficiency ratings for buildings.
    It was all the more strange, therefore, that the Minister was unable to support the points made by Labour Members about energy efficiency on Second Reading and in Committee. However, at this late stage, two Government amendments have mysteriously appeared, and they are very welcome. There is room in the heaven that is the Homes Bill for every sinner who truly repenteth. We congratulate the Government on amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which we will support, but we want the Minister to go further.
    Conservative Members claim no small amount of credit for having cajoled, bullied and pushed the Minister to come up with these last-minute amendments. We are therefore reintroducing new schedule 1. To make it easy for the Government to accept that, we are also proposing the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14.
    The subject of energy efficiency was the source of great debate in Committee, and it has a long pedigree in the House. The energy efficiency measures that we propose had their origins in the 1980s, when my noble Friend Lord Walker of Worcester was Secretary of State for Energy.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend referred to the multiple options presented by new clauses 1 and 14. However, new clause 1 deals with social security. Did my hon. Friend intend to refer to new clause 13? Will he later explain the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14?
    Mr. Loughton: I am not sure whether I misspoke, or whether my hon. Friend misheard me. However, I am dealing with new clauses 13 and 14. New clause 1 does not feature in this group of amendments. I will explain why we are proposing two slightly similar new clauses contingent on new schedule 1.
    7.45 pm
    The pedigree of energy efficiency goes back to a private Member's Bill first introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The subject was then taken up in this Parliament by the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The subject has a cross-party pedigree, although there are one or two exceptions among hon. Members.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Thank you.
    Mr. Loughton: It is also slightly mysterious that, although Conservative Members were happy to put our
    1002
    names to new schedule 1 in Committee, when it was tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, Liberal Democrat Members have not seen fit to add theirs to the new schedule 1 under consideration today.
    New schedule 1 is supported by many people—by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association for the Conservation of Energy and other groups concerned with energy efficiency, and by the many hon. Members who have signed early-day motions on the subject. In his written answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on 21 December, the Minister made it clear that he supported the proposal.
    The proposal in new schedule 1 is also a hot favourite in Denmark, a country to which the Minister alluded several times on Second Reading. Denmark was held up time and again as the place where the seller's pack is an enormous success. I have been there with the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and have seen that some success has been achieved with the energy rating of buildings. It has led to a reduction in carbon emissions as part of Denmark's Kyoto targets.
    In his written answer, the Minister told the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton:
    "It is currently intended that Regulations prescribe the inclusion of an energy report in the seller's pack, and that this will include generic advice on measures to improve energy efficiency, and an indication of the cost and pay back period of each of those improvements."—[Official Report, 21 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 313W.]
    We have not quite got that, and such provisions did not exist in the Bill when we considered it in Committee. However, the two Government amendments in the group are a start in that direction.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I gave a clear and categoric assurance, in the House and in Committee, that an energy efficiency report along the lines that he has set out—including indications of how energy efficiency could be improved and the pay-back period—would be part of the home condition report? That has always been the Government's intention. It was part of the trial in Bristol, and there has been no change. We are absolutely committed to the proposal, and the amendments simply give effect to a policy intention that has been clearly stated.
    Mr. Loughton: There was no promise to include the proposal in the Bill. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked to do so, and he replied that the matter was extremely complex, involving strong differences of opinion among technical experts, including those involved in house construction and renovation. He said that there was a potential conflict with other building regulations, not least those on noise transmission between properties. He added that those facts were matters of concern, and that it would be inappropriate to proceed over-hastily with measures that might have both desirable and undesirable consequences. The definition of "over-hastily" in the Minister's lexicon would appear to be "less than three weeks".
    Mr. Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the comments that he has read out referred to a quite different debate. We were discussing the reasons for the delay in issuing part L of the building regulations, which are to do with energy efficiency, and I was

    1003
    explaining the interrelationship between those and the part that deals with the sound separation between buildings. The issuing of building regulations is very different from the provision of a home energy efficiency report in the seller's pack. There is a distinction between the two, and I hope that now that the hon. Gentleman has checked Hansard, he will recognise that he was wrong.
    Mr. Loughton: My recollection of the debate is that the Minister was using that as an example of how he could not be rushed into producing energy efficiency measures. That said, we now have them—just under three weeks after the hon. Gentleman led us to believe that we would not have them—and we welcome that. We welcome the fact that the Bill refers to energy efficiency and that it will be a desirable part of a seller's pack, if we are to have such packs.
    Because of the Government's amendments, we did not wish to appear churlish by tabling again amendments that we originally tabled in Committee. They added greater detail to what was required of the energy efficiency part of the seller's pack. We hope that the Minister can assure us that these matters will be covered. For example, will the energy efficiency rating for buildings—be it a standard assessment procedure rating—have more detail about comparisons with other buildings? What will the energy saving advice entail? Will it simply be slight and generic advice? Those are key questions, bearing in mind the fact that most authorities have estimated that proper energy saving advice can save an average of £250 per annum for the sort of buildings at which it would be directed. What about advice on the costs and pay-back periods for the improvements? The Minister said that energy efficiency reports were included in the Bristol pilot, although we have received no details. We would like to know how meaningful the information gleaned was.
    We realise the problem with many old buildings in particular, but if the Government are determined to proceed with the seller's pack involving surveys, the best place and time to do it is at the point of sale where the cost would, we hope, be relatively minimal. After all, this is not rocket science. Energy ratings for white electrical appliances, which we discussed in Committee, have been used increasingly for some years. To achieve our Kyoto targets is a key commitment of the Government, and we support it. However, we take issue with the means by which they are seeking to do it and with measures such as the energy tax, which they seem to be using to achieve those targets. We are talking about cavity wall insulation, condensing boilers, loft insulation, the efficiency—or otherwise—of lights and heating, double glazing, damp, and so on.
    Previous Government schemes such as the energy efficiency standards of performance, run by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, have put the structures in place, obliging public suppliers to achieve energy savings. There is a wealth of expertise and advice on the subject. Therefore it is easy to put these measures into effect, and to do so relatively soon. It is also essential to the economic sustainability of people buying homes that they can afford to finance those homes, and one of the key components of expenditure each year is on energy.
    1004
    All that will take time. We are promised that it will take until 2003, at the very soonest, for the seller's packs to come in. There is no reason for not doing something in the interim—hence, new schedule 1 and the two new clauses that we have tabled. The mortgage companies can institute the proposals, which have the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, in fairly sharp order.
    I want to touch on some of the Government's previous arguments. They said that the scheme would not cover all house sales, only those with a mortgage where the lender required a survey. That is a ridiculous argument. It is a matter of fact, not argument, that before the seller's pack comes into force, hundreds of thousands of people will buy homes and pay for a mortgage survey or will be required to have a mortgage valuation on the property, yet they will receive no advice on how to save money on fuel bills.
    We have discussed how about 1.5 million properties a year are sold—more than 1 million with a mortgage to back them up. By 2003, more than 3 million properties will have changed hands. The savings on energy that could be encouraged in those properties from day one rather than day 700 is considerable.
    The Government also argue that it would be costly to implement the measures for a short period before the introduction of the seller's pack and that there would be training problems for the surveyors. We have taken issue with training with regard to the survey reports required in the seller's pack, although we agree that the energy efficiency requirements are relatively straightforward and that people can put them into effect sooner rather than later.
    The Government's arguments are mistaken. In Committee, the Minister described two separate training and accreditation schemes running in parallel as "a nightmare". However, it would be an unnecessary nightmare, as the energy efficiency advice given as part of the buyer's survey could be identical to that which would eventually be required in the seller's pack. The same surveyors would do both jobs and would not need training twice.
    The Government also argued that there would be implementation problems for mortgage companies, which would need to set up systems to check that their duties were being fulfilled. That is hardly onerous. Mortgage companies already have very sophisticated systems and there are many providers, thanks to the deregulation of the market for which the previous Government were responsible. Mortgage companies check the survey valuations or valuation on the mortgage and would merely have to ascertain that energy efficiency advice was included, as well as checking the value that the surveyor had placed on the property. So the Government's reasons for not accepting schedule 1 do not hold water and, as I have said, 1.5 million properties a year are involved.
    It is with great optimism and hope that we table new schedule 1 again. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), we are giving the Government two options to make it easier for them, and are prepared to take whatever action the Government choose to facilitate the inclusion of new schedule 1 in the Bill.
    If the Minister is true to his principles about the desirability of energy efficiency reports, he will have no problem in accepting new clause 13. It facilitates new

    1005
    schedule 1 by stating that the Secretary of State shall by regulations bring the schedule into effect within 12 months of the passing of the Act. No ifs, no buts—let us go for it.
    I know that the Minister agrees with that. I know that, in principle, he has done things that would make it difficult for him not to accept new clause 13. However, just in case he is getting cold feet—in case the pressures from civil servants, other colleagues or Back Benchers are getting the better of him—we have provided a multiple choice, in the form of new clause 14, which makes it a little bit easier. It says:
    "The Secretary of State may—"
    not shall—
    by regulations bring Schedule (Energy efficiency reports) into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act if in his judgement it would assist, or provide information relevant to, the marketing of residential properties in England and Wales.
    That fudges things a bit, but the Government like to do that on issues on which they have to forsake previous principles because this is the hard and fast aspect of Government and legislation.
    We are offering the Government an easy ride and a simple choice. Like the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House, we are keen to see energy efficiency moved up a speed. This is the obvious time to do it. We are keen that the Government should come fully on board. They have done so with two small amendments. I am glad that they have tabled them now. They could have done so earlier, but we realise that the Minister had one hand tied behind his back. Will he put his money where his mouth has been for many years by saying yes to new schedule 1 and adopting whichever new clause he feels more comfortable, or perhaps less uncomfortable, with in order to facilitate it? The vast majority of hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, will certainly congratulate him and praise him to the rafters for having had the courage to do so.
    8 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I rise to give full support to Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I suspect that there is no need to go into the detail of the amendments. I am sure that we will shortly hear a detailed exposition of them from the Minister. I hope that he will point out the remarkable similarities between amendments Nos. 22 and 23 and amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I tabled in Committee.
    I remind the Minister that in Committee he said not only that such amendments were unnecessary but that they could be positively dangerous because they could preclude information relating to other matters such as noise or disabled access. I am delighted that he has seen the light and is willing to change his views. He can be assured of our full support for the two amendments.
    The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) can be assured of our support for new schedule 1 and either new clause 13 or new clause 14—whichever the Minister chooses. He asked why we had not seen fit to put our names to the new clauses and the new schedule. They are rather like a baton in a relay race passed on from one group to another. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the grace to admit that his new schedule is identical to the one that I tabled in Committee.
    1006
    However, even I am honest enough to admit that I was not its originator. The originator could be said to be the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), but if he was honest he would admit that he was not the originator either. He got the idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Even my hon. Friend would be willing to admit that he was not the originator—the new schedule went back as far as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).
    The ideas in the new schedule and new clauses are not new. They have been supported by hon. Members of all parties, and rightly so because they touch on important issues. I am sure that the Minister supports their principle. I suspect that his reason for not accepting them will be the same as the one that he gave in Committee—that he will include energy efficiency reports in the seller's packs, which will come into force relatively quickly, and that there is no need for an interim measure.
    I hope that the Minister will reflect again. All the evidence is that, however keen the Minister is to introduce seller's packs—if they are accepted by both Houses of Parliament—the chances are that it will be a long time before they are fully implemented. The evidence is clear to see. His attempt to introduce the energy efficiency aspect of building regulations has been agreed for only 18 months, yet we know that it has already slipped by a further 18 months. I suspect that the same fate will befall the seller's packs. That is why it is important not only to accept amendments Nos. 22 and 23 but to introduce an interim measure, as proposed in the new schedule. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider it.
    Even if new schedule 1 is defeated today, many Members of the other place are keenly interested in it and have tabled amendments in the same vein, and they will start all over again. The Minister could save a great deal of time and debate by simply accepting the new schedule.
    Mr. Fallon: I am puzzled by the new clauses and new schedule tabled in the name of the Opposition. I assumed that they were some means of lightening the burden of the proposed seller's packs, but after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) had spoken I realised that they added to the seller's packs. As I said in my intervention, I am a little confused about the consistency between new clauses 13 and 14 and new schedule 1. I understand that new clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to bring the schedule
    "into effect within twelve months of the passing of this Act."
    That seems a little odd.
    Either we believe in this energy efficiency gimmick, or we do not. Why we should wait 12 months to bring it into force, I am not clear. New clause 13 is not compatible with new clause 14. New clause 14 seems to suspend judgment on whether energy efficiency reports are necessary and simply suggests that we do not really know, but that we are prepared to trust the judgment of the Secretary of State. That is an extraordinary way in which to legislate. Either we as a party believe that energy efficiency reports are necessary, or we do not.
    Mr. Forth indicated dissent.
    Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend indicates that he does not. I happen to share that view, but we cannot say credibly as an Opposition that we are not sure and that

    1007
    we will leave it all up to the Secretary of State to decide. Neither new clause 13 nor new clause 14, in the multiple choice that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is offering the Government, stands up.
    Mr. Loughton: I thought that I had made it clear that we are offering a multiple choice because there is a long history of frustration of the legislation; we want to make it easier for the Government to adopt something. Even in a weakened form, that is better than nothing. That is the view that we have taken. We are in favour of the Bill and, rather than reject the whole lot, we have tried to make it as easy as possible for the Government to accept something.
    Mr. Fallon: I am no clearer. Either we are in favour of energy efficiency reports or we are not. If we are, we should surely add them to the seller's packs. I am not in favour of doing so, because I am not in favour of seller's packs. My hon. Friends might disagree with me. They might have come round to the idea that seller's packs are a wonderful thing. I have never been convinced about seller's packs, and I certainly do not want to add to them, but even if I did want to add to them, I would like to think that I was clear whether I wanted to or not. It seems perverse simply to leave it to the judgment of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Bercow: I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend's explanation of the position as he sees it. Is it his understanding that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure or simply nodded through the House?
    Mr. Fallon: I am not clear any more about the difference between the negative and affirmative procedures. It seems to me that the House does not have a handle on either procedure any more. I deeply deplore that. If we are to table amendments, we ought to be clear whether we are in favour of them; simply to leave their implementation to a future Secretary of State seems to be fudging the issue.
    Three pages of legislation are proposed in new schedule 1. I have some difficulty with the proposals. First, there is the problem of definitions. The definition of energy efficiency is not clear; it is to be construed under paragraph 1. I have searched that paragraph high and low, but I can find no specific definition of the words "energy efficiency report". If we are to put three pages of legislation on to the statute book, thereby imposing a new burden on every seller of a house, we should be a little clearer about what an energy efficiency report is.
    Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham can tell us. Perhaps he has news from Denmark about what an energy efficiency report comprises. He will have seen that his new schedule states, in paragraph 7, that
    "'energy efficiency report' shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 1".
    I cannot find any definition of those words in paragraph 1. When my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham winds up the debate, perhaps he will assist me. Perhaps there is some definition by reference to another statute, but I cannot find it.
    What I can find, however, is a series of definitions of matters that I had not previously realised related to energy efficiency. There are definitions of half-blood
    1008
    relationships, of the likely expected life of the qualifying measures and of relevant periods. I am not at all clear what the definition of half-blood relationships has to do with energy efficiency reports. If we must legislate on who should be bound to carry out energy efficiency reports, why must we define in paragraph 4(3)(c) that
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."?
    I am not clear what that has to do with the definition of energy efficiency or the improvement of the housing market.
    I have some difficulty with the way in which the new schedule has been constructed. I am at a loss to understand the definitions of various terms in it.
    My second difficulty is the catalogue of supporters of the proposal read out by my hon. Friend. In essence, they are lobby groups. There is nothing wrong with lobbying for particular measures, but we should ask why this measure has been frustrated for so long. It is an extremely specialist measure for which some highly specialist lobby groups have campaigned for a long time. I am not at all convinced that it is the role of Opposition Front Benchers to pander to such groups without considering the overall effect—the cost and the additional bureaucracy. After all, that is probably why, when we were in government, our Secretary of State did not introduce such provisions.
    The third of my hon. Friend's arguments with which I have some difficulty is his statement that such provisions have been implemented in Denmark. I am not sure that that offers a persuasive argument for any piece of legislation being presented to the House. Indeed, one might be tempted to ask why these provisions apply only in Denmark and why they have not been implemented in the major European states or in other European countries. I am not sure that we should adopt this proposal simply because it has been done in Denmark. Some things might be done in Denmark of which I do not particularly approve. On the other hand, some things might be done in Denmark whose introduction in this country I should welcome. However, it is not transparently obvious to me that we should support the new schedule simply because "it is done in Denmark". I hope that when my hon. Friend tries to sum up this somewhat miserable new schedule he can do better than that.
    Fourthly, I am not clear about my hon. Friend's central argument: that if we do not like seller's packs, we can somehow make them better by adding to them. Surely, if the Opposition do not like them, we should do our best to minimise the bureaucracy and cost involved and to make the packs as simple as possible, better to aid the functioning and transparency of the housing market.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on seller's packs. Does he agree, however, that if we are to have them in the mortgage and house-purchase business, they should at least be useful to property buyers? The amendments proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) would at least provide useful information for property purchasers.
    Mr. Fallon: That is a perfectly reasonable point, although I am becoming more and more suspicious of an amendment advanced by my own Front-Bench team that seems to attract support from every party but my own. That does not necessarily distinguish the proposals.

    1009
    The hon. Gentleman's thesis is probably right. If seller's packs are to be foisted on us, let us make them as sensible as possible, but I am not convinced that we would do that by adding to the requirements. On the contrary, it would be perfectly possible to simplify some of the ideas for seller's packs. I am a bit surprised that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have not proposed a series of amendments that would reduce the bureaucracy involved.
    I have made my position clear. I do not believe that the case for seller's packs has been established, but if we are to have them, I do not want them to be added to. I certainly do not want them to be added to by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
    Fifthly, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that the measure was supported by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. That raises the rather important point that if mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack is an essential feature of house buying, it is perfectly possible for them to require it. It is perfectly possible for the House to enable them to make that requirement by ensuring that, if they want to lay down various conditions for a mortgage, a seller's pack could be one of them. However, why that should involve any of the parties in the House making additions to the statute book simply escapes me. If mortgage lenders think that a seller's pack should be a key feature of the loan that they advance, they already have it in their power to make such a requirement or, indeed, the production of any other report, a condition of their lending—as I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will confirm.
    None of those arguments justifies the case for adding to legislation. I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a further consideration. Over the next few weeks, I understand that we shall argue that, as a party, we stand for the reduction of bureaucratic requirements—for making it easier for markets to function and for reducing compliance costs. We cannot have our cake and eat it. If we say that we stand for less interference, less government—for not fussing around, requiring people to produce reports—we cannot, in the same breath, produce three pages of laborious detail, including a definition of a half-blood child in the compilation of an energy efficiency report, and expect to be taken seriously as advocates of less government.
    I urge my hon. Friend to think again.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall now destroy the career of my fellow member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), by speaking in support of his amendments, but I shall also welcome the Government amendments.
    As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), if we are to have seller's packs and go ahead with this somewhat cumbersome process, let us make them useful for the purchaser and the seller of property and for the mortgage lender, and let them contain information that can be useful to them in deciding what properties they will buy, what work needs to be done on the properties and how much to pay for them. That is a key question, which needs to be addressed here.
    As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, mortgage lenders could require energy efficiency reports now, just as they require surveys—I am not aware of any legislation
    1010
    that provides that people must have a survey on their home before taking out a mortgage on it, but lenders insist on that—but they have not done so. The requirement needs to be embodied in legislation, because there are wider Government objectives—energy efficiency, reaching our Kyoto targets and ensuring good housing stock—that could be addressed if the requirement was on the face of the Bill. Although I accept that it could be achieved by permissive legislation, it would be far better if we included provision in the Bill, so that mortgage lenders, purchasers and sellers would all work from the presumption that one should know the energy efficiency of the property that one is considering purchasing.
    I should like all properties—especially new homes, which are easy to assess for energy efficiency—to display something similar to the fridge sticker, enabling purchasers to know straight away how much energy they consume, how much it is likely to cost to run them and how much might need to spent to make them energy-efficient. Enacting such a requirement could be a huge step towards achieving some of the Kyoto targets and improved energy efficiency in this country.
    Most home energy-efficiency measures are relatively cheap. Cavity wall and loft insulation are quite cheap to install. Even condensing boilers are relatively cheap and grants are available for them. Vendors, knowing that their homes would be assessed for energy efficiency, might choose to spend £500 or £600 on home improvements and improved energy efficiency instead of buying a new item of white goods, which would enable them to tell prospective purchasers that the house would save money and energy in the long term. That would contribute to people's increasing awareness when they buy large items such as cars—and homes, these days—of the impact of their spending on the environment.
    The Minister should be congratulated on at least moving at this late stage and agreeing to include energy efficiency on the face of the Bill. Will he tell us what details emerged from the experiment in Bristol and what details can be included in such a report, because new schedule 1 has been criticised for not setting out what the energy efficiency report may cover? That might be a fair criticism at one level, but no one in this country, other than in the experiments in Bristol, has tried to compile an energy efficiency report, so we need at least an idea of what one might cover.
    If the Minister rejects new schedule 1, I should like him to tell us what else the Government are likely to propose. I take it that the Minister will produce regulations, so it is important that the House be given an inkling of what might be in them. As has been said, such regulations are likely to flow through the House and we shall not get an opportunity to view them or scrutinise them.
    What consultation will the Minister undertake with the National Assembly for Wales on the regulations? I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is incorrect. I believe that under part I the Minister will be forced to consult the National Assembly.
    Mr. Raynsford: We are already doing so.
    Mr. Thomas: That is good.
    It is a well-known fact that housing conditions in Wales are worse than those in England, although there are regional disparities in England. Is there a way of using

    1011
    the energy efficiency reports from the purchase and sale of homes to supplement the information in home condition surveys?
    At the moment, home condition surveys are carried out all too irregularly. We have not had one in Wales for more than 10 years. Therefore, much of the housing expenditure in Wales is based on inaccurate statistics, so money might be wasted. Would the format of the energy efficiency reports under the regulations be useful in developing the statistical information on the condition of homes?
    We should either accept Government amendments Nos. 22 and 23—which represent the minimum—or consider the imperfect but considerable virtues of the Conservative party's proposals. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made it clear why we should go down this route. It would be hugely beneficial not only to those purchasing properties, but to the Government's thinking on how they will achieve their joined-up Kyoto and environmental improvement targets. I hope therefore that energy efficiency reports will be included in the seller's packs, irrespective of their final format.
    Mr. Forth: I share the bewilderment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), because I am proud to be a member of a party that espouses the principles of non-interventionism, anti-regulation and opposition to the nanny state. I thought that that was my party's position on such matters. I thought that we were also opposed to old-style patronising paternalism, in which it was assumed that people were generally so cretinous that they required legislation to protect their interests.
    I thought that new schedule 1 contained a printing error—apparently, some of my hon. Friends were its authors. I thought that that could not be so because my party espouses the principles of deregulation and the free market and does not patronise individuals, but it seems to have produced three pages of garbage. I thought that that was a mistake until I heard Conservative Front Benchers say that they were the measure's authors and allege that the party supported it. I shall take new schedule 1 at face value and spend a little time examining it to find out whether it is deregulatory and non-interventionist, whether it measures up to the principles that we espouse and whether it will benefit our society.
    Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps I can shortcircuit this debate and make time available for the other amendments that hon. Members are keen to debate by making it clear that the Government have the greatest reservations about new schedule 1. We do not intend to support it and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that it will become part of the Bill. If that helps to overcome the slight difficulty in the Conservative party and allows us to move on to other matters, I hope that the House will have been done a service.
    Mr. Forth: I am pleased that my limited eloquence has already persuaded the Minister of the position to take on new schedule 1, but I want to carry some more of my hon. Friends with me if I can. So despite the Minister's blandishments, I shall take just a few more minutes to deal with some of the measures in new schedule 1, on which, happily, the Minister and I share a view.
    1012
    I welcome him to the world of deregulation and non-intervention, in which we honour the good common sense of the people of this country and assume that they know what is best for them, and do not need the nanny state to guide them.
    Under the proposals, we would interfere in the long-standing relationship between lenders and borrowers, and between the buyers and sellers of property. We would somehow attempt to tell people what it was in their interests to judge when considering a property transaction. The assumption is that something called a report on energy efficiency would add to that process. I am not sure how many people think about an amorphous concept such as energy efficiency when considering the sale or purchase of a house. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, the concept is defined nowhere in new schedule 1, and is therefore of only limited use, if any.
    I am not sure whether people should take much account of something called energy efficiency when considering the location of a property, or its accommodation, garden, garage, or whatever. They may choose to take account of that, but they may deliberately set it to one side. However, the new schedule would not only make it mandatory for the new process to be interposed in the normal transaction, but its inevitable additional cost would be added arbitrarily, without any choice, to what until now has been a freely undertaken transaction between buyers and sellers.
    8.30 pm
    That disturbs me at a number of levels. It disturbs me because of the assumption that we in this place—and the lobby groups to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks referred—know better than the 1.5 million people who undertake such transactions in this country every year. That assumption is, at the very least, worth querying or challenging.
    Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if he were persuaded that energy efficiency reports were on the whole germane as a factor in the purchase price of properties, he would not think that they should be obligatory on that account?
    Mr. Forth: That is right. We have been told that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is very keen on all this. I do not understand that because—following what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said—if mortgage lenders were as keen as is alleged, they would already make it a condition of loans that something called an energy efficiency report be carried out as part of the transactions that now take place. Why these excellent people do not do that now, yet say that they would like it to be imposed by statute or by regulation, is a question that only they can answer. I cannot answer it for them. I am puzzled by their approach, because it suggests a duality of attitude—I shall put it no more strongly—that requires an explanation.
    Paragraph 1(3) of the new schedule states:
    "The lender may, in fixing the amount of any fee to be charged for a qualifying survey, take into account any additional costs reasonably incurred in preparing the energy efficiency report".
    The trouble is that it appears that even if the buyer and the seller were mutually to decide, for whatever reason, that they did not want an energy efficiency report, they would be obliged to meet the fee set by the lender in accordance with that sub-paragraph.

    1013
    That strikes me as unreasonable. Surely if adult citizens who wish to undertake a purchase or sale mutually agree that it is not in their interests, or not part of their requirement, to undertake this extra cost, they should be free to make that decision. I find the mandatory element of the provision—not to say the assumption that people cannot make their own judgment about how far something known as an energy efficiency report will be germane or relevant to the transaction—utterly offensive.
    The new schedule gets worse than that. In an attempt to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks so sensibly posed, I draw the House's attention to paragraph 1(4), which attempts to be helpful. It says:
    "In sub-paragraph (1) a 'qualifying survey', in relation to a dwelling, means any survey or valuation which includes a physical inspection of both the exterior and the interior of the dwelling."
    That raises a question that runs all through the schedule. If the report is to be a cheap, cheerful and easy estimate of energy efficiency, I doubt its value. If it is to be of real value, I suspect that it should properly be detailed, comprehensive, lengthy and probably fairly costly.
    The whole concept falls at the very first hurdle. If those who support it argue that it would not cost anybody much more, and would not be long or burdensome, I suspect, as a layman, that it would probably not be of much value. Conversely, if an energy efficiency survey were to be of use to the buyer or seller of the property, I would have thought that, in all reason, it would have to be an expert, detailed, lengthy and necessarily fairly expensive business. That suggests a parallel with the surveys that are either for valuation purposes only or for structural purposes.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I am trying to grasp the contours of the anarchic landscape that the right hon. Gentleman portrays so eloquently. I am sure that he knows that gas safety and electricity safety certificates must be provided for properties. Does he believe that there is no room for assessing safety factors when selling or renting out a property?
    Mr. Forth: That would be my starting point. I would have to be persuaded on a case-by-case basis. I enjoyed lunch with the hon. Gentleman today, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber, albeit not in his usual place. However, he tries to suggest a symmetry between safety and energy efficiency. The two factors are different. Safety is important, and we can legitimately argue, case by case, about whether regulations should try to guarantee it. We cannot make the same argument for alleged or real energy efficiency. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's parallel.
    We are obliged to plough through the new schedule, because that is what Report stage is all about. It gets hopelessly bogged down. I make the point to illustrate the horror of what we are attempting to do, and of what my hon. Friends believe will add to the general joy of life. Paragraph 4(1) states:
    "The duty in paragraph 1"
    that of undertaking a survey or assessment—
    "does not arise where … the lender is a member of the borrower's family".
    I suppose that that shows some flexibility. We are relieved of the burdensome requirement if we make a transaction with someone else in the family.
    1014
    Paragraph 4(2) states:
    "For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is a member of another's family if"—
    and it lists spouses and people living together as husband and wife. It does not refer to "partners"; at least we have not gone that far. I suppose that I should be grateful that the new schedule talks about good old husbands and wives. I am surprised that no one has tabled an amendment to try to make it more inclusive. My hon. Friends have fallen down badly on that; there are no gender or ethnicity points here.
    The new schedule goes on to list:
    "parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece."
    It is becoming more inclusive. It continues:
    "a relationship by marriage shall be treated as a relationship by blood".
    I shall not go into all that in detail; it is becoming gruesome. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, my hon. Friends, who are trying to help those who are buying and selling houses, state in the schedule:
    "a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood".
    This is becoming pretty bloody. It also states:
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."
    I assume that my hon. Friends were trying to be helpful. However, the new schedule shows the reasons for the Conservative party's opposition to regulation, intervention and patronising claptrap. We get bogged down in the sort of nonsense that the new schedule represents. We start by imagining that we will help people to buy and sell houses and end by saying that
    "a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood".
    That is desperate stuff. The new schedule is the essence of modernist nonsense.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: By going through the detail of the new schedule, my right hon. Friend may have revealed a weakness, especially in paragraph 4(3)(c), which states:
    "the stepchild of a person shall be treated as his child."
    If the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) had adopted the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), he would have been able to escape the provisions of the schedule when he offered him the loan for the house in Notting Hill.
    Mr. Forth: How much those two were worried about energy efficiency, I shall leave to my hon. Friend's imagination. We had better pass over that fairly quickly.
    I do not want to be diverted, as I am determined to get through the new schedule in the time available, so as to do full justice to it; I would not want my hon. Friends to feel short-changed. It deserves the full attention of the House, and I am trying to be helpful.
    As a deregulatory, non-interventionist party—I note the identities of some of my hon. Friends in whose names the new schedule stands—we provide in paragraph 5 that the
    "Secretary of State shall make regulations".
    It is in the open that the new schedule requires the making of regulations—no doubt all in the best possible spirit and with the best of motives, as such requirements usually are.

    1015
    However, let us be under no illusion about the purpose behind the schedule. The regulations will specify the requirements
    "which must be met by the lender in relation to the preparation of an energy efficiency report."
    We still do not have the details that were asked for earlier, but at least we can understand the mandatory element. The requirement is there for all to see.
    Intriguingly, paragraph 5 adds that these
    "regulations may … require a report to include … a statement recommending measures which could be taken for the purpose of improving energy efficiency".
    Some doubt arises. I shall make a few comments about energy efficiency, and ask whether it is as important as is claimed in respect of taxation measures, because I do not want to be completely negative. I want to try to be helpful. I shall make some suggestions about how things could be tackled better, in the spirit of seeking to improve the life of our fellow citizens.
    The provision before us simply requires a statement that recommends measures. Presumably we shall have a rather expensive analysis—if it is to be any good—of a quick, cheap and cheerful look around. It will say, "We really think that you should have cavity wall insulation or double glazing." The individual will not have to follow that advice, but he might think about it. We shall spend a great deal of money on stating why a building is not energy-efficient, only to say rather mildly, "We think that on balance it might be quite a good idea if you followed our advice."
    The provision falls between two stools. Either we insist on people becoming energy-efficient or we leave them to their own devices, which would be my preference. We are as near as we shall get to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that he would expect. Paragraph 5(4) states:
    "Regulations under this paragraph may not require an energy efficiency report to contain any information in respect of the dwelling which is not readily ascertainable on a visual inspection of so much of the exterior and interior of the dwelling as is accessible without undue difficulty to the person undertaking the inspection".
    I suspect that that means that someone might not quite make it into the loft. He certainly will not squeeze himself into the cavities of the wall. He may not even get into the basement.
    What will be the use of the provision if the requirement is for someone, even if he is relatively expert, to stroll round the building to have a quick look at it, followed by a quick stroll inside, and then make an assessment of energy efficiency? I fail to see the point. Either the process should be undertaken properly or it should not be undertaken at all. The very words of this long and complicated schedule seem to undermine its purposes at almost every turn.
    The one piece of good news that I have found so far—I hope that this helps my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—is that sub-paragraph (7) states:
    "In making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the cost of preparing an energy efficiency report."
    I suppose we should regard that as moderately good news, but what does it mean? Will the Secretary of State say, "If the report costs more than 25 quid to prepare, I would
    1016
    not do it", or will he say something else? That is the only way in which I can read the provision. If it means anything, it is that if the report is expert, comprehensive and very expensive, we probably should not have it, but if it is cheap and cheerful, that should be all right. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps we shall learn more about such matters in this little debate.
    The bad news returns, because paragraph 6(1) states:
    "If the borrower suffers loss by reason of the failure of the lender to comply with his duty under paragraph 1"—
    that is the beloved bureaucratese—
    "the borrower is entitled to compensation".
    Here we go. There is a serious problem developing in this country with the blame and compensation culture, and the fact that it is encouraged and written into a new schedule—and therefore, potentially, into statute—is to be deprecated and discouraged. I should not like to see much more of that sort of thing.
    8.45 pm
    There is a better solution to the problem. However, I shall pose a question to those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches before giving it. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Kyoto protocol, which seems to absorb many people for many of their waking hours. Not that long ago—and I say this strictly in the context of energy efficiency—it was argued that the answer to wicked vehicle emissions was to increase tax on vehicle fuel, which would reduce those emissions. At the same time, in some people's book, another argument said that domestic fuel caused even more environmental pollution than vehicle emissions. There was therefore an argument, which the previous Government accepted, for increasing tax on domestic fuel for exactly the same reason as we increased tax on vehicle fuel.
    We did that, and were roundly criticised by the then Opposition, who are now the Government. The environmentalists did not quite know where to stand on the matter: some said yes and some said no. We are now in a curious position. Apparently, it is okay to tax vehicle fuel to reduce emissions—but as soon the Government got in, they reduced tax on domestic fuel. I never understood the logic behind that, and I still do not. If we are to be serious about domestic energy efficiency, there is a good old-fashioned market solution—to increase tax on domestic fuel. That approach is an alternative to the regulatory approach, and I propose it for exactly the same reasons as the environmentalists use when they argue that we should increase vehicle tax.
    Dr. Iddon: Tell the pensioners.
    Mr. Forth: Well, pensioners drive motor vehicles. The hon. Gentleman may not know, but pensioners have been hit hard by the "environmentally justified" swingeing tax on vehicle fuels. If he claims to be an environmentalist, how can he look the environment in the eye, having presumably supported a reduction in domestic fuel tax and, by implication, encouraged pollution by encouraging the wasteful use of domestic fuel? It goes around and it comes around in various intriguing ways.
    The new schedule vaguely attempts, by regulation, to intervene in a market process—a private transaction between freely choosing buyers and sellers. It contains no

    1017
    detail to guarantee that it will deliver the results that it seeks. I fear that my hon. Friends may have overlooked the market solution with which, I would have thought, we were instinctively in tune. All in all, my hon. Friends have a lot more work to do to persuade me that we should support the provision; my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks made a similar point.
    I am aware of the passage of time and the restrictions imposed by the Government's arbitrary and unnecessary time limits on these debates—so, as it appears that the Minister and I are in broad agreement on the proposal before us, I look forward to celebrating that by listening to what he has to say.
    Mr. Raynsford: I hope that I will not disappoint the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I shall come to the same conclusion as him, but for almost exactly opposite reasons. I hope at least to give him a little intellectual challenge.
    On Second Reading and in the debate on clause 7 in Committee, I made it clear that the Government fully support the inclusion of energy efficiency information in home survey reports, and that we intend to make that information part and parcel of the seller's pack. There is an overwhelming argument for making that information available. It is when people purchase a new property that they are most likely to consider improvements and changes, and it is right that they should have information. The measure does not require them to do anything, but the information will be available to enable them to reach an informed judgment about whether it is sensible to carry out improvements to the energy efficiency of the property.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked what was included in the Bristol pilot. The energy efficiency survey covered the SAP, or standard assessment procedure, rating for the property; the potential SAP rating—that is, the amount by which the energy efficiency could be improved; the annual heating costs associated with the current SAP rating; and the CO2 emissions, for the benefit of those rightly interested in environmental concerns.
    Crucially, the pilot also included advice on measures that would improve the energy efficiency of the property, including both the estimated installation cost and an indication of the energy saving, and therefore the cost saving, per year, thereby giving people information about the long-term pay-back period for investment in energy efficiency measures. That is a wholly sensible approach providing information to the public at the time when it is most useful to them in helping them reach decisions about whether to proceed to improve the energy efficiency of their home. That is the information that we intend to include as part of the proposed home condition report.
    Clause 7 deals with the seller's pack. The clause gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe the contents of the pack and gives an indication of the sort of information that we believe should be included. Information concerning energy efficiency could be covered by clause 7(4). That was the point that I made in Committee, where I expressed the view that the Bill already provided for that. Because we had shown, through the Bristol pilot, our intention of including energy efficiency information in the seller's pack, there was no need to be prescriptive in the Bill.
    However, to put the matter beyond doubt, we have taken note of the concerns that were expressed in the House and in Committee, not least by the hon. Member
    1018
    for Bath (Mr. Foster). I am delighted that he should take some of the credit. He can send another e-mail home on the subject.
    Having taken note of those concerns, we decided that there should be a mention of energy efficiency in the Bill. Government amendment No. 22 specifies that the energy efficiency of a property is relevant information for inclusion in the seller's pack. Government amendment No. 23 is consequential and ensures that information on energy efficiency can be included in the home condition report. That makes it clear beyond doubt that that is intended and will happen.
    Let me deal with new clauses 13 and 14. I am sorry to intrude on the private grief of the Conservative party in relation to their possible impact. New clauses 13 and 14 are modelled on the private Member's Bills tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), which served an important purpose in raising these issues. However, time has moved on, and we have chosen to adopt a different, more comprehensive and more effective route to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham sought to achieve.
    New schedule 1 is designed to place an obligation on lenders to commission an energy report when they carry out a valuation inspection for mortgage purposes. In Committee, I acknowledged that the measure could in theory enable an interim partial system to be put in place on a slightly shorter time scale than that for the introduction of the seller's pack, but I pointed out the fundamental objections to that. We believe that the seller's pack, with its comprehensive package of proposals, will provide a more appropriate route to ensuring that energy efficiency information is made available to all home buyers.
    The proposed new schedule would apply only where an application for a mortgage was made and where, as a result, a survey was carried out on the property. However, we know that 25 per cent. of properties are bought without a mortgage. In those cases, the measure would bring no benefit at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) asks about the other 75 per cent. He will know, because we debated the matter in Committee, that there is a growing trend among mortgage lenders to move towards desk-top valuation. He will know, because he will have studied carefully the wording of the amendment, which he will shortly have to defend, that there is no provision for the requirement to apply if there has not been a personal inspection of the property. If a desk-top valuation had been carried out, the provision would not bite. Such valuations are a growing trend among lenders and the proportion of properties that would not be covered is likely to increase.
    For all those reasons, we do not believe that the measure would achieve what its promoters hope. We have no objection to energy reports being provided on a voluntary basis as part of the mortgage lending process. The hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) made the point that lenders could provide such reports if they wanted to, and we agree with that and would be perfectly happy for such a proposal to proceed. However, we see no justification for making such provision compulsory, since to do so would be confusing, cumbersome and unduly complicated. It would require sufficient surveyors to be trained and certified to carry out the work, because not all surveyors and valuers currently have the necessary skills to do an

    1019
    energy rating assessment. As that training and certifying would be going on at the same time as the training for home condition report certification, there would inevitably be two separate training and certification processes going on in parallel. That would clearly be undesirable, unduly cumbersome and bureaucratic. We are satisfied that our proposals offer the best way to achieve the objectives that the proposed new schedule seeks to achieve.
    I assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that he is not alone in opposing the new schedule tabled by Conservative Front-Bench Members, because we shall not support it either, for the reasons that I have explained. I hope that, equally, I have assured those hon. Members concerned about energy efficiency that we are utterly committed to it and we shall achieve it by a more effective route.
    On the question of the time scale, the hon. Member for Bath expressed the view that the home seller's pack process might be delayed. The one proposal that would be more likely than any other to delay its introduction would be a requirement for an interim scheme, since all the training and certification involved would delay and obfuscate the process of putting in place the necessary certification scheme for the full home condition report.
    There could have been an interim of perhaps only six to nine months—the amendment that was tabled would leave it to the Secretary of State to decide the period—one year after implementation. The schedule itself allows different parts of the provision to come in at different times. No one can therefore tell exactly when it will come into effect. However, it is likely to be a matter of only a few months before the introduction of the seller's pack. Given the risk of a great deal of extra cost, confusion and bureaucracy, it would not make sense to introduce an interim scheme for that short period of time. The Government's proposal is the right way forward and I recommend it. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Loughton: This is not an easy debate to which to respond. I am bitterly disappointed, because I have never seen such a volte face by a Minister executed by the use of the phrase, "Time has moved on." Many of the Minister's colleagues will also feel bitterly let down. The measure that he and other Labour Members supported in Committee—and which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) introduced in a private Member's Bill—was acceptable to him and to the majority of hon. Members. Under cover of the phrase, "Time has moved on," it has been completely cast aside.
    The Minister made no attempt to respond to the points that I made, because he was still trailing the nonsense, which I thought I had pre-empted, about parallel schemes running together. He merely read out the notes that had been prepared for him before the debate, not having listened to a line of the objections that I made. The Government's mind is utterly closed on this issue and I fear that we shall get no further.
    The great tragedy is that virtually none of part I has been debated on Report, yet we now have just one minute left. Bearing that in mind, I shall sit down so that we can move on to the next group of amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 1

    MEANING OF "RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY" AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS
    Amendment proposed:
    No. 28, in page 2, line 3, leave out—
    'a freehold interest or a long leasehold interest in the property'
    and insert—
    'the freehold interest or the interest under a long lease'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
    Amendment No. 4, in clause 3, in page 2, line 41, at end insert—
    'unless the property is explicitly advertised as being sold "without seller's pack".'.
    Government amendments Nos. 29 to 40.
    Amendment No. 7, in clause 7, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
    'save that these shall not include local authority searches.'.
    Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    'save that these shall not include a survey report or home condition report.'.
    Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    'and the term "characteristics" shall include information about risk of flooding.'.
    Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    '() an account of the suitability of the property for occupation by people with disabilities.'.
    Government amendment No. 42.
    Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
    '(9) All the documents and information contained in the seller's packs shall be confidential to the seller, a person acting on his behalf as an estate agent and any bona fide buyer or potential buyer.'.
    Amendment No. 3, in clause 13, page 8, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    '() A statutory instrument which contains regulations under this Part is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
    Government amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 48 to 50.
    Mr. Waterson: In the 30 seconds that remain, I wish to speak in favour of our eight amendments—
    It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Amendment made.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

  Clause 3

    DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON WHERE A PROPERTY IS ON THE MARKET
    Amendments made: No. 29, in page 2, line 42, after "possession" insert "or under his control".
    No. 30, in page 3, line 4 leave out "contained" and insert "included".
    No. 31, in page 3, line 23, leave out "contained" and insert "included".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 4

    OTHER DUTIES OF PERSON ACTING AS ESTATE AGENT
    Amendments made: No. 32, in page 3, line 41, after "possession", insert "or under his control".
    No. 33, in page 3, line 42, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 34, in page 4, line 11, leave out "contained" and insert "included".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 6

    DEFENCES
    Amendments made: No. 35, in page 4, line 40, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 36, in page 4, line 40, after "possession" insert "or under his control".
    No. 37, in page 5, line 15, leave out "copy of the".
    No. 38, in page 5, line 15, after "possession" insert "or under his control".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 7

    CONTENTS OF SELLERS' PACKS
    Amendments made: No. 39, in page 5, line 20, leave out from beginning of line to "must" in line 25 and insert—

    '(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

    (a) the documents to be included in a seller's pack required for a residential property by section 3(2) or 4(2); and

    (b) particular information which is to be included in or excluded from any prescribed document.

    (2) A document prescribed under subsection (1)'.

    No. 40, in page 5, line 34, leave out—
    'in relation to a residential property'.
    No. 22, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
    '(dd) the energy efficiency of the property;'.
    No. 41, in page 6, line 13, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

    '(7) The regulations may require a prescribed document—

    (a) to be in such form as may be prescribed; and

    (b) to be prepared by a person of a prescribed description on such terms (if any) as may be prescribed.

    (7A) The terms mentioned in subsection (7)(b) may include terms which enable provisions of the contract under which the document is to be prepared to be enforced by—

    (a) a potential or actual buyer;

    (b) a mortgage lender; or

    (c) any other person involved in the sale of the property who is not a party to that contract.'.

    No. 42, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—
    '( ) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 8

    HOME CONDITION REPORTS
    Amendments made: No. 23, in page 6, line 26, leave out from "document" to "which" in line 27 and insert—
    'dealing with matters mentioned in section 7(5)(d) or (dd) (reports on physical condition or energy efficiency)'.
    1022
    No. 43, in page 7, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
    '(c) for facilitating the resolution of complaints against members of the scheme;'—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 15

    GENERAL INTERPRETATION
    Amendments made: No. 44, in page 9, line 34, at end insert—
    '(2A) A document which is not in electronic form is only to be regarded as being under the control of a person while it is in the possession of another if he has the right to take immediate possession of the document on demand (and without payment).'.
    No. 45, in page 9, line 36, after "possession", insert "or under his control".—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Clause 24
    APPLICATION OF PART VI OF 1996 ACT
    Amendment made: No. 46, in page 14, line 25, leave out Clause 24.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
  Clause 26

    APPLICATIONS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
    Amendment made: No. 47, in page 16, line 37, leave out from "person" to "to" in line 40 and insert—
    'is an applicant for an allocation of housing accommodation shall not be divulged (without his consent)'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Schedule 1

    FIXED PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
    Amendments made: No. 48, in page 21, line 29, leave out "forming part of and insert "included in".
    No. 49, in page 21, line 35, leave out "forming part of and insert "included in".
    No. 50, in page 21, line 39, leave out—
    'comprised in the seller's pack'
    and insert—
    'included in the seller's pack in question'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

  Schedule 3

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 51, in page 25, line 39, column 3, leave out "Section 159(5)(b)".—[Mr. Raynsford.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Unfortunately, our debate has been attenuated because of the divisions in the Conservative party over the issue of energy efficiency, but it has nevertheless covered a number of important issues.
    The Bill fulfils important Government commitments to improve the home buying and selling process, and to strengthen the protection available to homeless people. It is an important part of the Government's strategy to

    1023
    ensure that everyone has the opportunity and choice of a decent home, as has been set out in our housing Green Paper and widely welcomed.
    The Bill improves the housing market for the benefit of the public when they are selling or buying homes, when they seek help because they are at risk of homelessness or have become homeless, when they are in housing need and are applying for social housing, and when they are existing tenants of social housing seeking to move within the social housing sector.
    The proposals in part I form part of a wider package of reforms to help up to 2 million individuals and families who buy and sell their homes each year. We are introducing a modern, more streamlined system that is easier and faster for consumers, avoids unnecessary stress and disappointment and offers value for money.
    In Committee, it was suggested that sellers' packs would add to the cost of selling homes, that buyers and lenders would not trust home condition reports commissioned by sellers, and that it was unnecessary to impose criminal sanctions on those who market homes without sellers' packs. Those concerns are not well grounded. There will be a small additional cost for people who would not normally commission a survey, but we believe that that cost will be more than outweighed by the benefits of a speedier transaction process and reductions in the huge abortive costs of the current inefficient system, which are about £350 million a year.
    In developing the home condition report, we will set up a certification scheme to ensure consistent and high-standard inspections and reports. As we have made clear in recent amendments, inspectors will be liable to sellers, buyers and lenders. We believe that everyone will have confidence in the inspections, will rely on them, and will be able to take action in the event of any defect.
    Sanctions are necessary. Without them, the temptation would be too great for freeloaders to sell their homes without a seller's pack, while reaping the benefits of a pack for the homes that they bought. Just one weak link would break the chain, thus perpetuating the misery of the current system.
    We have looked carefully at the appropriateness of criminal sanctions. As we pointed out repeatedly in Committee, they are consistent with similar sanctions—for example, those in the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, and others applying to landlord and tenant law. Currently, 95 per cent. of home sales are conducted through estate agents. Estate agents would be responsible for having sellers' packs when they were marketing a home, and in the vast majority of cases it would be estate agents who faced sanctions if they failed to comply with the law.
    Additionally, local trading standards officers will have clear discretion—I emphasised this point repeatedly in Committee—to take the action that they regard as appropriate where they find a person marketing a home without a seller's pack. They will have scope and discretion to offer advice, to give a warning, to issue a fixed-penalty notice or, ultimately, to prosecute. Only the option of prosecution would lead to a criminal record.
    We are absolutely clear that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, where an honest and simple mistake had been made, there would be no obligation for trading
    1024
    standards officers to do more than offer advice or give a warning. In the case of any individual householder, there would be little or no purpose, unless there were exceptional circumstances, in doing more than issuing a fixed penalty notice, so the concept of large numbers of innocent individuals being dragged before the courts to face criminal charges is an exaggeration and not properly founded.
    We must, however, have sanctions, including criminal sanctions, to cope with the risk of what I hope would be a very small number of unprincipled estate agents seeking to subvert the whole purpose of the scheme by marketing properties persistently without a seller's pack and paying no heed to initial warnings from trading standards officials. I hope that I have made it clear that we have provided a range of responses to allow a proportionate response depending on the circumstances, and that the fears that have been expressed about sanctions are misplaced.
    I have listened to the concerns voiced by a number of my hon. Friends about low-demand areas and low-value properties. I have made it clear that we are prepared to consider measures where seller's pack requirements would cause particular difficulties. The Bill provides us with a power to make such exemptions, but we must consider that issue carefully. Our research indicates that seller's packs would offer benefits in low-value areas and we must avoid further stigmatising properties in areas of declining demand and value. We are working up a number of options in a paper that I hope to issue for consultation shortly. That will allow us to have a thorough and considered debate about the best way in which to balance the conflicting pressures on that important issue.
    The proposals in part I are based on extensive research and piloting. We will continue to work with the key professionals and consumer representatives in developing the details of our proposals, especially the home condition report and the supporting certification scheme, so that seller's packs can be introduced as planned in 2003.
    Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that seller's packs could be of particular benefit to potential purchasers in the residential leasehold sector, who currently face service charge and insurance demands that they find baffling and by which they often feel cheated? When looking at the regulations on the content of seller's packs, will he consider, particularly in the light of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which we will examine soon, whether, for example, the last set of certified service charge accounts and information about agencies providing reliable advice to leaseholders and potential commonholders might form part of the packs?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has been assiduous over recent years in pursuing the interests of leaseholders, who form a significant proportion of the residents in his constituency. Like me, he will be pleased at the progress of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which has had its Second Reading in another place and will bring extensive benefits to leaseholders.
    It is certainly our intention that the seller's pack will contain detailed information that will be of real value and relevance to leaseholders, including information about

    1025
    service charges. I would like to consider the wider issue of the availability of advice because, clearly, there is a question about the appropriateness and reliability of advice offered by different agencies. It is our wish that seller's packs should be primarily factual information and should not be open to any possible misinterpretation. It is certainly our intention to provide detailed information on service charges and other relevant information relating to the management of the lease. I should be more than happy to consult my hon. Friend and other hon. Members as we work up the proposals.
    Part II will enable local authorities to provide better help in finding a settled home for those who each year face homelessness through no fault of their own. Our proposals require local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and preventing its recurrence. The Bill will require local authorities to review homelessness in their area at least every five years and to put in place a multi-agency strategy for preventing homelessness, ensuring that adequate accommodation and support are available.
    The Bill will encourage a more co-ordinated approach by requiring housing and social services authorities to take the homelessness strategy into account when meeting their responsibilities. We are also removing unnecessary restrictions that can limit local authorities' abilities to find sustainable housing solutions and offer real choice to homeless people, to others in housing need and to existing tenants, thereby helping to create more sustainable communities and tackling social exclusion.
    Evidence demonstrates that a high proportion of homeless people who end up sleeping rough come from institutional backgrounds, and we are adding to the priority-needs groups some new categories of vulnerable people, including young children who have come out of care and others who have an institutional background and are homeless and vulnerable. That is a sensible and humane policy. I am glad that the Opposition did not pursue at great length today their unfounded claim that we are seeking to give ex-prisoners housing priority over other applicants. As has been well established, that was never our intention, and it is certainly not the implication of the Bill.
    Taken with the Government's sound economic policies, our substantial increases in capital investment in housing and the wider policies set out in the housing Green Paper, the Homes Bill will help us ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. It is important reforming legislation, and I commend it to the House.
    9.12 pm
    Mr. Waterson: There has been a surreal note to today's debates which graphically demonstrates the dangers inherent in the Government's regular use of guillotine motions. The House will readily understand why most of my remarks on Third Reading will deal with part I, on seller's packs. As I said at the start of the programme motion debate, to the public, part I is every bit as important as part II—I see the Minister nodding in agreement—and although part I may affect different categories of people from those affected by part II, it is just as important.
    Whether one uses the figure of 1.5 million people or that of 2 million, as the Minister did, every year a very great number of people are engaged in buying or selling
    1026
    their own homes. For some people—those who do not have to obtain mortgages or are close friend of the former Paymaster General—there is not much of a problem. For most people, however, it is a time of great anxiety and worry. That is why we find it inconceivable that the Government really wish to make that process even more worrisome.
    We have not had the opportunity to debate all the groups of amendments and new clauses dealing with seller's packs duties, seller's packs offences and home condition reports. Although we have had a lengthy—some might even say exhaustive—debate on energy efficiency reports as a part of seller's packs, the vast majority of seller's packs issues, on which we spent more than half our time in Committee, have not been addressed at all in our debates today. I think that I had about 20 seconds to speak to our amendments in the sixth group, and that was it. Of course Ministers do not care, but I think that those who send us to this place will care that an issue that is important to very many people has simply not been debated.
    On the subject of seller's packs, it is important to remember two preliminary issues. First, we must consider part I of the Bill against the background of the clear promises made by the Labour party in opposition. Labour Members do not like to be reminded of what the party said on this issue as on so many others, but it is clear that it promised people that it would tackle gazumping.
    Whether tackling gazumping is ever likely to be a practical proposition is a matter for argument, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Labour party led people to believe that that was what would happen. It was a surprise to find, therefore, when we tore open our mint copies of the Bill before Christmas, that that was the one matter that was not addressed.
    I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government are trying to tackle gazumping by making the process of house buying quicker. However, we do not accept that the new system will make the process quicker. Moreover, if gazumpers are people who find that they can get more for their homes than they thought—to put it as neutrally as possible—why should the fact that the process is quicker make a difference? I have never received a satisfactory answer to that question.
    For what it is worth, I shall repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the one matter that the Bill does not address is gazumping.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, although I spoke on Second Reading. Will my hon. Friend say whether the Minister gave any indication in Committee that he would consider rescinding this measure—in the event that he is still in a position to do so—if it does not reduce the average time that transactions take to complete?
    Mr. Waterson: We did not get that far. Most of the significant elements in the Bill will be implemented by regulation. We have not seen the draft regulations yet, although we have had some hints of what they might contain. However, the Government do not propose that the new rules will come into force until 2003. When we win the election, we will have a long and hard look at whether they will make any difference. The betting is that

    1027
    the measure will not be retained on the statute book. The Government's attempts to force the Bill through in a short time will therefore have been for nothing.
    When he was shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) published a pamphlet on gazumping. He wrote that the Labour party was proposing a system under which a seller or buyer who went back on an agreement would be obliged to meet the costs that the other party had incurred in progressing to exchange of contracts. In its 1997 election manifesto, the Labour party said:
    "The problems of gazumping have reappeared. Those who break their bargains should be liable to pay the costs inflicted on others, in particular legal and survey costs."
    People who decided to vote Labour on the basis of the party's policy to end gazumping would therefore have been gulled.
    As for the contents of the seller's pack, no one would contest the fact that it makes sense to put together, at the beginning of a transaction, a bundle of documents that one has to get together sooner or later, to try and shorten the process. Indeed, if one is buying a new property, the developer usually puts the basic documents together.
    Our concerns are threefold: first, criminal sanctions should not be imposed. Secondly, to require a home condition report to be included in the pack is unrealistic and unhelpful. Thirdly, to require local searches to be included is also unrealistic and unhelpful.
    Surveys, as we know, can be out of date. Some properties in the parts of the country worst affected by the recent flooding could have had a survey six months ago, but the condition of the property might be very different now.
    Local authority searches have a relatively short shelf life—a maximum of, say, three months—and it would be prudent to renew them. We have never fully understood why local searches should be an issue. It has always been possible to carry out what is called a personal search, which means effectively paying a bit extra for the articled clerk in one's solicitors to go to the local authority offices and carry out the search then and there.
    The basis for the entire structure set out in part I is the alleged success of the pilot scheme conducted in Bristol. We dispute that for a variety of reasons, all of which will be familiar to Ministers who were in Committee. The sample was supposed to consist of 250 people. The figure eventually was 180 or thereabouts, of whom 90 completed. As if that were not bad enough, of that 90, a third were brand new properties—Beazer Homes, although that company is probably called something else now, as it has been taken over since then. So we are looking at a terribly small sample in one city in England as the basis for this scheme.
    The Minister will no doubt say that in Bristol everyone thought that it worked fine. The president of the Law Society—the Minister's new best friend—thinks that it is wonderful, the best thing since sliced bread. I explained during the debate on the timetable motion why I thought, with the greatest respect to the president of the Law Society, that he might be enthusiastic. Even more so, no wonder that the level of satisfaction discovered among the participants of the pilot scheme in Bristol was pretty high.
    1028
    I suggest that it was because they were given their seller's packs, including their survey reports, courtesy of the taxpayer. More than £300,000 was pumped into the local property scene for the purposes of that pilot scheme.
    We question, as do people intimately involved in buying and selling property, how anyone can rely on the results of that scheme. It also came to light in Committee that the local authority was giving priority to searches connected with the pilot scheme over and above those that came before it in the usual way.
    I complained in the debate on the timetable motion that Ministers were unwilling to accept advice from those who ought to know. I spent some time describing the Minister's dismissal of these people. Let us remember what certain organisations have said. Mr. Michael King, chairman of the Law Society's conveyancing and land law committee, said:
    "The take up of the sellers pack during the pilot was disappointing. The Law Society does not believe that on this information it should be made compulsory. The Law Society remains to be convinced as to the effectiveness of the proposed pack."
    Mr. Michael Coogan, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, said:
    "the evidence in support of introducing sellers information packs is not robust and such packs could prove to be unpopular with consumers. The Bristol pilot has failed to demonstrate that SIPs significantly improve the process and that there is widespread support from the professionals in the process."
    Mr. Hammond: I should probably draw the attention of the House to my registered interests. One of the great flaws in the condition survey involved in the seller's pack is that it may not be acceptable to lenders, so buyers may have to commission a further report. Did the Minister tell the Committee whether any serious progress had been made on persuading lenders to agree always to accept the condition reports in the seller's packs?
    Mr. Waterson: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Minister had a fairly disastrous appearance early last December at the annual conference of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. One of the things that he tried to do was to bully its members into accepting that very principle. The CML takes the view rather robustly, although a little less robustly than it used to thanks to the Minister's pressure on it, that it is for lenders to decide what evidence they need in order to advance money for property transactions.
    My hon. Friend has brought me to the next major issue. Who will benefit from the proposals? We know already that many people do not have full structural surveys done. It is important to remember that the home condition report is nothing like a full structural survey; it is fairly limited in scope and detail. I appreciate that the final form is in a state of flux. We have seen at least two draft versions. It is far from being a structural survey.
    I was talking to people last night at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors annual presidential dinner. Anyone in the business will say that unless a property is relatively new, one is advised to have a full structural survey. That is not to say that many people do not take a chance and do not have one done. So, as a matter of law, people will have a home condition report. They may well have a full structural survey as well. Even in the Bristol pilot scheme, a third of the people involved had their own

    1029
    report done, despite the fact that they were given a free home condition report courtesy of the Government. The lender may insist on a separate survey report and then still insist on the usual separate valuation, for the moment anyway.
    So, leaving aside the updating issue that I mentioned a moment ago, we have the potential for a series of surveys on a given property. Those in the business have estimated that up to £700 will be added to a transaction.
    Mr. Raynsford: Wrong.
    Mr. Waterson: The Minister argues that broadly those costs would be incurred anyway. I hope that I do not do his argument an injustice. Whether that is right or wrong, there is no doubt that front-loaded costs will, for the first time, be imposed on the seller, not the buyer.
    One of the main concerns of organisations such as the CML is that there will be a significant effect on the supply of property on the market. It is perfectly true that some people test the market by putting their property on it and seeing what happens. If they get no interest, they take it off and no one is any worse off and no harm is done. There is real concern that speculative would-be sellers will be deterred by the front-loaded costs of putting a property on the market.
    The Minister referred to the separate but related issue of what happens in low-demand, low-value areas. A significant number of Labour Back Benchers expressed concern about that on Second Reading. In fairness, I recognise that the Department has done some work in Bradford and Burnley on the problem. The Minister mentioned a moment ago today's Government press release, which says that the Government intend to consult on the options. Of course, that means that they have still not thought of the answer. They cannot take out a council tax band—during our debates in Committee, we eliminated that possibility. It is difficult simply to draw a line on a map.
    In his press release and indeed in his speech, the Minister for Housing and Planning has, with breathtaking cheek, adopted the word used on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—"stigmatising". I make no complaint about that, because the word is the right one. My right hon. Friend pointed out that, in some parts of the country, one might produce the very result that one was trying to avoid by telling people that they did not need a seller's pack, thereby stigmatising the area—perhaps, for example, a former mining village. It is clear that Ministers still have no solution to that problem, so they are putting it out for consultation. In Committee, we suggested all the possible options—more than once. None of them seems to have commended itself to Ministers.
    Lest it be thought that those are merely scares thought up by the Opposition, or by the Law Society, estate agents or mortgage lenders, we should consider the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) on Second Reading. He was in the Chamber earlier, but some prescience has made him disappear. The hon. Gentleman has practised as a conveyancing solicitor for many years. Possibly, for that reason, he did not make it on to the Standing Committee.
    The hon. Gentleman thought that the proposals would make only a marginal difference. He suggested that there might be problems because unscrupulous sellers could
    1030
    hawk a seller's pack around. He made the point that I made earlier—many conveyancers and solicitors already use a type of seller's pack for some of the documentation. He referred to the point that the Law Society has been trying to make to the Minister for a long time: the Law Society and others are already working towards streamlining the system—with the use of e-conveyancing and the like.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the extra cost—possibly £700—and the need for extra surveys. He expressed concerns about criminal sanctions.
    Mr. Love: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is attending a legal dinner this evening. He wanted to contribute to the debate; he was in the Chamber earlier.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that intervention, but I thought that I had already pointed out that the hon. Member for Upminster was in the Chamber earlier. I am sure that the legal dinner is most interesting. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will be impressed. He can skip over some of the earlier passages, but when he reads my speech, he will be pleased that I took so seriously what he had to say—obviously, so did his own Whips.
    The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. If the Minister will not even listen to him, we are in a serious state.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have hesitated to intervene, but I really could not let that go on. He will know well, because I raised the matter in Committee and made it clear to him, that, following the Second Reading debate, I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) to discuss the whole issue with me. We had a most useful and constructive discussion and I am sure that I put to rest many of the concerns that my hon. Friend voiced on Second Reading.
    Mr. Waterson: I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss when I point out that we have only his word for that—we do not have the hon. Member for Upminster, although I am sure that the bruises have started to go down.
    As we pointed out in Committee, when the Minister made that point, it would have been nice if the rest of us had been privy to what the hon. Member for Upminster had to say. When it comes to practical conveyancing, I prefer his comments to those of the Minister.
    Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the Minister seems to be a bit selective about which hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate he wants to discuss this matter with, because I wrote to the Minister after that debate, asking him whether he could clarify some unanswered questions, and I have not yet had a reply.
    Mr. Waterson: That is very worrying, because I know that my hon. Friend knows about these things. I do rather resent the Minister because, as a result of his systematic denigration in Committee of almost every organisation and lobbying group that has a connection with

    1031
    conveyancing, my mailbag has swollen to Gargantuan proportions as a result of people writing to ask who this chap is and how he dares to talk about them in that way.
    I should have said earlier that I do not have an interest to declare. As I said in previous debates, I am a solicitor but not one who has ever practised in conveyancing matters.
    We now come to the question of criminal sanctions. The Minister said that he was confident that sanctions were necessary. He then undermined his position by saying—it was an ever louder theme in Committee—that he did not think that essentially innocent people would find themselves in trouble with the weights and measures officers, hard pressed as they already are, who will have to try to enforce the legislation.
    We disagree with the Minister now, as we did in Committee. It is simply not open to Ministers, even in the Government, where they have an extremely exaggerated notion of their own importance, to say that people will not be pursued or prosecuted for breaches of the law. If we are creating a new law, the breach of which is in theory subject to criminal sanctions, Ministers cannot wave their hands and say that people will not be prosecuted except in extreme situations.
    One aspect is really worrying. Even if the Government really believe, against all the advice and evidence to the contrary, that seller's packs will make all the difference, why impose criminal sanctions? The Law Society has been outraged at that suggestion, and so are Conservative Members. We think that ordinary people, going about in their law-abiding fashion, entering, or not entering, into free contractual relations, should not be threatened with criminal sanctions—criminal sanctions which, as we discovered in Committee, are the equivalent of those for someone carrying an offensive weapon such as a flick-knife. We strongly believe that if the Government are having second thoughts about any aspect of part I, they should drop the idea of criminal sanctions.
    I shall deal more briefly, for reasons that I have explained, with part II, which deals with housing and homelessness. As Ministers know, we have consistently not voted against the principle of the Bill. We did not do so at Second Reading and I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading, because there are some good things in part II, some of which we agree with, but some of which have not been thought through enough.
    The Bill arrives at the eleventh hour of the Government, after four years in government and 18 years in opposition. I suspect that during every month of that time, the current Minister for Housing and Planning had some sort of responsibility for housing policy. The Bill is missing things such as a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation, which has caused much comment in the housing press. The Bill must be viewed against the background of a general failure in housing policy.
    Every time that we discussed the homelessness figures in Committee, the Minister would rise to his feet to rubbish the very figures issued by his Department, so I am risking provoking him again. I believe, however, that we can at least agree that we established painfully in Committee that between 1997–98 and the last year for which figures are available, the figure for total priority
    1032
    homeless acceptances increased from 102,650 to 108,500 in round terms. That means, on my arithmetic, that the homeless figure has been rising under the stewardship of the Government and these Ministers. There has been an increase of 6,000 in those years.
    The figure for the total number of empty homes has fallen only marginally, to 762,700. All that, together with the massive extra pressures caused by the Government's comprehensive failure to tackle the problem of asylum seekers and the sharp fall in the supply of new social housing, shows that there is a crisis in housing and homelessness under the Government.
    I discovered the other day that the Labour administration in Basildon has had to impose a special service charge of between £7.50 and £17.50 on homeless people. That is referred to locally as the homeless tax. It is argued that, as most homeless tenants are on benefit, the tax will not be paid from their incomes. The housing chairman, Paul Kirkman—a Labour councillor—said that he
    "felt heavy hearted at putting a charge on homeless people"
    and that imposing the charge felt like
    "sticking the knife in"
    the homeless.
    This country's homeless and housing figures paint a very disturbing picture indeed, and the Bill must be judged against that background. We are mystified as to why the Government have taken so long to produce the Bill and why its scope is so limited, given that they have purported to give such a high priority to housing in the run-up to the election and thereafter.
    There are major problems with some of the proposals in part II. As I said earlier, supply and demand is the major issue. The Government have not addressed the fact that there is an excess of supply over demand in some parts of the country and vice versa in others, which undermines choice-based allocations.
    In a nutshell, part I will cause enormous problems; it will criminalise ordinary law-abiding folk and make the job of buying and selling houses more expensive and more difficult. Part II is riddled with contradictions. The Bill does not tackle some of the big issues in housing, which should have been tackled by now, but, as I have said, I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I am still pondering the answer given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) when he was asked whether a Conservative Government, if there were ever to be another, would rescind the Bill. The answer was that the Conservative party would take a long, hard look at it. I recall that those were the words of either Eeyore or Winnie-the-Pooh.
    It is clear from the debates so far that we were absolutely right to question the programme motion. It is absolutely clear that there has been inadequate time to discuss the large number of very important issues before us tonight. However, we could have made more effective use of the time that was made available. Nevertheless, the debates in the Chamber and in Committee have provided an opportunity to discuss not only the issues dealt with in the Bill, but a wide range of other related issues. That has been helpful.

    1033
    We have had an opportunity to discuss the need to speed up the provision of affordable housing. We have discussed the need to tackle the absolutely disgraceful fact that there are 750,000 empty homes in this country. We have discussed the need to improve support for those who tragically often suffer from the neighbours from hell. We have even discussed the proposals to run trials to determine the ways in which different local authorities can develop greater choice for the various people in need of housing. I hope that the bid from my local authority—Bath and North East Somerset—will be considered very favourably by the Minister. We have also had an opportunity directly to consider important issues in the Bill, such as buying and selling housing and the development of homelessness reviews and strategies by local authorities.
    On Second Reading, the Minister accepted that the Bill was, at that stage, work in progress. I genuinely believe that our deliberations have resulted in significant progress. For example, I am delighted that Ministers have been prepared to accept Liberal Democrat proposals for improvements to the reintroduction of reviews of eligibility and of the priority given to homeless people. I am delighted that some of our proposals on energy efficiency have been accepted tonight. Hon. Members from both sides in Committee and in the House have backed our proposals to improve the advice and guidance that local authorities give to homeless people. Ministers have also been willing to reconsider certain aspects of new clauses 5 and 7. I am grateful for the improvements that have been made.
    The Bill contains many important and beneficial measures. Despite that, it continues to contain a number of weaknesses. They include the inadequately defined and certainly inadequately financially supported role that trading standards officers will have to play. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly said, insufficient attention has been given to the issues of gazumping and gazundering. There is certainly not enough in the Bill to link the important work of registered social landlords and local authority housing departments. The Minister will be the first to acknowledge that we have still not found a solution to the question of whether a seller's pack should be required in areas of low-value properties. In addition, we have not yet done enough to link together at the local authority level the development of homelessness strategies and the housing strategy.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly referred to the Bill's biggest weakness, which is the sanctions that the Government propose to introduce against those who fail to meet the requirements of a seller's pack. We are fundamentally opposed to the introduction of criminal sanctions. It is wrong to make it a criminal offence to fail to meet the requirements of the seller's pack. That would mean that someone who had not met those requirements could find that their character had been diminished in the eyes of their neighbours and others. Their job might be put in jeopardy and their credit rating and their ability to obtain a mortgage could be put at risk. Some countries, such as the United States, will not accept people with criminal records, so the ability of those people to travel could also be put at risk. If there is to be a sanction, it should be a civil sanction, not a criminal one.
    1034
    The Bill is work in progress, and progress has been made during our deliberations. I do not want to do anything that will prevent further progress from being made in another place. For that reason, we shall not vote against the Bill's Third Reading.
    9.48 pm
    Mr. Love: I welcome the Bill, not least because it implements two of the Government's manifesto pledges. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on taking the Bill smoothly through all its stages in the House, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), on his appointment as a Minister.
    Funnily enough, I pay tribute to both sides for the measured and sensible debates that we had in Committee. They were in marked contrast to the Second Reading debate, which sounded very much to me like an election rally for the Opposition. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) suggested, we had a surreal debate tonight when two Liberal Democrat homelessness policies were on show. There was also the amazing spectacle of the Welsh Nationalists coming to the aid of those on the Opposition Front Bench when Opposition Back Benchers were chiding them about Conservative principles.
    The Bill will significantly improve the process of buying and selling a home. The need for the measure is clear: 1.5 million to 2 million sales are made a year. Although the process is among the cheapest, it is also the slowest. Twenty-eight per cent. of all sales fail, even after terms have been agreed, and dissatisfaction is high. Frankly, action was required.
    We cannot criticise the Government for lack of research. An enormous amount of consultation and research was carried out before the measure was introduced. A long study took place in 1998, followed by a consultation process. It showed strong support for the seller's pack and even for making it compulsory. The consultation was followed by a pilot study. We are considering trust and confidence in the survey form, which was discussed at length. The provisions should establish that confidence before the form is introduced in 2003. The Bill will achieve more stability and predictability in the process of buying a home.
    I have a direct constituency interest in homelessness. Almost one in three constituents who come to me have housing problems. Most of them are homeless or in the process of becoming homeless. That reflects the Tory legacy. The previous Government's neglect of social housing has led directly to such problems; indeed, their legacy is symbolised by rough sleepers. That will haunt the Conservative party for a long time.
    I welcome the Bill. It provides a settled housing solution for people who are in priority need, but it also does much more than that. It provides for local authorities to devise homelessness strategies, and establishes the need for them to put prevention at the top of their agenda.
    Although Opposition Members have criticised them, I welcome the provisions for strengthening advice and assistance. When we are unable to provide a settled housing solution, we should give homeless people advice and assistance. It is clear that that currently does not happen.

    1035
    I welcome the Minister's important reassurance that blanket exclusions, which have formed a large part of some local authorities' activities, will be outlawed. I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne—although I do not ask the Minister to select Eastbourne as one of the pilot authorities—in welcoming the extension of choice to social housing. That is long overdue and will lead to local authorities gaining a better reputation for their provision of housing for those in need.
    The Bill will make a difference. It will reduce not only homelessness, but social exclusion, which is perhaps even more important and at the centre of Government policy.
    9.53 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) complained that there had not been sufficient time to discuss part I, and he blamed the programme motion. The Bill has 33 clauses and it has been allocated a full day for Report and Third Reading. That was not unusual in the House even before the time of programme motions. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the debate, he will probably realise that there was no time to discuss all the issues that are relevant to part I, mainly because one or two Conservative Back Benchers were so offended by the proposals of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that they decided to take him by the scruff of the neck and shake him for an hour or so.
    Mr. Waterson: The Minister chooses to work on the basis of the number of clauses, which is rather like a "Never mind the quality, feel the width" approach to politics. Will he remind the House of the number of clauses in the Bill that led to ratification of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman might know that, as an ex-Whip, I have a tendency, which I need to lose, towards "Never mind the quality, feel the width". It is something that I shall work on.
    Our procedures for buying and selling homes are the slowest and most inefficient in Europe. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people endure the frustration of delays and failed transactions, often incurring substantial costs. We are determined to do something about that and to improve the lot of consumers. An efficient housing market benefits everyone. We are pursuing a range of measures to increase certainty in the process and reduce delays. The Bill, which requires sellers to prepare a seller's pack before marketing a property, is at the heart of these proposals.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne complains that the Bill will do nothing about gazumping. Surely one of the main reasons for gazumping is the time that a transaction takes in a moving housing market. If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that, it is obvious that the commonsense revolution has not reached all the parts of the Conservative party.
    Homelessness, or the threat of it, can be one of the most stressful experiences in life for families and individuals, especially if they are vulnerable as a result of, for example, their age or health. The legislation introduced by the previous Government failed to provide adequate
    1036
    protection. The Bill puts in place another important piece in our comprehensive strategy to help homeless people and to tackle the causes of homelessness.
    The hon. Member for Eastbourne spoke of his objection to the issue of criminal sanctions. If the issue of seller's packs is to be effective, we need a mandatory scheme, and that requires appropriate sanctions. There is plenty of scope within the Bill for a tough line to be taken on estate agents who deliberately flout the law, and for discretion to be applied when a private seller makes an honest mistake. Estate agents market the vast majority of homes.
    Civil sanctions would not offer effective safeguards. They would rely on the buyer suing the person who had marketed the property without a seller's pack. That would involve buyers in delays and uncertainty, and the expense of legal proceedings to recover the money that had been lost.
    Criminal sanctions would not have to rely on the actions of the buyer. Local trading standards officers—they are not members of the Gestapo—will be able to initiate enforcement action as is appropriate to meet the conditions that they face and individual circumstances.
    I am grateful for the support of some Opposition Members for the measures that we have proposed. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on the Exercise of Police Powers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
    That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question again proposed.
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: On 31 January, I posed the question: what added value would we get from joint or concurrent meetings? That was at column 406 of Hansard. I went on to say that I wanted to challenge the basis on which the motion was predicated. It assumes that the Committees will produce better results by meeting concurrently. That is the point of the argument that I want to develop as it continues, as it will for some

    1037
    time. The question is whether the two Houses of Parliament, in the context of the Committee that we are now discussing, can make a better contribution separately or jointly—or, as the motion quaintly states, "concurrently". In other words, do they have distinctive roles and can they bring a distinctive or different perspective to matters?
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
    That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

    (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales:, the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    Depleted Uranium (Shelling)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    10 pm
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I am very glad to have this opportunity, which has perhaps come rather earlier than I expected, to raise in an Adjournment debate a matter of increasing concern to many of my constituents. It relates mainly to the test firing of depleted uranium shells from the Ministry of Defence base at Dundrennan, which lies on the Solway estuary in Kirkcudbrightshire in my constituency and which is now run by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
    My first foray into that area was in April 1998, when I asked a question about the firing of such shells at the range. The answer from Sir John Chisholm, chief executive of DERA, was that 6,255 shells had been fired at Dundrennan since 1982 and that four had been recovered—not 4,000 or 400, but four. To bring these figures up to date, 6,907 shells have now been fired at Dundrennan. Following national press stories, which sought to link depleted uranium to Gulf war syndrome, I wrote to Lord Robertson, who was then Secretary of State for Defence, on 1 December 1998, asking for action to be taken to recover the shells. I received a reply from the then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), stating that DERA
    "does not currently have a programme in place to recover DU projectiles from the Solway Firth, nor does it intend to initiate such a programme."
    I am interested in how many depleted uranium shells the MOD needs. In the Gulf war, 100 rounds were used against the Iraqis and some rounds were used during training in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of the argument about whether or not depleted uranium should be used, if we are going to use only approximately 100 rounds, do we really need to test 7,000 rounds? The United Kingdom has fired 70 times as much depleted uranium at Dundrennan as it did in the Gulf war. In asking those questions, I am well aware that a culture of secrecy seems to surround such matters, which only adds to the suspicion of many people about the actions of the MOD.
    One example in relation to Dundrennan will suffice. In January 2000, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked a parliamentary question relating to meetings between DERA and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. He was informed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that he was withholding details of such a meeting under
    "Exception 2 … of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 28 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 382W.]
    I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will not hide behind such get-out-clauses in responding to further questions on this matter. However, I was pleased to note that, in his statement in the House on 9 January, he said:
    "I absolutely agree that we should have as much information as possible in the public domain for there to be proper scientific peer review of that information"—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 888.]
    Having secured this debate, I should like to stress that I am not saying that there has been any health effect so far on the general public in Kircudbrightshire as a result of

    1039
    the Dundrennan tests. However, increasing international worries about depleted uranium lead me to be concerned that, if thousands of she]]s are left in the Solway Firth, we are storing up potential problems for the future. I am also concerned about any health implications for civilian and military staff who have worked at the base.
    I would now like to look at the W. S. Atkins report, which the Minister mentioned in his statement on 9 January. The MOD had agreed to implement an independent impact assessment in 1993, which was prepared by W. S. Atkins Consultants Ltd. and published by the MOD in January 1995. It is entitled "Environmental Assessment of the Firing of Depleted Uranium Projectiles at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright Ranges".
    I am somewhat concerned that the MOD is still trying to use the report, which is now six years old, to claim that there are no problems associated with the firing of depleted uranium at Dundrennan. In the Minister's statement, he said
    "A detailed review of the environmental impact of firing DU at these ranges. … concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public and the associated risks from DU released into the environment were extremely low."—[Official Report, 9 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 878–79.]
    Although that is indeed part of the report, other sections of the document, far from putting to rest any worries about DU testing, raise many more worries. One concern is the effect on current and past workers, both military and civilian, who have been present when a test malfunctions.
    In relation to such malfunctions, which are shells that break up before they hit the target, W. S. Atkins identified several hazards as a result of the test firing programme, one of which is the release of DU material into the environment as a result of the malfunction. On that matter, the report states that
    "the consequences will involve the release of DU material to the atmosphere. This material would most probably be in the form of very fine particulates or aerosols of either DU metal or DU oxides."
    That leads on to the question of how many malfunctions have occurred since the commencement of tests. The minutes of a presentation to the local council by Lieutenant Colonel David Brown for DERA on 22 September 1999 state:
    "Some mishaps had occurred, notably at the Raeberry gun position where some years ago a projectile had broken up as it was fired from the gun. Also some projectiles had hit the ground at the targets instead of travelling through the target into the sea."
    The targets are usually hessian or plastic sheets, which are attached to a metal frame. The shells are supposed to be fired through the sheets and to land in the sea.
    In a letter that I received from the chief executive of DERA in February last year, I was informed that
    "only one projectile had been recovered from the Solway Firth. The other three were recovered from the land."
    There are four separate testing ranges at Dundrennan. The W. S. Atkins report refers to the malfunction rate at three of the ranges between commencement of the trials in 1981 and January 1994, when the survey was conducted. The rates vary between 4 per cent. at Raeberry and 0.6 per cent. at Balig. Taking into account the fact that 4,595 shells were fired at Dundrennan during the period in question, and taking even the lowest malfunction range,
    1040
    as the figures are not split for the various ranges, that means that 27 firings were subject to malfunction in that period.
    If a similar malfunction rate had continued between 1981 and the present, that would mean that about 41 malfunctions had occurred to date, each potentially creating DU-contaminated dust, although I have anecdotal evidence from constituents working on the range who have seen as many as five malfunctions in one day.
    I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister about how many malfunctions have occurred since the testing started, and whether the malfunctions are included in the numbers provided in parliamentary answers relating to the number of shells fired. Does he agree that there is a good case for voluntary testing for depleted uranium poisoning to be made available to all staff involved in the tests at Dundrennan?
    That brings me to the matter of misfired shells—shells that have not hit their target. The W. S. Atkins report goes on to state:
    "The point of contact of eight misfired DU penetrators is not known and they may have hit agricultural land."
    That is clearly unacceptable. Will the Minister inform the House how many misfires have occurred to date and whether any of those shells have been recovered?
    Some 6,907 shells have been fired into the Solway, and, even allowing for misfires and malfunctions, more than 6,000 are presumably now lying in the Solway. Many of us instinctively object to the Solway being used as a radioactive munitions dumping ground by the MOD. W. S. Atkins commented:
    "For Kirkcudbright, a major unknown factor relates to the fate of projectiles once they enter the marine environment. Distribution of the projectiles within the area of the seabed is unknown, in spite of a monitoring that has been operational since commencement of DU firing."
    It goes on to say:
    "The state of a projectile after it strikes the sea bed is not known. The projectile may hit the bottom at speed and become embedded in mud, silt or sand, or if it strikes a hard object fragmentation may occur. The degree of fragmentation and penetration beneath the surface cannot be predicted and it therefore follows that the concentration in bottom sediments cannot be estimated."
    It also states:
    "Penetrators that impact at sea may corrode and release DU into sea water."
    My understanding from reading the report is that the expectation is that any such release of DU would be very diluted, and, therefore, apparently not a problem. That may or may not be the case at present, but my real concern is for the future. I understand that DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so we could be sowing the seeds of environmental problems for some time in the future. It is obvious that little is known about the exact whereabouts of all those shells. However, I fail to see how it is beyond the Government's capability to remove them from the Solway and dispose of them more appropriately, or—if they do not wish to embark on that course straight away—to undertake a feasibility study into that option.
    That brings me to the legislation on radioactive disposal. On 15 January, in a parliamentary answer on the firing of DU, the Secretary of State for Defence stated:
    "Statutory regulations govern the use of DU on ranges in the UK. These are the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges to the environment and the Ionising Radiations Regulations (IRR) 1999."—[Official Report, 15 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 42W.]

    1041
    The 1993 Act lays down strict guidelines for the disposal of radioactive materials, including depleted uranium. In order to dispose of radioactive waste, authorisation must be sought from the appropriate environmental agency, which in this case is SEPA. Before granting such authorisation, the agency must consult the relevant local authority, among others.
    In relation to the Ionising Radiations Regulations, W. S. Atkins states:
    "A requirement exists within the Ionising Radiation Regulations for an operator to be able to account for all radioactive material under his control. Up to the point of firing this is done. Beyond that point the material, unless recovered, is presently considered by HMIP (HM Inspectorate of Pollution) to be part of the Kirkcudbright facility 'procedure' and as such does not attract concern. However should the projectiles be recovered then they would be classified as waste and require appropriate dispersal with the relevant letters of approval obtained."
    I would like the Minister to inform the House, and my constituents, whether depleted uranium is subject to strict controls before it is fired and if it is recovered, but not if it is left lying in the Solway Firth. That would be unacceptable. If that is not the case, given that the MOD obviously considers the Solway Firth to be the final resting place of the depleted uranium shells, will the Minister confirm whether the MOD has the authorisation required to dispose of them in the Solway Firth, as the Secretary of State seems to have stated that the 1993 Act applies in this case.
    Dundrennan is not the only location in my constituency to play host to the leftovers of the activities of the MOD. In the sea between Galloway and Northern Ireland, in the deep trench of Beaufort's Dyke, lie many hundreds of tons of first and second world war explosives, phosphorous bombs and the like. Many of those are not even in the deep trench of the dyke, but in the shallower waters near the coastline, and the phosphorous flares are frequently washed up on the coast of Galloway and Ayrshire.
    Further to the east at Luce Bay, near the DERA establishment at West Freugh, live cluster bombs lie on the bottom of the bay as a result of pre-Kosovo trials. These are in the process of being covered over by blocks of concrete. Further east still, we come to Dundrennan, which I have been talking about tonight. The whole area is then gently washed by the tides of the Solway, which are themselves host to whatever radioactive discharges the plant at Sellafield chooses to release. Perhaps Galloway is getting more than its fair share of these man-made problems.
    I am not an alarmist. Any inspection of my statements since 1997 would make it clear that I have not sought cheap headlines at the expense of public confidence. However, there comes a stage at which any reasonable person must say that enough is enough. We have an obligation to leave this planet to our children in at least as good a state as we found it, if not better, and clearly in this case we are not doing so.
    A couple of years ago, the Government did the agriculture industry in my constituency and elsewhere no favours with their short-term ban on beef on the bone—a ban undertaken largely on the precautionary principle that although the risk of infection was infinitesimal and certainly no higher than that posed by many everyday activities, it was nevertheless a risk, and one that should be addressed. I submit that the same precautionary
    1042
    principle should apply to the test firing at Dundrennan, that as a result no more should be undertaken and that the debris of what has been undertaken should be removed as expeditiously as possible.
    10.15 pm
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I congratulate the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on securing the debate. It is understandable that there might be concern within his constituency about depleted uranium, following heavy media coverage of the subject in January, but I hope I can reassure him about its use at the Kirkcudbright range.
    The armour-piercing rounds for the British Army's Challenger 2 main battle tank are manufactured from depleted uranium, commonly known as DU. The rounds are built around a solid rod of DU metal, which has a density almost twice that of lead. DU also has the important property of self-sharpening on impact with armour. Those properties give it a unique capability as a penetrator, and at present no satisfactory alternative material exists that might provide the level of penetration needed to defeat the most modern battle tanks. For that reason DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future. When this country commits our forces to conflict we fight to win, and our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that.
    Kirkcudbright is an MOD-owned site that is now run by the Army as a training area. It is also used for the proof and trials firing of DU rounds by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—DERA. DU firing began at Kirkcudbright in 1982, following an announcement in the House by the then Secretary of State for Defence. Since then, a total of 6,907 DU rounds have been fired at Kirkcudbright in order to assess the accuracy of the guns and ammunition, and more recently for in-service quality control or proofing. Usually 12 rounds are fired, in order to sample every production batch of 1,056 projectiles. The current programme of trials comprises production batch testing, and will be completed by the end of this year. Thereafter, further proof testing while the ammunition remains in service may be required, but that has yet to be confirmed.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, the DU rounds are fired from prepared positions within the range at soft targets mounted in gantries on the cliff top. They pass through the targets and then continue out to sea, where they enter the water—which is approximately 20 m deep—between 1 km and 3 km from the shoreline. Only one target area is currently in use, together with two firing points.
    As DU is a heavy metal with chemical toxicity, and also has low-activity radioactive qualities, precautions need to be taken when it is being handled and fired. The use of DU at Kirkcudbright is undertaken in accordance with statutory regulations, including the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999, which were made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.
    The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 replaced similar regulations dating from 1968, 1969 and 1985. In addition, although formally exempt, the MOD voluntarily acts in accordance with the provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste

    1043
    discharges into the environment. Periodic visits to the ranges are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The last such visit took place in January 2001.
    The firing programme is undertaken by teams of DERA range staff. Effective steps have been and continue to be taken to protect those who have taken part in the testing of DU ammunition. All staff involved in the DU firing programme are fully briefed on the radiological safety aspects of working with DU before commencing work with the material. Moreover, they are designated "classified persons" under the terms of the Ionising Radiations Regulations. That means that they are subject to a pre-employment medical examination and are kept under surveillance by a medical practitioner approved by the Health and Safety Executive.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I apologise to the Minister if he is coming to the point, but during their visits, do the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency look purely at the land area of the base, or do they also look at the area of sea into which the shells are meant to fall?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right. I will come to the sea later.
    In addition, checks on the effectiveness of the safety procedures are carried out by the use of dosimeters, personal air samplers, urine analysis and whole-body monitoring. In the whole history of DU firing, none of those personal monitoring measures has ever shown a result that has given any cause for concern.
    Indeed, in 1999, the latest year for which complete results are available, the average annual yearly dose for a worker at Kirkcudbright was 0.65 millisieverts. That is well below the statutory annual dose limit of 20 msv for an employee set by the regulations, and lower even than the statutory annual dose limit of 1 msv for a member of the public.
    Access to target areas, firing points and, if DU is present, storage areas, must be within the terms of the regulations and is strictly controlled. Routine monitoring of those areas is carried out in accordance with the regulations. Special local safety regulations are enforced, concerning magazines, vehicles, firing and target areas, and they cover the contingency of accidents.
    As I have said, the targets at Kirkcudbright are made of soft material through which the projectiles pass. In uncommon cases when projectiles have struck the target gantry, any subsequent risk of contamination from touching or disturbing DU material can be contained by means of relatively simple safety precautions. Personal protective equipment is issued when entering DU strike areas at Kirkcudbright, including protective overalls, gloves and boots. Access to areas known to be contaminated is strictly controlled.
    Work on the estate is controlled by risk assessments and range safety rules, made on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence and administered by the local range commandant. There is public access to the estate outside firing hours, but there are warning signs along the range boundary. Furthermore, the out-of-bounds areas are fenced and signed, where appropriate, with radiation signs.
    1044
    Even if a member of the public or a soldier on training exercises were to ignore the warnings, enter the restricted areas, pick up and handle any DU fragments, or even picnic on top of one of them, the risk is minimal, according to an assessment undertaken by DERA radiation protection services. Such an individual might, on worst case assumptions, receive an additional radiation dose equivalent to less than 10 per cent. of the statutory annual dose limit for members of the general public.
    A long-term environmental monitoring programme on the effects of firing has taken place at Kirkcudbright since 1983, and to date it has shown only very low levels of DU contamination—well below any level that could be considered a health hazard. The monitoring involves taking samples of soil, grass, animal droppings, shellfish and sea-bed sediment from 13 separate points in the range each year—twice each year for grass. None of the samples has ever indicated any concentration of DU above background levels, except for some known contamination in soil at the firing and target sites, which, as I have explained, are fenced.
    That monitoring gives us confidence that DU firing does not have an adverse impact on the local environment or the food chain. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the possibility of DU raising radiation levels in the Solway firth. Scientific modelling, again using pessimistic assumptions, concluded that corrosion of DU rounds would make a negligible difference to the level of uranium that already exists naturally in sea water. That conclusion is confirmed by the samples of sea-bed sediment and shellfish that we collect in the area where the projectiles land. No uranium is detected above naturally occurring background levels.
    We are still not complacent about safety or DU contamination at Kirkcudbright. Although the risks from DU fragments are, as I have said, minimal, we have decided to conduct a general survey to find any previously undetected DU fragments on the range and, if necessary, to take appropriate remedial measures. The survey will be conducted using a new, more sensitive device called the exploranium. That device detects, but does not measure, the X-rays and gamma rays associated with the radioactive decay of DU. It is about twice as sensitive as the monitor previously used for detecting DU fragments on the surface of the range, and about 200 times better at detecting fragments below the surface of the range.
    The survey will provide an overview of any radiologically significant DU surface contamination on areas of the range, believed to have been caused by a very small number of DU projectiles that failed to reach the sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, some of the early prototype rounds broke up just outside the gun barrel, leaving DU fragments in the soil. Additionally, a few rounds have struck the ground prior to reaching the target. The hon. Gentleman asked for figures, and I shall write to him. We shall also further investigate the areas of known DU contamination round the firing points and targets.
    The survey will be conducted by the DERA radiation protection services, with preliminary work commencing in March 2001—as soon as the weather, ground conditions and day length are suitable—and measurement starting in April and May. Allowing for contingencies, the report on the survey should be completed by the end of the year. The undertaking of the survey, in addition to the continuing environmental monitoring and range

    1045
    control measures, shows how seriously we take our responsibilities in connection with firing DU. We shall publish the results of the survey in due course, in line with the long-established openness that we have demonstrated on the subject.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for that. However, we do not know the rate at which the shells deteriorate. Although he turned up his nose at the idea of 4.5 billion years, the problem will be with us for centuries, at least. Governments cannot bind their successors. Do we not have to deal with that problem?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should understand that a longer half-life for a radioactive substance indicates a lower level of radioactive dispersal. The dangerous stuff has a much shorter half-life, because it is dispersing radioactivity at a much higher rate. In fact, depleted uranium is 40 per cent. less radioactive than natural uranium, which, as I said, is found in the soil—on land and under the sea—throughout the world. This is a useful opportunity to bring that matter to the attention of the public and put it in an accurate context.
    Our activities at Kirkcudbright have been characterised by considerable transparency. As the hon. Gentleman said, in 1995, an independent environmental assessment by the consultants W S Atkins, commissioned by the MOD, was released into the public domain. It concluded that there were no significant risks from exposure to DU released into the environment. Subsequently, those conclusions have been sustained and, from 1983 to date, the routine environmental monitoring programme has shown only very low levels of DU contamination, which are well below any level that could be considered a health hazard.
    DERA has ensured that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Dumfries and Galloway council have both been informed of firing activities, and have also been provided with the annual environmental monitoring reports. DERA holds regular meetings with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and DERA
    1046
    representatives have attended public meetings arranged by Dumfries and Galloway council to discuss the findings of the annual environmental monitoring report. Copies are also circulated to hon. Members and given to the Library.
    On 15 January 2001, at a "community" meeting of Stewartry area committee, concern was apparently expressed in the public forum about recent press coverage of the firing of DU projectiles from the range at Kirkcudbright. A letter dated 23 January 2001 from the chief environmental officer to the Secretary of State requested a full report on the issue. We have had other representations from local residents. They will, of course, receive full replies. Meanwhile, however, I should like, through the hon. Gentleman, to provide that reassurance to the local population.
    The fact is that, despite the recent media furore, no new evidence has emerged in the past month or so to change our assessment of the risks of DU or its effects on health or the environment. It is far more important for local residents to focus on the reassurance of our precautions, our monitoring of range workers and our environmental analysis of the impact of DU on the range and its environs. That material has been shared with them publicly for many years. The material shows that the risks of firing DU at Kirkcudbright are understood, monitored and managed, and that local residents, farmers and visitors to the ranges can be confident that it has a minimal impact on the range.
    The risks, minimal as they are, have been acknowledged and handled throughout that period in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements, and our responsibilities to service and civilian personnel, as well as to the general public, are taken very seriously. That will continue, as our intention to conduct a new survey of the site clearly demonstrates.
    The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    COMPANIES
    That the draft Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
    The House divided: Aves 329, Noes 7.

    Division No. 108]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Allan, Richard

    Clelland, David

    Allen, Graham

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Colman, Tony

    Ashton, Joe

    Connarty, Michael

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Baker, Norman

    Corbett, Robin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Corston, Jean

    Barron, Kevin

    Cotter, Brian

    Battle, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cox, Tom

    Beard, Nigel

    Cranston, Ross

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Crausby, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Cummings, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Dalyell, Tam

    Berry, Roger

    Darvill, Keith

    Betts, Clive

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Blackman, Liz

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Denham, John

    Borrow, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Doran, Frank

    Brake, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Drew, David

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burnett, John

    Efford, Clive

    Burstow, Paul

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ennis, Jeff

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Flint, Caroline

    (NE Fife)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foulkes, George

    Casale, Roger

    Galloway, George

    Caton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gardiner, Barry

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Chaytor, David

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Gidley, Sandra

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gill, Christopher

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    1048

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Greenway, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Maxton, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Meale, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Merron, Gillian

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hancock, Mike

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hanson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Moffatt, Laura

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Healey, John

    Moore, Michael

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Heppell, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Hesford, Stephen

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Hill, Keith

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    (Aberavon)

    Hoey, Kate

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Mudie, George

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Norris, Dan

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Oaten, Mark

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Jamieson, David

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Plaskitt, James

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pond, Chris

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pope, Greg

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Pound, Stephen

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lammy, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Purchase, Ken

    Lepper, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rapson, Syd

    Liddell, Ftt Hon Mrs Helen

    Livsey, Richard

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Rendel, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Robertson, John

    Lock, David

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Love Andrew

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McCabe, Steve

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Rogers, Allan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McDonnell, John

    Rooney, Terry

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruane, Chris

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ruddock, Joan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McNulty, Tony

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Salter, Martin

    McWilliam, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sawford, Phil

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Sheerman, Barry

    1049

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Stringer, Graham

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    (Dewsbury)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

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

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Spellar, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Timms, Stephen

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Stevenson, George

    Todd, Mark

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Touhig, Don

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Trickett, Jon

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    1050

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    (Swansea W)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wlliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Tyler, Paul

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Tynan, Bill

    Willis, Phil

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wills, Michael

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Winnick, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Woodward, Shaun

    Watts, David

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    White, Brian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wyatt, Derek

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Steel Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am pleased to have been granted a debate on the future of the steel industry and thank my hon. Friends for their support.
The date 1 February 2001 will go down in history as the day of the devastating announcement that more than 6,000 jobs in the steel industry were to be lost: about 3,000 in Wales and 3,000 in England. In Llanwern, near my constituency, 1,340 jobs will be lost and heavy steel production is planned to finish by the end of the year. In Shotton, 319 jobs will be lost. In Ebbw Vale, the entire production will be closed down with the loss of 780 jobs. Another 127 jobs will be lost in Bryngwyn, near Gorseinon in Swansea. In Port Talbot—whose port receives the iron ore for Port Talbot and Llanwern—jobs will be lost in central services. In Teesside, 234 jobs will be lost.
The south Wales steel industry has played an important part in my political consciousness. I was brought up in the London Welsh community, but we travelled regularly to our family home town of Neath. I well remember my sense of pride as the train passed from Port Talbot to Neath, alongside the mustard-coloured works, and I read the sign, "The Steel Company of Wales", above the red dragon. I also remember the sense of desolation when one of my uncles, John Williams, was killed in a blast furnace explosion at the Port Talbot steelworks in 1968.
I remember the development of the Llanwern steelworks, near Newport, built by the then nationalised British Steel Corporation in the 1960s. That massive steelworks, which I have visited twice, lies just outside my constituency, in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), and some of the Llanwern work force live in my constituency. When it opened, Llanwern attracted many workers to Chepstow; the Bulwark estate was developed to house the influx of steelworkers from the valleys, other parts of Wales and beyond. The industry gave its employees good wages and security, and it brought great economic benefits for the south Wales economy.
Many of those who came to work in Llanwern are now retired, but they give the border town of Chepstow a distinct Welsh identity. Many workers took early retirement and others faced redundancy, but they all contributed to the reputation of Llanwern as a premier steel plant. They contributed to the productivity gains that Llanwern achieved. Now, as pensioners, they have seen their British Steel pension fund raided by the present company.
On the day of the announcement, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry argued that the move demonstrated the short-
234WH
term approach that Corus had taken. Corus had failed to discuss its plans with the Government, relevant information had not been disclosed and it had resisted any meaningful dialogue. Offers of assistance from the Department of Trade and Industry and the National Assembly for Wales were met with a total lack of co-operation.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Like my hon. Friend, I was involved in the meeting with Sir Brian Moffat before the terrible announcement was made, and felt that there was no real dialogue between the company and the Government. I would like to contrast that with the approach of the multinational Ford motor company. It has announced a £245 million investment in my constituency that will create more than 600 jobs. Effective consultation between the Government and the unions, and particularly between the management and the work force in Bridgend, brought that about. Should not Corus take note of that example and recognise that productive relationships with its work force and the Government can achieve a successful outcome.
Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He represents a constituency where tremendous investment from both America and Japan has been achieved through dialogue and co-operation. That is in marked contrast to what the Corus announcement represents. In recent weeks, Toyota and Nissan have taken positive decisions on future production and we have had further welcome news about manufacturing growth in Wales, with additional orders for Airbus at BAE Systems in Broughton, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
The Welsh economy has been growing recently. It is in better condition now than it has been since the 1950s and 1960s, and British production is at its best level since 1994. That is the economic context in which Corus has taken its short-term view. Only last August, Corus claimed that it would invest £35 million in relining the No. 3 blast furnace at Llanwern. Nick Cragg, the managing director of Corus Strip Products, said:
"The decision to proceed with the relining is a positive step forward and provides a real opportunity for Llanwern … despite difficult trading conditions."
The headlines at the time read "Llanwern rescued". I wrote to Mr. Cragg to congratulate Corus on its investment. I suggested that we might make representations to the Government, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Commission about the challenges that the company faced, given that there were difficult trading conditions and that some unemployment would be inevitable. I received no reply. The decision to reline that blast furnace has been rescinded, and the investment has been cancelled. John Bryant, a chief executive at that time, was considered by the unions to be someone who was committed to the UK steel industry and who saw a future at Llanwern. He was sacked in December. Another chief executive, Mr. Fokko van Duyne, was also sacked.
Predictably, people were aghast at the Corus announcement. The Archbishop of Wales, formerly the Bishop of Monmouth, reacted by saying:
"Many people feel that Corus' failure to implement any kind of consultation suggests that they do not trust their own workforce and that they do not take the lives of those people seriously."

235WH
I discussed the situation with the Archbishop only last Friday. I agree with his view that the announcement pinpoints problems about the methods and standards of management and the lack of consultation in this country.
It is widely acknowledged that steel production in Britain has faced difficult trading conditions. The general strength of the economy has resulted in a high sterling value in relation to the euro, although in recent weeks the pound has weakened by about 10 per cent., thus reducing Corus's losses by about £150 million. The failure by Corus to take a long-term view stimulated the union, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, to propose a buy-out that would allow the Llanwern steelworks to retain heavy steel production, given the strengthening euro and better prospects for the economy as a whole.
Tower colliery at Hirwaun in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) provides a famous model. The miners were determined to prove the viability of the colliery when the previous Government were closing all the coal mines in Wales. That determination led to success at Tower, which is now the only deep mine left in Wales. Another example is Rover, following the appalling decision by BMW.
The union's offer for Llanwern was refused. Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman of Corus, stated that it would "lead to competition". Better to make 1,200 people redundant than to risk competition, as far as Sir Brian Moffat is concerned. Better to close the Ebbw Vale steelworks, putting 760 people out of work, than risk competition. That is an example of the ruthlessness of a chairman who once stated that his company was in business to make money, not steel. He is known as the silent assassin. He is cold, calculating and detached from the human impact of his business decisions—a manager who has built his reputation on managing decline. Yet he was knighted under the previous Government. Was that for services to the steel industry? His ruthlessness reminds me of Victorian mill owners. In the 19th century, captains of industry could get away with a great deal, before we had state intervention, decent standards of employment and trade union protection. Such behaviour is not acceptable in the 21st century, and would not be acceptable in other European countries. In fact, Lord Wedderburn said, in his statement on the announcement in the other place, that it may be illegal. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Sir Brian Moffat was invited to a meeting called by Welsh Labour Members last week—the Monday before the announcement. I am currently chairman of the Welsh Labour Members and I distinctly remember that Sir Brian said that no decisions had been made on any plants. If he was telling the truth, it implies that all decisions on the plant were taken in just two days, and confirms the short-termism of the announcement. If he was not telling the truth, it confirms that he has treated the Government, the work force and hon. Members with deceit and contempt.
Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend fights hard for his people. We admire that in him, as do the people of Newport and Ebbw Vale. Can he recall
236WH
such cynical and brutal treatment of a magnificent work force anywhere in the western world? Does he realise that the company is unilaterally downscaling British steel production by 4 million tonnes a year? There is no evidence of any blood, job losses or downscaling of production on the Dutch side. It is a terrible way to treat a magnificent work force.
Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which he has made on many occasions. It is widely felt that the British steel industry is being sacrificed for the Dutch steel industry. However, I am sure that he will acknowledge that trade unions in Holland have refused the work that has been transferred from England and Wales. We should put on record our gratitude to the Dutch trade unions for their stance.
Given what we heard from Sir Brian Moffat, we can understand why Peter Law, the Welsh Assembly Member for Blaenau Gwent said:
"They lied about the blast furnace at Llanwern. They lied to the workers at Ebbw Vale."
That was why other colleagues and I suggested that Sir Brian Moffat and other members of Corus should be required to give formal evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee—of which I am a member—so that the views on and background to the saga can be heard. I understand that arrangements for that are being made.
To their credit, the Government have repeatedly attempted to work with Corus to discuss an alternative to the proposed massive job losses. Ministers have been rebuffed at every turn. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, Deputy First Minister Mike German and others in the Assembly on their efforts to find a resolution to the crisis. The Llanwern taskforce consists of representatives from Newport borough council and the National Assembly and it is working hard to find an alternative.
The trade unions, too, have been rebuffed at every turn. Every promise that they have made to Corus has been kept, yet every promise made by the company to the work force has been broken. It is widely acknowledged that Corus's fundamental problem is mismanagement, not trading conditions, the pound or other minor issues raised by the official Opposition. The mismanagement starts at the top with the chairman, Sir Brian Moffat. My message to him is that he cannot treat his work force and our communities like this. My message to the Government is that nobody should be allowed to treat any work force or community like this.
Corus's announcement has been ruthless, and it has treated its work force with contempt. The UK steel industry must be retained; it is not in the interests of the work force, shareholders or the country to allow 6,000 jobs to be lost. We ask the company to reconsider, to minimise the impact of the job losses, to consult the trade unions and to co-operate with the Government to find an alternative that will maintain the capacity of the UK steel industry. That would preserve steel production as a strategic industry for economic and security reasons. Every effort must be made to save as many of the 6,000 jobs in Llanwern and other UK plants as possible.
9.44 am
Ms Dari Taylor: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). He has shown passion and sheer determination in identifying the serious problems created by Corus's announcement, for not only our work forces but our communities. Many people see this blow as an attempt to close their communities, never mind the steelworks.
I believe that the announcement made by Corus last week, which amounts to more than 3,000 job cuts with a further 3,000 anticipated, is not only thoroughly unprincipled, but an act of short-term accountancy that will achieve little in restructuring the industry and will not secure an active future for steel production. My area, Teesside, faces the closure of a coil mill and of Steel house, the company's head office. Steel house was an important signal to the whole of Teesside that British Steel, which is now Corus, meant to stay there and was good for the community; now it will be closed and we are told that the administration will be taken to Scunthorpe.
This is not just about the job losses and the closure of two important parts of steel production. It is unpalatable that a company should behave in such an unprincipled way and not tell us what more we are to suffer. A further 1,000 job losses are anticipated, and we are told that there are more cuts to come. That has made many people in my community anxious about their future and that of their families.
If we consider how Corus has marketed itself recently, we can reach only one conclusion. The short-term nature of the announcement is clear, given the profits previously made from steel. In the year to March 1998, British Steel made a profit of about £315 million; in the year to March 1999, it made a loss of £142 million. I am skilled at scrutinising company finances but I am amazed that, by December 2000, it claimed an estimated operating loss of more than £1 billion. We see a four-year track of profit, small loss and then significant loss. Corus pointed to the high value of the pound as a problem, but the value of the pound was relatively static throughout that period, so that cannot be the answer.
The company also stated that the figure is an estimated operating loss. If the costs associated with the recent restructuring are stripped out, one sees that the estimated operating loss was only £23 million. I suggest that Corus is playing with money and finance, and ruining our communities to boot. It is not prepared honestly and faithfully to put its problems on the table and allow the Government to respond.
By stating those figures, I want to make the point that Corus is managing a marginal decline in demand for steel by closure and redundancy. It is not looking, as Ford did, for new markets and products, or to improve efficiency. It simply wants to close things down. My hon. Friend suggested that it is moving the company to Holland. That is strikingly obvious to many of us, and we will fight it.
Corus has stated that demand has not been great and that it is concerned about that. Naturally and inevitably, we are all concerned, but the statistics for Britain and Europe together show that there has been an increase in demand, not a decline. When some parts of the steel industry are examined minutely, declines can be seen, but that does not apply across the board. Consumption
238WH
of finished steel products in the UK has fallen by 1.2 million tonnes, and the figure for the rest of Europe is marginally lower. I say again to Corus that if there is a marginal fall in consumption, a marginal impact on the company could have been anticipated; but the savage way in which Corus has brutalised our steel industry is unacceptable. The company should present us with an honest factual picture so that we can see its problems and how best to help.
It is interesting to note that it is estimated that, between 2001 and 2005, demand for steel in Europe will increase from 144.8 million to 150 million tonnes. The world picture is even more revealing: global demand is set to rise by some 60 million tonnes.
The British steel industry is equipped with the best technology and an incredibly good work force who are competent, capable and flexible and prepared to negotiate. They have accepted being pared down to make the company efficient, and are acknowledged to be 10 per cent. more efficient than any other steelworkers. Given the projected increase in European and global demand, are we seriously saying that we are going to slaughter the industry in this way? That is unacceptable.
Hon. Members have not been given a true picture of what is happening. We are witnessing the destruction of our communities and our companies, and we are not prepared to accept it. Corus had better come to terms with that fact quickly.
The productivity of British steelworkers is astounding. It is claimed that German and French workers have the highest productivity, but the figures reveal that our workers are the best: a UK steelworker can produce more than 571 million tonnes a year, whereas German steelworkers produce 543 million, and the French only 534 million.
European companies also face cuts, but France and Germany face cuts nothing like as savage as ours, and the Spanish steel industry is even growing. That makes us extremely uncomfortable. We believe that there could be chains of supply from eastern Europe. No hon. Member would speak more determinedly than I would in favour of the growth of the eastern European economy, but I am not prepared to accept that it should thrive while my economy on the Tees declines and dies.
We have entered a consultation period, and we need to be spoken to as adults so that we can negotiate fairly and squarely. I want to believe that Corus is treating it as a real consultation period. I want to believe that our steel group will have a proper meeting tomorrow with Sir Brian Moffat in which we take each other seriously and speak about the reality of the situation.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to contrast again the ways in which Ford and Corus manage their affairs. The Corus workers have been given only 14 days' notice, virtually as an afterthought to the announcements made by the company. In the United States, although it is under no legal obligation to do so, Ford gives the work force 90 days' notice before final decisions are made about major changes in employment at its plants, or about major investments, such as the one at Bridgend. My intelligence from America is that it managed to reach a deal with the workers in Cleveland simply because of the way in which such investment decisions are handled.
Ms Taylor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which demonstrates that there are

239WH
models of good industrial relations that define the best practice not only for our work force but for companies. We live in an era in which partnership is writ large. If companies do not work in partnership with a loyal work force and, in this case, with a Government, we shall see the end of what has been, and should be, a vibrant industry.
The consultation period is set. We have been told that Corus is going through a strategic restructuring. One fact has been made very clear: the company is concerned primarily with the accounts—how the books are balanced and how the shareholders are paid. It is trying to achieve that by savage and seemingly random cuts. That is not an effective model of management; it is management in the most scrambled, opportunist and unprincipled manner.
Corus has told us that it will make no further investment in the UK. That is a serious statement. There are still 22,000 people employed directly in our steel industry. That is no way to treat 22,000 people and, I would submit, a further 90,000 and their communities who rely on this source of employment and who have given their lives to it. Many of my people have worked for 20 or 30 years in the industry, a lot of them alongside their fathers and their children. That is the extent of their commitment and their loyalty. We have a Government offering help. My plea to Corus is to adopt a different approach. There is time for it to do so, to think this problem through and to achieve a resolution that we can all live with. By opening a meaningful dialogue with the Government and the trade unions, Corus can save jobs and communities.
On behalf of a very large community of steel-workers—in particular the 6,000 who know that there is a heavy hatchet over their heads—their families and their communities, I urge Corus to think again and to work with the Government to achieve a resolution, ensuring that, as demand for steel increases, the UK can respond efficiently and effectively as one of the best steel producers in the world.
9.59 am
Mr. Martin Caton: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on having secured this debate, and on the power of his opening argument. In the circumstances, it is not a pleasure to participate, but I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on the powerful case that she has made.
The loss of 130 jobs at the Bryngwyn plant in my constituency is, on the face of it, not in the same league as the proposed job losses of 1,300 at Llanwern and 780 at Ebbw Vale, but it is part of the same blow, which has hit Wales hard. For the village of Gorseinon, it is a second shock in less than 10 days. A week before the Corus announcement, we learned that the French company Valeo intends to close its factory at Gorseinon, which makes car heating and air conditioning systems, with a loss of 330 jobs. A fairly small community faces a possible total of 460 job losses, which would have many consequences for the local economy and even for the social fabric of the area.
240WH
Although Valeo and Bryngwyn have very different processes and products, their recent histories show a remarkable similarity. Both sites were named, just a few months ago, as centres of excellence in their industries, and their work forces were lauded, yet after no consultation or information sharing, those workers have now been told that they will all be out of a job by the end of July.
The double whammy leaves the Gorseinon community reeling. The Corus workers at Bryngwyn, victims of restructuring proposals, are bewildered and angry. At the weekend, the Welsh Assembly Member for Gower, Edwina Hart, and I met shop stewards of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union at Bryngwyn. They told us of more than seven years of full order books for Bryngwyn's colour-coded product. Last April, Corus managers had shown them production and profitability charts and told them that Bryngwyn was leading the way and should keep up the good work. Nine months later, they have been told that that good work is to be stopped, that no productivity or new orders in the period up to July can change that, and that their members will receive only the basic redundancy package.
The situation is summed up by the telephone call that a Corus representative made to tell me, as the local Member of Parliament, of the devastating decision about Bryngwyn. After hearing the plans, I asked whether there would be a meaningful consultation period, and was told, "Yes, all the people who are being made redundant will receive counselling." Clearly, it is not only Sir Brian Moffat who fails to understand the meaning of the word "consultation". It has been deleted from the whole company's vocabulary. That is shameful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South hopes that there will be meaningful negotiations. I share those hopes, but so far we have precious little evidence on which to base them. I am going to the Bryngwyn works tomorrow to discuss the local campaign to save the jobs. I hope that the possibility of a local buy-out will be mentioned, which would allow the team there to carry on its successful work. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned the attitude that Corus had to that option when the ISTC mooted it for Llanwern, but the people of Gorseinon will be looking to the Government to make every effort to shift Corus's thinking on the matter.
We must tell Corus that it cannot have it both ways. If the south Wales plants are long-term loss makers, then why should it fear a management-work force takeover? What competition does a lame duckling offer to the restructured, reinvigorated swan that Corus is supposed to be becoming—unless the duckling is not quite so lame, and the swan not really rejuvenated? Unless Corus is prepared to change direction, steel needs to be partly outside its monopolistic control if it is to have a future in our country.
10.4 am
Mr. Barry Jones: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), who is a defender of his community. When my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr.

241WH
Edwards) referred to Shotton steelworks, he reminded me of those far-off days when I was working at No. 2 blast furnace at Shotton. It was one of the best jobs that I have ever had. I was given a crowbar, a pick and a shovel, a wheelbarrow and some moulding sand and told to get on with it, so I did. It was a tough job, but it was easy. I did not have to think. I did as I was told. My father had worked at that steelworks, as had my two grandfathers. At the time, it was a mighty, thriving 14,000-strong integrated steelworks. I am making these remarks to put into context the raw, powerful feelings that we all have about our communities now being put at risk by a cynical, brutal, thoughtless, profit-mad company—no more, no less.
I am also reminded of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Peter Walker, who in 1972 brought forth a White Paper. His aim was to restructure the then nationalised industry. Because his proposals meant the loss of jobs in my steelworks, I took a deputation to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who was very courteous, accessible and accommodating. I took steelworkers from my constituency to the Cabinet Room and sat opposite the then Prime Minister, now the Father of the House. Above him was a painting of Walpole, the first Prime Minister. The workers and councillors spoke up well. It seemed that the Prime Minister wanted to be of help, but that was not possible.
As a result of that, more than 3,000 people arrived in London on three special trains and marched to this honourable House. Our bass drum was arrested on Vauxhall bridge and taken to Cannon Row police station. There were so many people in the area that the whole of Millbank was closed. Thereafter, security in the House of Commons and its surrounding environment was changed. We made a valiant effort to stop the loss of thousands of jobs, but after looking at the papers in 1980, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Sir Keith Joseph, said that steelmaking had to end. We lost 8,000 direct steel jobs overnight and at least 10,000 others were lost as a consequence. Hundreds of people from the estates in my constituency were out of work. Between 1980 and 1982, I think that male unemployment increased officially to 25 per cent.
Mr. Edwards: The Tory years.
Mr. Jones: Yes, they were the years of a Conservative Administration.
I emphasise the importance of this debate. When those redundancies rained down on my constituency, its social fabric could not take the strain. Unhappiness and unemployment were terrible wounds on the Deeside community. I do not want that for the constituencies in Wales or the rest of the United Kingdom. What is being proposed is unjust. If it comes about, it will not be good for our country, for our constituencies or for the steel-worker constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth and their families.
At present, my steelworks has fewer than 1,000 employees, yet we have been told that we are to lose 319 jobs. What reward is that? The work force are magnificent and, over the years, have collaborated with the board of Corus and its predecessor in de-manning.
242WH
Each time, the works leadership was told that if it de-manned, stepped up productivity and became more competitive, more successful and more profitable, it would be able to survive into the new century and retain what was left of the works; but that has not proved true. What Corus told my constituents at Shotton steelworks was not correct. Our people gave everything to the board and have received nothing in return but a kick in the teeth. They believe that they are being sacrificed on an altar that represents profit, and that their interests and those of the great industry come behind those of the shareholders.
Mr. Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend's reference to workers in his constituency and throughout the steel industry in the United Kingdom being sacrificed on the altar of profit reminds me of the fact that when Corus was created, British Steel was cash rich. It had money in the bank, and it used nearly £700 million of that money as a sweetener in special dividends to shareholders to approve the merger. If British Steel had planned properly, it could have had that money available for the rainy day of the past year or so, and our workers would not have been sacrificed for the sake of a sweetener.
Mr. Jones: A week ago, my hon. Friend made that point to the chairman of Corus. Yards from this Chamber, the chairman and chief executive of Corus met Welsh Members of Parliament. It was an unique and historic meeting, and he made that point powerfully. However, my point was that if our country is divested of its steel capability on the colossal scale now proposed by the company, that will be a cut for ever. We will not be able to bring back that productivity. I seriously warn the company about that.
We maintain a large standing Army. We have a seaborne nuclear deterrent. We have ambitions as a middle-rank, modern nation state in Europe. We are a world leader, and we want to retain our influence. It will not be possible to do that if the nation is divested of a steel industry—and that is what is happening. We can now see the future, in which Sir Brian Moffat's board is planning by stealth to end steelmaking in Britain and concentrate it in another country across the channel. That cannot be right for Britain, for Wales or for Deeside and Shotton in my constituency.
We are discussing nationhood and the future of Britain. It is not possible to have a future or a nation without a steel industry. A steel industry is a foundation industry. There is nothing without it. It is incredible that a board of anonymous men and women hidden away can make a decision unilaterally, without consulting anyone or telling the British Government, the British Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. They are not telling us what they are about—but we know what they are about, and they will bring on our communities unhappiness, unemployment and hopelessness. I have seen it before. That is a terrible, searing thing to do to communities, and I hope that, even at this late stage, Corus will think again. I do not believe that it is equal to the task.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have behaved magnificently in trying to defend steelworkers in their constituencies, and I pay tribute to union convenors, such as Robert Butt of the transport workers, Jim Mullins of the steelworkers, Mike Parkinson of the

243WH
engineers and Arthur Watson of the GMB, who are magnificent in doing what they are trying to do, and do not deserve the injustice that is being visited on them. All my Welsh colleagues know that what Corus is doing in Wales is wrong and unjust. The board must think again and come to the Prime Minister and offer to revisit the subject; it should stand back; it should think again; it should not do this to my steelworks.
10.14 am
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I say how privileged I am to be able to speak in this debate, in which several hon. Members representing steel areas in Wales have spoken so eloquently about the devastating blow that was struck at the heart of their communities when Corus announced that 3,000 jobs in Wales were to be lost in south Wales, at Llanwern, Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn, and in the north in Shotton? Those are jobs in areas where, over the years, unemployment has had a devastating effect—that is especially true of Ebbw Vale. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the destruction of the steel industry in his area decades ago.
Over the past week or so, I have heard many eloquent speeches both here and in the National Assembly about the effect that the job losses are having. What underlies those speeches is a recognition that those working in the steel industry in Wales have made such a massive contribution to the economy of Wales, the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. What is also true is that those were good-quality jobs of the kind that attract incomes that we cannot afford to lose in Wales.
The loss of those jobs has a massive effect on the communities that I have mentioned, and it comes on top of other job losses. We have heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) about the job losses at Valeo in Gorseinon, but we have also heard about job losses at Sony, Panasonic, Dewhurst and Gossard. Those are jobs in manufacturing—clearly not on the scale of the steel industry, but jobs that we can ill afford to lose in Wales.
I shall come to the decision by Corus in a moment, but alongside that, we must consider the Government's economic policy. How can it be right that Wales, with its heavier reliance on manufacturing, should suffer that haemorrhage of jobs without the Government's being prepared to countenance any change in economic policy to protect the future of our manufacturing industry? I appeal to the Minister to address that issue.
Mr. Win Griffiths: We all deplore what Corus are doing—there is a huge case against it, and it should be in the dock today—but when we look at manufacturing in Wales overall, there is also evidence of good news. The Bridgend plant will get more than 600 new jobs and the unions there confidently expect there to be more. That will also pave the way for the development of a new business park, in which, over a five-year period, there could easily be 1,000 new jobs. We need to look at all those issues in the round, and the Government worked well with Ford to enable that investment to be announced.
Mr. Jones: I applaud the fact that Ford have made that announcement to bring further jobs to Bridgend—of course that is excellent news—but we also have to remember the underlying trend in manufacturing in Wales. Our heavy reliance on manufacturing, which provides 27 per cent. of our jobs, compared with 20 per cent. in other parts of the United Kingdom, means that when there are job losses in manufacturing, we must take economic policy, and particularly the high value of the pound, into account. Many of those who have announced those job losses have cited that as one of the reasons why they are now uncompetitive against other plants in the rest of the European Union. I am not saying that Corus is blameless.
Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
The economic policy must also be examined. As hon. Members from all parts of the political spectrum in Wales have said, Corus's behaviour has been totally inexcusable. Its failure to consult the Government, the trade unions, the relevant agencies—such as the Welsh Development Agency—and the local authorities has, rightly, been condemned. Of course Corus should have consulted them. Corus should have told the Government what its plans were, so that stringent efforts could have been made to save jobs. Of course that is true.
We must also remember that in other European member states Corus could not have acted as it did, because employment laws in place in Germany and the Netherlands prevent such companies from throwing their workers out of work. That is the truth. I call on the Government to tell us that such a company will never again be allowed to throw workers on to the scrapheap. We should have employment laws equal to those in Germany and the Netherlands. We want statutory rights of consultation that would not have allowed Corus to say to the Government, "I'm sorry, but we're not prepared to talk." It should have had to talk to the Government. The Government must examine that issue.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the hon. Gentleman pushing his luck? He wants a separate independent Wales. We would not have a steel industry at all if he was in office.
Mr. Jones: What is remarkable about that intervention is that the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not disagree with the fundamental point that I was making. None of those who have spoken would disagree with that point. If employment laws were in place, Corus would have been prevented from acting as it did. He himself said that jobs were not being lost in the Netherlands. I can tell him why: if Corus had been planning to lose jobs in the Netherlands, it would have had to go through a consultation procedure that would have lasted up to two years. It was not prepared to do that. It is essential that employment laws are put in place in the United Kingdom. No one can deny the force of that argument.
I also want an assurance that, when the Government are talking to Corus, all options for saving jobs will be discussed. We must re-examine the trade union

245WH
proposal, not only in relation to Llanwern, but to see whether similar proposals may be applied in other plants.
The first tack is to try to persuade Corus not to go ahead with the redundancies. We all support that plea and want to see it succeed. We want to see the Prime Minister, the First Minister and all the relevant Welsh and UK Ministers coming together to ensure that jobs can be protected. If that fails, we must look at ways in which we can assist the workers through proposals such as those of the trade unions. Clearly, we must also have contingency plans. What contingency plans will be put in place if all the pleading fails and the jobs are lost? No firm figure has been established yet, but it is estimated that between £50 million and £100 million will be necessary for the communities to rebuild the economies of the areas devastated by job losses.
Where will that money come from? I would like the Minister to tell us, categorically, that if it is necessary to provide those resources, the Treasury will provide them above the Welsh block. We do not want the National Assembly to have to raid its own budget to provide the necessary resources to rebuild the economy of those areas. Will she assure us that, if the worst comes to the worst and those resources are needed, the Treasury will be prepared to give that money to the Assembly so that we can begin that work of rebuilding?
The communities are facing desperate times and immense problems. A community such as Ebbw Vale has high social deprivation. It will be a huge task to rebuild those economies, so I hope that the Government will show today that they stand shoulder to shoulder with those communities.
10.25 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: I join my friends from every political party in condemning the loss of jobs at Corus and the way in which the company has gone about it. Last Saturday at Cardiff Arms Park, I saw a graphic illustration of how it has been done. I have sat next to the same person for the past 10 years—a young lad in his early 30s. The Welsh team was losing to the best English side I have seen in the past 50 years. At half-time he looked a bit depressed, and I said to him, "We're going to lose this match, aren't we?" He said, "It's worse than that: I work in the steel plant in Llanwern and I've been given my redundancy this week." There he is, a 34-year-old with a couple of kids—what future does he have? He is a skilled person, but as things stand, he does not really have a future.
We should bring the subject down to the human scale. We can talk about macro-economies and so on, but what matters are the individuals and families who are seriously hurt by Corus's disgraceful decision. Mr. Moffat is a butcher; most butchers retire eventually, and I understand that he is to retire within the next 12 months. When butchers retire, they sell their assets at the best possible price—in this case, the price on the stock markets. Corus in Holland is recruiting workers, but Corus in the United Kingdom is sacking them. The euro valuation in relation to the pound means that there is a loss on every tonne of steel produced, and exported steel in particular. No protection law exists to prevent the employees from being sacked.
It will be death by a thousand cuts. Unless this huge basic industry—the foundation of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom—is allowed to compete
246WH
properly in the marketplace, the remaining plants will also be in danger. I hope that that will not happen, but it seems possible. Corus has ruled out capital investment in its United Kingdom plants, which represents a death sentence for steel production here. We must act now—not in one or two or three years' time—to save the UK steel industry. It is a basic industry in Wales, and a vital part of the economy.
The announcement last week of the loss of 6,000 jobs in England and Wales is primarily the result of a decision by Corus to chop 3 million tonnes of production in the UK, which represents most of the export market. Most of it is going to Europe, and the industry is being downsized. Corus wants to keep spending to a minimum and will not invest for five years—we have that on good authority. Further cuts could be inevitable unless we take action. Mr. Moffat blames world overcapacity, low prices, falling UK demand and a strong pound. He may be right, but the way in which he has responded to that situation is absolutely atrocious.
That is the problem, but what do we have as a solution? Wales may receive £50 million from Whitehall, but one must set that against the cyclical nature of the steel industry. In 1996, British Steel made taxed profits of £ 1 billion. That was only four years ago, and profits could reach that level again if we remain competitive and there is investment. Turning the steel industry around is like trying to turn a massive tanker just outside Port Talbot roads: it takes a long time. It requires stability in the industry, not cuts like these. Mr. Moffat wants a good share price when he retires, which is the worst possible type of short-termism.
We cannot avoid certain facts. Corus has no legal obligation to consult, which is why it did not do so. It had no intention of doing so. As someone who worked for a multinational company for some time, I know that some boardrooms cut and run, while others co-operate and negotiate. That is the difference between Corus and Ford, for example. If we do not get the change that we want from the Corus board, we must try and try again. Indeed, consultation might have happened if we had signed up to the European Union employment protection directives. I cannot for the life of me understand a Labour Government who do not get involved in workers' rights. There is no sentiment in big business. The Government have been blocking the employment protection directives. In Nice, for example, they could have signed up to them but they did not. Why? It is a serious matter.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) gave a marvellous prescription. Many other hon. Members—if I may use Dylan Thomas's phrase—have demonstrated a tendency to
"Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
In this case, the dying of the light is in the steel plants. My family, in the early part of the 20th century, worked for the infamous Crawshay in Merthyr Tydfil. We all know what happened to Cyfartha ironworks: it closed down and everybody was out of a job. Indeed, the words "God forgive me" are inscribed on the grave of one of the Crawshays. I do not know whether that will be on Moffat's grave, but it would be deserved.

247WH
We are in danger of living in a cloud cuckoo land. We must recognise certain facts. There is a global glut of steel. Steel prices are at a 20-year low. Corus exports 3 million tonnes to Europe and also owns Dutch and German production, which is far more profitable. The pound has been 40 per cent. overvalued over the past two years. How can one compete with that milestone around one's neck? That is why such a loss has been made. UK steel demand is in stagnation. Corus is £1.6 billion in debt and has made a loss of £226 million during the past six months.
Something radical must be done. British Steel was uniquely vulnerable to a takeover because of inadequate takeover laws in the United Kingdom. That is why the company is in this state. Of course, the management are far too ruthless and do not care a damn about the work force. The United Kingdom is going nowhere in terms of steel production. In the long term, the cycle will change and things will get better. The nature of the stock market favours short-termism, which puts people on the labour scrapheap. The competition is massively fierce—from China, Russia, Europe and Brazil—and the overvalued pound ensures that imports easily penetrate our markets. In fact, the penetration is massive. Unless the situation changes or there is intervention, Corus will undoubtedly relocate steel production, perhaps to eastern Europe.
The stock market does not value manufacturing production. It is interested only in short-term profitability, hence the job cuts and the increase of 10 per cent. in the share price last week. There is a high pound, and we need to do much to cure that problem. We have to review the takeover rules and company ownership structures. The European Parliament has tried to make hostile takeovers more difficult, but it has been opposed in that. Indeed, Ministers allowed British Steel to amalgamate with Hoogovens.
As a result of all that, we have the demise of Ebbw Vale, a town that depends totally on steel. Everybody there will be out of a job, and there is no alternative. That is a huge tragedy. There must be a management-worker buy-out of the Ebbw Vale steelworks if it is to survive. That is extremely important, because steel is fundamental to our manufacturing industry. We are in serious trouble unless there is Government intervention, as there was in the 1920s and 1930s and in the 1960s. There must be a rapid response for areas hit by closures. Help should be given to construct small and medium-sized enterprises to use more locally manufactured steel. We must have new consultation procedures and boost local demand. Public investment is necessary to save the industry. I am a great believer in Keynesian economics, and when there is a crisis it has to be met head on.
Unless we join the euro as soon as possible, we will continue to lose money on every tonne of steel produced. There should be more buy-outs of plants to save our industry and assistance from the Treasury to increase the Welsh block. We must meet head on this huge crisis—in human as well as industrial terms—if the steel and manufacturing industries are to continue in Britain at all.
10.37 am
Mr. Richard Page: I understand the feelings of hon. Members who have already spoken. I was born in Tredegar and my mother's family have lived there all their lives. I know the importance of steel and coal to the psyche of that community. It is understandable that hon. Members want to try to protect their constituents and, if necessary, to lash out on their behalf, and they are to be commended for it. I do not criticise them, but I shall explain why I believe that their energies have been misdirected.
It is easy to run a business that is going well. The tills ring, the salesmen are out and the money comes in. Any fool can do that, but when business gets difficult, one has to start thinking about it. Business is a bit like a cake: one tackles the slices one by one. When one has finished, one hopes to have a cake that is a bit smaller. One keeps repeating the process, and the day one stops tackling the slices is the day when one goes out of business.
In 1997, British Steel made a profit of £387 million from carbon steel. The line on the graph goes straight down from that point, and now Corus is losing a similar sum. It is losing more than £1 million a day. What can be done about that? Usually, increased efficiency is the answer and the work force can be made more productive. It is unusual for me to quote the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but in his recent announcement on this sad affair, he said that the productivity of UK steelworkers is now at 571 tonnes a year per man—a staggering figure that makes ours one of the most efficient and productive steel operations in Europe, if not the world. We can be proud of our work force.
If lack of efficiency is not to blame, let us examine the marketplace, which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) discussed earlier. Total UK steel consumption has actually increased slightly since 1997, but if we examine that 1 million tonnes increase, it proves to consist of growth in imported steel goods and steel mill products. The pressure on our steel mills is to reduce volumes of production.
If the marketplace is not to blame, could transport be the problem? One must consider that our transport costs are among the highest in Europe.
What about regulation? If one takes the British Chambers of Commerce figures as broadly accurate—I shall not argue about £1 billion either way—we find that the cost of regulation on British business has increased by £10 billion.
Finally, we come to the largest slice of the cake, the ratio of the pound to the euro, which I think is the hammer blow. Of course, we have a further straw on the camel's back to come in the climate change levy. The Secretary of State dismissed it as a concern to Corus, but I can tell him that it is a concern to every company that tries to operate in Britain.
What can we do? The pluses are that we have an efficient work force and a market that has grown, but the minuses are transport costs, the forthcoming climate change levy, the huge burden of regulation and the impossibly high pound-euro rate.
Can Corus ask for a dramatic increase in the efficiency of its work force? No, because the work force has done magnificently. When I was the Member of Parliament

249WH
for Workington, the blast furnace there was appallingly inefficient. The present operation is brilliant, and everyone connected with it can take a great deal of credit.
Can Corus do anything about the price of fuel? No. Can it do anything about the climate change levy? No. What can it do about regulations? Nothing. The damaging pound-euro ratio is the thing that really hurts not only Corus but British manufacturing in general. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) put their finger on it when they began to discuss the imbalance in the pound-euro rate.
Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: No—unless the Minister is happy for me to take up her time.
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): It is entirely up to you.
Mr. Page: No, then.
Why do we have such a strong pound against the euro? It is because we have a high interest rate. Why do we have a high interest rate? Rightly, it has been set by the Monetary Policy Committee to limit inflation. I shall not argue that squeezing out interest should not be the criterion that it should operate on. It must do that because the fiscal policies followed by the Chancellor have resulted in masses of stealth taxes.
I must say to those hon. Members who gratuitously argued that Corus is slicing back assets simply because it likes to, that that seems a peculiar way to run a business. A management team that made cuts for fun would have minimal business experience.
In the last steel debate before Corus reached its decision, the Minister for Competitiveness concluded:
"We are taking action on the three key issues of the European exchange rate, the climate change levy and energy prices."—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 238WH]
It is hard to say about energy prices, but what action is the DTI taking on the exchange rate and the climate change levy?
The hon. Member for Stockton, South asked what specific offers the Government have made to Corus. I, too, would like to know the answer to that question. The announcement was no surprise: it had been coming for a long time. What was Corus offered to keep its plants going, given that—through the Government's own actions—it is losing £1 million every day? In the time since this debate started, Corus has lost £55,555—I have not calculated the pence.
Ms Taylor: Please will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: In a minute, perhaps.
For the Government to give a few million pounds to a company in such a situation would be like turning to a drowning man with a hundredweight of lead strapped
250WH
to his legs and saying, "We'll take a few pounds off you, but you'll still drown unless more dramatic help arrives."
Ms Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Mr. Page: I will, but only because I have been given the nod by the Minister.
Ms Taylor: Is it now official Conservative party policy to support joining the euro, and will the hon. Gentleman be pressing for entry at the earliest point?
Mr. Page: Even I, in my ignorance, see a trap, which I shall not fall into. I see no difficulty in having a correct fiscal policy that is not only beneficial to the nation but puts us more in line with the currencies in Europe without all the penalties of joining the euro. We can have the penny and the bun: all we need to do is change the Chancellor.
I am worried that what is being suggested may not draw a line in the sand under this matter. If the high pound-euro ratio continues, it may be difficult to restore the profitability that carbon steel manufacturing enjoyed back in 1997.
I am desperately sorry for the employees who are caught up in this. They are efficient and hard-working, and it is not their fault. I understand why right hon. and hon. Members are so vehement in their defence; my attitude would be exactly the same if I had a steelworks in my constituency.
Ms Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: No.
Those in government who so loosely accuse Corus should be examining the real facts. The fault of the Government lies not in their stars, but in themselves.
10.48 am
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on securing this important and timely debate. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Gower (Mr. Caton), and the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) forcefully and movingly expressed the fury that is felt by workers and their families and communities about the announcement that was made last week by Sir Brian Moffat on behalf of Corus. They also spoke about the appalling effects of the decision not only on individuals and families but on entire communities and economies. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement in the House last week, the Government share absolutely that fury and sense of betrayal.
I congratulate all my hon. Friends on their efforts to support their constituents and the workers in this industry, and on working with the trade unions to persuade Corus to take a different, more constructive and long-term approach. As my right hon. Friend said last week, and as some hon. Members have said this morning, there are real problems with structural

251WH
overcapacity in the steel industry worldwide. Corus has had to deal with real losses in its UK operation, from which it continues to suffer. However, last week's announcement is undoubtedly a short-term response that fails to take account of the long-term and fundamental strength of the UK economy and of manufacturing in particular. We now have a sound and credible platform for growth. We have low and stable inflation, low interest rates and sound public finances.
To be frank, the comments of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) were economic gobbledegook. We all remember inflation rising to 11 per cent. and interest rates of above 11 per cent. for years on end. We all remember that 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the first Conservative recession of the early 1980s, and almost a further 1 million in the second one of the early 1990s. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives on economic policy and how to ensure the platform of stable economic growth that is the essential precondition for success in the manufacturing sector.
Several hon. Members have rightly referred to the general state of manufacturing, as well as the specific conditions in the steel industry, and I should stress that manufacturing output is rising. Indeed, as the Financial Times, among others, reports this morning, we have the highest growth in manufacturing output in general since 1994—an annual rate of 1.6 per cent. That should be compared with a fall in manufacturing output of 20 per cent. in the 1980s, and of more than 7 per cent. in the early 1990s. There is particularly strong growth in sectors such as the aerospace industry.
Several speakers mentioned the motor car industry. Despite the difficulties experienced by certain companies, there is real growth in that sector, with increased investment, output and exports. Moreover, the United Kingdom is retaining its position as the number one destination for direct foreign investment in Europe. Major global companies are giving a real vote of confidence to the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rightly referred to recent long-term decisions by Ford that were taken on the basis of constructive dialogue with the Government and with workers. Decisions in recent weeks by Toyota and Nissan also illustrate confidence in the economic stability and good business environment that we have created.
In striking contrast is the announcement by Corus. As I said, the carbon steel manufacturing arm of Corus's UK operation is experiencing problems, with real losses of about £1 million a day. Corus must of course address those difficulties, but given the broad background of economic stability, growth and a sound manufacturing sector, it is simply unacceptable for the company to take this decision in this manner, and for its new leadership to refuse to talk to the Government. Indeed, until last week it refused to talk to the workers and their trade unions. I am glad that, following the decision on 1 February, Corus finally accepted that it should talk to the trade unions about its announcement. I understand that it effectively agreed to stop the clock for 14 days to allow those talks to continue. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week, we were in discussions with the company and the joint chief
252WH
executives, but the new chief executive made it very clear, very early on, that no package of measures would be of any interest to the company in terms of remedying the underlying problems as he saw them.
We have been working in Government, across Government and with the National Assembly for Wales to try to put together a more constructive long-term strategy for Corus. The problem has been its unwillingness to talk to us, to the National Assembly for Wales or, until last week, to the trade unions. Several of my hon. Friends referred to the proposal from the workers at Llanwern who want to mount a worker buy-out. We heard in the debate last week—I am not sure whether it has been referred to this morning—about the successful experience of the Tower colliery, which, following massive closures in the industry, was successfully bought out by the workers. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said last week: we urge the Corus leadership and management to sit down with the ISTC and the workers at Llanwern and seriously consider the constructive proposal that has been made for a worker-led buyout.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, referred to the broader economic situation and other factors that might lie behind the Corus decision. He referred to transport and, as my right hon. Friend said last week, that can hardly be an issue when the company is now proposing to move goods from Stockton to Llanwern. The company has not raised the matter with us. Similarly, the climate change levy has not been raised with us by the chief executive. Corus, in common with many other manufacturing companies and in response to our proposal, has negotiated a discount of 80 per cent. in the climate change levy in return for further improvements in energy efficiency.
On regulation, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently confirmed at an international benchmarking study, we now have a lighter framework of regulation than other members of the European Union do.
The exchange rate is a serious matter, but let us be clear that much of the worsening of the exchange rate took place before 1997. In recent months, the value of the euro has strengthened. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said on many occasions, it was clearly undervalued. Again, a company is failing to take account of long-term changes in the economy and making a decision on short-term considerations.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, referred to consultation. Let me stress that United Kingdom law fully implements the European directive on collective redundancies. Corus is already under an obligation that was put into United Kingdom law by a previous Labour Government to consult workers and trade unions for at least 90 days before any dismissals take effect. That 90-day period will begin to run if the company, following its current discussions with the trade unions, confirms that the enormous redundancies are to continue.

253WH
The requirement in law for that minimum 90-day consultation period is that there should be good faith consultation, including consideration of ways of avoiding redundancies or reducing the number of dismissals or mitigating their effect in other ways. That obligation has been there for years under employment law enacted by a previous Labour Government. Also, the European works council directive applies, as it does to other multinational companies that operate in the United Kingdom.
I repeat my call to Corus to sit down with the unions, the National Assembly for Wales and us to seek a better long-term solution for the communities, economies and families affected by its devastating decision.

Ambulance Service (London)
11 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is that how I am supposed to address you?
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Hon. Members are supposed to address me by name. I know that you can pronounce my name, Dr. Tonge, so perhaps you should do so.
Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mrs. Michie. May I ask you to sort the confusion out with the Speaker's Office? Depending on who is in the Chair, we are sometimes expected to use names and sometimes titles. All Members share my confusion.
I should like to welcome two ambulance men to the Strangers Gallery. They are on their day off.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): The hon. Lady is not supposed to refer to people who are not in the Chamber.
Dr. Tonge: I am terribly sorry, Mrs. Michie.
All Members should have an interest in our debate, because the London ambulance service will come to pick us up when we have our heart attacks and strokes, which is not unusual in the House of Commons—although I hope that it does not happen too often. Perhaps the men more so than the women ought to declare an interest, because women are much fitter. Nevertheless, we all have an interest in the service, which is crucial to the life of Londoners. In Paris, the ambulance service headquarters has a special phone for the Assemblée Nationale. I am glad to say that our ambulance service does not have any such phone, and that we take our chance with the rest of our constituents.
What a chance it is. If someone has a heart attack in a London street, there is a 1.8 per cent. chance that he will be alive a year later. In Paris, that person would have an 18 per cent. chance and, in America, he would have about a 30 per cent. chance. That is a poor figure for the United Kingdom. I know that that is due to a lack of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation techniques among the public, but it is also due to the great difficulty that the ambulance service has in meeting its response times. Its target is that 55 per cent. of all calls should be responded to within eight minutes, but it achieves only 34 per cent.
That is no fault of the people working in the service. As we all know, traffic congestion in London is currently impossible. I am told that the average speed of traffic is 10 mph.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Whose target is that 55 per cent? Is it in the patients charter? Is it an internal target or the purchaser's target?
Dr. Tonge: I think that it is the target in the patients charter, but I shall have to look into that.
It is a good day if the average speed of traffic in London is 10 mph. It regularly takes me much more than an hour to travel a little over five miles back to my constituency. Speed bumps and other traffic-calming

255WH
measures have slowed traffic down, so they also slow ambulances down. Delays caused by congestion mean that the ambulance service needs more ambulances if it is to achieve a response time of eight minutes. An ambulance and crew has a range of only three miles, so more ambulances and more crews are needed to achieve those times.
The London ambulance service answers 700,000 calls a year with 350 ambulances. That is some service. Our lives may be in their hands, but those ambulance crews are still last in the league table of the nation's 32 ambulance trusts. The ambulance service was promised 25 more ambulances last year, but by December 2000 only 11 were staffed and operational. More ambulances are urgently needed. More paramedics on motor bikes are needed, because they can get through traffic to acutely ill people: they probably save lives while waiting for the ambulance crew to arrive. The London ambulance service improvement programme estimates that more than £11 million capital investment is needed, rather than the £5.5 million that it receives now.
Before I leave the subject of capital investment, I want to speak briefly about what most ambulance crews would call the icing on the cake—the helicopter. London, with a population of 6.5 million people, has one helicopter to use for really serious accidents. Paris has a population of 1.5 million people and has two helicopters. That is a shortfall for London. If I am ever taken acutely ill, I hope that it happens in France.
Other problems affect response times, and I touched on some of them in a debate on the health service in London a few weeks ago. The ambulance service is short of 400 ambulance crew. One reason for that is the maximum pay that staff can expect to receive. A qualified staff paramedic with many years' service can expect to earn about £20,000 a year including overtime. Those men and women put up drips, restart hearts that have stopped beating, make accurate assessments of the clinical condition of patients, stabilise broken backs and necks and crawl into the wreckage of road traffic accidents; and we reward them with a maximum payment of just under £20,000 a year.
In my pre-registration work as a junior hospital doctor, I relied on ambulance crews in emergencies, and I know many newly qualified doctors who feel the same as I do. We often rely on ambulance men and women in emergencies, yet we pay them only £20,000 a year. They cannot buy houses in London on that sort of money; nor can they give their families a decent life. It is no wonder that more than 10 per cent. of ambulance staff in London were lost during the past year to ambulance trusts in other parts of the country, where the living is easier, the housing is cheaper and they can just about manage on their pay. That movement of staff means that the training and dedication of those people are lost to the London ambulance service.
Of the £21 million given to the ambulance service nationwide last year to improve services, £2 million went to the London ambulance service and £19 million to services in the rest of the country, yet a third of all category A calls to the ambulance service are dealt with by the LAS. London does a third of the work, and receives a tenth of the funding. I rest my case.
256WH
Another problem is the safety of staff. Ambulance staff in London suffer an average of one assault a day. It has got so bad that they are now being issued with safety vests. News Direct has sponsored a poster campaign in London to point out to the general public that those whose job it is to save lives in emergencies now have to risk their own lives to help others.
The constant misuse of the ambulance service by the public is another factor. A woman in my area splashed vinegar in her eye while making a salad dressing for a dinner party and called an ambulance. She dialled 999. Someone with a badly broken nail—extremely painful and extremely urgent!—dialled 999. All those calls cost the health service hundreds of pounds to deal with, but the patients charter states that the ambulance service must respond to all calls.
Some progress has been made in recent months. The London ambulance service has used some of its precious paramedics, who are supposed to be in ambulances answering emergency calls, to filter calls more effectively and to suggest to patients that they take the advice of a nurse or pharmacist, or ring NHS Direct. However, if the caller insists on having an ambulance—as people often do—the ambulance has to go and the money is wasted. We need some serious re-thinking about where ambulance stations are located and what their relationship is with NHS Direct and other NHS bases and emergency services. The ambulance service needs to be co-ordinated with the rest of the health service.
Savings, as well as improvements, can be made, especially if the LAS gets the computerised service that it desperately needs. Computers and the London ambulance service have a long history, and the service desperately needs a new system.
How much time is spent delivering the patient to hospital? It should take crews about 15 minutes to get from the door of the casualty department back to base. However, in winter, it can take more than 30 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) wants to comment on that in more depth. The problem is caused when accident and emergency departments are full and all the beds have been taken up. Sometimes the casualty department has no trolleys left, and the ambulance trolley has to suffice until one can be found and the patient can be transferred on to it. That is not a modern service.
We have expected far too much for far too long from the men and women of our ambulance service in London. It must be given special consideration. It needs support and a unified commissioning structure. It is ridiculous that it is commissioned by 16 different health authorities. Each of those health authorities has its own priorities. Acute hospital trusts are in deficit and other Government priority areas, which also deserve attention, have to be addressed by the trusts. The ambulance service always comes down the bottom of the list of priorities. If any of us in the Chamber has a coronary or a stroke, we will need the ambulance service pretty damn quick. It will not be good enough if it is at the bottom of the health authority's list of priorities.
Everyone accepts that there have been mistakes and mismanagement in the past in the London ambulance service. However, it now has an excellent chairman, who was appointed by the Government. The chief executive, who was appointed last year, is hugely popular with the

257WH
staff. Having worked in the health service for over 30 years, I find it unusual that every ambulance man or woman I speak to thinks that their chief executive is a great guy, is working for the service and communicates with them. He makes a point of donning a reflector jacket and going out with an ambulance crew at least once every couple of weeks to ensure that he knows what is happening on the ground. Peter Bradley is a good chief executive and he should be encouraged. We probably have the best union-management relationship of all time in the London ambulance service.
In short, we have the chance of a lifetime radically to modernise and improve the service. I know that the Government care about the NHS. They should not forget the core of the NHS in London—the ambulances.
11.14 am
Mr. John Horam: Mrs. Michie—I hope that that is correct.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): That will do very well.
Mr. Horam: I want to speak briefly, Mrs. Michie, because as a Minister in the previous Government I was privileged to have responsibility for all the ambulance services in the country, including London, from 1994 to 1997. As all hon. Members present probably know, owing to the historic problems of the London ambulance service, I shared responsibility for it with the Secretary of State.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pointed out, there have for a long time been problems in the London ambulance service that need special attention. As Minister responsible, I found that the difficulty was not that the service did not receive the special attention that it deserved by virtue of such factors as the size of London and congestion, but that it did not receive even ordinary attention. It was often the Cinderella of the services, which is astonishing given the fact that however good a hospital service may be, it is pointless to provide it if people fail to arrive there. I felt that my effort should be directed at obtaining for the service the attention that it needed.
Although I should not refer to some of my former special advisers, I am glad to note that they are taking an interest in the debate and pleased that they are still involved. They are from other services, but give their time to the London ambulance service. They were invaluable to me as a source of advice and I think that we made progress.
The problem in the past three years has been, first, a failure of management. For example, a tier of middle management was removed, leaving ordinary ambulance men with little in the way of hierarchy to which to report. The result has been, to an extent, what one might call canteen culture at its worst, which can create difficulties in the efficient running of an ambulance service. Ordinary ambulance men are superb people trying to do a job that is very difficult compared with, for example, that of the fire service. They have to do more with fewer resources and have a more relentless daily task and, in many respects, less public support. Certainly they have less Government support, and that remains the case.
258WH
I was alarmed to note that the ambulance service is not mentioned in the NHS plan, which was produced in summer. That is astonishing. The centrality of the task of getting a sick person to hospital is not mentioned in the plan that is supposed to solve all problems. I was disappointed about that, because the mindset that I struggled against—that of the ambulance service as a kind of tail-end Charlie that would receive some small funds when they were available—is still in the Department. I worry about that.
The failure in the first instance has been one of management, which is why I am pleased about the appointment of a new chairman. The hon. Member for Richmond Park was right to mention the new chief executive, whom I, too, have found to be extremely popular with ambulance men in Bromley. That bodes well. Recruitment, and the use of ordinary ambulance men and women, have also proved difficult. For example, although we live in a 24-hour society in which problems evidently arise on Friday and Saturday nights, there is no overtime pay for weekends. Not to provide incentives to people to be available at those times of high demand is ludicrous, but that is the consequence of negotiations conducted without the common sense that one would expect. The trail of difficulties involving management and past negotiations has led to the current problems. One would hope that an ambulance would be waiting to deal with any emergency that might arise, but the reverse is nearer the truth and, if an accident happens, it is to be hoped that an ambulance will arrive.
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, the figure for meeting the eight-minute deadline has fallen to 32 per cent. I had thought that it was 36 per cent., but whatever it is, it is far below the necessary level. It is also far below that level in provincial cities. London has special problems, which mean that one should have lower expectations for the timing of ambulance arrivals. Although the expectations that one would have in provincial cities simply could not be met, the figures should be much better. Otherwise, we would not be providing a proper service. Indeed, to some extent, no ambulance service operates at weekends.
Mr. Hammond: I want to probe my hon. Friend's statement that it would not be reasonable to expect the London ambulance service to meet the response times that are met in provincial cities. I understand that the London ambulance service's percentage response time achievement in central London is not bad, but that in outer London the response time gets worse, dragging down the overall average. Is not that his understanding?
Mr. Horam: I am not familiar with the distinction between inner and outer London on response times. I was referring to the fact that Newcastle and Liverpool have much better ambulance response times than London. London has always been way behind the response times in cities throughout the rest of the country, and I think that the Minister would agree with that. That is certainly my experience.
London has particular problems such as the size of the city and the historic problems of the service. For example, the lack of computerisation is still a problem. Everything works by paper after all these years, although several efforts have been made to install a fully computerised system, which is standard in cities such as

259WH
Liverpool and Newcastle, which are way ahead. Such problems must be solved. I am appalled to find that, four years after I handed over responsibility, the London system is, amazingly, still paper based. Progress has been extremely slow, and the results are unsatisfactory to Londoners and to ordinary ambulance men. They want proper support and a proper system of which they can be proud, but they have neither.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable experience, but does he agree that the disastrous attempt to introduce an information technology system to the London ambulance service in the 1990s knocked the service back considerably? The events surrounding that prevented it from making progress in that area as quickly as others did. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Horam: Yes, there were all sorts of reasons for that, many of which were related to the traditional set-up and relations between the trade unions and the management. No one would defend that now. It is poor that we have made so little progress, even in 2001, compared with that made in provincial cities, which were computerised in my time. London still is not and that is the problem. I hope that the Minister will say something positive about that, because progress must be made on that front.
I am pleased that the service has a new chairman—who, incidentally, is a resident of my own borough, Bromley. I have spoken to him, and he is very effective. The service also has a new chief executive. The management, at the instigation of a new chairman and chief executive, are much more understanding and friendly towards their staff and they are making a genuine effort to understand the problems that staff face in delivering a decent service. The impression that I have gained from the people to whom I have spoken at the ambulance headquarters in Bromley is that management are very staff oriented. They are grasping the nettle, realising that they have to work with staff, try to recruit staff and understand their problems.
The management must carefully consider pay and recruitment, which are fundamental problems. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, given the competition in the job market and housing problems in the London area, the organisation will not work if those with considerable experience are paid a salary of £19,000 or £20,000. One cannot have a decent service and have the right quality and quantity of people if that situation is not addressed fundamentally. The management well understand that, and are doing their best to do something about it.
Management are now much more flexible and coherent and I understand that they have a clear idea about capital and resource requirements and about the fact that the service needs some 12 million next year to contribute to providing more and better ambulances, better equipment and facilities. The management have set out a clear programme for the next four or five years, which the Government have been given. I hope that the new team can build on the undoubted good will that is being generated among staff and address the problems.
260WH
I hope, too, that the Government will chip in with the right sort of funding and no longer treat the service as a Cinderella and that London will once again be proud of its ambulance service.
11.25 am
Mr. Simon Hughes: It is a privilege to serve under you, Mrs. Michie, as I do not think that I have done so before. If I may say so without embarrassing you, although I am not your constituent, I am one of your biggest fans and only regret that you will not be here in the next Parliament, as some of us hope to be.
I am glad that we are having the debate because it is important for London. That shows how magnanimous I am, because I have been applying for weeks for the same debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) beat me to it. Last year, six Liberal Democrat Members decided that we must raise the issue and we have all done so in different ways. There was nothing conspiratorial about that—we all agreed that the matter was important and my three colleagues who cannot be present are very much associated with the issue. We benefited collectively from having been briefed and brought up to date before Christmas by the new chief executive, to whom tribute has been paid.
Some two weeks before Christmas, at about 9 o'clock one evening, I went to the headquarters of the London ambulance service in Waterloo road, which lies outside my constituency by about two yards. I went out with a crew of two ambulance drivers, Bart Wood and Peter Gallen, on their evening shift in a conventional London ambulance. Within a minute or two, they received a call to attend to a young boy, living in Walworth, who was choking and at severe risk of heart failure. They drove through the traffic—not easy, even at that time of night—through narrow streets on which the parking made access almost impossible. They made it to the house and were joined by their colleague, Ian Price, who was on a motor cycle. Paramedics with ambulance crews often use such vehicles nowadays. As far as I could see, when the crew took that youngster and his parents to St. Thomas's, they saved his life. In lay terms, it prevented that child from dying that evening. That was a dramatic introduction to an evening shift.
Last month, Jim and Christine Bradford, my constituents, had a tragic experience. Michael Bradford, their 14-year-old son, was knocked down in St. James road in Bermondsey when he ran out between two cars. He died after a week in the London hospital. He was the only child of those parents—one had two daughters by a previous marriage. I went to see Jim and Christine the day before the funeral and spent time with them at their home before going to the memorial service at the school and the funeral service. In their grief and desolation, they paid tribute to the air ambulance service that had taken Michael from the road accident over the river to the London hospital.
Although Michael did not survive, his parents could not have paid higher tribute to that service. They could not understand why, in the whole of London, there is only one air ambulance—that point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. Unless things have changed since I made my visit as health spokesman for our party, that air ambulance, I

261WH
understand, is largely funded by private money, not the NHS. Those are two recent examples, which took place within a month of each other, of the work of the ambulance services, the air rescue service and the support services in trying to save lives in London.
I join in the tributes paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) to a service that has had terrible difficulties, but also has the resolution and will to overcome them. It is asking political representatives, in particular the Government, for help to change from a service that is overstretched and unable to meet its target times, and sometimes unable to do the job that it wants to do and save the lives that it can, to the Rolls-Royce service that we would expect in a capital city such as ours.
I want to concentrate on pay, but, by way of solidarity with colleagues, shall flag up the other points that have been mentioned. First, it is clearly sensible that we change as quickly as possible from a paper-based system, which is not sufficiently reliable or logical, to a computer-based, automatic, electronic system. I know the history and remember all that difficulty with the old computer that crashed—the whole system went to pieces and the IT did not work. The Minister referred to that. That is history; we need to introduce a system that allows information received at the call centre to be passed on for the crew to be summoned, and the sooner we can have that, the better.
Secondly, we need the kit to do the job. We need the ambulances on the ground to be able to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park referred to the fact that there is a bid in for and a promise of 25 more fast response ambulances, but only 11 have been on the road. Again, I talked to the crew who were with me that day, and who have been kind enough to come to Westminster this morning, and they said that even on one of their most recent days on duty they were scrabbling around for an oxygen cylinder, because there was not one in the ambulance. Some ambulances have all the kit on board; some do not because it is not there to be had. That does not allow crews to do their job properly.
The third issue concerns staff. This may sound sycophantic, and I do not mean it to, but I knew that I would be impressed by the professionalism of the crew. I expected that, just as I did when I visited the fire service and the police. I expect a professional job to be done and that is invariably the case, probably for 99.9 per cent. of the time. I was more impressed than I ever imagined by not just their professionalism, but their knowledge, expertise, competence and calmness—all the qualities that are vital to doing the job well. A better job could not have been done, and I say that in tribute to the individuals concerned.
I agree that it is unacceptable that no matter how many years' service people have done and no matter how much experience they have gained, their top-whack pay is about £20,000. It is unacceptable that there is no increment as a reward for service. People give five or 10 years' service, but have nothing to show for it. Why stay? Why stay in London? Why not move elsewhere, where there is less pressure? Why not move to a place where house prices, travel costs and the cost of living are lower? Why not move to an area where the incidence of
262WH
severe accidents and injury is lower? Why not transfer to another profession? Why not go into the private sector? There is no incentive to stay.
We all think that an election is coming down the track. The Minister may not know formally any more than I do as to when it will be, but we are all on alert for the spring. We understand that there will be a Budget in March, and it may be meant as a backdrop to an election. The London ambulance service has bid for and needs about £30 million more than its budget. There must be a way for the Government, if they wanted to, so to adjust their comprehensive spending review plans that they could find that money. The kitty is full; public coffers are overflowing with resources; we have never had it so good in terms of what the Chancellor has to give out.
I make a plea now because we must hold on to public servants whom we value, and they need proper remuneration that is incremental through their career. As the hon. Member for Orpington rightly said, we should recognise that we need them most on Friday and Saturday nights, during anti-social hours when those people who have the choice would not work. We also need them on weekends, bank holidays, new year's eve and all those other occasions when people prefer not to work. We need about 500 extra people so that the job can be done without having to scramble to catch up.
I do not know how the Minister can deliver that extra money, but I know that Mr. Bradley, the respected chief executive, and Mr. Renton, who seems to be a good trust chairman, fully support the request. I am satisfied that the money will be well spent if it comes to the London ambulance service, because the regimes are in place to achieve that. Those who work for the service want to continue doing the job, but they also want their plea for proper remuneration to be heard so that they can continue to provide the excellent service that they are trained and willing to offer to residents and workers and those who visit our capital city.
I hope that the Government will make positive responses to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, the hon. Member for Orpington and other hon. Members. The service needs money on the table and a new pay regime this year—I mean this year—which will provide decent pay, and decent increments for service given, for some of the most professional people in the country.
11.36 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, various hon. Members have tried to secure this debate in Westminster Hall for some time. The London ambulance service warrants our attention and support for the work that it does. I congratulate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on taking part in this debate. I want to respond to some of the points that he and my hon. Friends have made.
The public measure the London ambulance service by how quickly an ambulance turns up at their door after they have dialled 999, administers the necessary immediate treatment and takes them to an accident and emergency department or an intensive care unit to

263WH
ensure that they continue to stay alive. The work of the ambulance service is a matter of life and death. It is about rapid response—the public are concerned about response times. It is also about a lot more than that, as I have become increasingly aware as a result of my discussions with the London ambulance service. However, we must consider the issue of response times.
The Government have rightly set new standards for category A life-threatening calls. They have set a national target of 90 per cent. of calls to be responded to within eight minutes. Achieving such a target or improving response times will result in more lives being saved. Given the sheer volume of 999 calls that are made—700,000 to 1 million calls a year, or 3,000 a day—600 more people would be saved a year in London alone if performance standards on response times were achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park rightly said, only 34 per cent. of 999 calls in London are attended within eight minutes. From March of this year, the target set for the London ambulance service is 55 per cent. of category A calls to be attended within eight minutes. I am not certain whether that target can be met, but I know that the London ambulance service has made great strides and that attendance times have improved since the last time the relevant national statistics were published. We wait with interest to see what the performance indicators suggest has happened in the past year.
Several obstacles are in the way of achieving better response times. Staff recruitment and retention is a problem. Turnaround times in accident and emergency departments need to be explored in detail, and we must consider the vexed question of traffic in London and the fact that there is gridlock at certain times of the day in both inner and outer London, which makes it impossible for ambulance crews to get through. Earlier today, I discussed with an ambulance crew some of their worries, and they said that junctions are all too often the pinch points. A junction can provide ambulances with the way through the traffic, but because thought is not always given to the use of yellow box markings, everyone stays in the junction. What I experienced this morning when I drove to the House demonstrated that problem graphically. The traffic drew to a halt, and all the junctions locked up. I dread to think what it must be like to sit behind the wheel of an ambulance at such times, knowing that the clock is ticking past the five minutes in which to achieve the eight-minute response time, and to know that someone is relying on the ambulance to arrive.
Staff recruitment and retention are undoubtedly an important part of the problem. It is alarming that the turnover of staff in the London ambulance service is double that of any other urban ambulance service in the country. The turnover rate is about 10 per cent. Each month, 20 staff leave the London ambulance service. Some people may argue that a turnover rate of 10 per cent. is nothing to worry about, but given that this relatively small specialist work force work to full capacity, the service can ill afford such a staff turnover.
Something must be done about the turnover of staff as it imposes extra costs on the London ambulance service. In the financial year that is coming to an end, the costs of recruitment to fill the gaps caused by staff
264WH
leaving the London ambulance service will be about £1.5 million. Included in that figure is the cost of placing advertisements that barely generate a response. Late last year, an advertising campaign throughout London drew in only 15 responses. At the same time, 20 more people went out the door to go elsewhere in the country. The £1.5 million that has been lost to the LAS could have been invested in the service, were it not for the serious staff retention problems in London.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, we must take into account the high cost of living in London, which is not fully reflected in the salaries of ambulance crews. Indeed, they receive the lowest pay of all key public sector workers. The police receive about £19,730 per annum plus London allowances and qualified nurses receive £18,300 plus London allowances. Such levels of pay are not generous, but they are more than ambulance crews receive, so it is hardly surprising that people are leaving the service.
Ambulance crews have lower annual leave entitlements than nurses, firefighters or police officers, and they do not receive a shift or unsocial hours allowance. The Government put additional resources into ambulance services throughout the country. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park rightly identified, of the £21 million extra that was allocated, only £2 million went to London despite the fact that a third of all category A 999 calls are made in London. That was a misallocation of resources. It failed to meet the identifiable need to improve the service.
I am not criticising the fact that extra money was provided, but as a result ambulance services in the west country, Hertfordshire and elsewhere have been able to offer attractive packages—golden hellos—to attract ambulance crews to move out of London. They are attracting highly skilled paramedics to a better quality of life and a better pay package. It is no wonder that London is losing 20 staff a month from the ambulance service. As the hon. Member for Orpington rightly said, even the best A&E departments in the world could not do their job properly and could not make a difference to people's lives if patients could not be taken to them quickly enough.
Over 1,000 hours a month are lost because of delays at A&E departments. In January, the average wait for an ambulance crew at an A&E department was 24 minutes. That figure has progressively increased from January to January—24 minutes while an ambulance is waiting to be released to go back on duty to attend 999 calls. That reduces the resources available to respond to 999 calls. It is part of the systemic problem. We have had debates in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House about delayed discharge, which ultimately results in an ambulance being delayed in an A&E department. If a bed is blocked, or there is a delayed discharge in the hospital, the problem feeds back down to the A&E department—no beds are available, so people cannot be admitted to hospital, patients have to wait on trolleys because there are no beds, and those trolleys often come from the back of ambulances. As a result, people wait to move on.
One of the problems raised during a conversation with an ambulance crew was that of the time wasted at an A&E department, especially over booking-in arrangements, which took more than 10 minutes on average. Anything that can be done to shorten the time

265WH
that ambulance crews are involved in that procedure would be welcomed. The national health service should look into that when considering the role of A&E departments in freeing up time.
Ms Stuart: How would the hon. Gentleman square that suggestion with what I have heard from ambulance crews who felt that it was important to have a good relationship with A&E departments? The real trick is to know when the service is so stretched that the ambulance crew should book in and go, but they felt that the time spent booking in was important in building a relationship. The time is not at issue; it is what happens in that time. The procedure should be streamlined, but the problem is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman implies.
Mr. Burstow: I agree that none of the measures are simple. What is required is the development of a relationship, as the Minister said, but also some clarity about the protocols used in the operation of the London ambulance service and A&E departments around London. It is not beyond the wit of the staff and the management to develop such relationships. The issue could and should be examined in any attempt to deal with the time taken by crews waiting outside A&E departments.
Mr. Hammond: In examining initiatives elsewhere in the country, is not part of the solution to the problem the use of in-vehicle computerisation, so that communication with the A&E department starts from the moment that the vehicle begins its return journey?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has helpfully brought me on to my next point, which is about capital investment in information technology and communications.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way before he goes on to talk about the capital investment programme?
Mr. Burstow: Yes, as we have the time.
Mr. Hughes: Having heard my hon. Friend's dialogue with the Minister, it would be most helpful if, in dealing with this practical issue, an urgent countrywide consultation could take place between ambulance crews and their representatives and NHS trust staff. We should also listen to the views of others who are not ambulance personnel, doctors or nurses. Lay civilian clerical staff could assist in A&E departments and deal with paperwork when there is no need for personal contact. It would be a helpful move forward if the Minister would give such an undertaking.
Mr. Burstow: All options should be explored. The Minister was listening carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say, and I hope that he and his officials will pick up on that point.
I want to return to the important point about capital and investment mentioned by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), but first I want to talk about traffic in London. Through our personal experience and other evidence, we all know
266WH
that traffic in London is going slower and slower. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned, that has consequences for the operation of the London ambulance service. It is confined to ever smaller areas because of the distance it can travel in the eight-minute response time—the operating radius is now about three miles and is getting shorter. Thus, more and more ambulance crews and ambulances are needed to cover the whole of London within the response time that the public considers satisfactory. Given the change in traffic speeds between morning and evening peaks, just to maintain response time would require a 25 to 26 per cent. increase in the number of ambulances.
That brings me to the issue of capital investment in the ambulance service. The London ambulance service has a £5.7 million shortfall in its capital programme, which has already resulted in a change to the policy on the working life of ambulances from five to six years, and the capital programme of £5.5 million available under the external financing limit is eaten up just replacing ambulances. We have a serious problem in London, and the LAS needs to spend an extra £1.5 million in the coming year to purchase a further 10 ambulances and 23 rapid response units to enable it to achieve better response times. Whether the extra vehicles have the IT that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants or not, they are essential to improve response times.
The funding arrangements for the London ambulance service are unsatisfactory organisationally, let alone in the amount of money available. In London, 16 health authorities are responsible collectively for commissioning the London ambulance service, and I certainly hope that by 16 February they will have good news about their commissioning intentions and resources, but all of those health authorities have other pressures on them. They have responsibility for acute hospitals, who have advocates on their behalf; for primary care needs; and for the Government's national priorities on cancer and coronary heart conditions. The Government must seriously consider allowing the London ambulance service to be commissioned on a Londonwide basis—perhaps through the NHS region—so that someone has clear responsibility for thinking strategically about its commissioning. By fragmenting it across 16 health authorities, that vision is lost and there is no clear ownership of responsibility for commissioning services. That would do a great deal for the confidence of the London ambulance service.
The London ambulance service now has a clear improvement programme, and it is delivering results. It needs support and resources to carry that programme through. In particular, it needs flexibility to reward and retain staff, and we need action to deal with gridlock and the turnaround problems of accident and emergency departments.
London ambulance crews have been underpaid, overworked and overlooked for far too long. The London ambulance service needs a period of sustained investment. Its new management team is able to deliver, and it certainly has staff of a quality to deliver the service. I hope that, in partnership, the Government will be able to deliver as well.
11.53 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall be brief.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Yes. I hope to start the winding-up speeches at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Cohen: I shall not speak beyond that, Mrs. Michie. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for introducing this important debate and apologise to her and, indeed, to you for being unable to be present for the start. I was at a Defence Committee meeting attended by the Secretary of State.
I visited the London ambulance service in January 2000. The previous chief executive left shortly afterwards, but that had nothing to do with my visit. I looked around and met the staff who operate the 999 service and run the ambulances. I was impressed by their work, so I am happy to echo the comment about pay being an important factor both for them and for ambulance staff. However, I noticed that there was no system for tracking ambulances. That surprised me, because only a couple of months earlier I visited a taxi firm called Computer Cab with a couple of other Members of Parliament. It had a tracking system, so staff knew where every taxi was. I have been arguing the case both to the London ambulance service and to Ministers that we should take advantage of the technology. That is my main reason for speaking in the debate.
The new chief executive of the London ambulance service, Peter Bradley, wrote to me in November. His letter stated:
"You are right to say there is a good case for a 'computerised tracking' system for ambulances and I am pleased to say that such a system will be installed early next year."
It is now "early next year", so I ask the Minister whether any progress has been made in putting that tracking system in place. It is important because it would add to the efficiency of the service and may save lives. I shall be interested in her comments on that matter.
I shall make a couple more brief points. The first concerns cardiac care, which is important and needs investment. There is a programme, which is part of the London ambulance service's plans to improve cardiac care, to replace the old-fashioned type of defibrillation units with AEDs—automatic external defibrillators.
The survival rate a year after people have been taken to hospital with a coronary by the London ambulance service is less than 2 per cent. Although that figure is comparable to that for most other major urban conurbations, it is still poor. I see from the London ambulance service plans that it would prefer that figure to be much closer to 15 per cent. Obviously, that would require investment, but the London ambulance service thinks that it is achievable, so an effort should be made. The modernisation of defibrillators is part of that process. There is also a need to upgrade clot busters so that ambulance paramedics can deliver the injection and answers to my parliamentary questions suggest that progress is being made on that important way in which paramedics could increase the cardiac care survival rate.
268WH
My final point concerns the London ambulance service management plan. In his letter to me, Mr. Bradley said that:
"we are determined to turn the LAS into a world class service and have recently completed an extensive internal consultation exercise in developing a four to five year Improvement Programme which will enable us to build the service that London deserves… We welcomed the extra £6 million granted to us this year, but much greater investment will be required to bring the aims of the LAS Improvement Programme into reality."
Mr. Bradley says that he has discussed the investment programme with the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the £6 million investment is the first step in delivering the management programme that Londoners need if many lives are to be saved.
11.59 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on achieving this debate and on the commendable brevity of her opening speech. Too many of these debates in Westminster Hall run out of time because the opening speaker takes 45 or 50 minutes to make his or her contribution.
Having listened to the debate so far, it seems that virtually every Member of Parliament has visited the London ambulance service in Waterloo. I have certainly added to their burden, and I wonder how much better the service might be if staff did not have to spend time showing MPs around the control room. The fact is that despite the dedicated efforts of the thousands of men and women in the London ambulance service, it is failing to deliver an acceptable service to Londoners. It is bottom of all the league tables.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park quoted a target figure of 55 per cent. for an eight-minute response time to category A calls. I should like to probe the Minister about who set that target. My understanding is that the patients charter target was that, by April 2001, 75 per cent. of category A calls would be answered within eight minutes. The 55 per cent. figure represents the purchasers' target—the service for which they have been willing to pay in a negotiated settlement with London ambulance service. If I am not mistaken, there is a 75 per cent. national target, but health authorities in London have decided that they will only pay for a service that delivers a 55 per cent. target. If that is correct, will the Minister tell us why people in London should be prepared to pay—sometimes with their lives, as shown by the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—for the lower level of planned service that the London purchasers are willing to finance?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the London ambulance service's own targets are 65 per cent. by spring 2002 and 75 per cent. by March 2003. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a caveat: money must be available.
Mr. Hammond: I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. Will she also tell us whether, under the Londonwide purchasing arrangements, the same service targets are in operation thoughout London, because the achievement rates have been different? In central London, the London

269WH
ambulance service has been achieving about 60 per cent. category A eight-minute responses, which is good by any standards across the country. In other areas—I am afraid that it is the usual suspects, such as Newham, where service provision is repeatedly less good—the response times are higher.
Given the overall London percentage achievements, 60 per cent. in central London shows how poor the response times must be in outer London. Although, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, we do not have a hotline to the London ambulance service from this place, we are privileged to be in an area that is better served than some of our neighbours across London. Will the Minister tell us whether it is acceptable in her view that London ambulance service purchasers should be allowed, by design, to purchase a lower standard of service response than that set by the Government's own targets?
Will the Minister also explain the distinction between categories A and B? Of course the focus is on category A response times for immediately life-threatening incidents. The last time I called the London ambulance service, I was with an elderly person who had fallen over and broken a leg and was not able to move. That is not a life-threatening condition, but it is not a pleasant position to be in at 11.30 on a Friday night in a street in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We all know that Friday nights are a busy time for the ambulance service, but I think that the Minister would agree that to have to wait for 45 or 50 minutes is unacceptable.
The Government must make a clear statement about the targets that they expect the London ambulance service and its purchasers to achieve for the people of London, so that we can measure what purchasers and providers are agreeing against the targets that the Government, as the responsible body, are setting.
Will the Minister give us her assessment of the extent to which capital deficiency and inadequacy of capital spending programmes is at the heart of the problem and the extent to which it is a problem of staff retention and recruitment? In the latter context, what are the Government doing to deal with the problems of providing public services in the south-east?
Can the Minister tell us whether she is satisfied that commissioning arrangements, which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam described as fragmented, are not a contributory factor to the relatively poor level of service delivery? Specifically, how do the Government allocate additional cash resources that are made available for ambulance services? We have already heard that of the £21 million that was made available last year, only 10 per cent. was allocated to London, although London faces a third of all category A calls in the country.
What lessons have the Minister and her Department drawn from comparisons between organisational systems and service achievement in the London ambulance service and the ambulance services of other cities? I am sure that she will mention computerisation and the use of technology. When I went to the London ambulance control centre, I was quite shocked to find little pieces of card being physically moved about the room. Although there were plenty of computer screens, the system appeared to be essentially paper-dependent,
270WH
not computer-dependent. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that matters have moved on in the past 12 months. Will she say how far the Government are willing to support the extension of technology?
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) talked about the situation in which heart attack victims find themselves. In Paris about 10 years ago, I saw a demonstration of how paramedics are able to transmit an ECG reading from the scene of an incident back to consultants in a hospital, who make a diagnosis and instruct the paramedics at the scene on the administration of drugs. That is the kind of initiative that we should be considering. It is rather sad that it took place 10 years ago in Paris, yet we still have nothing comparable in this country. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are willing to consider such an initiative? I imagine that it would require changes in legislation dealing with who can administer what treatment.
Will the Minister consider the publication of more information about response times to category A calls? We know the percentage that are within eight minutes, but it is important to know whether the remainder of the calls are responded to in nine or 90 minutes. If 39 per cent. are responded to in eight minutes and 75 per cent. in 10 minutes, that would be a different order of problem to the remainder being very much delayed.
Will the Minister tell us about international comparative figures? How does London stand in the league table of ambulance response times in comparable cities? What is the Government's assessment of the impact that misuse of the ambulance service has on the service delivery equation in London? The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about the waste of ambulance time when ambulances are stacked up at A&E departments as the problems of those departments multiply. That does not happen only because they are waiting to unload. I have also heard graphic descriptions of ambulance crews caring for patients because no one else is available to do so. Until they are able to hand over care of the patient, they cannot leave the A&E department. However, it would be an equal waste of time for ambulances to respond to calls that should not have been made, or which did not warrant an ambulance response. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government's view on that issue and what they intend to do about it.
We all recognise the phenomenal escalation of demand that the London ambulance service faces, and the special problems associated with London's traffic. We know about the difficulties in recruiting and retaining public service personnel in London and the south-east. The London ambulance service is an essential service that provides support for people who live and work in London, and for the many millions who visit the city. However, in overall terms it is not delivering an adequate service to Londoners. Worse than that, poor overall performance figures conceal pockets of far worse performance in certain areas.
We recognise the scale of the problems, but we must respond not by cutting targets to an unacceptable level, but by addressing the problems head on. If the percentage improvement in London ambulance response times that was achieved between 1994 and 1997 had been achieved between 1997 and now, 100 per cent. of category A calls would have been responded to within

271WH
eight minutes. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the London ambulance service delivers an acceptable service to Londoners, and I look forward to the Minister's response to the many specific points that were put to her this morning.
12.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this debate, and I shall try to deal with many of the questions that were asked during the debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will forgive me for beginning by discussing the points raised by the hon. Lady who initiated the debate. I shall work my way through the points in a sequence that will sometimes appear logical, and sometimes not.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that we should not forget the ambulance services, and I should make it clear that in the past few years we have far from forgotten them. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) expressed his disappointment at the apparent lack of specific reference to ambulance services in the NHS plan. Ambulances have for too long been viewed in isolation. Their function is much wider than that of a simple people carrier from point A to point B. Ambulance staff are highly trained professionals who have a very important function to fulfil. The NHS plan refers to telemedicine, cardiac work and the provision of thrombolysis by paramedics. Ambulance services must be a far more integrated part of the jigsaw of emergency medicine, and they are very much in our minds. Indeed, the Secretary of State has commissioned a review of emergency care and out-of-hours services, which are intrinsically linked.
Given the number of people who visit the London ambulance service—I, too, have visited it on a number of occasions—I am tempted to suggest that it should charge for visits. I have also visited my own West Midlands ambulance service, which kindly allowed me to spend a day with its staff. It was an extraordinary learning experience, because the various problems to which hon. Members have referred came to the forefront.
Reference was made to helicopter air ambulances, and I shall refer to them specifically, but I want first to make a general point. In London, the helicopter emergency medical service is an important component of the ambulance service, but I want to correct two misconceptions. First, helicopters are not the universal panacea that they are sometimes thought to be. They cannot fly at night, so they cannot operate for between eight and 12 hours of the day. Secondly, in many areas public funds contribute to the service, but we must not underestimate the amount of NHS money that is provided. In London, a large proportion of the cost of running the service—some £1.4 million a year—is funded by the NHS. NHS funding pays for maintenance of the helicopters, fuel, insurance and all costs associated with the pilots, operations staff and paramedics. On top of that, only 84 hospitals in the country and about 12 in London have helipads. I do not underestimate the role of helicopters, but they are not the panacea that is sometimes suggested.
272WH
The hon. Member for Orpington suggested that the whole system should be reviewed, but I hope that he acknowledges the considerable progress that has been made. There was a danger during our debate of giving the impression that all was doom and gloom. The London ambulance service has always faced a difficult task and it has made huge improvements.
Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister acknowldge that concern is being expressed because the rate of improvement seems to have slowed down dramatically? Between 1993–94 and 1996–97, the percentage of eight-minute responses to category A calls tripled from 12 per cent. to 35 per cent., but between 1996–97 and 1998–99, it improved from 35 per cent. to only 39 per cent. It seems that the rate of progress is slowing down.
Ms Stuart: I shall examine those figures, because it is easy to extrapolate figures and draw conclusions. I want to speak about the improvements that have been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) referred to a tracking system. I saw such a system in operation when I visited Merseyside ambulance service. The development of such a system is being looked into, and I shall come back to my hon. Friend with more precise information about the time scale.
The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made some valuable points, but they always think that everything will be resolved with money. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the 55 per cent. target in London and whether we can meet it. Of the money allocated, £21 million was to help towards the improvement of targets.
It is important to pay tribute to the London ambulance service on the improvements that have been made following various initiatives. Its legitimate and correct aspiration is to provide the city with the ambulance service that it deserves. It handles around 20 per cent. of the total ambulance work load in England. The population of 7 million in London increases each day because of the 3 million visitors to the city. The London ambulance service has more than 3,000 staff and 600 vehicles and last year handled around 12 million calls. Dealing with that volume of calls is not easy, and I want to thank members of the London ambulance service for their tremendous work day in, day out. The value of that work is abundantly clear from the way in which they dealt with crises such as the Paddington train crash and the Brixton and Soho bombings. Given that the service receives about 3,000 calls a day, it is vital that the LAS is considered an integral part of the NHS.
Before dealing with the situation in London, I shall refer to ambulance services across the country. The Government's priority is to save more lives by providing faster and more responsive emergency ambulance services. Clinical evidence shows that early defibrillation and resuscitation saves more lives. The Government set challenging response targets for all ambulance services as soon as we came into office in 1997. Since then, ambulance services have improved their response times through a range of measures, including more staff and vehicles, faster activation, better matching of resources

273WH
to demand, dynamic as opposed to station-based cover, effective relief levels and rotas, and flexible responses to 999 calls.
I shall compare two ambulance services that appear to have had real difficulties in meeting the 75 per cent. target. One is in an urban area; the other is in a rural area. The method of meeting those targets varies from one area to another.
Dr. Tonge: That is all very interesting, but the Minister is being far too general in her response. I asked a number of questions about the London ambulance service, not least about the level of pay. Only nine minutes of this debate are left; shall we be given any answers?
Ms Stuart: I hope to proceed. I need to put those matters into the overall context.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Can we have the answers?
Ms Stuart: Would the hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy of listening to my response?
We are also introducing a range of community and volunteer responder schemes; it is no answer simply to say that we need more ambulances. Those new schemes will include the use of motor cycles and rapid response vehicles that can make their way through traffic congestion more easily. Mention was made of traffic problems, but even such things as the signposting of streets and the numbering of houses can make a difference. We spoke also of traffic entering marked spaces on roads that can cause junctions to become blocked. We are not dealing with aspects of the problem in isolation. I urge hon. Members to consider the matter in the round.
Liberal Democrat Members in particular wanted the Government to make another commitment to giving extra money to the London ambulance service. We were told that that was the only solution. Perhaps they have a little list; but those extra demands add up. Every time we have a debate with Liberal Democrat Members, they demand more money.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: No, I must make progress.
The problem is not simply one of extra ambulances. I have already said that ambulance service response times have improved significantly since we came to office. We expect ambulance trusts to achieve that target by 31 March—
Mr. Hammond: What target?
Ms Stuart: if hon. Members would listen, I might be able to finish a sentence.
We expect more ambulance trusts to achieve their targets. The London ambulance service is expected to achieve its target as quickly as possible, because that could save as many as 1,800 lives every year among people under 75 who suffer acute heart attacks. During
274WH
the last three years, the number of calls to the London ambulance service has increased by 130,000—that is more than 12 per cent.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. John William (in the chair): Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.
Ms Stuart: That increase should be seen against the background of some of the worst traffic congestion in the country, so things are improving. Despite the difficulties of working in the busiest city and dealing with the highest number of calls, the London ambulance service has been making progress. In 1993, an ambulance responded in less than eight minutes to only 12 per cent. of the most urgent calls; by March this year, that figure is expected to rise to 55 per cent. Thus 190,000 more patients will be treated within eight minutes than were treated in 1993–94. However, that is not good enough. I have asked Neil McKay, the chief operating officer of the NHS, and John Bacon, the acting regional director of the NHS executive, to meet the chairman and chief executive of the London ambulance service to discuss how the 75 per cent. target can be achieved as quickly as possible and how good practice can be shared. That meeting is due to take place before the end of February.
I know that hon. Members are keen on the idea of increased resources for ambulance services. The Government are committed to providing a first-class public service. In answer to a question about extra payment, I stated:
"Ambulance staff, on national terms, including those employed by the London Ambulance service have been offered an above inflation increase of 3.7 per cent. from 1 April 2001. We are currently awaiting a response from trade unions on this offer. National Health Service trusts have the flexibility to pay still more where there are proven recruitment and retention difficulties." —[Official Report, 24 January 2001; Vol. 316, c. 598W.]
I can imagine that in a week's time hon. Members who have demanded more money for paramedics and the ambulance service will report staff shortages in London hospitals because of a movement from accident and emergency departments into ambulance work, leading to a need to target hospitals for more pay. The whole structure needs to be considered: it is no good dealing with the matter in isolation.
Hon. Members: What is the answer?
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members have been heckling and they must not do so.
Ms Stuart: In 2000–01, we invested an extra £21 million in the NHS ambulance service in England to help it to make continued progress. That money was for investment in extra vehicles and front-line staff. The funding was made available on a recurrent basis. This year an extra £6 million was given to the ambulance service in London to help it to improve its service. The total investment in the London ambulance service for this year is £120 million.
Mention was made of health authorities working together. They are working much more closely together and developing a three-year funding programme that will provide increased funding for the ambulance service.

275WH
I welcome the London ambulance service's performance improvement programme, and I am pleased that staff have welcomed it. I was also delighted by the support for the chief executive. The extra investment will go alongside changes in the way in which the service is provided. It is not a question of simply buying and operating more ambulances.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: No. I want to make progress. The first service to reach the 75 per cent. target did so because it took a radical look at how it was providing its service. We expect that everywhere. Just paying more to do more of the same is not the way forward. Hon. Members know that, but it is easy to ask for more money. Improving the ambulance service is not just about ambulances. Planning to ensure that the right ambulances are in the right location is very important.
We need to work with information technology, as hon. Members have mentioned, but to do that we need the infrastructure. It is no good just providing one set of ambulances with telemedicine if they cannot link into the infrastructure of accident and emergency departments. That is why we are investing something like £1 billion over 10 years in infrastructure and information technology. That means huge progress.
Mr. Horam: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: No. I want to finish, because I am being accused of not answering questions and I want to make my point.
Hon. Members have graphically described the dreadful situation with regard to NHS and category C calls, and have raised the issue of how the ambulance
276WH
service should respond to, for example, a babysitter who dials 999 because she has run out of nappies. They offered no solutions other than to provide more money. The question of inappropriate calls is being addressed by NHS Direct pilots dealing with category C calls, and by having paramedics on premises. Those projects are trying to categorise calls properly so that, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, faster response times are possible.
We are investing in accident and emergency departments in London. More than £20 million has been invested in the past 18 months to improve through-flow and design. The London ambulance service has installed defibrillators in every vehicle, and plans to buy more than 400 more of the latest model, which has meant a great enhancement of monitoring and use in public places. The service is investing in more information technology—and I hope that it will do so more effectively than it did at the last attempt, under the previous Administration, because that did not work.
I want to comment briefly on the shock of seeing the paperwork that is still done in the London ambulance service. A move to information technology is being made, but the paperwork system is being run in parallel. When things went wrong in the 1990s, one of the big disasters was the attempt at a big bang—switching straight from one system to the other. The transition is now being successfully completed. Greater use is also being made of extra motor bikes.
There is still a long way to go, but the service has a huge contribution to make. The staff are responding to that challenge. We are providing the money to expand the service in a sustainable way. That is the way forward, not another call for more money for one group, which is what the Liberal Democrats repeat over and again. They want more money, but they do not know where it should come from.

Hysterectomies
12.30 pm
Mrs. Diana Organ: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of hysterectomy services, since it has been brought to my notice by women in my constituency that they are a cause for concern. Concerns range from the lack of information, advice, counselling and guidance about the procedure and its after-effects, to the treatment offered, surgery involved and after-care, and to the attitudes of some members of the medical profession towards women receiving the treatment. The issue is not restricted to women in the Forest of Dean and Gloucestershire, but involves many thousands of women throughout Britain. I am not a clinician and do not endeavour to make judgments about medical requirements, but it is right to raise certain questions about hysterectomy services.
Roughly 50,000 hysterectomies are carried out in Britain every year. One in five women will have had a hysterectomy by the age of 65. We carry out more per head than France and the United States of America. Some 10 per cent. are carried out because of cancer and others for serious health conditions, but most are carried out because of non life-threatening conditions and to improve the quality of life of the patients. Hysterectomies should improve those patients' lives and not deteriorate them.
Hysterectomies divide into three main types. A total hysterectomy is the removal of womb and cervix; that is the most usual practice. A sub-total hysterectomy is the removal of the womb only with the cervix left in place. A radical hysterectomy means the removal of the womb, the fallopian tubes, the upper part of the vagina and the surrounding fat and lymph glands, and is carried out in the treatment of cancer.
My interest in the issue arose after a constituent came to see me. She had been a healthy, active young woman who was diagnosed with a benign cyst on her left ovary. After her hysterectomy, however, she suffered cross-infection. She had to have a bowel section, and damage to the nerve at the back of her spine caused withering of the muscle in her leg. She is now doubly incontinent and her health is ruined. All of that has had consequences for her sexual life.
I wrote to the hospital asking about cross-infection rates. At the time, the hospital did not keep that information. I then wrote to Ministers. On 30 July 1998, I was told that the information was not kept at that time, but that the Government would publish clinical indicators later that year, one of which would relate to unplanned re-admissions to hospital within 28 days of treatment. It was understood that although the information was not kept at the time, better information would be compiled in the future.
I felt that other women might have had similar health problems as a result of a hysterectomy. I placed an advert in the local Gloucester edition of The Citizen newspaper. The advert read as follows:
"Hysterectomy. Researcher wishes to talk to women who have suffered health problems as a result of undergoing hysterectomy in Gloucester."
Thirty-four women responded from all over Gloucestershire although, because of the paper's distribution area, they came predominantly from the
278WH
Forest of Dean and Gloucester. They were obviously a self-selected group, which I had actively sought. I met with the group, whose problems related to a whole range of issues. They had health conditions and other problems and had had hysterectomies over a period of time, ranging from 12 months to many years previously.
I had put the original constituent in touch with the medical negligence solicitor, Helen Barry, who subsequently met with some of the women in the group. After interviewing them, she took four complaints to the General Medical Council. The press was greatly interested by now and at the second meeting of the support group, there were up to 54 women. Helen Barry took on another two cases for complaint to the GMC.
I do not want to discuss the cases, as it would be inappropriate. I shall not pursue those matters for they properly belong elsewhere. However, medical negligence cases are difficult to pursue. Sheila McLean, professor of law and ethics in medicine at the university of Glasgow, states in "Old Law, New Medicine: Medical Ethics and Human Rights" that the United Kingdom courts depend heavily on the Bolam test, which is designed to judge the competence of medical procedure but does not tell us whether a practice is right or lawful.
The debate is not designed to cause a witch hunt against any specific surgeon or hospital. Different clinicians at different hospitals treated the women in the support group at different times. I have raised the matter because I want better guidance and practice for all other women receiving hysterectomy services.
I asked the 57 women in the support group to fill in a questionnaire, so that I could see whether there was any commonality. There was a disturbing pattern of anger at the manner of their treatment. They were not ready for and did not expect what happened to them, and all complained about a lack of information and advice. They were often told that the procedure was the only option. The exact nature of the surgery was not clearly explained to them, so there was a general feeling of a lack of informed consent. Only one was given a leaflet, and that was in relation to a hysterectomy many years ago.
A loss of libido was common, and a side effect was a change in their sex lives and lack of satisfaction with sexual intercourse. There were acute menopausal problems, incontinence after the operation and lower back pain. Unfortunately, most of the women did not complain at the time through the normal complaints procedure, because they felt beaten down and decided that it would be useless to try to take on and fight the whole medical fraternity.
The women in the group complained that some of their questions at consultation before treatment were brushed aside. Many were told that they would not need wombs or ovaries at their age. Some asked whether it was possible to retain the cervix and were told that it was not, but it is. When they asked about the effects on their future sex life, they were told that everything would be fine, if not better. When one woman mentioned the loss of libido post-operatively, it was suggested that she have a couple of gins.
The women in the group did not have hysterectomies because of cancer. For 37 of them, the reason was heavy periods, and some had ovaries removed as well for that reason. It is worth noting that some women are not

279WH
aware that they had healthy organs removed. The Minister assured me, in a letter dated 8 March 2000, that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists does not have a policy of removing healthy organs without consent while performing hysterectomies.
In some cases, we must ask why hysterectomy was carried out at all. Consultants say that most hysterectomies are elective, and could be termed social gynaecology. Rates vary depending on region and consultant, but disparities should surely be monitored and investigated. Why are alternative therapies and treatments not exhausted? Why do surgeons carry out unnecessary surgery? The matter was recently highlighted in a BBC television programme that focused on one consultant's use of alternative therapies.
There is growing evidence of the loss of libido or a change to sexual experience as a side effect of the removal of ovaries or a hysterectomy. That can radically affect the quality of a woman's life, but it is rarely mentioned in any of the advice leaflets, even that produced by WellBeing. It is often dismissed by medical staff in consultation as being insignificant.
I have a document dated 28 March 2000 about a voice tempo trial into female sexual dysfunction, sponsored by a pharmaceutical company, which is currently under way. The study is trying to find out why many women have a less active and satisfying sexual life after ovary removal. The research shows that at least one in three women, and possibly one in two, say that their libido has decreased since surgery. Other research clearly proves that sexual changes after hysterectomy are real, not imagined, as it shows that the uterus and cervix must be present if women are to fulfil themselves and climax. Why are women not informed that they could suffer such side effects of hysterectomy? It would have an impact on their lives. Why do some surgeons unnecessarily remove the cervix when retention would help?
Other serious side effects are not mentioned, including the possibility of further surgery being necessary as a result of adhesion. Women are not informed of that risk, either.
The response to my advertisement was not unexpected. Many other support groups have been set up over the years, notably those run by Louise Greenhill, Brenda Johnson—who set up the Ledward support group—and Sandra Simkin. Those groups all experienced the same problem. They felt that they were ignored and not given good consultation, and they were not expected to have an interesting and full sex life after hysterectomy.
Some professionals, such as Professor McPherson and Professor Roger Gosden, have spoken out about this issue, saying that the effects can be devastating, and that some women are actually driven to suicide, or experience suicidal depression as a result of the after-effects of the surgery. There should be much more work done in this field, more investigation into alternative therapies and more monitoring of the necessity of hysterectomy and of the use of sub-total or total hysterectomy. Much more research should be done into the clinical evidence of the after-effects of hysterectomy and the effects on women's lives.
280WH
After the interest taken by the local press, one of the Gloucestershire hospitals, the Gloucestershire Royal, asked me to come in and talk about the issue. The head of the clinical team, quite rightly, wanted me to understand the work that they do, the expertise that they deploy and the excellence that they hope to provide. They wanted to show how they are continually working to provide a better service for women and how they are always looking to improve their procedures.
The hospital's women's health directorate subsequently sent me details of procedures and advice, and the leaflets that are available. That procedure is a model of best practice. It is thorough, and the hospital is to be congratulated on it. If the procedures carried out at Gloucester Royal hospital had been used in the past, followed elsewhere and implemented across the NHS, that would have dealt with the concerns and the problems of many in my support group. If that best practice model were to be used elsewhere, it would provide a much-improved situation for women receiving this kind of treatment.
The Gloucestershire Royal hospital administrators took seriously the fact that women in the support group had not used their complaints system. They told me that they would be examining their own system to find out how it could be improved and made more user-friendly and available. They would like to learn from the support group. They would like its members to talk, if they were happy to, about their experiences, and offer constructive advice about how the hospital might respond and put in place a better system.
I want to impress on the Minister that not only is more research necessary, as I mentioned at the beginning, but that there is a need to find out about different treatments and their effect on different women. There should be a much freer exchange of best practice within hysterectomy services across the NHS. Women must have better experiences both with and after hysterectomy. There should be clear guidance from Government in this field. There should be inquiry into procedure and the guidance on it from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
There should also be clear, explicit statements on good practice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. We should inquire into the number of elective hysterectomies, and what consultants are saying about social gynaecology. We should also inquire into the possibility of using alternative therapies instead of performing the unnecessary surgery that seems so often to take place.
It is also necessary to examine the advice and counselling that women get, so that they can always get the necessary support, advice, counselling and information, and that their consent is genuine and informed. If people fill in a consent form, that does not necessarily mean that they know what will happen to them. People must be able to make an informed decision, and informed consent requires information about what will be done to their bodies and what that will mean for their quality of life afterwards.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 29 November 2000 and asked whether he would meet the delegation from the Forest of Dean support group so that members of the delegation could make their experiences clear to him and ask the

281WH
Government to improve the service for women in future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make a commitment to receive the group at the earliest possible opportunity to allow us to improve services for many women so that we do not have to form support groups in future to give support to women whose lives have been devastated by hysterectomy services.
12.45 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on having secured this debate on hysterectomy. It is a subject to which she has devoted considerable time and energy in her constituency, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done locally with the support group. The matter deeply concerns many thousands of women throughout the country.
Hysterectomy is one of the most commonly performed gynaecological operations, and it has brought symptomatic relief to many thousands of women. It has profoundly changed the lives of some women by enabling them again to go out in public without fear of embarrassment and dealing with the symptoms from which they have suffered. However, I also recognise that other women have experienced long-term physical and psychological side effects and have not received the standard of care that we would accept.
In the past, before the advent of other methods of less-radical treatment, hysterectomy was sometimes offered as the universal panacea for heavy periods or severe period pains. Fortunately, times are changing, as is reflected in the falling rates of hysterectomies being performed. In 1993, more than 72,000 hysterectomies were performed in England. By 1998, the latest year for which figures are available, that figure had been reduced to more than 56,000. My hon. Friend may be interested to learn that, in the same period, the comparable figures for Gloucester were lower than the national figures and show a fall from 2.3 hysterectomies for every 1,000 women in 1993 to two hysterectomies for every 1,000 women in 1998.
My hon. Friend described the experiences of some of her constituents and those involved in the support group who had experienced problems as a result of hysterectomies. I know that she brought those matters to the attention of senior management and clinicians at a meeting at the Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust, and I welcome her remarks about the practice and the changes taking place there. The trust has examined its clinical practice in gynaecology and has done what it can to improve practice and to work with the active participation of patients. It has introduced new information leaflets, clear and explicit consent forms and a nurse consultant in gynaecology to offer counselling and support to women faced with this traumatic operation. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that it was effectively a model of best practice, and I should be interested to hear more about its work and how that best practice might be spread across the country.
Mrs. Organ: Would it be appropriate for me to send my hon. Friend a copy of the exact formula that the
282WH
health directorate of the Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust uses for its procedures so that she could use the formula elsewhere?
Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. That would be extremely helpful. I shall discuss later how we could further spread best practice in the field. I congratulate her support group on its work with the trust. The most powerful changes will take place in the health service when we embody patients' experience in designing services and ensure that patients' voices are heard in terms of providing health services and how professionals operate.
The most common reason for a hysterectomy is a condition known as menorrhagia, which is severe bleeding, often with abdominal pain. In some cases, it is due to the growth of fibroids or benign tumours in the wall of the womb, but in many other cases the cause is not known. Although the symptoms are not often discussed in public as they may be deemed to be embarrassing, they can often cause considerable distress to women who experience them.
Other reasons include the painful condition known as endemetriosis for which, when child bearing is over, a hysterectomy may offer the only permanent solution. Older women may suffer a prolapse of the womb when it drops into the vagina. Furthermore, emergency hysterectomies may need to be performed to save a woman's life after a catastrophic bleed during childbirth or when a malignant tumour needs urgent treatment.
My hon. Friend was right to say that most hysterectomies are undertaken to relieve menstrual problems, particularly excessive bleeding. In many cases, no specific cause for the underlying problem can be found and more simple forms of therapy have failed to provide a woman with sufficient relief. The important fact is that a hysterectomy is rarely the only available solution to a menstrual problem and usually other treatments can be considered first. When different alternative treatments are available, it is vital that a woman should have the opportunity to discuss all the possible options and consequences of the different treatment. She should be fully informed before giving consent to a particular treatment and to a hysterectomy.
I am aware that many women consider that they have not undergone a hysterectomy of their own free will, that the full options were not explained to them and that they were not aware of the consequences. In those circumstances, the psychological effect can be considerable. However, it is not always fully explored and appreciated. A hysterectomy is different from many other surgical interventions because it can involve the removal of a healthy, non-diseased organ. That can make it difficult to come to terms with what can be a huge life event for some women, depending on the circumstances involved. It must be the right choice for the individual and she must fully understand the reasons behind it. She must have the opportunity to have a full discussion about it with the professionals.
My hon. Friend asked whether women are receiving the right treatment for their particular condition. Also, we must consider whether they are receiving all the necessary information, so that they can make a full, informed decision about which option to choose. I welcome the fact that the Royal College of

283WH
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is taking such issues seriously. It has issued guidance to its fellows and members on the need to reduce the number of unnecessary hysterectomies. It has also issued evidence-based guidelines on the management of menorrhagia that clearly outline alternatives to hysterectomies for the treatment of women with excessive menstrual bleeding. It is important that those guidelines are now being used increasingly in clinical audit and governance programmes to ensure effectiveness locally. The RCOG has asked its guidance committee to examine further hysterectomies, a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
Increasingly, patients rightly expect to receive more information and want a full, proper discussion about the options that are available to them and the problems from which they are suffering. In that context, self-help groups can play an important part. We should never underestimate the importance of patient support groups and the patients themselves working together on a voluntary basis to raise the awareness of hysterectomies or problems of other patients and providing support for others in the same situation.
The NHS has a responsibility for such matters, too. The Department of Health funds through the section 64 scheme several organisations such as Women's Health, which runs telephone helplines and produces information leaflets. I was interested in my hon. Friend's point about providing national guidance on information that should be given to women. I am interested in that proposal and in how to take it forward. Options may include working through the NHS on-line or through the on-line electronic health library. More work can be done in that area.
However, even that cannot get away from the important need for individual advice from health professionals to patients, depending on their personal circumstances. The Department's role is to liaise with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The question is how to ensure that best practice is spread throughout the country. There are excellent examples of the right kind of support being provided for women, but we must ensure that that happens for all women everywhere in the country.
We asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to update and reissue guidelines to members on the need for consent. Last April, the RCOG reminded fellows and members of the need to obtain informed consent from patients. Patients should be
284WH
given an adequate explanation and time to come to their decisions and consider other options; their specific wishes should be observed and recorded in the notes at the time of discussion and decision making. The possibility that a woman's ovaries might need to be removed in the operation should be fully discussed with her beforehand, and not carried out without her express written consent.
The RCOG's guidance committee has been asked to consider hysterectomies and informed consent as subjects for further guidance, and we will work with it on that. I take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, and will be happy to meet her and any delegation that she brings to discuss the issue. I suggest that we should use such a meeting to discuss what we could feed into the debate, as well as the work that the royal colleges will do.
My hon. Friend spoke, too, of the question of referring guidelines to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. She will be aware that our approach is to establish national standards across the board, but that we already refer a large number of guidelines to NICE. Our first step will be to work with the royal colleges on the guidance that can be set out.
I hope that what I have said emphasises the Government's continuing commitment to the principles of keeping the patient at the centre of care and improving quality care across the board. We should recognise that although there are good examples of best practice, things are not perfect everywhere throughout the NHS. There is a long way to go before we can establish good communications between every doctor and every patient as standard.
We are making significant progress and beginning to make a real difference to informing and working with women, so that hysterectomies are undertaken for the right reason and the women concerned understand the decision and play an active part in reaching it, as part of the management of their condition and treatment. That will ultimately mean that we spare many women the misery that they currently experience, when they take such a huge step in their lives without being fully involved in a key decision affecting them and their families.
That is an area in which we can work with the voluntary sector and self-help groups. Patients' experiences should inform all the improvements that we take. I look forward to discussing the matter further with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and thank her for raising the issue today.

McMaster Family (BNFL)
1 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the McMaster family and BNFL. It is, without doubt, one of the saddest cases that I have dealt with as a Member of Parliament. I have known Stella and Joe McMaster for many years. We have tried all avenues to get the issue affecting them properly recognised by BNFL. Joe and Stella live in Fulwood, Preston, in my constituency. I have had several meetings with BNFL at Springfields, and although we are offered tea and sympathy in relation to the case, the matter is always left in the air. The company denies even the slightest responsibility for the plight of the McMaster family. Today, the case of the McMaster family will receive its proper airing, and I look to the Minister to see that they receive justice.
Joe McMaster joined the Atomic Energy Authority in 1951, aged 29. He had a thorough medical and was passed fit to join the company. Joe was a chemist and handled many chemical substances, which he examined to ensure that they were properly enriched. These were turned into fuel before being transported to Windscale. Joe was one of the team leaders responsible for sampling.
The rules that employees follow today would not be the same rules that were followed then. Joe tells me that surveillance of work practices was almost non-existent at the time. In May 1953, Joe was working at the plant when he received an ingestion of uranium. He believed that one of the valves was incorrectly fitted, or that there was just a faulty valve. He had a daily urine test, which showed him to have 18 times the level of radiation that he was normally showing. That excessive amount of radiation showed up for several months. He logged the accident—that he had received a blow-back of UF6—in the incident log book. During Stella's discussions with BNFL, it was not until yesterday conceded that an incident occurred in 1953. When Joe went to see a geneticist, Mr. Gareth Evans, a few years ago, the geneticist asked for Joe's medical notes from BNFL. Notes relating to 1953 were missing. However, Stella has managed to procure the 1953 notes, and would be prepared to make those notes available to an inquiry.
I shall tell this Chamber about the McMaster family and the tragedies following the incident, and perhaps another incident at Windscale. Stella and Joe had their first daughter, Lynne, in October 1950. Stella had a miscarriage in 1954. In February 1955, another daughter, Jill, was born. She suffers from an immune deficiency. Hon. Members will remember that Joe had perfect health when he joined the company and had a full medical in 1951. In August 1955, all his teeth were removed. His teeth were so loose that the dentist said that he could have removed them without pliers. He could have twisted them from Joe's gums using his fingers. There was obviously something seriously wrong; Joe was only 34 and all his teeth had to be removed.
We now come to what I would call the twist in the tail. Joe, Stella and the family were on holiday in Cumbria at the time of the fire at the Windscale plant, when 376,000 curies were discharged from 40 isotopes during a three-day period. In a letter on 13 January 2001 to Mr.
286WH
Shuttleworth, the company secretary and group legal director, Stella reminded him that milk and vegetables were contaminated. The local newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Post, on 14 October 1957, carried the headline
"Atom dust makes farmers worried"
and the sub-line
"but expert says: 'no need'".
The article states:
"Very worried farmers in the district around the Windscale plutonium factory were today besieging their NFU officials with inquiries about new aspects of the atomic threat which caused a ban yesterday on sales of milk from 100 farms following the overheated reactor alarm last week. The restriction was imposed because the level of radio iodine in milk was 6x the permissible amount, following the escape of radio-active dust. But apart from the milk ban farmers are worried about their livestock."
There was no ban on livestock, and no ban on the sale of vegetables. The McMasters ate the local produce while on holiday and drank the milk before it was banned. Both girls, Lynne and Jill, played daily on the beach.
In 1958, Stella gave birth to twins. They were six weeks premature, and one died at three days. The other daughter is still alive. Stella tells me that her daughter is worried about her health but refuses to get a medical check-up because she is so worried about what might be discovered. She has three children of her own. I will not mention her name at the request of the family, because their privacy should be properly protected.
In 1964, the eldest of the children, Lynne, started to have trouble with her kidneys, and developed kidney stones. She was only a teenager. She was anaemic and had to take iron tablets. In 1960, Joe had kidney stones, too, which were removed. Jill, who was born five years after Lynne, left school at 17. On 9 May 1973, when she was 18, she suddenly got a nosebleed. She was admitted to Royal Preston hospital for a week, before being transferred to Manchester. She was diagnosed with acute leukaemia, type unknown. On 23 May 1973, 14 days after her first nosebleed, Jill died.
In 1972, the eldest daughter, Lynne, married. Her first child was stillborn, in 1978. Lynne first complained about feeling constantly tired in 1986. Her doctor upped her iron tablets, but that did not work. In 1987, Lynne had tests that showed that she had acquired idiopathic sideroblastic anaemia, which is a disease associated with elderly people. She was admitted to hospital for months in an isolated ward. She needed a bone marrow transplant, and Joe was found to be a suitable donor. However, tests proved that Joe had a chromosome defect due to radiation. A donor was finally found in the United States, but unfortunately it was too late. Lynne died, aged 38, on 27 August 1988, with—as Stella describes—a lovely face but the body organs of a very old person. She was blind, deaf and paralysed before her death. The doctors could not work out how she had contracted the illness. They even asked her whether she had worked with any radiation materials. When they found out what her father did for a living, they simply nodded.

287WH
Stella started to get thyroid trouble and is on thyrodoxine and both she and Joe now have cataracts. Joe retired from BNFL in 1982. He had a whole body count that showed that he had 300 bequerels, when it should have been only five.
In 1987–8, Professor Sir Richard Doll stated that leukaemia clusters were caused by radiation. Sir Richard then became a consultant for BNFL at the Hope and Reay cases at the High Court in 1993. By that time, Sir Richard had changed his story. The judge, Mr. Justice French, found in favour of BNFL on the balance of probabilities; there was insufficient evidence to prove the case. That judgment came on 8 October 1993. The case cost almost £10 million. Had the case been successful, 40 other families were expected to bring similar cases. The centre of their claim was a report in 1990 by distinguished epidemiologist Professor Martin Gardner of Southampton university, who has since died. He examined a cluster of leukaemias in the village of Seascale, 2 miles from the plant. He found that a higher than average incidence of fathers who had received high doses of radiation had cases of leukaemia.
The judge ruled that scientific study into only five cases was unsupported by other studies. The first of the two test cases was brought by Elizabeth Reay, whose 10-month-old baby died of leukaemia in 1962. The father, George Reay, had died of cancer in the mid-1980s. He had suffered one of the largest radiation doses of any Sellafield worker. The other case was brought by Vivian Hope, aged 28, who had received chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, another blood cancer, diagnosed in 1988. That had left her disabled and sterile. Her father, David, was a fitter at the plant for more than 20 years.
At the time of the court case, Greenpeace said:
"The number of childhood leukaemia cases around Sellafield remains ten times higher than the national average. BNFL has yet to prove that these facts are not connected."
Research into the atomic bombs in Japan showed that there was no link between radiation and childhood leukaemias, but some excellent research by the respected Professor Alice Stewart demonstrates that radiation in small amounts over a longer time has a different impact on individuals. The Japanese research is not relevant in this case.
BNFL has always been willing to meet me whenever I have asked, but it is obvious that it was keen to end correspondence with the McMasters as soon as it could. The McMasters have asked questions but received few answers. The facts of their tragedy are there for everyone to see. The company states that the McMasters have been unlucky and that it was just a tragic coincidence that they had lost all but one of their children; and, of course, that other tragedies had befallen them. They certainly have been unlucky, but they deserve answers. I am well aware that the case has important repercussions for many other families. That does not mean that we should not get answers to those questions; we must try to do so.
In a letter to me on 1 March last year, the then Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe,
288WH
now the Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote to me to say that she was saddened to read the tragic details of Mr. McMaster's family. I understand that BNFL has rigorously examined his long-standing claim that BNFL operations and Mr. MacMaster's employment at BNFL's Springfields site have in some way caused the sad loss of his daughters. BNFL's firm view is that there is no medical or scientific evidence to support this claim. What the Minister said was confirmed by BNFL. There are no surprises there; I would not expect BNFL to say anything else.
The Minister then referred to a Department of Health study into cancer or genetic defects resulting from low-level radiation exposure. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment is carrying out this study, and it was due to publish a report last year, but that has now been delayed until next year. Those findings may well give some support to the McMaster theory that his exposure—either through the digestion or through playing near Windscale at the time of the fire—had something to do with the deaths and other tragedies surrounding his children and his own illness.
BNFL wrote to me on 30 June 1999 about a meeting that I had had with them and the McMasters. Mr. Shuttleworth said:
"As I said at the end of the meeting, I do not think that further meetings would be profitable as agreement is extremely unlikely and it is obviously upsetting and distressing for Mr. and Mrs. McMaster to go through their extremely sad family history."
In a letter of 25 February 2000, Mr. Shuttleworth stated that the McMasters always had the opportunity to bring legal action against the company; but how much would that cost, and who would pay? This is a normal family, they simply could not carry the costs of a case such as that against a company such as BNFL. It is a David and Goliath scenario that they could not contemplate.
I ask the Minister for a full and independent inquiry into the McMaster case. The inquiry must look at all the evidence; it must be independent. It is pointless having BNFL look over the case and it is pointless having reassurances from BNFL. The inquiry must be independent and undertaken by someone who has access to all the facts; there must be no cover-up or delay.
The McMasters are getting on; Stella always jokes with me that BNFL are waiting until she dies, but she refuses to die until she gets the case sorted out. She is a sturdy lady, and she is determined to get answers to the questions that she has posed. The family have suffered long enough, and for BNFL to say that they should not have to endure the stress of going through their story time and time again is really pointless. They have lived this tragedy; when Stella tells the story today, she will still cry, because she feels it as though it happened yesterday. The family have suffered long enough; they still feel guilty, I suspect, that they have played some role in the death of their children. They should not be allowed to carry that burden one day longer.
I know that the courts did not find that the case was proven, but an independent inquiry would get to the bottom of the problem and answer the questions that have dogged and plagued the McMaster family for many years. They will be listening as carefully as I am to what the Minister has to say. Will he please give them some hope?
1.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Hain): I begin by paying tribute to the energetic manner in which the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has supported Joe and Stella McMaster, who have suffered such terrible tragedies. As a father of two, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to comprehend such devastating events and so will many other parents. My heartfelt sympathies go out to the McMasters and to their surviving daughter and grandchildren.
I well understand why the McMasters have been intensely anxious to identify a common cause linking two of the three deaths from apparently similar illnesses. I also understand why they have sought to attribute the deaths to radiation effects, given that it has been established in research on Japanese atomic bomb survivors that those exposed to high levels of radiation have an increased risk of developing cancer. I understand also why Mr. and Mrs. McMaster should have sought compensation initially in 1990, at a time when the possible link between childhood cancer and nuclear industry operations at Sellafield had been put into sharp focus by publication earlier that year of the report of Professor Martin Gardner and his colleagues.
Professor Gardner's study had found a statistical association between the dose of radiation received occupationally by men before conception of their children and the level of leukaemia in these children. This association was both new and controversial.
Substantial further research followed to clarify the association and in particular to establish whether the evidence supported a causal link with the Seascale childhood leukaemia cluster. A review written by the distinguished epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll and his colleagues in 1994 concluded that
"the hypothesis that irradiation of the testes causes any detectable risk of leukaemia in subsequent offspring cannot be sustained."
The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, the Government's independent expert advisory committee—with members chosen for their medical and scientific expertise—concluded in its fourth report, published in 1996, that
"we have not found any epidemiological study elsewhere to support Gardner's findings in Seascale in relation to preconception irradiation effects."
The Committee considered that PPI—paternal preconceptional irradiation—
"cannot account for the Seascale childhood leukaemia excess."
Following publication of the Gardner report in 1990, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive jointly sponsored two large-scale studies to investigate Professor Gardner's findings. These studies, the record linkage study and the nuclear industry family study, were published in 1997 and 1999 respectively. The authors of the record linkage study—drawn from the Childhood Cancer Research Group, the National Radiological Protection Board, the university of Birmingham and the Cancer Research Campaign—concluded that
"the results of this study of occupational exposure to radiation before conception of a child do not support the hypothesis that paternal preconception irradiation (PPI) is a cause of childhood leukaemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma."
290WH
The authors of the nuclear industry family study—drawn from the Leukaemia Research Fund, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—concluded that
"overall the incidence of all cancers and of leukaemia was similar"
among children of nuclear industry workers
"to that expected in the general population".
These two large studies included the children of workers at Springfields, where Mr. McMaster was employed.
Two legal test cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—Reay v. BNFL and Hope v. BNFL—were heard in the High Court during 1992–93, when extensive expert evidence concerning the statistical association found by Professor Gardner and its scientific interpretation was heard. In his judgment, the judge found that this expert evidence was "decisively" in favour of the defendant—BNFL—and the claims failed.
Understandably, however, the McMasters have sought to prove that there is a link between Mr. McMaster's exposure to uranium while working at Springfields and the deaths of their daughters. I understand that Mr. McMaster was employed at the Springfields uranium processing factory for 31 years between 1951 and 1982. One of his daughters, Lynne, was born before he joined the Springfields work force, but the others were born while he was employed there. I am told by BNFL that its records show that the cumulative radiation dose received by Mr. McMaster in the 31 years in which he worked at Springfields was not large, at under 50 mSv. For much of that time, the statutory maximum dose would have been 50 mSv or greater per year.
In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. McMaster initiated a legal claim for compensation, alleging that the death of their daughter Jill was caused by BNFL's operations. Their claim was one of a number pursued at that time, following the publication of Professor Gardner's report.
Jill was born after Mr. McMaster started work at Springfields. She died in her late teens of acute leukaemia. In the light of the independent scientific research that I have described, it appears most unlikely that her leukaemia was caused by Mr. McMaster's exposure to radiation at Springfields; although, as a parent, I can understand why that might be supposed to be otherwise. Moreover, BNFL's records show that the cumulative dose that Mr. McMaster received at Springfields before Jill was conceived was only 10 mSv over about three years. That can be compared with a current legal limit of 20 mSv per year, based on agreed international standards, although the limit at the time was higher.
Mr. McMaster's first daughter, Lynne, suffered and died from the uncommon blood disease sideroblastic anaemia. She was conceived and born before Mr. McMaster started work at Springfields. I am advised that her disease cannot, therefore, have been caused by his exposure to radiation while working there.
Mr. Evans: The 1957 fire at Windscale may have contributed to her cancer.
Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. The McMasters have suggested that the fire at one of the Windscale nuclear reactors at Sellafield in October 1957 may be a factor in Lynne's death, and possibly also Jill's. As the hon. Gentleman said, the McMasters used to stay in a caravan in Cumbria some 15 miles south of Sellafield. In the light of work done by the National Radiological Protection Board, I understand that even if they were there at the time, the doses to their red bone marrow—the relevant tissue for inducing leukaemia—would have been small.
The NRPB's comprehensive dose assessments show that the red bone marrow doses received by children living in Seascale—which is adjacent to Sellafield—as a consequence of the fire were less than the doses received from natural background radiation during 1957. BNFL says that the doses due to the Windscale fire for children in Silecroft would have been even less, and in Preston very much less. Wherever Lynne and Jill may have been during and immediately after the Windscale fire, I am advised that the radiation doses to their red bone marrow received as a consequence of the fire appear unlikely to have been the cause of their diseases.
Twin girls were born in 1958, and Mrs. McMaster says that they were six weeks premature. One of the twins died of respiratory problems three days after birth. Unfortunately, such death in premature newborn twins was not unusual in the late 1950s. Mr. and Mrs. McMaster seem to have acknowledged in their meetings with BNFL that the death of the weaker twin due to respiratory problems would not have been unexpected at that time, especially as she was six weeks premature.
I understand that Mrs. McMaster suffered a miscarriage before the birth of Jill. The nuclear industry family study has produced no evidence that a father's exposure to radiation before conception increases the risk of miscarriage in his partner's pregnancy. In any case, the dose that Mr. McMaster would have received at Springfields before conception of the miscarried foetus would have been even lower than that received before the conception of Jill.
Mr. McMaster had lost all his teeth by 1955. I understand that all the evidence linking the loss of his teeth to radiation exposure relates to high doses received to the oral cavity during radiotherapy. That evidence provides no support for an argument that low doses of radiation received by Mr. McMaster during his work at Springfields could have caused the loss of his teeth. Tooth loss was common in the 1950s and was usually due to gum disease.
Mr. McMaster told BNFL that he was involved in an incident in 1953 that led to his being exposed to uranium. BNFL says that its comprehensive investigation of his dose records confirm that he was likely to have been exposed to uranium at that time, but adds that comprehensive monitoring for uranium-in-urine showed that his exposure was relatively low and not unusual for that period.
Mr. McMaster has also referred to an apparently unusual whole-body monitoring result just before he retired in 1982. These tests were regularly carried out by BNFL, which states that it comprehensively investigated the results for Mr. McMaster in 1982. Its
292WH
investigation found that the result referred to by Mr. McMaster was not particularly unusual and that other whole-body monitoring tests taken at that time were quite normal. Whole-body monitoring and uranium-in-urine measurements carried out in 1997 found no evidence for the presence of abnormal levels of uranium in Mr. McMaster. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley received a full explanation from BNFL in a letter dated 16 September 1998.
Mr. McMaster also feels that a blood test carried out in 1990 shows that he has abnormal chromosomes. Tests carried out in BNFL's cytogenetics laboratory at Sellafield revealed some unstable chromosome abnormalities that BNFL's genetics expert at the time, Dr. Tawn, concluded were unlikely to be due to Mr. McMaster's employment at Springfields prior to 1982, and even less likely to be linked to his exposures in the 1950s. The level of chromosome abnormalities found were not unusual in a man of Mr. McMaster's age—he was 68 years old at the time—and raised levels can be due to exposure to chemicals, medication or cigarette smoke, in addition to ionising radiation.
Repeat blood tests were carried out by Westlakes research institute and the National Radiological Protection Board in 1997. As in the earlier 1990 analysis, the level of unstable chromosome abnormalities was not particularly unusual. Analyses were also conducted for stable chromosome abnormalities, which are more relevant to radiation exposures dating from many years ago. The frequency of stable chromosome abnormalities was slightly raised, but not unusually so, given that Mr. McMaster was 75 years of age when his blood was sampled. Also, those slightly raised levels may reflect exposure to other material such as tobacco smoke; I am told that Mr. McMaster was a smoker.
All these issues have been covered in an extensive correspondence between BNFL and the McMasters since 1993, when the possibility of successful legal action became remote. There have also been a number of meetings between BNFL and the McMasters since 1994 to explore these matters and to try to allay their concerns about their surviving daughter and grandchildren. To this end, BNFL arranged a consultation with Dr. Gareth Evans, consultant clinical geneticist at St. Mary's hospital, Manchester. Similarly, blood tests and radiation monitoring were also arranged by BNFL. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has seen the greater part, if not all, of the correspondence between BNFL and the McMasters. He has also twice accompanied the McMasters to meetings with BNFL. He is therefore aware of BNFL's reasons for not accepting responsibility for the McMasters' tragic losses.
A recent study, published in a scientific journal last year, found that in terms of mortality as a whole, and cancer in particular, the Springfields work force has rates that are below those of the general population. BNFL has given detailed and comprehensive explanations to the McMasters, and to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, of why it believes that there is no reasonable scientific basis for considering BNFL to be responsible for these tragedies. BNFL strongly and honestly believes, in the light of the evidence that has been so painstakingly examined, that it cannot reasonably be expected to compensate the McMasters. BNFL has offered the hon. Gentleman full access to its

293WH
files, and I hope that he will take up that offer in order that he may be satisfied that his constituents' concerns have been scrupulously examined.
BNFL has also offered to arrange for independent expert examination of its dosimetry records, which is a helpful suggestion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it should be pursued. I add my condolences to Mr. and Mrs McMaster on this deeply distressing case. I know that they will be disappointed with my response, but I have seen no evidence to contradict that which I have cited and which the courts have supported. There is no basis for an independent inquiry, but I shall be happy to receive any further evidence or representations from the hon. Gentleman, directly or indirectly, if he believes it to be appropriate.

Strangeways Riot (Woolf Report)
1.30 pm
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: In April 1990, Strangeways prison in Manchester was the scene of the worst penal disturbances that this country has ever witnessed. Prisoners took over the chapel and defied the authorities in a roof-top siege lasting 25 days. It was the longest riot in prison history, during which 47 inmates and 147 police or prison officers were hurt.
On 5 April 1990, Lord Justice Woolf, as he then was, was appointed to lead an inquiry into Strangeways and 10 years ago last week, on 31 January 1991, he handed his report to the then Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The 10th anniversary of publication of the Woolf report was commemorated by Lord Woolf last week when he gave the Prison Reform Trust lecture. I am a trustee of that trust. The lecture was one of three speeches that we have heard during the past week about prisons and the penal system. It was made alongside the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the same day and that of Mr. Martin Narey, director general of the Prison Service, the day before yesterday. It seemed a good idea, 10 years on, to review progress since the Strangeways riot.
Lord Woolf found a sorry picture when he reviewed the prison system 11 years ago. At the time of the riot, 1,647 prisoners were held in Strangeways, which was intended to accommodate only 970. It was overcrowded by almost 70 per cent. and that was not unusual in prison establishments. In 1989–90, the 40-odd local prisons and remand centres were overcrowded by an average of 37 per cent. Some were overcrowded 100 per cent. and holding double the number of prisoners that should have been held.
The effects of overcrowding at Strangeways and elsewhere were many and serious. Prisoners were held three to a cell without sanitation or washing facilities. They were allowed just one shower a week They were forced to share a single bucket for a toilet. With too few staff and too many prisoners, there was a lack of purposeful activity for prisoners. They were locked up and left idle, often for 23 hours a day. There was a lack of decent visiting facilities, so contact between prisoners and families was severely limited. There was low morale among prison officers and when prisoners had grievances—they had many—the arrangements for addressing them were inadequate.
Lord Woolf found those factors to be the cause of the Strangeways riot. In his landmark report on the events of April 1990, he recognised that change was desperately required and provided a blueprint of a just, humane and secure prison system. The following questions should be asked 10 years on. What has been done? Has the blueprint been fulfilled? Have Lord Woolf's recommendations been implemented? Some of the recommendations have indeed been implemented and progress has been made. However, others have been implemented only partially or with only partial success; some have not been implemented at all or their progress has been lamentable.
I shall start with the good, because Lord Woolf called for more visible leadership by the Prison Service and the director general. He stated proudly last week in his Prison Reform Trust lecture that that had been achieved

295WH
and he referred to Mr. Martin Narey. I want to put that on the record in the light of Mr. Narey's speech two days ago.
However, similar progress has not been made elsewhere. For example, Lord Woolf recommended that compacts or contracts should be used for each prisoner to develop a personal sense of responsibility. Although some establishments have made progress with compacts, especially with drug reduction strategies and the earned privilege scheme, it has been impossible across the Prison Service as a whole to deliver what the compacts should provide. The use and benefits of the compacts have not been as widespread as they should have been. The good practices of some establishments have not been shared and become the good practices of all.
Likewise, there has been some, but not enough, progress in respect of the recommendation for an improved standard of justice in prisons. At the time of the Strangeways riot, justice stopped at the prison door. Lord Woolf thought that to be one of the worst aspects of the prison system 11 years ago. As he said in his lecture last week, for the justice system to send somebody to prison, only to treat him unjustly when he is there is simply intolerable.
There have been significant improvements since then. We now have a prisons ombudsman and a grievance procedure has been established. However, there remains room for real improvement. The delays in the grievance procedure are excessive—justice delayed is often justice denied. Last week, Lord Woolf said that an ineffective grievance procedure is probably as bad as no grievance procedure at all. Unless more is done to speed up the system, it risks falling into disrepute.
In respect of many of the other recommendations, progress has been negligible. For example, Lord Woolf recommended that there be a national system of accredited standards—it has not been established. Worse still, last year the Prison Service's own key performance indicators were met in less than half of the cases and that, as Lord Woolf said, is hardly an impressive record.
Lord Woolf also recommended that slopping out should end, with all prisoners having access to sanitation not later than February 1996—five years ago this month. Officially, slopping out has ended: its demise was formally announced in 1996. But when the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Exeter, he found that in the segregation unit not one of the cells had integral sanitation or a water supply. At Portland young offenders institution, he found that slopping out had not ended in the induction and the therapeutic wings. Five years after the announcement that slopping out was ended, cells in four wings at Strangeways still have no integral sanitation. These are buildings that should have been razed to the ground, but they are still being used.
Progress has also been slow in respect of Lord Woolf's recommendation that prisoners should be held in community prisons as near to their homes as possible. The reason for that recommendation is a simple one: research shows that good family ties can reduce a prisoner's risk of reoffending by a factor of six. We therefore know that the greatest single factor
296WH
determining whether a prisoner is likely to reoffend on release is whether he has a stable family life to go home to. If we are going to be tough on crime and the causes of crime, a good place to start would be to implement Lord Woolf's recommendation to accommodate prisoners as near to their families as possible. After 10 years, however, 26,000 prisoners are held more than 50 miles from their committal court town; 11,000 prisoners are over 100 miles away; and 5,000 prisoners are over 150 miles from their home area.
When I visited Wellingborough magistrates court last week, Mrs. Green—the chair of the youth bench—told me that they had to send their young prisoners to Huntercombe, many miles away from their parents. Quite apart from everything else, the Prison Service currently spends over £2 million every year on fares for family visits—money that could be spent elsewhere on crime prevention.
Lord Woolf also recommended that there should be a separate statement of purpose, separate conditions and a lower security categorisation for remand prisoners. Again, that has simply not happened. As Lord Woolf said in his lecture last week, the treatment of remand prisoners all too often means that they are left at the bottom of the pack when they should, as unconvicted prisoners, be at the top. After all, of male prisoners received on remand in 1999, 53 per cent. did not subsequently receive a prison sentence; and for female prisoners that figure rose to 65 per cent. Over 20 per cent. of both male and female prisoners remanded in custody were actually acquitted or had the proceedings against them terminated early. And yet, because they may be in prison for a short stay only, remand prisoners are kept in conditions described by Mr. Narey as primitive.
Why do we have these legion problems? Why is slopping out still taking place in wings that should not even be standing? Why are prisoners still held hundreds of miles from home when we know that that makes reoffending far more likely? Why are remand prisoners held in primitive conditions when they have not been convicted of a crime, and may never be so?
In significant part, it is simply because many prisons are still grotesquely overcrowded. Lord Woolf recommended 10 years ago that there should be a new prison rule that no establishment could hold more prisoners than was certified to be its normal level of accommodation. That rule has not been introduced because, as the Minister said in March 2000, there was no prospect that overcrowding would end. Indeed in April 2000, Mr. Narey said that overcrowding was approaching the limits of what he found acceptable in terms of the risk of disorder and loss of control, and that it already surpassed what he wanted in terms of hygiene and treating prisoners decently and constructively.
Let us look at the figures. On 24 November 2000, Preston prison was overcrowded by 81 per cent, Shrewsbury by 74 per cent. and Northallerton by 70 per cent. Some 11,553 prisoners were held two to a single cell. At Leeds, 800 prisoners were held in overcrowded cells. At Birmingham and Doncaster, the figure was over 600. At Altcourse, Preston, Durham and Wandsworth, over 400 prisoners were held in overcrowded cells. Not

297WH
just old prisons are overcrowded. Of the 24 new prisons built or re-opened in the last ten years, half are already overcrowded.
Ten years on, Strangeways is still overcrowded. One in four of its prisoners are held in overcrowded cells. That is why slopping out has not ended, why prison wings that should have been razed to the ground are still standing, why prisoners are still held far from home and why remand prisoners are still treated primitively. That is why prisoners at Northallerton remand centre are locked up for more than 19 hours a day.
The ramifications of overcrowding are wider still. The Prison Service still fails to provide adequate levels of purposeful activity. The key performance indicator of 24 hours purposeful activity a week is not met in many establishments. On average, prisoners receive just ten minutes more purposeful activity a day than they did in 1990. In Brixton, where 242 prisoners are held in overcrowded conditions, barely 11 hours of purposeful activity is provided a week.
Overcrowding is the core problem facing prisons. It has been described by Mr. Narey as a scourge, by Lord Woolf as a cancer and by Christopher Scott, the former president of the Prison Governors Association, as an obscenity. It is not the only target of reform and it must not become the excuse—the mantra—behind which establishments hide their other failings. However, when four of the six hellholes identified by Mr. Narey two days ago are overcrowded, it is a problem that must be tackled and tackled soon.
We are in a vicious cycle. We lock up more and more people and because of that we hold them in conditions that make it more likely that they will reoffend when released. With prisons already overcrowded and overstretched, 57 per cent. of prisoners discharged in 1996 were re-convicted within two years. More than three-quarters of young male prisoners are re-convicted within 24 months. Little wonder that the prison population has increased by over 15,000 in the last 10 years and that 64,000 men and women are now in prison in England and Wales.
The Home Office predicts a prison population of 80,000 by 2007. If those Home Office figures and predictions are correct, we will spend an awful lot of money locking people up only to see them reoffend shortly after their release. The average cost of a prison place is £26,000, which is about twice as much as a place at a top public school. For every 40 additional prisoners, we spend £1 million extra a year. The 30,000 increase in the prison population projected for 1991 to 2007 will cost us £750 million every year on top of building costs, which since 1995 have amounted to £1.3 billion. To spend that amount of money and keep prisoners locked up in primitive conditions, miles from home, with adverse consequences for their potential rehabilitation, is not a progressive penal policy.
What can and should be done if simply building more and more prisons is an expensive way of making little progress? What can and should be done if—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in a speech on penal policy last week—we cannot and will not cut prison sentences for serious and serial offenders? Within those limitations, our options are few. I shall touch on three of them.
298WH
First, we need to cut the number of criminals and cut crime. That is not a trite thing to say, but a policy imperative. Preventative crime reduction policies are part and parcel of a properly integrated criminal justice and penal system. In Wellingborough, car crime and repeat burglaries have fallen by 25 per cent. following Home Office investment in problem estates. Cars, houses and whole estates can be made more secure; so can mobile phones. We heard today that road deaths in Northamptonshire have been cut by 28 per cent. through the more intensive use of speed cameras. We can be tougher on pubs and clubs who sell alcohol to drunks. We can work harder to confront drug-related crime by tackling the addictions that force so many into robbery and prostitution. We can better tackle the illiteracy, poverty and helplessness in which crime breeds.
Secondly, we need to develop more effective and more flexible sentences, in which the community will have confidence. We need to invest more in restorative justice. We need to look for credible alternatives to prison, as the Home Affairs Committee unanimously agreed in its recent report. As Lord Woolf said last week, initiatives to tackle offending can often work as effectively outside prison as they can within. Indeed, short custodial sentences are a poor alternative to sentences served in the community if they place a disproportionate burden on the Prison Service and then do little, if anything, to tackle offending behaviour.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that those who should not be in prison are not sent there. No one would argue against the imprisonment of serious and serial offenders; and, when appropriate, it should be for a long time. However, because we have insufficient secure and semi-secure hospital accommodation, we are also imprisoning the mentally ill. In the 12 months before their custody started, 20 per cent. of male prisoners and 40 per cent. of female prisoners had been treated or had sought treatment for mental health problems. Nine out of every 10 young people in custody have mental health or substance abuse problems—or a combination of the two.
We are also imprisoning asylum seekers,A whole landing in Wandsworth prison is dedicated to them; yet 486 prisoners there are held in overcrowded conditions. We have even imprisoned a man in Wellingborough whose crime was to set fire to some church curtains the week after his foster parents died. He put out the fire himself and waited for the police to arrive, yet he is currently serving the 22nd year of his sentence.
We should make crime more difficult to commit. We should tackle offending behaviour effectively. We should develop sentences that, when appropriate, do not involve incarceration. We should not lock up those who should not be locked up. Only then can we stop our prisons being overcrowded; only then can we start to ensure that prisons help to rehabilitate prisoners rather than becoming universities of crime. We can break the never-ending cycle between prison and crime, prison and crime.
At the end of his lecture last week, Lord Woolf said:
"What would have a greater effect on overcrowding than anything I can propose would be an announcement by the Government that it fully accepts the damaging effects of prison overcrowding and that it attaches the highest priority to eliminating this problem".

299WH
My hon. Friend has the opportunity today to make that announcement. I invite her to take it.
1.47 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Stinchcombe) not only on securing this important debate, but on the way in which he spoke. He clearly has a passionate interest in the subject, and he also has a detailed knowledge of it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), the Minister with responsibility for prisons, has a great deal of regard for the work that my hon. Friend has done generally, and particularly in Wellingborough, in trying to reduce crime.
My hon. Friend gave us a succinct yet comprehensive history of Lord Woolf s report and its recommendations. Great changes have taken place since 1990. Recent change and our planned future agenda have replaced the Woolf agenda. Nevertheless, the imprint of Lord Woolf s recommendations on the prison system remains clear to all. They have stood the test of time, and the Prison Service will lose sight of them at its peril. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's acknowledgement of what has already been achieved in putting many of those recommendations into effect. He is correct, of course, to say that the pressure of the prison population is the main reason why others have not yet been achieved.
The Government support the use of imprisonment for serious, dangerous and persistent offenders when it is necessary to protect the public, but we recognise that it needs to be effectively targeted. It may not be the best or the most effective option for less serious offenders, especially when tough non-custodial sentences are available. If community sentences are to be effective and credible, strong enforcement is essential. Too often, however, such sentences are seen as a soft option by offenders and the public.
The new enforcement measures set out in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 send a clear message that flouting a court order is not an option. We believe strongly that those measures will ensure greater compliance with community sentences and give a clear signal that non-custodial sentences are real punishments. My hon. Friend will warmly welcome that. He is right to draw our attention to non-custodial sentences.
The Government have commenced a review of the sentencing framework to examine the scope for new sentencing options, especially for more flexible arrangements to combine time served in custody and in the community. We have invested more than £220 million from the comprehensive spending review and a further £200 million from SR 2000 to provide constructive regimes in prison designed to reduce reoffending, based on "what works" principles. We have established the prison and probation accreditation panel, chaired by Sir Duncan Nichol, to approve regimes that work best to reduce reoffending. Offenders serving community penalties will also be required to follow "what works" programmes.
My hon. Friend referred to the continuing need for slopping out. A programme to provide 24-hour access to sanitation was implemented by February 1996. It
300WH
consisted of providing integral sanitation in cells, with an alternative where that was not practical of providing access via electronic unlocking. That was implemented across the estate in all cells in use for normal accommodation. There are three wings at establishments where integral sanitation and electronic unlocking are not practical. We did not intend to keep those wings in use, but population pressures have made that necessary. Staff have been provided to unlock cells should prisoners wish to use the lavatory facilities. A recent survey of all segregation and health care accommodation identified cells where it would be appropriate to install integral sanitation, and funds for that are being sought.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that it is regrettable that levels of purposeful activity are now similar to those in 1992–93, at 23.6 hours a week. However, that needs to be seen in the context of the prison population increase of more than 40 per cent. The Prison Service is therefore providing considerably more purposeful activity, and the average amount per prisoner was up in 1999–2000 compared with the previous year.
The quality of purposeful activity has also improved. Time is better focused on activities such as drug rehabilitation, offending behaviour programmes and basic skills education, which are known to have an impact on reducing crime. No one who visits prisons—I know that my hon. Friend does so regularly—can fail to be aware that tackling those basics, especially raising people's levels of literacy and numeracy, is essential to prevent reoffending.
My hon. Friend was right to say that prisoners, especially short-term ones, are less likely to reoffend if they have a job and stable accommodation on release. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced that he wants the number of prisoners who go into jobs on release to double in the next three years. We are also addressing the other factors—basic skills, drugs education and accommodation—that we know are vital to the resettlement of prisoners.
The key to effective resettlement of prisoners is an approach that works with them through the gate and into the community after release. We must ensure that prisoners are directed as far as possible to a stable address and to a job, new deal place or training place. That will be the focus of a new Prison Service custody-to-work programme, supported by an extra £21 million during the next three years.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the need to tackle alcohol-related crime. The amount of such crime is a matter of tremendous concern. According to the British crime survey, about 40 per cent. of violent crime is alcohol-related. Something like 13,000 violent incidents take place on or around licensed premises every week. Last year we launched the Home Office action plan on alcohol-related crime, which sets out an important programme of measures to tackle underage drinking and the problems associated with public drunkenness and related behaviour. The plan includes measures to share learning about what works in this context. We need to learn from best practice and to consider the role of education, particularly for young people, to ensure that we tackle the problem at its root.

301WH
My hon. Friend mentioned asylum seekers in prison. He is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which recommended increasing the removal of people who, having made unsuccessful asylum applications, have no basis for staying in the United Kingdom. The effort to meet the relevant removal targets has led to a temporary need for more prison space. We are increasing our dedicated detention space to effect removal.
The Government are not in the business of artificially reducing the prison population. We are committed to reducing reoffending. To that end, we are committed to providing the courts with an appropriate range of custodial programmes that have been shown to reduce reoffending. My hon. Friend was right to consider what those programmes might mean and to point out the need to examine them. I have seen some good ones,
302WH
particularly in the probation service. Some of those programmes are certainly not soft options. They are focused on the prevention of reoffending, on rehabilitation and, importantly, on the protection of the community.
I commend my hon. Friend for having obtained today's debate and for the way in which he began it. It was short but important. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be very interested to read what he said. We look forward to continuing our work in this context and to working with my hon. Friend on the matters that he raised quite appropriately today.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Two o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the average cost was for each CPS prosecution in(a) Wales and (b) England in each of the last five years. [148668]

  The Solicitor-General
  The table shows the average cost in pounds of proceedings in respect of all defendants whose case was completed in Wales and England in each of the last five years. The costs are simple averages, and take no account of variations in the weight of cases handled. Separate costs are shown for cases completed in magistrates courts and in the Crown court.

  £

  Magistrates courts

  Crown court

  Wales

  1996–97

  132.84

  1,014.09

  1997–98

  123.56

  897.68

  1998–99

  118.46

  889.11

  1999–2000

  119.84

  910.48

  2000–011

  129.41

  966.26

  England

  1996–97

  115.16

  1,093.43

  1997–98

  110.33

  1,033.72

  1998–99

  108.45

  993.97

  1999–2000

  112.63

  1,030.08

  2000–011

  112.30

  1,091.49

  1To December 2000

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what average period of time was taken between the decision to prosecute and the case coming to full court hearing for CPS cases in(a) Wales and (b) England in each of the last five years. [148669]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not collect information about the time taken from the decision to prosecute to trial, but relies on the Time Intervals Survey conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department. This includes details of the average time from charge or first laying of information to the first court listing of the case. The figures for indictable cases in magistrates courts, including cases prosecuted by agencies other than the Crown Prosecution Service, are as follows:

  Average number of days from charge or laying of information to first court listing

  Year

  England

  Wales

  England and Wales

  1995

  26

  30

  26

  1996

  27

  33

  28

  1997

  29

  32

  29

  1998

  26

  31

  26

  1999

  21

  24

  21

  2000

  9

  12

  9

  516W
  These figures show a marked improvement in the time taken to list cases for the first time, largely associated with the Narey reforms which have accelerated the process for all cases. All agencies within the Criminal Justice System are working to secure further improvement, and additional funding has been provided this year to enable the CPS to appoint case progression officers, and cover additional magistrates court sittings to accelerate the process, particularly of youth cases.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what advice the police authorities sought from the Crown Prosecution Service; and what response the service gave regarding the bringing of criminal proceedings following the death of Colin Griffiths of Stafford on 26 December 1994. [148661]

  The Solicitor-General
  In November 2000, Staffordshire police submitted a file to the local Crown Prosecution Service, seeking advice as to whether a prosecution should be brought against any individual in respect of the death of Mr. Griffiths. CPS Staffordshire referred this matter to CPS National Headquarters, where the case is now being reviewed in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Advice will be given to the police once the case has been reviewed and a decision made. Preliminary advice regarding any further inquiries will be given to the police on 8 February 2001.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list for each of the last three years how many cases brought by the CPS(a) before magistrates and (b) before Crown courts were dismissed on the grounds that the CPS had not prepared the necessary documents concerned; and if he will make a statement. [148651]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds central records showing the reasons for dismissal due to there being no case to answer in magistrates' courts and for non-jury acquittals in the Crown court. However, this information does not include a separate count of the number of these outcomes which resulted from failure to prepare the necessary documentation.

  The tables show the reasons for which cases resulted in dismissal owing to no case to answer or non-jury acquittal, during the two years for which figures are held. Cases are divided into four broad categories; insufficient evidence (including cases in which an essential legal element was missing from the prosecution case), public interest, unable to proceed (for example, because a key witness failed to attend court), and a miscellaneous category. Within each of these headings more specific reasons are then given.

  The main reason for dismissal due to no case to answer in magistrates courts was that a victim failed to come up to proof when giving evidence: this amounted to 18.9 per cent. of all such outcomes in 1999–2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000.

  Cases resulted in a non-jury acquittal in the Crown court mainly because a victim failed to attend the trial (13.6 per cent. of all non-jury acquittals) or refused to give evidence (12.1 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 13.5 per cent. up to December 2000).

  CPS records show that only a small number of adverse outcomes result from a failure on the part of the

  517W
  prosecution. During 1999–2000, the CPS identified 149 dismissals due to no case to answer, and 891 non-jury acquittals, as being attributable to a failing on the part of the Service. The CPS and the police work together, using

  Reasons for dismissals in case to answer in Magistrates courts

  1999–2000

  12000–01

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Insufficient evidence

  788

  72.6

  568

  81.1

  Inadmissible evidence—breach of PACE

  25

  2.3

  14

  2.0

  Inadmissible evidence= other

  13

  1.2

  11

  1.6

  Legal element missing

  103

  9.5

  91

  13.0

  Other evidential element missing

  141

  13.0

  85

  12.1

  Unreliable identification

  86

  7.9

  59

  8.4

  Victim fails to come up to proof

  205

  18.9

  161

  23.0

  Other civilian witness fails to come up to proof

  148

  13.6

  106

  15.1

  Police witness fails to come up to proof

  67

  6.2

  41

  5.9

  Public Interest

  12

  1.1

  2

  0.3

  Defendant with serious medical problem

  1

  0.1

  0

  0

  Effect on victims physical/mental health

  1

  0.1

  1

  0.1

  Other indictment of sentence

  9

  0.8

  1

  0.1

  Informer or other PII issue

  1

  0.1

  0

  0

  Unable to proceed

  91

  8.4

  39

  5.6

  Victim fails to attend

  39

  3.6

  12

  1.7

  Other civilian witness fails to attend

  33

  3.0

  15

  2.1

  Victim intimidation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other civilian witness intimidation

  0

  0

  2

  0.3

  Victim refuses to give evidence

  9

  0.8

  4

  0.6

  Other civilian witness refuses to give evidence

  10

  0.9

  6

  0.9

  Other Reasons

  195

  18.0

  91

  13.0

  Poor legal presentation

  9

  0.8

  3

  0.4

  Poor police presentation

  18

  1.7

  9

  1.3

  Other

  168

  15.5

  79

  11.3

  Total

  1,086

  —

  700

  —

  1To December

  Reasons for non jury acquittals and bind overs in the Crown court

  1999–2000

  12000–2001

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Insufficient evidence

  3,671

  37.2

  2,701

  36.7

  Inadmissible evidence-breach of PACE

  166

  1.7

  108

  1.5

  Inadmissible evidence= other

  254

  2.6

  223

  3.0

  Legal element missing

  650

  6.6

  452

  6.1

  Other evidential element missing

  865

  8.8

  653

  8.9

  Unreliable identification

  706

  7.2

  532

  7.2

  Victim fails to come up to proof

  665

  6.7

  483

  6.6

  Other civilian witness fails to come up to proof

  321

  3.3

  216

  2.9

  Police witness fails to come up to proof

  44

  0.4

  34

  0.5

  Public Interest

  1,357

  13.8

  1,037

  14.1

  Defendant with serious medical problem

  184

  1.9

  150

  2.0

  Effect on victims physical/mental health

  128

  1.3

  88

  1.2

  Other indictment or sentence

  894

  9.1

  697

  9.5

  Informer or other PII issue

  151

  1.5

  102

  1.4

  Unable to proceed

  3,245

  32.9

  2,569

  34.9

  Victim fails to attend

  1,344

  13.6

  1,001

  13.6

  Other civilian witness fails to attend

  508

  5.1

  400

  5.4

  Victim intimidation

  18

  0.2

  4

  0.1

  Other civilian witness intimidation

  27

  0.3

  21

  0.3

  Victim refuses to give evidence

  1,191

  12.1

  990

  13.5

  Other civilian witness refuses to give evidence

  157

  1.6

  53

  2.1

  Other Reasons

  1,592

  16.1

  1.047

  14.2

  Poor legal presentation

  5

  0.1

  5

  0.1

  Poor police presentation

  30

  0.3

  15

  0.2

  Other

  1,557

  15.8

  1,027

  14.0

  Total

  9,865

  7,354

  1 To December

  518W
  joint performance management techniques to identify the reasons for a failed case and to devise local strategies, often involving guidance and training, to bring about improvement.
  519W

DEFENCE

  JSF Aircraft
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings he has received from the relevant US authorities that British subcontractors and suppliers to the JSF project will have full access to Stealth and other technologies required to contribute to the manufacture of this aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [147568]

  Mr. Hoon
  The JSF MOU and the exchange of letters agreed with the US provide for extensive access to technical information that can be used by the UK Government and industry in connection with the JSF programme. These documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the carrier-borne aircraft version of JSF and the timetable for a decision on the new Royal Navy aircraft carrier. [148105]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 226–28W.

  Work to assess carrier design options is continuous and a decision about proceeding with Demonstration and Manufacture of the vessels is expected at the end of 2003, by which time we expect to have made a decision on JSF variant.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how United Kingdom forces in the Balkans were warned to stay clear of areas in which depleted uranium ammunition had been expended; what precautions they were required to take if they were obliged to enter these areas; what monitoring of their physical welfare took place thereafter; and on what date such precautionary warnings and measures were first announced. [145136]

  Mr. Spellar:
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Specialist explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) troops should be aware of the risks presented by expended DU ammunition through routine training and instructions. EOD troops are most at risk from expended DU ammunition when clearing Armoured Fighting Vehicles. In these circumstances, they are required to wear inner cotton gloves, outer heavy PVC gloves, a Service respirator, a full NBC suit and a Thermoluminescent Dosimeter until the presence of DU can be positively discounted

  British forces first deployed to Bosnia in 1992. Non-specialist troops were not briefed about the risks of expended DU ammunition because there was no confirmation DU had been used there. In December 2000, NATO confirmed that small quantities of DU ammunition had been used during 1994 and 1995, mainly around Sarajevo. Although the risk to British forces of being exposed to expended DU ammunition in Bosnia is small, on 12 January 2001, arrangements were made for them to be briefed on the risks of DU. SFOR issued guidance for their forces on 14 January 2001.
  520W
  British forces first deployed to Macedonia on 7 December 1998 and to Kosovo on 12 June 1999. The Kosovo bombing campaign began on 24 March 1999. On 21 April 1999, HQ Land Command issued a Medical Administrative and Technical Instruction down the medical chains of command entitled "Kosovo—Depleted Uranium Hazard". On 9 June 1999, further advice on the DU risk was passed down the operational chain of command by the Permanent Joint Headquarters to HQ BRITFOR in Macedonia. This was disseminated to Brigade level by HQ BRITFOR on 10 June 1999. From June 1999, the Pre-deployment Training Directive for troops deploying to Kosovo specified DU as one of the topics on which troops should be briefed during their pre-deployment course. From July 1999, the Mounting Order issued to units deploying to Kosovo included the following briefing on DU:

  "a. Inside Kosovo/Bosnia you may encounter vehicles that have been destroyed or damaged by projectiles made from Depleted Uranium (DU). DU is only very slightly radioactive and is a chemical poison similar to lead.

  b. It will not be possible to tell visually if a vehicle has been struck by DU. If this is the case, a heavy toxic powder may be spread inside and outside the vehicle and its immediate surroundings, which may or may not be visible to the naked eye. DU is only hazardous if it is inhaled, eaten or enters the body through a cut or laceration. The radiation will not penetrate clothing of any kind.

  c. You are not to climb onto or into vehicles possibly damaged by fighter ground attack aircraft or tanks unless your duties require it. If you do, you should take the following precautions:

  (1)If practicable, wear NBC rubber or leather gloves and a cloth oro-nasal facelet (facemask). Full NBC IPE is not necessary.

  (2) Spend as little time as practicable on the task.

  (3) As soon as possible after completing the task, change your outer clothing and launder it before it is worn again (keeping facelet on while removing dust contaminated clothing). Wash your hands. Do not eat, drink or smoke until you have done this.

  d. If you believe that you may have been contaminated with DU, consult your Medical Officer. He/she will have been instructed to annotate your medical records and seek advice from the nearest Environmental Health Team in conjunction with Commander Medical. Urine analysis will confirm whether any contamination has occurred.

  e. It is stressed that this hazard is not comparable to that encountered on an NBC battlefield and is trivial compared with combat risks. Even if a DU fragment were to be inhaled or embedded in your body, by whatever means, the risk of you developing cancer over the next 50 years would only be very slightly increased."

  Although instructions are in place for all troops in theatre to be briefed on the risks of DU, contrary to the impression I gave in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 30 November 2000, Official Report, column 727W, my Department is now aware that not all of them have actually been briefed. It has not been possible to establish how many troops have not been briefed. Furthermore, in August 2000, the pre-deployment course briefing on medical issues, including DU, was dropped because of pressure on the course programme and a perception that it duplicated training at units. Instructions to reinstate it were issued on 12 January 2001.
  521W
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date, and through which channels, his Department first learned from the United States Administration that depleted uranium shells used by the United States forces in the Balkans conflict were contaminated with plutonium; and if British depleted uranium munitions contain plutonium. [147744]

  Mr. Spellar
  It has long been known in the scientific community, the nuclear industry and by the Defence Radiological Protection Service that depleted uranium (DU) might contain minute traces of isotopes other than U-238, U-235 and U-234. More recently, details about transuranic contamination of US DU, including by plutonium, were made public by the US Department of Energy in September 1999.

  Subsequent work in the US, reported by the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illness (OSAGWI) in December 2000, showed that the trace quantities of transuranic elements and fission products in US DU armour plate added only 0.8 per cent. to the radiation dose from the DU itself. This is insignificant given the low radioactivity of DU.

  Information obtained from the Starmet Corporation, who supply Royal Ordnance with the DU they use to make ammunition, tells us that for each gram of DU, there is 0.000 000 000 005 2 grams of plutonium 238 and 0.000 000 001 2 grams of plutonium 239/240. The activity contribution of the three naturally occurring uranium isotopes in 1 gram of DU is 14,818 becquerels. The plutonium contributes an extra 6.14 becquerels, or 0.04 per cent. of the radiation of the naturally occurring uranium isotopes.

  Mr.Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) plutonium and (b) other highly radioactive particles was contained in the depleted uranium shells fired by Britain during the Gulf War. [147379]

  Mr.Spellar
  Information obtained from Starmet Corporation, the firm who supply Royal Ordnance with the DU they use to make ammunition, tells us that each gram of DU contains:

  Grammes

  Uranium-238

  0.997 9

  Uranium-235

  0.001 99

  Uranium-234

  0.000 01

  Uranium-236

  0.000 003

  Technecium-99

  0.000 000 71

  Neptunium-237

  0.000 000 22

  Plutonium-239/240

  0.000 000 001 2

  Americium-243

  0.000 000 001

  Americium-241

  0.000 000 000 017

  Plutonium-238

  0.000 000 000 005 2

  Any significant increase in the quantity of highly radioactive particles would be detected by our routine radiation monitoring.

  DU used in the manufacture of the CHARM 1 round, used at the time of the Gulf conflict, came from the same source.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the source of the depleted uranium used to manufacture depleted uranium-tipped projectiles in the British military stockpile; and what steps 522W
  are taken to remove high activity contaminants from the depleted uranium stocks before manufacture into weapons. [145283]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the findings of the UN environmental programme that munition tips at sites attacked by NATO during the Kosovo conflict contain traces of highly radioactive enriched uranium, U-236; and if he will make a statement. [147413]

  Mr. Spellar
  According to preliminary work carried out by the United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP), U-236 makes up 0.0028 per cent. of the uranium found in DU penetrators in Kosovo. They also judge that this amount is too small to change the radiotoxicity compared to DU without U-236. These are just preliminary findings, though, and we await their final assessment.

  The U-236 in this DU is from the trace amounts that are in enrichment facilities and from the small amounts of DU that are from the reprocessing of the uranium extracted from nuclear fuel. Work in the US, and reported by the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illness (OSAGWI) in December 2000, showed that the trace quantities of transuranic elements and fission products in US DU armour plate, including U-236, added only 0.8 per cent. to the radiation dose from the DU itself.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium is stored at Fort Halstead. [148271]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium (DU) is stored at Fort Halstead. It is being held in accordance with statutory regulations and to the satisfaction of both the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Defence's statutory radiation protection advisers. DU rounds have not been fired there.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stroud of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 44W, on depleted uranium, when he plans to write to the hon. Member. [148843]

  Mr. Spellar
  I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course about the information he has requested and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium-based ammunition has been authorised in the past for use at(a) Tam Air Weapons Range and (b) Cape Wrath, by (i) UK forces and (ii) overseas forces. [149212]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted Uranium (DU)-based ammunition has never been authorised for use by UK or overseas forces at Tain Air Weapons Range, or at Cape Wrath Range.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made on the environmental survey at Nancekuke. [148907]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 620W. Work on the further land quality assessments is progressing

  523W
  well and I expect to receive the expert consultants report soon. Once we have considered the report we will discuss the way ahead with the Environment Agency and Kerrier district council, as we are obliged to do under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Military Discipline
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the Unit Folder entitled, 'Military Custody and Summary Dealing System', (b) the Provost Manuals, (c) the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999, (d) the Military Secretary's Guide to Officers' Confidential reports, (e) Army Form AF B992h and (f) Army General and Administrative Instructions, Vol. 5, Instruction No. 6. [149339]

  Mr. Spellar
  Copies of the Military Custody and Summary Dealing System, The Provost manuals, the Army Commissioning Regulations 1999, the Military Secretary's Guide to Officers' Confidential Reports, Army Form AF B9926 and Army General and Administrative Instructions, Vol. 5, Instruction No. 6 will be placed in the Library of the House. It should, however, be borne in mind that these are all dynamic documents which are subject to frequent updates.

  The Military Secretary's Guide to Officers Confidential Reports will be replaced by a hi-service Officers Joint Appraisal Report and it is hoped to issue a new guide to allow reports under the new system to be completed from September 2001.

  AF B9926 is being redrafted and it is intended to try to separate the Removal from Appointment and the Termination of Service action into two separate forms, but this is still some way down the line.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr.Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the consultants who have left Defence Medical Services in the last three years have taken up employment abroad; and if he will make a statement. [146622]

  Dr.Moonie
  We do not routinely maintain information on the employment status of consultants who have left the Defence Medical Services to live overseas.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact financial incentives to fast track service personnel have had on NHS waiting lists. [146706]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service personnel, including those referred under the Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit (MDHU) contracts, are counted in overall NHS waiting lists. Those waiting lists are managed by NHS trusts. The MOD has not been made aware that financial incentives included in the MDHU contracts have had any impact on those overall NHS waiting lists.

  Infantry Anti-structure Weapon
  Mr. Hancock To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is seeking to source the
  524W
  procurement of an Infantry Anti-structure Weapon system in the UK; what the estimated total cost of the programme will be; and if he will make a statement. [148556]
  Dr. Moonie
  We have not made a decision to progress with the purchase of any infantry anti-structure weapon. At present, there is no funding allocated to this capability.

  On 23 August 2000 we issued a contracts bulletin asking industry to consider how best to provide an anti-structure weapon for the infantry in the urban environment. The contracts bulletin informs potential suppliers world-wide and not just in the UK. We have yet to assess any potential solutions, or to estimate how much these may cost.

  KFOR
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the cost of the British contribution to KFOR. [149056]

  Mr. Spellar
  The latest estimate of additional expenditure likely to be incurred on Operations in Kosovo in 2000–01 is approximately £220 million.

  Defence Secondary Care Agency Unit (Organ Parts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many organ parts are kept by the Defence Secondary Care Agency Unit; where they are kept; for what purpose; if informal consent was obtained in each case; and if he will make a statement. [149096]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Secondary Care Agency holds 26 pathological specimens in total, all of which are located at the Royal Hospital Haslar. These are being kept both in case further investigation is required into the cause of death and for medical research purposes. Formal consent was obtained in each case.

  Maritime Graves
  Mr.Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of the State for Defence when he will publish his consultation paper on the protection of maritime graves. [149179]

  Dr.Moonie
  The consultation paper will be distributed shortly.

  Kosovo (Troops)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of the Royal Marines in MNB (C) in Kosovo. [148926]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: All British forces who have served in Kosovo can be justly proud of their performance. British forces currently serving in KFOR have maintained this high standard of service. Currently, Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade are providing the headquarters for Multi-National Brigade (Centre) (MNB (c) ) in Pristina, and 45 Commando Group and 1st Battalion of the Princess of Wales Regiment are providing two manoeuvre battle groups.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to reduce the level of the UK commitment in Kosovo in terms of(a) troops and (b) equipment. [148930]
  525W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The United Kingdom contribution to the NATO led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR) is based upon Alliance requirements and agreed with Allies. NATO has well established procedures for the review of forces required for both KFOR and the SFOR mission in Bosnia. Reviews of both are currently under way. The UK will be contributing fully to that review process, and the results will be presented to NATO Ministers in June.

  RAF Lossiemouth
  Mr. Sahnond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 183W, how much the new barracks at RAF Lossiemouth will cost; how many single person places it will accommodate; and when it is scheduled for completion. [149215]

  Dr. Moonie
  Barrack accommodation includes any construction of communal living facilities. In the case of RAF Lossiemouth, it comprises the construction of a replacement Officers' Mess. It will accommodate 100 personnel but there will also be public rooms and other amenities. Its cost is estimated to be in the region of £6 million to £8 million and it is scheduled for completion about December 2002.

  Service Widows' Pensions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) Service personnel died between 1973 and October 2000, (b) Service wives were widowed between 1973 and October 2000 and (c) Service widows whose husbands died between 1973 and October 2000 had their Service widows' pensions stopped as a result of remarriage or cohabitation; [147739]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of (a) the total sum saved by the stopping of Service widows' pensions between 1973 and October 2000 on the remarriage or cohabitation of those widows and (b) the annual cost which would be incurred by restoring Service widows' pensions to those who were widowed between 1973 and October 2000 but have since remarried or cohabitated. [147740]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our records show that 5,208 Regular Service Personnel died during the period 1 January 1982 to 31 December 2000, of whom 2,603 were married. This included attributable and non-attributable deaths. While information for the period prior to January 1982 exists, a manual search of records would be required and this would entail disproportionate cost. We are unable to provide the total numbers of Service widows who have had their pensions stopped as a result of remarriage or cohabitation for the entire period requested. However, in my reply to the hon. Member on 27 November 2000,Official Report, columns 422–43W, I provided figures for the number of widows remarrying in each of the last two years. Information for previous years could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  We do not have information on the actual sum saved by stopping Service widows' pensions between 1973 and October 2000 as a result of their remarriage or cohabitation. A broad actuarial estimate of the costs of reinstating attributable forces family pensions that ceased on remarriage or cohabitation between 1973 and
  526W
  31 October 2000 is between £22 million and £26 million (this estimate is based on reinstating the pensions for future but not providing backdating).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Institute of Management
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the progress on the award of charter status to the Institute of Management. [149112]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Officials from my Department have had two meetings with representatives of the Institute of Management. The Institute's application for a Royal Charter is currently being considered by the Privy Council's advisers-those Government Departments with an interest, which are responsible for advising their Ministers in their role as members of the Privy Council. The procedure for the grant of a Royal Charter is explained in my Department's website-;www.privy-council.org.uk.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Sexual Abuse Cases
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what support is available during court cases to adult victims of sexual abuse; and if she will make a statement. [148600]

  Jane Kennedy
  Witness services provide practical help and support to victims and witnesses. There is a witness service in all Crown court centres and services are being rolled out in magistrates courts. The services provide emotional support to all victims and witnesses. They give information about court procedures, arrange pre-court familiarisation visits and liaise with the court about suitable waiting facilities on the day of the trial. A Witness Service volunteer may. if the victim wishes, accompany the victim into court. The Government are committed to improving the experience of the court process for victims in sensitive cases and are implementing the recommendations in "Speaking up for Justice"; a report aimed at improving the criminal justice process for vulnerable or intimidated victims and witnesses to enable them to give their best evidence.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Section 246 Applications
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many section 246 applications have been acceded to in road schemes. [148048]

  Mr. Hill
  Section 246(2) of the Highways Act 1980 enables the acquisition, by agreement, of property the enjoyment of which will, in the opinion of a highway authority, be seriously affected by the construction or improvement of a road. This power was exercised by the Secretary of State as the highway authority for trunk roads in the case of 10 applications for discretionary purchase
  527W
  of property in the past calendar year. There is no central record of the use of the power by local highway authorities.

  Town and Parish Councils
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many town and parish councils have been abolished by him in each of the last three years; and what the reasons given for their abolition in each case were. [148258]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In implementing recommendations made by district councils under Part II of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Secretary of State has abolished five parish councils, all of which were replaced by alternative parish councils, as follows:the East Lindsey (Parishes) Order 1999—the common parish council for the three parishes of Saltfleetby All Saints, Saltfleetby St. Clements and Saltfleetby St. Peter was abolished to be replaced by a single new parish and parish council of Saltfleetby;
  the Mid Sussex (Parishes) Order 1999—the parish councils of Clayton and Keymer were abolished to be replaced by a new single parish council of Hassocks;
  the Tandridge (Parishes) Order 1999—the parish council of Lingfield and Dormansland was abolished to be replaced by two new parish councils, one for each of the villages;
  and the West Lindsey (Parishes) Order 1999—on the creation of the parish of Brookenby from part of the parish of Stainton le Vale, the parish council of Stainton le Vale was abolished to be replaced by a new parish council of Brookenby and a parish meeting for Stainton le Vale.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the report arising from the Consultation Paper on Telecommunication Mast Development will be published; [148339]

  (2) how many responses were received to the Consultation Paper on Telecommunication Mast Development; and if he will list the individuals and organisations which made submissions. [148338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the 365 responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible. A list of individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation exercise have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many mobile phone transmitter masts have been relocated owing to their proximity to a school in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [148402]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not hold such information. However, the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones does not recommend that the erection of masts on or near schools should be prohibited, nor does it recommend that existing masts be removed or relocated. DfEE has issued information to local education authorities and schools on mobile phones and base stations.
  528W
  The Government recently announced that the Radiocommunications Agency will begin an audit of mobile phone base stations and masts to measure radiowave emissions. The audits have now commenced, and a continuing programme is planned to cover all schools with base stations that have asked to be included. The results of the audit will be published on the internet.

  Gas Refuelling Depots
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) LPG and (b) natural gas refuelling depots there are in (a) the UK and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [148297]

  Mr. Hill
  There are approximately 660 LPG refuelling points in the UK, of which 48 are in Wales. My Department estimates that the number of LPG refuelling points will rise to over 1,000 by the end of this year. It is not possible to indicate how many will be in Wales.

  There are currently 28 compressed natural gas (CNG) refuelling points in the UK, none of which is in Wales. However, my Department will consult shortly on the future direction of the Powershift programme, including how to encourage the wider availability of CNG in urban areas.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Government's programmes aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion, indicating the annual cost and coverage of each one. [148484]

  Ms Armstrong
  We published the second annual report on our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" in September 2000 (Cm 4865). This provides a detailed account of the action we have taken since we announced our strategy in September 1999 and what more we need to do. It clearly shows that we are already making a difference to people's lives and that real progress is being made in a number of key areas. "Spending Review 2000: New Public Spending Plans 2001–2004" sets out annual expenditure for the major programmes aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion.

  A number of DETR regeneration and other programmes help to reduce poverty and social exclusion, including English Partnerships, Housing Action Trusts, Coalfields Trust and Fund. In particular, New Deal for Communities and Single Regeneration Budget are aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion.

  New Deal for Communities (NDC) is tackling the deprivation faced by people in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in England. Seventeen partnerships were set up in 1998 under NDC, as part of the Government's strategy to tackle social exclusion. Round two of the New Deal for Communities, launched in 1999, included 22 additional areas being invited to bid for funding. Outturn Government expenditure on NDC in 1999–2000 was £48.5 million. Planned expenditure is £120.7 million in 2000–01 and £450.0 million in 2001–02.
  529W
  The Single Regeneration budget (SRB) provides funding through the Regional Development Agencies for regeneration schemes in England, which are developed and implemented by local partnerships. It is an important instrument in the Government's drive to tackle social exclusion. There are over 890 partnerships from rounds 1 to 6 with over £5.6 billion in SRB support over their lifetime of up to seven years. It is estimated that these will attract almost over £8.6 billion of private sector investment and help to attract European funding. Outturn Government expenditure on SRB in 1999–2000 was £ 663 million. Planned expenditure is £ 814 million in 2000– 01 and £ 878 million in 2001–02.

  The Government's Action Plan "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal", which was launched by the Prime Minister on 15 January, sets out our vision for narrowing the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high-quality schools, decent housing, and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

  The Action Plan is backed up by a new Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, which is to improve services in the most deprived neighbourhoods. Planned expenditure through the fund, which will be paid to the 88 most deprived local authorities in England, is £ 200 million in 2001–02, £ 300 million in 2002–03 and £ 400 million in 2003–04.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consult the New Zealand Government on the references provided for Mr. Douglas Andrew, Head of the Economic Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority. [148642]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I understand that the previous Administration took proper steps to satisfy themselves that Mr. Andrew was the most appropriate person for the post of Director of Economic Regulation. I see no reason to reopen the question.

  Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Department's policies and actions(a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149193]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Staffordshire, Moorlands has benefited from a range of Government initiatives since 2 May 1997 and in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997 as follows:

  General Grant

  General Grant (Revenue Support Grant, National Non Domestic Rates, and damping grants) is as follows:

  Newcastle under-Lyme

  Staffordshire, Moorlands

  Staffordshire CC

  1996–97

  6.781

  4.794

  1—

  1997–98

  6.419

  4.586

  343.899

  1998–99

  6.899

  4.537

  363.545

  530W

  Newcastle under-Lyme

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Staffordshire CC

  1999–2000

  7.067

  4.632

  383.788

  2000–01

  7.315

  4.770

  397.940

  2001–02

  7.641

  4.941

  408.474

  1 No figures for 1996–97 are available as Staffordshire County Council was affected by reorganisation.

  Note:

  These figures have been adjusted to make year on year comparisons possible.

  Staffordshire Local Transport Expenditure Settlement 1997 to 2001

  The table shows the local transport expenditure to Staffordshire county council from 1997 to 2001. It should be noted that it is not possible to breakdown the allocations to Staffordshire, Moorlands only. To break down the expenditure into the individual districts of north Staffordshire would require a detailed examination of previous LTP and TPP documents and an estimate made of the cost of the works.

  For the year 1996–97, the local transport settlement for Staffordshire included Stoke City Council. To establish a figure for this one year period would necessitate breaking down this figure and this is not easily obtainable.

  £

  Authority/district: Staffordshire

  Provisional TPP allocation

  Staffordshire

  Newcastle- under-Lyme1

  2001–02

  Block allocation

  5,700

  Not split

  Maintenance

  8,675

  Not split

  Major schemes

  23,750

  Not split

  Total

  18,125

  Not split

  2000–01

  Block allocation

  2,600

  n/a

  Maintenance

  4,554

  n/a

  Major schemes

  33,800

  n/a

  Total

  10,954

  n/a

  1999–2000

  Block allocation

  2,175

  4190

  Maintenance

  3,878

  n/a

  Major schemes

  0

  n/a

  Total

  5,603

  190

  1998–99

  Block allocation

  578

  4124

  Maintenance

  4,062

  n/a

  Major schemes

  600

  n/a

  Total

  5,240

  124

  1997–98

  Block allocation

  694

  4124

  Maintenance

  5,346

  n/a

  Major schemes

  9,400

  n/a

  Total

  15,440

  124

  n/a = not available

  1 As part of north Staffordshire package

  2 Includes expenditure for Biddulph Inner Bypass

  3 Includes expenditure for Burntwood Bypass

  4 When combined with north Staffordshire package

  531W
  Housing investment programme resources to Staffordshire, Moorlands district

  £

  Programme

  Main HIP1

  Capital receipts initiatives2

  Indicative major repair allowance(MRA)3,4

  Totals

  1997–98

  0.98

  0.161

  —

  1.141

  1998–99

  0.876

  0.515

  —

  1.391

  1999–2000

  0.908

  0.482

  —

  1.39

  2000–01

  2.05

  —

  —

  2.05

  2001–02

  1.014

  —

  1.601

  2.615

  Total

  5.828

  1.158

  —

  8.587

  Total less 1997–98 HIP

  —

  —

  —

  7.607

  1 The main HIP figure in italics was allocated by the previous Government.

  2 This was the fulfilling of the new Government's Manifesto commitment to allow LAs to spend more of their receipts from Right to Buy sales. The initiative ended in 1999–2000, thereafter additional resources have been allocated through the main HIP programme.

  3 Introduced from 1 April 2001

  4 Staffordshire, Moorlands DC is on the 2000–01 stock transfer programme and have had a successful tenants' ballot. The expectation is that, subject to the Secretary of State's consent, the council will transfer all their stock to a new Registered Social Landlord before the end of 2000–01, in which case the council will not qualify for MRA.

  Land and property projects

  Staffordshire, Moorlands

  Total forecast value

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Spend to date 2000–01

  Total spend profile

  Workspace projects

  Ipstones Roofs

  26,000

  —

  15,000

  —

  —

  —

  15,000

  Victoria Colliery

  10,000

  —

  —

  4,894

  3,785

  584

  9,263

  Wharf Road

  2,000

  —

  —

  1,728

  272

  —

  2,000

  Far Lane Est., Ipstones

  6,864

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,864

  6,864

  Total

  44,864

  —

  15,000

  6,622

  4,057

  7,448

  33,127

  EP projects Victoria Colliery1

  40,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Overall total land and property

  84,864

  —

  15,000

  6,622

  4,057

  —

  33,127

  1 Preliminary investigation work

  Single Regeneration Budget programme

  £

  Scheme

  Round 2 Leek

  Round 4 Biddulph

  Round 5 rural regeneration NE staffs

  Total

  Cumulative pre and post 1996–97

  1996–97

  165

  0

  —

  165

  —

  1997–98

  287

  0

  0

  287

  —

  1998–99

  182

  37

  0

  219

  506

  1999–2000

  31

  77

  27

  135

  641

  2000–01

  131

  71

  279

  479

  1,120

  2001–02

  262

  114

  641

  1,017

  2,137

  532W
  Housing resources allocated in the 12 months ending 1 May 1997

  £ million

  HIP1

  1996–97

  1.29

  1997–98

  0.98

  Total

  2.27

  1 HIP allocations are issued every December, ie for 1996–97 they would have been issued in December 1995, and for 1997–98 they would have been issued in December 1996.

  Rural Development Programme

  Staffordshire, Moorlands—Rural Development Programme

  Number of projects

  Total RDC funding

  Total scheme costs costs

  1996–97

  8

  33,846

  140,657

  1997–98

  22

  106,271

  411,423

  1998–99

  8

  48,483

  273,133

  1999–2000

  14

  89,422

  383,595

  2000–01

  8

  84,800

  369,112

  Total

  60

  362,821

  1,577,920

  Note:

  It is not possible to split the funding as at May in any year and details provided relate to financial years only. Rural Development Programme schemes include: Redundant Building Grants, Rural Development Programme and Workspace projects. This programme is split between Derbyshire and Staffordshire and a number of projects work across North-East Staffordshire and North-West Derbyshire. There is a real sense of joint working between the two areas and therefore the precise split of projects and funding may not be fully illustrated here. The Rural Priority Area covers roughly two-thirds of Derbyshire and one-third of Staffordshire. All projects which are aggregated in this table identify themselves on Advantage West Midland's database as Staffordshire, Moorlands, but may also include some cross-border Derbyshire activity.

  £000

  Scheme

  Round 2 Leek

  Round 4 Biddulph

  Round 5 rural regeneration NE Staffs

  Total

  Cumulative pre and post 1996–97

  2002–03

  0

  76

  853

  929

  3,066

  2003–04

  0

  66

  776

  842

  3,908

  2004–05

  0

  0

  630

  630

  4,538

  2005–06

  0

  0

  551

  551

  5,089

  Total

  1,058

  441

  3,755

  5,254

  —

  533W
  The Single Regeneration Budget programmes approved by Advantage West Midland and by the Government Office of the West Midlands prior to Advantage West Midland's existence are Leek, Biddulph and Rural Regeneration. The total spend on the schemes in the period to 31 March 2006 is £5.254 million with £1.12 million to be expended between 1997 to the end of this year and £165,000 in 1996–97.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to place restrictions on the sale of garden plots for development; [148900]

  (2) what his policy is on the sale of parts of gardens for residences for development purposes. [148899]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to introduce restrictions on the sale of garden plots for development. The planning system is the appropriate means for regulating the development and use of land in the public interest.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make the(a) quality of life and (b) availability of a varied range of properties a condition of granting planning approval for residential development. [148901]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3 "Housing" (March 2000) requires local planning authorities to(a) promote good design in new housing developments in order to create high-quality living environments; and, (b) provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the size and type of housing than is currently available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recognition is given through the Standard Spending Assessment formula to the impact upon fire authorities of coping with major inland waterways in relation to(a) rescue activities and (b) flooding incidents. [148910]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No specific indicators are included within Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) for fire authorities in England with respect to calls to flooding and rescue activities related to inland waterways. However, to the extent that expenditure arising from such calls is included in the 1990–91 expenditure of fire authorities, upon which SSAs are calibrated, indirect allowance is made.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) playing fields and (b) green spaces available for public use have been lost to development in each of the past three years. [148695]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 February 20011: The English Sports Council, now Sport England, was made a statutory consultee on 5 August 1996 for planning applications involving the development of playing fields. The information requested is not available
  534W
  as Sport England did not distinguish between public and private use of playing fields, which are the subject of planning applications, during the period specified.

  The Government have introduced a number of new initiatives to meet their commitment to avoid the loss of playing fields. The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 requires referral to the Secretary of State of planning applications for development of local authority-owned playing fields and others in educational use, where Sport England has objected but the local planning authority is minded to grant permission.

  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 empowers the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to protect school playing fields in England from disposal or change of use.

  The Government set up the Playing Fields Monitoring Group last year to oversee the effectiveness of these initiatives and to collate more reliable data on proposals to dispose of and develop playing fields.

  No separate statistics are available relating to the development of green spaces.

  A draft revised version of PPG17: "Sport and Recreation", to be issued shortly for consultation, will update national planning policy on the provision and protection of playing fields and other green space.

  Teachers' Pay
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he has made in future Standard Spending Assessments for the increase in new teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement. [149280]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We took account of all pressures on local education authorities when setting the level of provision in the spending review, including teachers' pay. Parliament has recently approved the Local Government Finance Settlement 2001–02 which provides an increase in Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) of over £1 billion (4.8 per cent.). The spending review provides further increases in Education SSA of £1.35 billion in 2002–03 and £1.4 billion in 2003–04.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision exists for Legacy plc to receive compensation from public funds for costs incurred in bidding for the Dome site in the event of negotiations failing; and if he will make a statement. [149340]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government continue to negotiate with Legacy plc as the preferred bidder. The rules of the competition make no provision for meeting the cost of unsuccessful bidders, and that applies to the Legacy negotiations as long as the Government comply with the relevant requirements of the preferred bidder offer in its dealings with Legacy. The details of the preferred bidder documentation are commercially confidential.
  535W

  Cohousing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of cohousing in the United Kingdom. [148883]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Cohousing is an innovative form of housing that attempts to create a sense of community for its residents. It is characterised by private dwellings with their own facilities but also extensive common facilities. I am aware that a number of cohousing projects have been introduced in the UK, including one in Stroud. The Government note this development with interest and wish these projects every success. Since cohousing is confined to the private housing sector, however, any possible future growth in cohousing in the UK will primarily be a matter for private householders and private developers.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries have arisen from road traffic accidents (i) between 17 October 2000 and to the latest date for which data is available and (ii) the corresponding period 12 months earlier. [148389]

  Mr. Hill
  National statistics for road accident deaths and serious injuries are not yet available for any period from 17 October 2000 and therefore no comparison can be made with any corresponding period in the previous year.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the overall change in journey times is in person minutes per week as a result of the installation of the M4 bus lane according to the TRL survey. [149335]

  Mr. Hill
  The M4 bus lane was designed to reduce traffic congestion on the M4, especially during rush hour, and to make journeys more reliable. The latest information on the experiment shows it is achieving both objectives.

  TRL have found that, following the introduction of the M4 bus lane, journey times have reduced by 252,000 person minutes per week during weekday peak periods. This reflects the increased reliability of journey times.

  These benefits for users are offset by an increase in journey times of a similar amount during weekday off-peak periods, and increased journey times during Saturdays and Sundays averaging 75,000 person minutes a week. These changes in journey times are mainly due to the speed limits introduced at the same time as the bus lane, which have already led to road safety benefits. For instance, there has been a reduction in personal injury accidents on the eastbound M4 between Heathrow and the elevated section since the introduction of a 50mph speed limit.

  Local Government Act
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress 536W
  has been made in implementing the new ethical framework for local government established under the Local Government Act 2000. [149618]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have today appointed Tony Holland as the Chair of the new independent Standards Board for England.

  I will publish a consultation paper tomorrow on the model code of conduct for members and a response to last year's consultation exercise on the general principles of conduct.

  Copies of both documents will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Powershift Programme
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 2001,Official Report, column 732W, on the Powershift Programme, what meetings his Department's ministers have had over the past 12 months with vehicle manufacturers to encourage them to manufacture production line gas vehicles; what other measures his Department has taken in pursuit of this objective; and what the response has been from vehicle manufacturers. [148315]

  Mr. Hill
  Over the past 12 months my Department's Ministers and officials have met a range of gas vehicle manufacturers and converters and the relevant trade associations—the LP Gas Association and the Natural Gas Vehicle Association—to discuss the development of the gas vehicle market, including the introduction of production line vehicles. This issue was also discussed within the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force which my colleague, Lord Macdonald, the Minister for Transport, co-chaired.

  The Energy Saving Trust, which administers the DETR funded Powershift programme, maintain an on-going dialogue with vehicle manufacturers, encouraging them to introduce production line gas vehicles. I am encouraged to know that several vehicle manufacturers are considering this.

  Flooding
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many separate incidents of flooding were reported to his Department in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [149085]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no requirement for such reports to be made on a systematic basis. Flooding can result from many causes and range in severity from minor to major events. The flooding in Portsmouth in September 2000 resulted from exceptionally heavy rainfall and the breakdown of a sewage pumping station after being flooded. However, the extensive flooding in late 2000 resulted from an inability of watercourses to carry away floodwaters from saturated

  537W
  catchments following the wettest autumn on record. A full report on this flooding is being prepared by the Environment Agency.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place copies of(a) Sport England's report on the feasibility study of Pickett's Lock and (b) the British Olympic Association's report on the feasibility study on London as the centre of an Olympic bid for 2012 and 2016 in the Library. [147083]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Copies of the summary of the Drivas Jones and Ernst and Young technical feasibility study on the Lee Valley stadium were placed in the Library of the House on 6 December 2000.

  2000

  Total free1

  Total discounted2

  Total sponsors from discounted3

  Full price tickets4

  Total attendance5

  January

  10,164

  50,669

  14,685

  305,586

  366,420

  February

  73,115

  56,868

  9,169

  439,555

  569,538

  March

  103,372

  60,209

  4,892

  392,727

  556,308

  April

  68,773

  112,352

  12,077

  398,208

  579,333

  May

  102,903

  157,385

  13,456

  241,916

  502,204

  June

  135,181

  165,461

  14,502

  239,625

  540,267

  July

  123,077

  217,267

  15,575

  266,175

  606,519

  August

  20,148

  263,521

  12,958

  267,547

  551,216

  September

  109,372

  209,374

  13,285

  144,538

  463,284

  October

  74,448

  424,524

  16,609

  158,652

  657,624

  November

  54,446

  230,312

  16,284

  82,358

  387,117

  December

  145,749

  371,614

  17,540

  219,681

  737,044

  1 Includes free school visits, carers for disabled people, sponsor ticket allocation, accompanying teachers on paying school visits, coach drivers, Greenwich residents, NMEC guests and VIPs.

  2 This reflects a range of promotions and offers which are normal for the visitor attraction business and which are factored into the company's business strategy. For example, the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has run a number of offers and promotions with its sponsors for their customers and also ran a special ticket price for entry after 4 pm. Key promotions with M& Boots, Tesco and BT have been undertaken. The Tesco half price promotion was redeemed in October, BT was redeemed in November and December.

  3 Sponsor tickets were purchased and allocated per each individual sponsorship contract.

  4 This number is an approximation and as such should be used for review purposes only. There is insufficient accuracy for them to be regarded as audited or validated information.

  5 Total attendance does not take into account non-attendance by ticket purchasers. It represents visitor footfall via the admission system and not total tickets sold.

  Note:

  NMEC operated two different systems, one for Ticket Sales (Enta) and one for Admissions (ACS). The admissions system recorded total attendance, but did not show details of the attendance ie purchase source of admission or monetary value of admission. Consequently figures for Free and Discounted tickets are derived from the ticketing system, whereas total attendance is derived from the admission system.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money IMG raised for the Millennium Dome project; and how much they were paid for their services to the Dome. [147779]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The role of IMG as originally provided for in the contractual terms with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) changed as NMEC's in-house Commercial team took on and delivered the task of raising sponsorship. IMG provided significant support to the in-house team but did not itself deliver sponsorship. In December 1998 NMEC and IMG mutually agreed to terminate the contract. NMEC paid IMG £2.8 million taking into account the contribution IMG had made to the sponsorship effort and the actual resource and time input from IMG.
  538W
  The British Olympic Association has asked that its report to Ministers about a possible future bid for an Olympic Games in London be treated in confidence at this stage.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of tickets issued for visits to the Millennium Dome were(a) free and (b) discounted. [147780]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001): The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it will be publishing full visitor attendance numbers later in the year once the final accounts for the operational year and all the associated data have been audited. The following statistics have been provided at this stage but the right hon. Member will wish to note the caveats which have been set out in the footnotes to the table.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many donations were made to the Millennium Dome exhibition by mobile phone companies; and what the value of each was. [148526]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) did not receive any donations from mobile phone companies.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the New Millennium Experience Company owes to creditors. [147782]
  539W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: As at 31 January 2001 the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) owed its creditors £2.1 million. NMEC is discharging these debts as they become due.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what date all the debts of the New Millennium Experience Company will be discharged. [147783]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: Debts are discharged as they become due. All debts will be discharged prior to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) undergoing solvent liquidation. It is not possible at this stage to give a definitive date on which that will be achieved.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if contracts worth in excess of £1 million were awarded by the New Millennium Experience Company to(a) Boots, (b) McDonalds, (c) BSkyB, (d) Tesco, (e) BAA, (f) BAE Systems, (g) British Airways, (h) Camelot, (i) Marconi, (j) 3Com, (k) Coca Cola, (l) Compaq, (m) Kodak, (n) Mars, (o) Thames Water, (p) Typhoo and (q) Walls. [148185]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 20011: The value of contractual arrangements between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and the companies named were each in excess of £1 million. These encompassed cash payments and value-in-kind to NMEC and non-cash benefits, deriving from their sponsorship association with the Millennium Experience at the Dome and its associated National Programme, to the companies concerned.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the take-up rate is of(a) terrestrial digital service and (b) satellite digital service in (i) Wales and (ii) England. [148298]

  Janet Anderson
  From the figures declared by the service providers, we estimate that around 18 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom with a television use a digital satellite service and 4 per cent. use a digital terrestrial television service. We do not have a breakdown of take-up figures by country.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the(a) Welsh and (b) English population has access to (i) terrestrial digital service and (ii) satellite digital service. [148299]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission estimate that core coverage of digital terrestrial television (those households able to receive all six multiplexes) is(a) 42 per cent. in Wales and (b) 55 per cent. in England. The figures are up to 6 per cent. higher for access to BBC services, Channels 3, 4 and 5 and S4C. The latest figures indicate that between 96 per cent. and 98 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom are able to receive digital satellite services. We do not have a breakdown of the figures by country.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what evidence he has requested from the 540W
  BBC to enable Ministers to evaluate the effectiveness of the administration of the free television licence scheme for those aged over-75 years. [148496]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC, as Licensing Authority, has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, including free licences for the over-75s. The Secretary of State has made no formal request for evidence from the BBC about the administration of over-75 licences, but the Corporation has kept the Department regularly and fully informed of progress with the implementation of the concession.

  Museums (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will review and increase the grant to museums in the Tyne and Wear area. [148614]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I will be meeting representatives of the Tyne and Wear Museums Service shortly to discuss funding. As my right hon. Friend has already explained to the Director of the Tyne and Wear Museums Service, he has held back a reserve the use of which he will determine when his current negotiations on the question of irrecoverable VAT are complete.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines he has issued to organisations which are beneficiaries of the National Lottery with regard to the withholding of capital in order to secure higher rates of long-term interest on the money; and if he will make a statement. [148644]

  Kate Hoey
  None.

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds have been(a) committed, and (b) spent by the National Heritage Memorial Fund in each of the past four years, together with corresponding figures at the end of each of the last four financial years. [148861]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures supplied by the National Heritage Memorial Fund for the last four financial years are given in the tables. They cover both the Memorial Fund—which disburses Government grant in aid as a fund of last resort for the heritage—and the Heritage Lottery Fund—which distributes the Lottery proceeds allocated to the heritage. Figures relating to calendar years are not available.

  Heritage Memorial Fund

  £ million

  Financial year

  Committed

  Spent

  1999–2000

  0.7

  2.7

  1998–99

  5.5

  4.7

  1997–98

  2.6

  3.1

  1996–97

  3

  6.4

  541W

  Heritage lottery fund commitments

  £

  Financial year

  Allocated in response to applications2

  Awarded

  Spent

  1999–2000

  270.5

  151

  265

  1998–99

  297.5

  305

  186

  1997–98

  459.1

  358

  130

  1996–97

  463

  463

  79

  1 Under HLF's two-stage process, sums are earmarked as Stage One passes in response to specific applications (the 'allocated' figure) but are not guaranteed until full applications are approved for an award at a later date (the 'awarded' figure). This explains the two different figures shown for commitments.

  HLF's practice is to account for the totality of a commitment in the year in which it is entered. Allowance has to be made for time to raise matching funding and to complete capital works, leading to an average drawdown period for projects over £500,000 of four years. The average drawdown for projects under £500,000 is 18 months.

  Sports Action Zone (West Cumbria)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about progress made by the Sports Action Zone in West Cumbria. [149176]

  Kate Hoey
  The West Cumbria and Barrow Sport Action Zone is one of 12 Zones designated by Sport England as part of its Lottery Strategy. Sport England is funding a manager for the Zone who has a strong background in sport and regeneration. The manager, who was appointed in September 2000, has been working with key agencies and organisations (eg Health Action Zones, Connexions Strategy Group, local authorities, Single Regeneration Budget stakeholders), as well as the local community in order to produce a detailed needs assessment. This will inform the five year Action Plan for the Zone which is due to be completed in draft form by the end of May. Key themes will be the contribution

  Project

  Department/agency

  Type of review

  IT Re-tendering

  DVLA

  OGC Gateway Review—Gate 1 (Business justification)

  Knowledge Network

  Cabinet Office

  OGC Gateway Review—Gate 4 (Readiness for Service)

  UK Online Citizen Portal

  Cabinet Office

  OGC Gateway Review—Gate 4 (Readiness for Service)

  Traffic Control Centre

  Highways Agency

  Pre-contract Review

  IT 2000

  Home Office

  Pre-contract Review (with Partnerships UK input)

  The Gateway Review reports are intended to help and inform the management of the projects and the organisation's own decisions. They are not intended for publication.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the e-communicators working with the e-envoy will be fully subject to the Civil Service Code. [148653]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Yes, these posts are within the permanent Civil Service.
  542W
  which sport can make to health, education and life-long learning, social inclusion, regeneration, community safety, taking account of the large size of the Zone and the diversity of partners and issues which are involved. Since the area was designated as a Sport Action Zone there has been considerable investment in it by Sport England. This includes five capital lottery awards (067,490); 45 Awards for All awards (£159,610) and the establishment of a School Sport Co-ordinator programme (£679,472) which, together with the five year funding of the Zone manager equates to over £2 million Lottery funding. A number of other Lottery bids are being developed with a range of partners and these will be fast tracked for assessment by Sport England.

  British Resorts Task Force
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the progress made by British Resorts Task Force at the English Tourism Council. [148959]

  Janet Anderson
  The English Tourism Council's report on resort regeneration, which takes account of the work of its Resorts Task Force, is due for publication towards the end of this month. We will consider our response to it once it is published.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government IT Projects
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Government IT projects identified as being reviewed in the Cabinet Office publication 'Progress report on successful IT: modernising Government in action'; and if she will publish details of these reviews. [148655]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Gateway Review process has been piloted and will be rolled out across Government in 2001 as the standard form of project review. The projects identified in the Progress Report as having been reviewed are as follows:

  Performance Targets (Permanent Secretaries)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who sets performance targets for permanent secretaries. [145189]

  Mr. Stringer
  Performance targets for permanent secretaries are agreed with Ministers in charge of Departments, following comments by the Prime Minister and the head of the Home Civil Service. They incorporate targets in the Department's Public Service Agreement and Service Delivery Agreement.
  543W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who is responsible for assessing whether a permanent secretary has met his or her performance targets; and how many have failed to do so since 1997. [145188]

  Mr. Stringer
  Responsibility for assessing the performance and pay of permanent secretaries rests with the Permanent Secretaries' Remuneration Committee, which considers a range of evidence including published information, an assessment by the head of the Home Civil Service and the permanent secretary to the Treasury, ministerial views and a self-assessment by the individual.

  Permanent secretaries' performance targets cover a range of departmental and personal objectives, not always entirely within the control of the individual and not always capable of being expressed simply in terms of success or failure. The degree to which each individual has performed well against his or her objectives is assessed by the Remuneration Committee. It is not Government policy to divulge information that would reveal details of the performance of individuals, as this would be a breach of confidentiality and hence contrary to the Data Protection Act 1988.

  Regional distribution of staff at 1 April 1999 by Government office region

  1Full-time equivalents

  Government office regions

  Department (including agencies)

  London

  South East London

  Total London and South East

  South West

  West Midland

  North West

  North East

  Merseyside

  Non-industrial staff

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  2,943

  977

  3,920

  1,256

  638

  797

  444

  3

  Cabinet Office

  1,353

  271

  1,624

  15

  18

  181

  17

  1

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1,311

  514

  1,825

  338

  534

  649

  240

  201

  Customs and Excise

  5,553

  3,725

  9,278

  954

  1,011

  1,548

  530

  1,061

  Culture, Media and Sport

  581

  0

  581

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Defence

  8,503

  17,238

  25,741

  18,899

  5,135

  1,034

  263

  777

  Education and Employment

  7,122

  2,140

  9,262

  2,247

  2,529

  4,200

  2,425

  95

  Environment, Transport and Regions

  3,846

  1,340

  5,186

  1,699

  990

  1,064

  244

  75

  Health and Safety Executive/Commission

  681

  154

  835

  73

  165

  137

  0

  1,225

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  4,641

  0

  4,641

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Health

  2,267

  252

  2,519

  125

  234

  605

  119

  14

  HM Land Registry

  778

  506

  1,284

  1,528

  619

  1,167

  0

  486

  Home Office

  5,804

  1,077

  6,881

  212

  625

  377

  65

  717

  HM Prison Service

  4,561

  6,164

  10,725

  2,560

  3,292

  3,770

  2,712

  716

  Inland Revenue

  8,419

  6,290

  14,709

  3,906

  3,956

  5,497

  6,938

  2,797

  International Development

  689

  0

  689

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention Board

  0

  933

  933

  0

  0

  0

  262

  0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  5,391

  1,113

  6,504

  358

  665

  688

  97

  323

  National Statistics

  780

  676

  1,456

  0

  0

  117

  0

  545

  Ordnance Survey

  12

  1,438

  1,450

  60

  51

  41

  18

  11

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  26

  0

  26

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Prison Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Social Security

  8,946

  5,520

  14,466

  5,002

  6,449

  16,352

  9,324

  3,565

  Trade and Industry

  4,513

  260

  4,773

  235

  415

  241

  213

  85

  Treasury

  890

  0

  890

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Office

  17

  0

  17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  544W

  Civil Service Pension Fund
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress is being made on closing the Civil Service Pension Fund to new entrants; and if she will make a statement. [148902]

  Mr. Stringer
  Plans are progressing for the introduction of new pension arrangements for the Civil Service. Our intention is for new entrants to be given a choice between new defined benefit pension arrangements, and defined contribution arrangements whereby the employer will make contributions to a stakeholder pension selected by the employee from a panel of providers. Existing members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme will be given the choice of remaining with their current benefit structure or of paying the higher contributions associated with the new defined benefit arrangement. Our working assumption is for the new arrangements to be introduced from 1 October 2002.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff, excluding those working for bodies responsible to the regional assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, are employed in the UK Civil Service, broken down by Department and place of employment. [148716]

  Mr. Stringer
  The numbers and location of all staff are shown in the table.
  545W

  Regional distribution of staff at 1 April 1999 by Government office region

  1Full-time equivalents

  Government office regions

  Department (including agencies)

  London

  South East London

  Total London and South East

  South West

  West Midland

  North West

  North East

  Merseyside

  Royal Mint

  16

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other Departments

  3,523

  103

  3,626

  5,079

  389

  121

  74

  192

  All permanent non-industrial staff

  83,166

  50,691

  133,857

  44,546

  27,715

  38,586

  23,985

  12,889

  Government office for the Regions2

  229

  140

  369

  159

  165

  215

  149

  35

  Non-industrial casual staff3

  2,717

  1,476

  4,193

  1,023

  1,091

  2,133

  1,103

  495

  Industrial staff

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cabinet Office

  398

  0

  398

  0

  1

  31

  0

  0

  Defence

  650

  5,445

  6,095

  3,978

  2,934

  391

  309

  80

  Environment, Transport and Regions

  11

  12

  23

  13

  16

  20

  7

  10

  Health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Home Office

  9

  9

  18

  41

  4

  6

  0

  0

  HM Prison Service

  186

  456

  642

  254

  313

  306

  163

  25

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Social Security

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other Departments

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All permanent industrial staff

  1,254

  5,922

  7,176

  4,303

  3,284

  754

  479

  115

  Industrial Casual Staff3

  52.3

  106.9

  159.2

  120.5

  57

  35.8

  12.5

  3.4

  All Permanent Staff

  84,420

  56,613

  141,033

  48,849

  30,999

  39,340

  24,464

  13,004

  All Staff

  87,189

  58,196

  145,385

  49,992

  32,147

  41,509

  25,580

  13,503

  1Full-time equivalents

  Government office regions

  Department (including agencies)

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  Eastern

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Unreported and elsewhere

  All areas

  Non-industrial staff

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,447

  364

  909

  399

  260

  0

  18

  10,455

  Cabinet Office

  0

  0

  191

  0

  15

  0

  5

  2,067

  Crown Prosecution Service

  591

  347

  302

  323

  0

  0

  0

  5,349

  Customs and Excise

  925

  983

  3,823

  545

  1,357

  555

  69

  22,519

  Culture, Media and Sport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  581

  Defence

  2,072

  1,651

  5,340

  2,425

  6,292

  1,486

  3,376

  74,491

  Education and Employment

  5,458

  2,638

  354

  1,736

  3,145

  0

  0

  34,087

  Environment, Transport and Regions

  581

  510

  807

  3,679

  632

  24

  0

  15,490

  Health and Safety Executive/Commission

  507

  266

  191

  103

  269

  0

  0

  3,770

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  0

  0

  825

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,465

  Health

  1,127

  29

  10

  0

  0

  0

  9

  4,791

  HM Land Registry

  435

  842

  817

  608

  0

  0

  0

  7,786

  Home Office

  393

  71

  563

  439

  242

  105

  16

  10,706

  HM Prison Service

  3,967

  3,006

  3,252

  664

  0

  0

  1,432

  36,096

  Inland Revenue

  5,051

  3,951

  3,548

  3,822

  6,007

  1,114

  48

  61,344

  International Development

  0

  0

  0

  0

  410

  0

  58

  1,157

  Intervention Board

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,195

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  414

  391

  565

  229

  2

  0

  0

  10,234

  National Statistics

  0

  0

  0

  794

  0

  0

  0

  2,911

  Ordnance Survey

  49

  35

  58

  28

  56

  0

  0

  1,857

  Registers of Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,130

  0

  0

  1,130

  Scottish Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,967

  0

  7

  5,000

  Scottish Prison Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4,824

  0

  0

  4,824

  Social Security

  7,080

  3,402

  3,273

  3,811

  8,845

  9

  7

  81,585

  Trade and Industry

  288

  173

  200

  1,660

  218

  6

  9

  8,516

  Treasury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  890

  Welsh Office

  0

  0

  0

  2,127

  0

  0

  0

  2,144

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  331

  0

  0

  0

  347

  Other Departments

  102

  100

  76

  183

  2,436

  100

  21

  12,508

  546W 547W

  1Full-time equivalents

  Government office regions

  Department (including agencies)

  Yorkshire and Huberside

  East midlands

  Eastern

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  Unreported and elsewhere

  All areas

  All permanent non-industrial staff

  30,487

  18,639

  25,104

  23,906

  41,107

  3,399

  5,075

  429,295

  Government office for the Regions2

  168.1

  135

  146.8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1,541.4

  Non-industrial casual staff3

  1,213

  592

  702

  977

  1,652

  52

  744

  15,970

  Industrial staff

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0

  0

  19

  5

  0

  0

  15

  40

  Cabinet Office

  3

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  0

  445

  Defence

  1,047

  1,009

  1,143

  2,669

  2,997

  1,700

  1,989

  26,341

  Environment, Transport and Regions

  23

  14

  29

  10

  15

  0

  0

  180

  Health

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Home Office

  3

  0

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  80

  HM Prison Service

  295

  266

  276

  66

  0

  0

  17

  2,623

  Royal Mint

  0

  0

  0

  639

  0

  0

  0

  639

  Scottish Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  294

  0

  0

  294

  Social Security

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Welsh Office

  0

  0

  0

  62

  0

  0

  0

  62

  Other Departments

  3

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  All permanent industrial staff

  1,374

  1,297

  1,472

  3,466

  3,306

  1,700

  2,021

  30,747

  Industrial Casual Staff3

  60

  50

  49

  92

  90

  10

  80

  819

  All Permanent Staff

  31,861

  19,936

  26,576

  27,372

  44,412

  5,098

  7,095

  460,039

  All Staff

  33,134

  20,578

  27,328

  28,441

  46,155

  5,161

  7,919

  476,831

  1 Part-time staff are recorded according to the proportion of full-time hours worked.

  2 Included in departmental totals for DfEE, DETR and DTI.

  3 Regional figures are available only for casual staff from departments that report to Mandate. The unreported and Elsewhere and Total figures include staff not reported to Mandate.

  Source:

  Mandate and Departmental Returns.

  Policing Initiatives
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list(a) the Government Departments and (b) the publicly-funded bodies which have used the People's Panel to test policing initiatives;

  Department

  Description of research

  Cabinet Office

  Collection of baseline data on attitudes towards public services.

  Cabinet Office

  Research into attitudes to a wide range of services, with a particular focus on transport, local democracy and complaints handling.

  Cabinet Office

  To complement the Ministerial Roadshow element of the Listening to Women exercise which identified issues of importance to women.

  Cabinet Office

  Experiences of citizens using public services to evaluate how well Departments and agencies work together to deliver a joined-up service, and identify suggestions for improvement. The work was commissioned as part of the research for the Modernising Government White Paper.

  Cabinet Office

  Standards of service the public receive when they contact local and central government agencies.

  Cabinet Office

  Research to help the Cabinet Office prepare a new directory that brings together information for the main government helplines.

  Cabinet Office

  People's Panel: Analysis of the views of older people from the first three waves of Panel research.

  Cabinet Office

  Assessment of demand for extended delivery of public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  Cabinet Office

  Central IT Unit Portal Demonstrator

  Cabinet Office

  Attitudes to public services in deprived and non-deprived areas.

  Cabinet Office

  Research into what people from ethnic minority communities think of the services they receive and how their opinions differ across and between different ethnic minority groups.

  548W
  and if she will list the initiatives concerned. [148670]

  Mr. Stringer
  To date the People's Panel has not been used to test any policing initiatives.

  The panel is directed towards service delivery and the following is a list of the issues pursued by it:
  549W

  Department

  Description of research

  Cabinet Office

  Satisfaction with public services; what people expect from them; and perceptions about how public services deal with complaints.

  Cabinet Office

  Qualitative research to explore public perception of electronic service delivery.

  DETR

  Research using Panel members living in England to inform the Urban White Paper and Housing Green Paper.

  DETR—commission for Integrated Transport

  Research into the public's expectations for transport in the future. In particular to investigate consumer concerns about, and expectations of, transport in the longer term, and their priorities for investment.

  DfEE

  To investigate parents' attitudes to value added information in school performance tables.

  DfEE

  Research to examine attitudes to the daily literacy hour in primary schools, during which pupils spend an hour every day reading and writing.

  HSE

  Attitudes to gas safety and regulation.

  MAFF

  Qualitative research to evaluate a draft leaflet about GM food leaflet.

  MAFF—Food Standards Agency

  Research to assess how important it is to consumers to know the country of origin of food and what impact it has on the buying process; and what inferences the public is making about food products based on their country of origin.

  Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA)

  Qualitative research to investigate perceptions of the ministerial public appointments process.

  OST

  Research part of a public consultation to explore public attitudes to biosciences regulatory system.

  Post Office Counters

  Aspects of locations for one-stop shops and electronic service delivery.

  Summaries of the research results have been placed in the House Library and published on the internet.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  SERPS
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for each year since 1988, how many married men have transferred their company preserved pension into an appropriate personal pension; and what effect this has on a married man's widow's SERPS entitlement should he die before retirement age. [148495]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  A married man who contracts out of SERPS into an appropriate personal pension gives up all or part of his additional pension from the state scheme. He must provide for a widow's benefit when he buys an annuity on retirement.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of proposals to change the arrangement for pension entitlements to a dependent spouse after the death of the policyholder. [147491]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: On the state pensions side, where the person with the SERPS entitlement dies, there will be no change to the current arrangements for the following people:
  Those who are already widowed now and are receiving a SERPS pension.
  Those who are not widows or widowers now, but whose husbands or wives die between now and 5 October 2002.
  550W
  We are also consulting on regulations which would mean there would also be no change for people who are widowed on or after 6 October 2002 but whose late husband or wife reached state pension age on or before 5 October 2002.

  We have no plans to alter the inheritance arrangements with regard to the basic state pension or to contracted-out occupational pension schemes or appropriate personal pensions.

  Incorrect Benefit Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the amount of erroneous(a) underpayment and (b) overpayment arising as a result of error or fraud was by (i) officials and (ii) customers in respect of each benefit administered by his Department for each year since 1996–97. [148488]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available. Snapshot estimates of fraud and customer error in particular benefits are captured in the National Benefit Reviews, which have been placed in the library.

  Area Benefit Reviews, which started in October 1997, provide on-going measurement of fraud and customer error for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. Reports are placed in the Library.

  Uprated Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), of 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 139W, if he will recalculate the table on the basis that both (a) the basic State Pension and (b) the Minimum Income Guarantee were uprated with prices. [148757]
  551W
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]:The information is in the table.

  A comparison of total net cost with my previous reply to the hon. Member for Havant suggests that uprating by prices would have reduced net expenditure by about £21¼ billion—from around £3¼; billion to around £1 billion.

  Estimated costs of uprating selected benefits by prices, 2001ߝ02

  Benefit

  Cost

  Basic State Pension

  £1,100 million

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  between-£50 million and zero

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for those aged 60 and over

  -£50 million

  Total cost

  £1,000 to £1,050 million

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  2. Estimates relate to Great Britain.

  3. The costs of uprating MIG, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit with prices are negative. This can be explained by the fact that the September RPI was higher (3.3 per cent.) than the September Rossi (1.6 per cent.). This means that with price uprating, pensioners' State Pensions would have increased at a faster rate than the applicable amount limits in the income-related benefits.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had from disability organisations in relation to Winter Fuel Payments to severely disabled people under the age of 60 years; and what action he intends to take. [148612]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been representations from the Kilmarnock and Loudoun Forum on Disability, and from the publication "Disability Now". Both representations concern extending Winter Fuel Payments to younger disabled people who receive the middle or higher rate of Disability Living Allowance.

  For younger disabled people, Disability Living Allowance provides a contribution towards the extra costs associated with disability. The care and mobility needs entitlement criteria to the benefit are used as broad indicators of all the extra costs, including heating costs, that a disabled person may have. The disability premium in income-related benefits is paid in recognition that the poorest disabled people need additional help. Disabled people are free to use either of these benefits to pay for additional heating costs.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who are eligible for a full Winter Fuel Payment have, in the first instance, received only half of the total amount owed in each year since 1997. [148486]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 6 February 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people who are eligible for a full Winter Fuel Payment have, in the first instance, received only half of the total amount owed in each year since 1997.
  552W
  The Department of Social Security has not made any payments equivalent to half of the assessed entitlement.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensions (Leeds, Central)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners in the Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency receive(a) less than a full old age pension and (b) no old age pension. [148815]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Retirement Pension in the parliamentary constituency of Leeds, Central, 31 March 2000

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage

  All

  13.9

  100

  Nil

  0.1

  1.0

  Less than full rate

  4.5

  32.3

  Full rate

  9.3

  66.7

  Notes:

  1. The case count figures quoted are in thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. The figures quoted are based on the monetary value of the basic State Pension.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses to the consultation on the minimum funding requirement had been received by the end of the consultation period; when the Government plan to respond; and if they will publish the responses. [148595]

  Mr. Rooker
  To date 73 responses have been received. We are giving careful consideration to them and will then decide on the best way forward. A summary of views will be published in due course.

  Pension Entitlement on Re-marriage
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what discussions he has had with pensioner groups of the importance of pension entitlements after re-marriage; [147490]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact of pension sharing on an individual after (a) divorce and (b) re-marriage; [147488]

  (3) if he will take steps to ensure that a divorcee does not receive a reduced pension entitlement after re-marriage. [147489]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: We have consulted widely on our pensions policies, including that relating to pension sharing.

  Since 1 December 2000 divorcing couples can apply to the courts to share pension rights held in occupational and personal pensions, the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) and the stakeholder pension, and the state second pension, when these are introduced.

  Pension sharing will give each divorcing individual a share in the pension rights. These rights will belong to the recipient and will not be dependent on the circumstances

  553W
  of the ex-spouse. They can be kept regardless of subsequent changes in personal circumstances including re-marriage.

  Some women expecting to receive a Category B basic pension, based on their former husband's national insurance record, may see a reduction in that pension if they re-marry before reaching pension age. That is because their Category B pension will be based on their new husband's contribution record. However, the exact financial impact on an individual who re-marries will depend on a variety of factors, in particular the couple's financial circumstances.

  Benefits (Young People in Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland under 25 years of age were claiming benefits in the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [145636]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  Recipients in Scotland aged under 25 years in receipt of key social security benefits May 1997–2000

  Year

  Total

  Under 16s in receipt of DLA

  16 to 25 year olds claiming a key benefit

  1997

  111,700

  17,900

  93,800

  1998

  107,900

  18,600

  89,300

  1999

  104,900

  19,400

  85,400

  2000

  93,600

  20,000

  73,500

  Notes:

  Key benefits are Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), Incapacity Benefit (IB), Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Income Support (IS), Family Credit (FC) and Disability Working Allowance (DWA) were replaced by Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit from October 1999.

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Five per cent. caseload samples taken in May of each year.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new national insurance numbers have been(a) created and (b) cancelled in each year since 1992. [148487]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of National Insurance numbers created and removed

  National Insurance numbers

  Year1

  Created on DCI

  Removed from DCI

  1992

  9,763,571

  20,709

  1993

  3,289,259

  18,514

  1994

  1,057,419

  14,523

  1995

  1,007,641

  16,285

  1996

  978,666

  55,492

  1997

  1,017,500

  57,859

  1998

  1,026,885

  28,963

  1999

  1,021,776

  60,878

  2000

  995,351

  181,880

  1 January to December

  Source:

  Departmental Central Index (DCI)
  554W

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144077]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested regarding outside consultants could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department commissions a wide range of social research to help inform, develop and evaluate its policies; academic researchers carry out a significant proportion of this work. Details of all social research commissioned by the Department, including costs, are listed in the Department's Social Security Research Yearbook, which is published annually. Copies are in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the monthly totals for the number of medical assessment procedures conducted at each testing centre in the miners' compensation for chest disease agreement from January 2000 to date. [149090]

  Mr. Hain
  A breakdown by testing centres undertaking medical assessment procedures is available only from June 2000 onwards. Between January and June, Healthcall, the company contracted to undertake the Medical Assessment Process, completed a total of 1,163 MAP assessments.

  The monthly totals for the number of medical assessment procedures conducted at each testing centre in the miners' chest disease agreement from June to December 2000 are as follows:

  June 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  30

  Barnsley

  0

  Cannock

  1

  Chesterfield

  5

  Coventry

  0

  Deal

  0

  Durham

  2

  Edinburgh

  42

  Hamilton

  34

  Leeds

  0

  Lochore

  25

  Manchester

  4

  Mansfield

  40

  Mexborough

  21

  Mountain Ash

  67

  Newcastle

  9

  Newport

  104

  Nottingham

  31

  Pontefract

  0

  Sheffield

  41

  Stoke

  0

  Swansea

  77

  Domiciliary Visits

  105

  Total

  638

  555W

  July 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  14

  Barnsley

  5

  Cannock

  0

  Chesterfield

  0

  Coventry

  4

  Deal

  0

  Durham

  6

  Edinburgh

  31

  Hamilton

  22

  Leeds

  12

  Lochore

  12

  Manchester

  9

  Mansfield

  18

  Mexborough

  11

  Mountain Ash

  47

  Newcastle

  2

  Newport

  51

  Nottingham

  5

  Pontefract

  45

  Sheffield

  4

  Stoke

  0

  Swansea

  51

  Domiciliary Visits

  34

  Total

  383

  August 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  50

  Barnsley

  0

  Cannock

  4

  Chesterfield

  24

  Coventry

  13

  Deal

  8

  Durham

  26

  Edinburgh

  55

  Hamilton

  91

  Leeds

  8

  Lochore

  70

  Manchester

  9

  Mansfield

  73

  Mexborough

  33

  Mountain Ash

  11

  Newcastle

  43

  Newport

  103

  Nottingham

  41

  Pontefract

  44

  Sheffield

  22

  Stoke

  18

  Wrexham

  0

  Huddersfield

  0

  Swansea

  72

  Domiciliary Visits

  69

  Total

  993

  September 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  49

  Barnsley

  55

  Bristol

  0

  Cannock

  13

  Chesterfield

  33

  Coventry

  16

  Deal

  35

  Durham

  34

  Edinburgh

  29

  Hamilton

  48

  556W

  September 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Huddersfield

  0

  Leeds

  16

  Lochore

  68

  Manchester

  7

  Mansfield

  74

  Mexborough

  30

  Mountain Ash

  135

  Newcastle

  22

  Newport

  60

  Nottingham

  28

  Pontefract

  65

  Sheffield

  33

  Stirling

  0

  Stoke

  16

  Swansea

  55

  Wigan

  0

  Wrexham

  0

  Domiciliary Visits

  51

  Total

  972

  October 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  37

  Barnsley

  63

  Bristol

  0

  Cannock

  24

  Chesterfield

  55

  Coventry

  29

  Deal

  4

  Durham

  61

  Edinburgh

  41

  Hamilton

  57

  Huddersfield

  7

  Leeds

  31

  Lochore

  65

  Manchester

  20

  Mansfield

  67

  Mexborough

  36

  Mountain Ash

  139

  Newcastle

  34

  Newport

  84

  Nottingham

  42

  Pontefract

  68

  Sheffield

  46

  Stirling

  0

  Stoke

  13

  Swansea

  83

  Wigan

  40

  Wrexham

  0

  Domiciliary Visits

  58

  Total

  1,204

  November 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  32

  Barnsley

  51

  Bristol

  0

  Cannock

  26

  Chesterfield

  50

  Coventry

  33

  Deal

  28

  Durham

  62

  Edinburgh

  57

  Hamilton

  57

  Huddersfield

  0

  Leeds

  33

  557W

  November 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Lochore

  52

  Manchester

  17

  Mansfield

  55

  Mexborough

  48

  Mountain Ash

  111

  Newcastle

  40

  Newport

  90

  Nottingham

  47

  Pontefract

  66

  Sheffield

  51

  Stirling

  0

  Stoke

  38

  Swansea

  81

  Wigan

  22

  Wrexham

  11

  Domiciliary Visits

  149

  Total

  1,307

  December 2000

  Test center

  Number medically assessed

  Ayr

  27

  Barnsley

  57

  Bristol

  0

  Cannock

  28

  Chesterfield

  24

  Coventry

  32

  Deal

  0

  Durham

  49

  Edinburgh

  31

  Hamilton

  37

  Huddersfield

  2

  Leeds

  30

  Lochore

  50

  Manchester

  17

  Mansfield

  36

  Mexborough

  46

  Mountain Ash

  93

  Newcastle

  33

  Newport

  73

  Nottingham

  39

  Pontefract

  55

  Sheffield

  42

  Stirling

  0

  Stoke

  43

  Swansea

  79

  Wigan

  25

  Wrexham

  8

  Domiciliary Visits

  105

  Total

  1,061

  The tables only show a breakdown for MAPs carried out for live claimants. In the year in total, Healthcall, undertook 8,572 MAPs; a further 5,246 were invited for an appointment.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the new testing centre for the Medical Assessment Procedure at Ammanford will be operational; and if he will make a statement. [149089]

  Mr. Hain
  The new testing centre for the Medical Assessment Procedure at Ammanford should be operational by the end of February.

  The Department currently has five centres in operation in Wales to undertake the Medical Assessment Process, MAP, for respiratory disease. A further centre at Ystrad
  558W
  Mynach, in addition to that in Ammanford, is due to open in March. It is intended that the two new centres will initially be used for the purpose of assessing priority claimants only, including the eldest of the illest. All the MAP centres are also equipped to carry out spirometry assessment.

  In Wales as a whole, over 28,000 claims have been registered. Of these 2,250 claimants have proceeded through the full MAP, and a further 1,729 have appointments.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total amount paid out to miners(a) for vibration white finger and (b) for chest disease in each month from January 2000 to date. [149168]

  Mr. Hain
  In total, the Department has now made around 65,000 individual payments, including bereavement awards,interim settlements and full and final settlements to claimants in respect of compansation for respiratory disease and vibration related disease,totalling over £333 million.the Department continues to pay out around £1 million per day compensation.

  Total amount of compensation paid relating to respiratory disease on a month by month basis since January 2000 is as follows:

  £ million

  Month

  Total amount paid

  February

  6.2

  March

  6.5

  April

  24.5

  May

  12.5

  June

  15.0

  July

  12.8

  August

  14.5

  September

  7.3

  October

  10.3

  November

  17.0

  December

  11.5

  Total amont of compensation paid relating to respiratory disease on a month by month basis since January 2000 is as follows:

  £ million

  Month

  Total amount paid

  February

  4.3

  March

  3.4

  April

  2.7

  May

  2.8

  June

  3.2

  July

  2.4

  August

  5.7

  September

  2.5

  October

  7.3

  November

  9.6

  December

  12.5

  559W

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149124]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department does not maintain statistical information at constituency level.

  My hon. Friend's constituents, like many others throughout Lancashire, will have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include National Minimum Wage, Working Time Directive, Part Time Working Regulations and improved Maternity Leave.

  All of the wards in the City of Lancaster have been included in the revised Assisted Area map for Regional Selective Assistance and the Enterprise Grant Scheme.

  In the North West region my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000; reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals have been made by EU member states to impose(a) new and (b) additional dumping duties in respect of steel imports into the European Union in general, and those from Russia in particular. [149185]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The European Commission carries out anti-dumping investigations on behalf of member states, normally on the basis of a complaint from EU industry. The Commission consults member states on the opening of investigations and on any proposals for provisional or definitive measures. The final decision on provisional measures is taken by the Commission; the final decision on definitive measures is taken by the Commission for Treaty of Paris products and by the Council of Ministers on a simple majority vote for Treaty of Rome products.

  There are currently provisional or definitive anti-dumping measures in force on imports of seven steel products from a total of 17 different countries. Definitive measures are in force on imports of seamless pipes and tubes, and grain orientated electrical steel sheets from Russia. Provisional measures are in force on imports of steel wire ropes and cables from Russia.

  Post Offices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what definition he uses of avoidable closure of a post office in the context of the Government's formal requirement on the post office to maintain the rural network. [149189]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In the context of the Government's formal requirement on the post office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices, an unavoidable closure is when the post office can find no one suitable to take over from a560W
  departing subpostmaster, where no suitable premises remain available or where an associated retail business is no longer commercially viable.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the number of sub post offices that(a) have closed and (b) will close as a result of compulsory computerisation. [149188]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department has made no such estimates and I understand from the post office that they do not have historical data on the reasons for subpostmasters' resignations. Internal post office research in the form of exit interviews with subpostmasters has been undertaken in recent months and I understand that, from the sample of subpostmasters interviewed, 6 per cent. cited computerisation of the post office network as the reason for resignation. However, a subpostmaster's resignation, for whatever reason, does not automatically mean that the post office will close. The post office always advertise a vacancy in order to seek a suitable applicant to take over the office.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by his Department to increase consumer protection. [148887]

  Dr. Howells
  We are taking a number of important steps to increase consumer protection. We have recently implemented Distance Selling regulations which give additional legal protection to consumers purchasing direct from home, including via the Internet. We are promoting e-commerce initiatives to enhance EU and wider international co-operation and enforcement, and to identify further issues which need developing. We will shortly be taking further steps to protect consumers, including introducing Stop Now Orders, which will give Trading Standards Officers new enforcement powers, and legislation for the full pint of beer.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the future of the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and if he will make a statement. [148384]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I presented to the House on 25 July 2000, Official Report, columns 520–21W, the report of ECGD's Mission and Status Review. This report set out changes to ECGD's Mission, and set out an important agenda for change. ECGD is incorporating the conclusions of the Review into its strategic planning process and into corresponding change initiatives that will be implemented over the next three years.

  ECGD is on course to deliver, by 1 April 2001, the key principles of a capital framework to enhance its risk management systems.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will inquire into the circumstances under which the ECGD provided credit cover to a hotel project in Ghana involving the Bank of Scotland and International
  561W
  Generics; and what steps have been taken by the ECGD to ensure that the funds were used for the purposes for which they were intended. [148829]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: ECGD provided export credit cover for this project in 1994 following a request from the Ghanaian Ministry of Finance for such support.

  The Loan Agreement required that disbursements to the UK supplier, International Generics Ltd., would only be made against qualifying certificates in the form specified by the Loan Agreement, which were signed by the supplier's authorised signatory and accompanied by a supporting certificate from the architect for the relevant project. ECGD has since carried out extensive inquiries into this project, the results of which were passed to the DTI Companies Investigation Branch and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO). The DTI and SFO informed ECGD that they did not consider these cases suitable for investigation owing to the difficulty in finding a criminal offence that had occurred within UK jurisdiction, which they could investigate and prosecute.

  However, if the Ghanaian authorities undertake an investigation into whether any illegal activity has taken place, ECGD/DTI/SFO will co-operate with them in any way possible.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis the ECGD considered International Generics to be a suitable beneficiary of export credit cover in 1994; and when they ceased to be considered suitable. [148828]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: As an organisation carrying on business in the UK, supplying UK goods and services to organisations carrying on business outside the UK, International Generics were eligible, under the provisions of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, for ECGD cover in 1994. Under the Statement of Business Principles announced at the beginning of this year, ECGD will not only look at the payment risks, but also make thorough inquiries into the underlying quality of the projects, including their environmental, social and development impacts, put forward by International Generics (or indeed any other exporter) before committing cover.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the ECGD accepted a sovereign guarantee from the Bank of Ghana in 1994 against the advice of the IMF and World bank. [148830]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Neither the IMF nor the World bank gave ECGD any advice regarding the acceptance of Ghanaian sovereign guarantees. However, in providing guarantees, ECGD always sought, and received, assurances from the Ghanaian government that ECGD-backed borrowing was consistent with their agreements with the IMF. Indeed, there was no non-concessional borrowing limit in Ghana's agreement with the IMF until 1997.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects supported by the ECGD in the last 10 years have been subsequently discovered to have involved the misdirection of funds to purposes different from those approved by ECGD; and in which countries this occurred. [148831]
  562W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: There are no examples of proven cases involving the misdirection of funds to purposes different from those approved by ECGD.

  Industrial Gas Prices
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the average price of a unit of gas supplied for industrial use in(a) January 2000 and (b) January 2001. [148301]

  Mr. Hain
  The average price of a unit of gas delivered to industrial end users in Great Britain was 0.556 p/kWh in the first quarter of 2000. The latest available comparable figure relates to the third quarter of 2000 when the average price was 0.552 p/kWh. Accurate figures for the average price paid in January 2001 are not available. However provisional information on price movements suggests that, on average, prices paid by industrial end users have risen by about 40 per cent. between January 2000 and January 2001. This average figure will reflect prices paid by all industrial customers, including those on long term fixed contract prices.

  MOX Fuel Shipments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what authority UK Atomic Energy constables are accompanying the shipment of Belgonucleaire/Cogema manufactured mixed oxide fuel from France to Japan. [146905]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]: The UK Government have accepted the responsibility for ensuring that the shipment is undertaken in accordance with our international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation and physical protection of nuclear material, arising from the fact that the transporting vessels fly the British flag. The Director of Civil Nuclear Security has approved a transport plan for this shipment, of which the UKAEA Constables are an essential element. They are deployed with the agreement of the UKAEA.

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish a consultation document on possible extension to the clergy and other official holders of rights under the Employment Relations Act 1999. [149115]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I intend to publish later this year a discussion paper on all the legal issues relating to employment status as they affect the coverage of statutory employment rights. I envisage that the position of members of the clergy and other office holders will be among the issues raised. Any future proposals for changes in the legislation in this regard will be considered in the light of responses to the discussion paper.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the last
  563W
  36 months (a) the average retail price of four star unleaded petrol and (b) the average price of a barrel of oil. [145343]

  Year/month

  4 Star1 (pence per litre)

  Premium unleaded (pence per litre)

  Barrel of oil2 ($ per barrel)

  Barrel of oil2 (£ per barrel)

  1998

  January

  69.03

  63.13

  15.77

  9.64

  February

  68.64

  62.63

  15.05

  9.17

  March

  68.20

  62.09

  14.12

  8.49

  April

  72.38

  65.77

  14.48

  8.67

  May

  72.41

  65.72

  14.63

  8.84

  June

  72.21

  65.62

  14.03

  8.50

  July

  72.37

  66.04

  13.30

  8.09

  August

  72.48

  66.14

  12.61

  7.72

  September

  72.00

  65.80

  13.85

  8.23

  October

  71.78

  65.75

  13.40

  7.91

  November

  71.33

  65.02

  12.11

  7.28

  December

  70.45

  63.84

  10.41

  6.23

  1999

  January

  69.61

  62.87

  11.10

  6.72

  February

  69.78

  63.02

  10.69

  6.56

  March

  73.85

  66.51

  12.92

  7.97

  April

  77.83

  70.20

  15.28

  9.49

  May

  77.61

  70.04

  15.83

  9.80

  June

  77.32

  69.80

  16.31

  10.23

  July

  78.26

  70.98

  18.66

  11.85

  August

  79.76

  72.87

  20.23

  12.60

  September

  80.05

  73.02

  22.41

  13.80

  October

  80.99

  73.85

  22.03

  13.29

  November

  80.35

  73.36

  23.50

  14.50

  December

  81.02

  75.42

  24.20

  15.00

  2000

  January

  80.84

  75.38

  24.46

  14.92

  February

  80.75

  75.14

  25.88

  16.18

  March

  82.99

  78.32

  26.51

  16.77

  April

  84.45

  79.96

  23.24

  14.68

  May

  84.04

  79.54

  26.77

  17.75

  June

  88.34

  84.28

  28.57

  18.93

  July

  88.76

  84.65

  28.06

  18.59

  August

  85.86

  80.34

  29.30

  19.67

  September

  85.70

  80.17

  32.21

  22.44

  October

  85.07

  79.46

  31.16

  21.47

  November

  86.92

  82.05

  31.67

  22.22

  December

  385.03

  379.87

  25.96

  17.75

  1 From October 1999 four star prices represent lead replacement petrol

  2 Two month Brent futures

  3 Provisional data

  Source:

  DTI Energy Trends and IPE

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life prison sentence in prisons in Northern Ireland on 1 January. [148897]

  Mr. Ingram
  At 1 January 2001 there were 84 men and one woman serving sentences of life imprisonment in prisons in Northern Ireland. The figure of 84 men includes eight prisoners on restricted transfer to NI from the Home Office. In addition there were three males detained at the Secretary of State's Pleasure (convicted of murder committed while under 18 years of age).
  564W
  Mr. Hain
  The average retail prices of four star and premium unleaded petrol are given in the following table, together with the average price of a barrel of oil:

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 January was; and if he will make a statement. [148200]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I attended the Agriculture Council meeting held in Brussels on 29 January, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and Brid Rogers MLA, Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Executive.

  The main focus of the Council was BSE. The Commission reported on progress by member states in implementing the new measures adopted in December, as

  565W
  well as on the market and budgetary problems arising from the dramatic fall in beef consumption in many member states. In the light of advice from the Scientific Steering Committee, the Council agreed new rules should be put in place banning the use of mechanically recovered meat from ruminant bones, requiring heat treatment of fat from ruminants for use in feed, and requiring the removal of vertebral columns from cattle. I made clear that the SSC advice required no ban to be imposed on UK beef on the bone and this was not opposed.

  The Council will receive, before its next meeting, a package of proposals addressing the problems in the beef market. These will be financed within the budget limits laid down by the Berlin European Council.

  The Council also heard presentations from Commissioner Byrne on proposals to improve the welfare of pigs and planned proposals to improve the operation of the Directive on the welfare of animals in transit. I warmly welcomed both and urged the Council to agree to implement the planned improvements for pigs on a faster scale than proposed.

  Commissioner Fischler presented new proposals for reform of the olive oil regime and for a pilot scheme introducing a new simplified subsidy to replace certain production-linked aids. The scheme would be limited to farmers receiving no more than euro 1,000 a year.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans are in place to lease areas of sea adjacent to the coast for the purpose of fish farming. [148679]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Requests to lease areas of the sea bed adjacent to the coast should be made to the Crown Estate or the Duchy of Cornwall.

  Once a lease has been granted, fishermen can apply to the Minister of Agriculture for legal powers to protect shellfish farming. The creation of Several and Regulating Orders can help to preserve and encourage shellfisheries, while promoting the sustainable future of the fishery.

  River Idle/River Don
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how frequently(a) the River Idle near Bawtry and (b) the River Don along the Sprotborough Gorge are dredged; and to what depth. [149067]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency has not identified a need for dredging the River Idle since a flood alleviation scheme was constructed. A recent visual inspection showed no evidence of significant siltation but the Agency is planning a full survey to check against original design depths.

  The Agency has no plans to dredge the River Don at Sprotborough Gorge for flood defence purposes. I understand that British Waterways determine the width and depth of the river for navigation purposes.
  566W
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Environment Agency has planned for flood prevention and defence for(a) the River Idle and (b) the River Don along the Sprotborough Gorge. [149052]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand the Environment Agency has no plans to add to the flood alleviation works already in place from West Stockwith to Bawtry on the River Idle.

  As far as Sprotborough Gorge is concerned, I understand that the Agency will be investigating the adequacy of existing flood defence measures as part of its preparation of a strategy for the River Don later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers have made inquiries or representations concerning the Hinduja brothers to the Indian Government. [147769]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: No FCO Minister has made any inquiry or representation to the Indian Government concerning the legal proceedings involving the Hinduja brothers.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will request from his counterpart in the US Administration the background information that formed the basis of their decision to withhold US Government funding from organisations providing abortion in the Third World and China; [147700]

  (2) if he intends to support the United States President's recently announced policy concerning US Government funding for organisations providing abortion in the Third World and China during his forthcoming visit to the US. [147690]

  Mr. Battle
  The question of US funding of organisations whose programme includes the provision of abortion services and advice is a matter for the US Government to determine.

  Elections (Observer Funding)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding is given by his Department to the(a) British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, (b) the Inter-Parliamentary Union and (c) the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for election observing; and when this funding was last increased. [148326]

  Mr. Wilson
  The full title for the 'British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association' is 'Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (UK branch)'. The FCO provides no funding to this organisation. The branch is a registered UK charity and is one of 141 branches world-wide. Each branch is autonomous, raising its own finance. The UK branch relies on 90 per cent of its funding from HM Treasury.

  The 'Inter-Parliamentary Union' is again funded directly by HM Treasury; the FCO provides no funding.
  567W
  The UK provides at least 10 per cent. of the requested personnel for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Electoral Observation Missions. In 2000 the cost of this was £562,546. In addition the FCO pays assessed contributions amounting to 9 per cent. of the OSCE core costs for election observation, as detailed in the organisation's annual budget. In 2000 this amounted to £187,043. The size of the UK contribution rises or falls each year according to the size and number of election observation missions mounted.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2000,Official Report, column 554W, on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which person, body or state proclaimed the adopted charter; what statements relating to the charter were signed at Nice and by whom; and if all political declarations made at European councils and in ratified treaties are those of an agreed and collective policy. [148313]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights was proclaimed by the three institutions—the Council, the European Parliament, and the Commission on 7 December 2000.

  A statement saying that
  "the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission solemnly proclaim the text below as the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union"

  was signed by the Presidents of the European Commission and European Parliament and by the French Foreign Minister on behalf of the Council.

  A Declaration on the future of the Union, agreed at the Nice European Council, calls for the status of the Charter to be considered at the next IGC in 2004.

  Mr. Krishna Maharaj
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when consular staff have met Mr. Krishna Maharaj in the past two years. [149040]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Vice Consul at our Vice-Consulate in Orlando visited Mr. Maharaj in prison on 9 December 1998. He subsequently visited on 18 December 1999, but Mr. Maharaj had other visitors and decided not to see him at that time.

  The Vice-Consul visited most recently on 18 January 2000, and will do so again on 8 February 2001.

  Premier Oil
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government have had from Premier Oil since its request for the company to withdraw from Burma; and if he will make a statement. [149049]

  Mr. Battle
  Premier Oil remain in Burma. But, as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 6 February 2001,Official Report, column 488W, Premier Oil are well aware of our views
  568W
  on their investment and on Burma generally. Our policy has not changed and will not do so until there is substantive progress in that country.

  Burma/Yugoslavia (Sanctions)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on imposing sanctions on(a) Burma and (b) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [149087]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK fully implements and enforces the EU Common Position—measures imposed on Burma since 1996 by the EU because of the severe and systematic violations of human rights and lack of concrete progress towards democracy and national reconciliation in that country. In April last year, the UK successfully argued for the EU Common Position (which already included a full arms embargo, bars on defence links and non-humanitarian aid and visa restrictions) to be strengthened by imposing a ban on the export of equipment that could be used for internal repression or terrorism, strengthening the visa ban list and imposing a freeze of funds on designated members of the Burmese Government, military and security forces and designated Burmese authorities in the tourism sector. There is no consensus within the EU or UN for further measures to be adopted. Unilaterally, the UK does not encourage trade with or investment in Burma and draws attention to the views of Burmese democratic leaders that tourism there is inappropriate. The UK does not intend to soften its approach to Burma until there is substantial change in the political and human rights situation.

  With regard to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), EU sanctions were radically revised following the democratic victory of President Vojislav Kostunica in October last year. The oil and flight bans were abolished. Residual sanctions, comprising a visa ban and freeze of funds, have been retained to target specifically Milosevic and persons associated with him. The EU arms embargo and embargo on the supply to the FRY of equipment which might be used for internal repression remain in force.

  The UK further implements the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), which imposed an arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and a prohibition on arming and training for terrorist activities there.

  Prisoners of War (North Korea)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of North Korea on the fate of untraced United Kingdom prisoners of war lost during the Korean War. [147788]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State has not held any recent discussion with the Government of North Korea on this subject. Establishing diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will allow us to discuss this and other issues with the North Korean Government.
  569W

HEALTH

  French Meat
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he was first informed of the contents of the report to Directorate D of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of a veterinary mission to France relating to certain protective measures against BSE and scrapie, with particular reference to implementation of Commission Decisions 94/381/EC, 98/272/EC, 98/703/EC and 97/18/EC; and what action he has taken to protect British consumers since then. [144258]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Food Standards Agency has advised that the report was published in December 1999 and concerns a veterinary mission carried out in France in May/June 1999. The purpose of the mission was to examine compliance in France with certain EC measures relating to monitoring and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in cattle and sheep. These are all matters for which Agriculture Ministers are responsible.

  The Food Standards Agency has been monitoring the incidence of BSE across Europe. Its latest advice is that no additional measures are currently needed in the United Kingdom to protect consumers from legal beef imports from France or other European countries.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates he(a) spoke by telephone to and (b) met (i) the French Minister of Health and (ii) the European Commissioner with responsibility for health and consumer protection, to discuss the contents of the report to Directorate D of the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General of a veterinary mission to France relating to certain protective measures against BSE and scrapie, with particular reference to implementation of Commission Decisions 94/381/EC, 98/272/EC, 98/703/EC and 97/18/EC. [144257]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have not held any discussions with members of the French Government or the European Commission on the report.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money allocated in 2000–01 by the Northern and Yorkshire National Health Service Regional Office was allocated to(a) the South Tyneside Community Health Council and (b) each other community health council in the Northern and Yorkshire Region; and what guidelines were used in the allocation of the money. [148616]

  Ms Stuart
  The moneys allocated by the Northern and Yorkshire National Health Service Executive Regional Office to South Tyneside Community Health Council and each other community health council in the Northern and Yorkshire Region in 2000–01 are detailed in the table.

  The allocation to each community health council is calculated using the following formula:
  1. "Common requirement"—60 per cent. of the disposable budget to be divided equally between all 28 community health councils in region.
  570W
  2.Population—32 per cent. of the disposable budget to be allocated to all community health councils based on their proportion of the overall population of the region.
  3. Land area—5 per cent. of the disposable budget to be allocated based on overall land area in region.
  4. Ethnicity project money—3 per cent. to be held in central reserve managed by a nominated group.

  CHC allocations 2000–01

  £

  2000–01 allocations

  Revised initial budgets

  Airedale

  101,299

  Bradford

  118,968

  East Yorkshire

  111,659

  Hull

  96,246

  Leeds

  165,076

  Harrogate

  108,538

  Northallerton

  97,690

  Scarborough

  91,892

  York

  109,425

  Calderdale

  106,571

  Dewsbury

  94,358

  Huddersfield

  94,869

  North Durham

  107,943

  Pontefract

  110,728

  Wakefield

  121,519

  Newcastle

  106,225

  North Tyneside

  97,001

  East Cumbria

  107,244

  West Cumbria

  93,042

  Northumberland

  114,000

  Darlington and Teesdale

  98,574

  South Durham and Weardale

  101,617

  Gateshead

  101,107

  South Tyneside

  96,999

  Sunderland

  102,811

  Hartlepool

  94,426

  North Tees

  108,501

  South Tees

  114,713

  Sub total

  2,973,040

  Food Safety (Fish)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action officials from his Department take to(a) monitor and (b) receive information about the levels of (i) polybrominated diphenyl ethers and (ii) dioxins and dioxin-like chemicals. in fish; and if he will publish information obtained for each of the last 10 years. [148820]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the Government have been monitoring and releasing information for dioxins and dioxin-like chemicals in food, including fish, for over 10 years. Information on fish has been published in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Food Surveillance Paper No. 31, and Food Surveillance Information Sheets Nos. 71, 89, 105, 145 and 184. The most recent information has been collected by the Agency and published in FSA Food Surveillance Information Sheet No. 4. Copies of all the above documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Similar information on polybrominated diphenyl ethers is not yet available. However, the FSA is intending to start a programme of surveys on polybrominated diphenyl ethers and other related compounds in the near future. The results of this programme will also be publicly released.
  571W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects on human health of the consumption of more than one (i) 100g and (ii) 130g portion of farmed salmon per week, with particular reference to(a) pregnant women and (b) children under the age of four years; and if he will make a statement. [148819]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the health benefits of eating moderate amounts of fish, including farmed salmon, as part of a well-balanced diet outweigh any possible risk to health associated with dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in food. The FSA recommends that as part of a balanced diet people should eat two portions of fish per week, one of which should be oily. Pregnant women and small children are advised to follow the same general advice on fish consumption. Consumption of more than a large portion (i.e. a 130g portion) of salmon per week is unlikely to be harmful, provided that it is consistent with a balanced diet.

  Health and Social Care Bill
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the costs of(a) setting up and (b) running patient forums, overview and scrutiny Committees, ILAF and PALS. [148566]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: At this stage of the Bill, it would be inappropriate to go into detail about the cost of the new systems and structures for patient and public involvement until the legislation covering some of the new arrangements has been passed by parliamentary process.

  Aerosol Addiction
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) under and (b) over 16 years were addicted to aerosols in each of the last five years. [148836]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The information requested is not available in the form requested. However, information about the use of drugs (including volatile substances) by young people in 1998 and 1999 is included in the Statistical Bulletin "Statistics on young people and drug misuse: England, 1998". This is available in the Library. Relevant information from this is shown in the table.

  Proportion of young people aged 11–15 years who had used glue/solvents and gas in the last year, England

  Per cent.

  Drug

  1998

  1999

  Glue or Solvents

  1

  2

  Gas (Butane, lighter refills)

  —

  2

  Proportion of young people aged 16–24 years who had used glue etc in the last year, England and Wales

  Per cent.

  Drug

  1998

  Glue etc

  1

  572W
  Information on people presenting to drug misuse services for the first time, or for the first time for six months or more is published in the statistical bulletins "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for six months ending …". This is available in the Library. Relevant information from this is shown is in the table.

  Number of users presenting for t with solvents as their main dn ending 1 October 1996 to reatment at dru g of misuse 31 March 20 rug misuse during the periods 2000—Englad

  All ages

  Under 20

  Over 20

  October 1996 to March 1997

  158

  95

  63

  April 1997 to September 1997

  148

  95

  53

  October 1997 to March 1998

  167

  116

  51

  April 1998 to September 1998

  157

  104

  53

  October 1998 to March 1999

  139

  91

  48

  April 1999 to September 1999

  165

  116

  49

  October 1999 to March 2000

  176

  113

  63

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the average cost of medicine the prescription charge represented in the latest year for which figures are available. [149338]

  Ms Stuart
  For the 12 months January to December 1999, the prescription charge represented 44 per cent. of the net ingredient cost of chargeable items.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of all prescriptions are provided free. [149333]

  Ms Stuart
  Around 85 per cent. of all prescription items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors are dispensed free of charge.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the income profile of people who purchased pre-payment certificates. [149332]

  Ms Stuart
  No such estimates have been made.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the adult under 60 years old population do not have to pay prescription charges. [149334]

  Ms Stuart
  It is estimated that around 20 per cent. of the population aged between 18 and 60 do not have to pay prescription charges.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupils were in classes of 30 or more in (i) Somerset and (ii) Yeovil constituency in each of the years 1994–95 to 2000–01. [144604]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The available information for Somerset local education authority area and the parliamentary constituency of Yeovil on class sizes collected in January is shown in the following table. Information on class sizes by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to 1997.
  573W
  Provisional estimates for the year 2000–01 are expected to be published later this year.

  We have secured early delivery of our infant class size pledge in Yeovil. The most recent figures show that in September 2000 there were no infant classes in the constituency with more than 30 pupils.

  The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving up to £ 50,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  Number of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in classes of size 30 or more taught by one teacher: 1995 to 2000

  Primary

  Secondary

  January

  Number pupils in classes of of 30 or more

  Number of KS1 pupils in classes of 30 or more

  Number of pupils in classes of 30 or more

  Somerset local education authority

  2000

  16,579

  4,209

  37,313

  1999

  19,092

  6,036

  38,294

  1998

  18,818

  6,537

  37,549

  1997

  17,786

  6,507

  37,256

  1996

  17,039

  5,649

  36,587

  1995

  13,866

  1—

  35,800

  Yeovil constituency

  2000

  3,357

  881

  7,331

  1999

  3,709

  1,417

  7,455

  1998

  3,399

  1,378

  7,467

  1997

  2,919

  1,350

  7,409

  1996

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1995

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Not available

  Infant classes taught by one teacher by size

  September

  Less than 30

  30

  31+

  Total

  Somerset

  2000

  12,919

  2,610

  443

  15,972

  1999

  11,998

  3,000

  1,545

  16,543

  Yeovil

  2000

  2,522

  720

  0

  3,242

  1999

  2,220

  720

  1,003

  3,943

  Volunteering
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he plans to promote volunteering and remove barriers to volunteering from the benefits system. [149508]

  Ms Jowell
  The Policy Action Team on Community Self-help recommended a relaxation in the current rule in Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), which requires volunteers to be available to take up employment at 48-hours' notice. It also recommended that small advance payments made by voluntary organisations to cover volunteers' costs such as travel expenses be disregarded. I am pleased to announce that, subject to Parliament's approval of the amending regulations, we intend to implement these recommendations.

  Firstly, we will extend the 48 hour rule in JSA to one week. This will enable volunteers to give a greater commitment to volunteering by allowing them to give a
  574W
  week's notice before having to start a job. We will, however, retain the requirement that volunteers must be available at 48 hours' notice to attend an interview in connection with employment to ensure that they do not Miss out on job opportunities. The change is intended to encourage more unemployed people to consider volunteering as a way of developing skills to improve employability. It should also enable voluntary organisations to plan the activities of unemployed volunteers with more certainty. The relaxation will initially be for a year so that we can evaluate its impact on both unemployed people and voluntary organisations. We shall work in partnership with the voluntary sector to agree the best approach to this evaluation.

  Secondly, I am also pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has agreed to disregard small advance payments by voluntary organisations made to cover volunteers' costs such as travel expenses. Payments made in arrears to reimburse such expenses are disregarded already. This change will mean that all volunteers receiving income-related benefits, not only those who are unemployed, need not be out of pocket as a result of their volunteering. It will strengthen not only our joint aim of developing employability through volunteering but the Government's aim of encouraging volunteering more widely.

  Performance Pay
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of teachers in each of the four parliamentary constituencies of Wirral(a) have successfully applied for the teachers' performance pay threshold, (b) have unsuccessfully applied for the teachers' performance pay threshold and (c) are awaiting the outcome of their application for the teachers' performance pay threshold. [146891]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: It is estimated that there are about 250,000 teachers in England who are eligible for the post-threshold pay scale, of whom 81 per cent. have applied. There are no reliable data held centrally about the number of teachers eligible for the post-threshold pay scale in each local authority.

  The number of teachers in the Wirral, whether or nor they are eligible for the post-threshold pay scale, and the number of applications to date for the Wirral and its four parliamentary constituencies are as follows:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of teachers1whether or not eligible for the post threshold pay scale

  Number of applicants to date2

  Percentage of all teachers, whether or not eligible for the post threshold pay scale, that have applied

  Wirral

  3,130

  1,786

  57

  Birkenhead

  —

  394

  —

  Wallasey

  —

  517

  —

  Wiiral, South

  —

  320

  —

  Wirral, West

  —

  516

  —

  1 Headcount of headteachers, deputy headteachers and qualified classroom teachers in the maintained schools sector at January 2000. It is not possible to provide an appropriate number of teachers by constituency because teachers can teach in more than one school and this would lead to double counting.
  575W
  2 There are 39 candidates from the Wirral that have applied through the local authority so the parliamentary constituencies cannot be identified.

  At present only two schools in the Wirral have received assessor visits. We hope that the majority of teachers will have been assessed by Easter.

  Leeds LEA
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what considerations he has given to Leeds local education authority entering into partnership with a public sector organisation to run its proposed joint venture company. [147272]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Leeds city council invited bids from the list approved by the DfEE. That list includes several consortiums involving public sector organisations.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation he has made of the performance of Leeds local education authority over the period following the publication of the Ofsted and PricewaterhouseCoopers reports on it. [147273]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There has been no further review.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing the proposed joint venture company to run Leeds local education authority. [147274]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Leeds local education authority will transfer to the company sufficient funds to provide education services to schools. In addition, there will be some transitional costs. We are still discussing these with Leeds city council and prospective partners.

  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means the costs of establishing and running the proposed Leeds local education authority joint venture company will be met. [147275]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Employment will contribute to transitional costs.

  Slough Schools
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much additional funding has been made available to schools in Slough(a) as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement and (b) since 1997. [147748]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding for schools is distributed via local education authorities. £ 388,000 additional funding was made available to schools as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. Shown in the table are the allocations for education in Slough borough council since 1998. In 1997–98 Slough was part of Berkshire and did not exist in its own right.

  £000

  Education SSA

  Funding allocations

  1998–99

  55,957

  1,478

  1999–2000

  59,000

  3,199

  2000–01

  62,400

  8,487

  The main elements of funding in 2000–01 are Schools Capital, Standards Fund and School Standards Grant. In
  576W
  addition, Slough will receive in 2000–01 Special Grant funding to support elements of the teachers' pay reform packages. These are demand-led and will depend on the claims that Slough borough council make for each grant.

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £ 300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £ 150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £ 60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £ 370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £ 700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  School Grants (Harrow)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Standards Fund grants to schools in the Harrow, West constituency in each year since May 1997. [148322]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information cannot be provided for an individual constituency, but the following table shows the Standards Fund grants made to Harrow local education authority for 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund payment system excluding New Deal for Schools capital, which is not part of the Standards Fund programme. All figures include both Government and local authority contributions. The amount actually paid to schools will depend on local expenditure decisions by schools and the local authority.

  Standards Fund: Grants to Harrow local education authority

  £

  Grant name

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  School Effectiveness

  456,200

  National Curriculum Assessment

  120,674

  Primary Teachers' Subject Knowledge

  61,895

  Special Education Needs

  55,671

  Qualifications

  16,000

  Bilingual Pupils

  21,694

  Training for Careers Teachers

  20,093

  Youth Service

  5,774

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  16,924

  School Security

  70,900

  Baseline Assessment

  27,500

  Primary (Key Stage 2) Performance Tables

  1,500

  Books for Schools

  65,758

  Total

  940,583

  1998–99

  School Effectiveness

  506,963

  School Leadership

  33,223

  Induction for Newly-qualified Teachers

  16,782

  Early Years Training and Development

  31,555

  Assessment

  136,147

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  212,825

  Summer Literacy Schools

  9,988

  Special Educational Needs

  64,030

  Qualifications

  23,110

  Drug Prevention

  30,254

  Youth Service

  7,874

  School Security

  71,166

  National Grid for Learning

  346,914

  Books for Schools

  74,344

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  43,410

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teachers

  1,650

  SEN Portable CD-ROM Systems

  24,000

  Total

  1,634,235

  577W

  Standards Fund: Grants to Harrow local education authority

  £

  Grant name

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  Class Size Initiative (Revenue)

  58,949

  School Improvement

  787,471

  School Leadership

  71,000

  Early Years Training and Development: Four-year-olds

  26,780

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  175,581

  Summer Literacy Schools and Literacy at Key Stage 3

  49,455

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  145,000

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  10,000

  Family Literacy

  22,692

  Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  49,131

  Qualifications

  8,749

  Special Educational Needs

  89,923

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  158,947

  Drug Prevention

  32,996

  Youth Service

  8,724

  National Grid for Learning

  448,152

  School Security

  70,828

  Beacon Schools

  18,000

  Travellers and Displaced Persons

  99,179

  Protecting Local Education Authority Music Services

  158,000

  Ethnic Minority Achievements

  863,751

  Access Fund for Post-16 Pupils in Schools

  4,657

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  125,069

  School Asset Management Plans (AMPs)

  24,030

  Computer Systems for Chairs of Education

  2,000

  Education and Health Partnerships

  18,693

  Working Environment Fund

  45,953

  Administrative Support in Small Schools

  2,968

  Laptops for Heads of Small Primary and Special Schools

  13,370

  Total

  3,590,048

  2000–01

  Class Size Initiative (Revenue)

  270,000

  Schools Improvement

  903,137

  School Leadership

  111,480

  Qualifications

  16,699

  New National Curriculum

  59,900

  Advanced Skills Teachers (AST): National Programme

  42,000

  Beacon Schools.

  49,000

  Early Years Training and Development

  40,186

  National Literacy Strategy-Primary

  134,022

  National Numeracy Strategy-Primary

  163,372

  National Numeracy Strategy: Intensive Training

  23,930

  Summer Literacy and Numeracy Schools and Literacy and Numeracy

  63,284

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  126,819

  Family Literacy and Numeracy

  30,800

  Study Support

  42,839

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  1,214,881

  Special Educational Needs: Training/Parent Partnerships

  130,617

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  381,062

  Access Fund for Post-16 Pupils in Schools

  5,000

  Secondary School Learning Support Units (Capital)

  33,764

  Secondary School Learning Support Units (Recurrent)

  12,662

  National Grid for Learning

  552,522

  School Security

  73,408

  Protecting Local Authority Music Services

  158,000

  Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  98,099

  Education and Health Partnerships

  27,369

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Teaching Assistants

  465,259

  Small School Support Fund

  10,854

  Working Environment Fund

  100,981

  Performance Management Training

  67,648

  Support for Performance Management Training

  67,648

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  33,704

  Formula Capital for Schools

  543,234

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  111,461

  Additional Devolved Formula Capital

  477,999

  Seed Capital Challenge

  138,005

  578W

  Standards Fund: Grants to Harrow local education authority

  £

  Grant name

  Expenditure

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  2,336

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  18,000

  Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  108,043

  Total

  6,911,224

  Notes:

  1.The expenditure figures are based for the first three years on audited outturn statements from Harrow.

  2.The figures for 2000–01 are the total grant expected to be paid to Harrow this financial year.

  3.All figures include both Government and local authority contributions.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the direct grants for schools in the Harrow, West constituency in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [148323]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the School Standards Grant payable for each school in the 2000–01 financial year. No grant was paid in 1999–2000. In 2001–02 the amounts per school will be substantially increased so that they range from £ 6,000 to £ 70,000 per school, but it is not yet possible to say what individual school entitlements will be. In 2002–03, the amounts payable will be further increased by 2.75 per cent.

  School Standards Grant 2000–01

  Name of school

  Amount (£)

  Pinner Wood First School

  9,000

  Pinner Wood Middle School

  9,000

  Roxeth Nursery, First and Middle School

  9,000

  Grimsdyke First and Middle School

  9,000

  Cannon Lane Middle School

  9,000

  Pinner Park Middle School

  9,000

  Roxbourne Middle School

  9,000

  Longfield Middle School

  9,000

  West Lodge Middle School

  9,000

  Grant Middle School

  9,000

  Roxeth Manor Middle School

  9,000

  Cannon Lane First School

  9,000

  Longfield First School

  9,000

  Pinner Park First School

  9,000

  Roxbourne First School

  9,000

  West Lodge First School

  9,000

  Grange First School

  9,000

  Roxeth Manor First School

  9,000

  Earlsmead First and Middle School

  9,000

  Welldon Park First School

  9,000

  Welldon Park Middle School

  9,000

  Vaughan First and Middle School

  9,000

  St. Teresa's RC First and Middle School

  9,000

  St. John Fisher RC First and Middle School

  9,000

  St. George's First and Middle School

  9,000

  The Moriah Jewish Day School

  9,000

  Hatch End High School

  50,000

  Nower Hill High School

  40,000

  Whitmore High School

  40,000

  Rooks Heath High School

  40,000

  Shaftesbury High School

  15,000

  Alexandra School

  15,000

  Wandsworth Secondary Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent on each pupil at secondary school in the London borough of Wandsworth in the last year [148327]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Net institutional expenditure on secondary schools in Wandsworth local education authority for 1998–99, the latest year for which this information is currently available, was £ 2,670 per pupil.

  The following table sets out the resources made available to Wandsworth local education authority for 11 to 15-year-olds, at 2000–01 prices, on a per pupil basis. These figures are not directly comparable with the net institutional expenditure figure given above, but they do reflect a real terms increase in secondary funding per pupil over the last three years of £ 470.

  £per pupil

  Standard spending assessment1

  Special and specific grants

  SSA and special/specific grants

  1997–98

  3,940

  40

  3,980

  1998–99

  3,960

  60

  4,020

  1999–2000

  4,030

  130

  4,160

  2000–01

  4,100

  350

  4,450

  1 Based on the secondary SSA sub-block

  Under this Government, overall funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 nationally in real terms, and it will increase by a further £ 150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £ 370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £ 700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the basis on which the allocations to individual local authorities contained in his statement of 29 January were calculated, including a list of the variables which were taken into account. [148343]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 February 2001): In overall terms, Education Standard Spending and special and specific grants for education were planned to increase by almost £ 1.9 billion or over 8 per cent. before this additional allocation: that is around £ 150 per pupil in real terms. However, some authorities faced lower increases because of particular pressures: that is why my right hon. Friend announced an extra £ 52 million in special grant.

  This funding was allocated as follows (a) authorities that had not been allocated funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund were allocated £ 100,000 each; (b) those authorities that faced the greatest pressure as a result of the transfer of Adult Education funding to the Learning and Skills Council were allocated funding to meet that pressure; and (c) the remaining funding was allocated by comparing the pressures on authorities—from pay, prices, the transfer of Adult Education funding and increased contributions to the Standards Fund—with
  580W
  their increase in Education SSA plus the funding at (a) and (b) above and taking account of allocations from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  This extra grant takes the increase in funding for education to over £1.9 billion for 2001–02.

  Pupil Identification Numbers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in developing a national register of individual pupil identification numbers. [148383]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The Department intends to create a central pupil database containing statistical profiles for all pupils in the maintained schools sector in England. Information relating to each pupil will be collated mainly by means of a "unique pupil number" (UPN) allocated to them when they first enter school. This database will track pupils' progress from Key Stage to Key Stage and relate this to contextual information about them. The information that it provides both for central agencies (the Department, the Office for Standards in Education and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) and for local education authorities and schools will make a major contribution to the drive to raise standards, and to monitoring the achievements of ethnic minority and other potentially vulnerable groups. The database will be subject to strict security controls to prevent any improper access to information about individual pupils. This aspect of the project has been, and will continue to be, the subject of detailed discussions with the Data Protection Commissioner.

  The backbone of the database will be the "pupil level Annual Schools' Census" (PLASC) to be conducted in January of each year and providing information for each pupil individually referenced by their UPN, rather than just school totals as in the existing Annual Schools' Census (or "Form 7") which PLASC is replacing.

  UPNs were allocated to pupils during the 1999–2000 school year, and included in the reporting of all Key Stage assessment results in summer 2000. About 2,000 schools are submitting a PLASC return for January 2001, and a sample of schools in all local education authorities is trialling the process. It is expected that all maintained primary, middle, secondary and special schools in England will be making PLASC returns from January 2002 onwards. The aim is to establish the central pupil database as soon as possible after full implementation of PLASC in January 2002.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), of 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 71–72W, how many Jobseeker's Allowance claimants signed on by post. [148505]

  Ms Jowell
  We do not hold national figures on the numbers of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants who sign on by post. Authorisation of postal signing is the responsibility of local Employment Service business managers.
  581W

  Fast Track Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications for the Fast Track teachers recruitment scheme have been received. [148681]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The number of applications to join the new Fast Track Teaching Programme received by 31 January 2001 was 1,561. Like other accelerated progression schemes, applicants will now go through a rigorous selection process. Those recruited will be in addition to those entering teacher training through other routes.

  Secondary Curriculum and Staffing Survey
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department last conducted a secondary curriculum and staffing survey; and when the next survey is due for completion and publication. [148683]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: There is an annual census of teacher numbers and vacancies, the results of which are published in April each year.

  The Department last conducted a secondary curriculum and staffing survey in November 1996. The possibility of conducting a further secondary curriculum and staffing survey in 2001–02 is being considered and if undertaken the results will be published as soon as possible.

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000. There was a growth of over 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) speech therapists there are in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in each local education authority, (b) vacancies exist for such a post and (c) people are in training to be school speech therapists. [148705]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. However, DfEE, together with the Department of Health and the National Assembly for Wales, recently commissioned a survey of NHS speech and language therapy services in England and Wales. The findings from this survey are summarised in DfEE Research Report 239, published in November 2000. Two thirds of respondents to the survey indicated that they operated a designated speech and language therapy service to mainstream schools. This provision is mainly focused on primary schools.

  Under the Standards Fund 2001–02, we are supporting expenditure of £ 82 million on special educational needs. We envisage that LEAs will spend £ 10 million of this on enhancing speech and language therapy provision in conjunction with the NHS and the voluntary sector.

  Computers within Reach Scheme
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people broken down by area have obtained computers under the Computers Within Reach Scheme. [148736]
  582W
  Mr. Wills
  As of 9 February, the number of computers that will have been delivered to customers of the first phase of the pilot scheme for Computers Within Reach by area is as follows: 800 Liverpool, 120 Manchester, 50 Sheffield area, 50 Plymouth, 60 Hull and 10 in the London area.

  The scheme is currently in its first phase and the regional contractors in other areas have been signing up customers, putting the required infrastructure in place for deliveries and customer training and plan to start deliveries within the next two weeks. Currently the phase one contracts allow for the delivery of 35,000 computers.

  It is proposed that there will be 5,000 customers in that part of the first phase pilot being undertaken in Leeds in the following post codes: LS2, LS3, LS4, LS5, LS6, LS7, LS8, LS9, LS10, LS11, LS12, LS13, LS14, LS15, LS16, LS17, LS18, LS19, LS20. Deliveries are expected to start later this week or early next week, as soon as the accompanying printers are received by the contractor.

  School Funding (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne which received cash resources directly in the financial year 2000–01, with the sum for each school; and if he will estimate how much will be allocated in 2001–02 on the basis of his proposals in the pre-Budget report. [148817]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: The following table shows the School Standards Grant entitlement for each school in 2000–01. In 2001–02 the estimated total School Standards Grant for Newcastle education authority will amount to £2.8 million. Amounts for that year cannot yet be shown for individual schools, but the typical primary school will receive £20,000 and the typical secondary school, £60,000. In addition devolved formula capital grants are payable: in 2000–01 these are £12,000 for a typical primary school and £36,000 for a typical secondary school, increasing progressively to £16,000 and £50,000 respectively by 2003–04.

  School Standards Grant—Newcastle LEA

  Name of school

  Amount(£)

  Ashfield Nursery School

  3,000

  Cruddas Park Nursery School

  3,000

  Atkinson Road Nursery School

  6,000

  Newburn Manor Nursery School

  3,000

  Monkchester Road Nursery School

  6,000

  Walkergate Nursery School

  3,000

  Valley View Nursery School

  3,000

  Ashlyns Unit

  3,000

  Parkway Centre

  3,000

  Dinnington Village First School

  6,000

  Archibald First School

  9,000

  South Gosforth First School

  9,000

  Regent Farm First School

  9,000

  Linhope First School

  9,000

  Gosforth Park First School

  9,000

  Broadway East First School

  9,000

  Grange First School

  6,000

  Atkinson Road Primary School

  9,000

  Throckley First School

  9,000

  Newburn Manor First School

  6,000

  Walbottle Village First School

  6,000

  West Denton First School

  9,000

  Knoplaw First School

  9,000

  583W

  School Standards Grant—Newcastle LEA

  Name of school

  Amount(£)

  Milecastle First School

  9,000

  Cheviot First School

  9,000

  Waverley First School

  9,000

  Simonside First School

  9,000

  Farne First School

  9,000

  Lemington First School

  9,000

  Westerhope First School

  9,000

  Byker Primary School

  9,000

  West Jesmond Primary School

  9,000

  Benton Park Primary School

  9,000

  Hawthorn Primary School

  6,000

  Canning Street Primary School

  9,000

  Chillingham Road Primary School

  9,000

  Cowgate Primary School

  6,000

  Cragside Primary School

  9,000

  Delaval Community Primary School

  9,000

  Denton Road Primary School

  9,000

  Broadwood Junior School

  6,000

  Broadwood Infant School

  6,000

  Tyneview Primary School

  9,000

  North Fawdon Primary School

  9,000

  Hilton Primary School

  9,000

  Montagu Primary School

  6,000

  Mountfield Primary School

  9,000

  Ravenswood Primary School

  9,000

  South Benwell Primary School

  6,000

  Stocksfield Avenue Primary School

  9,000

  Walkergate Junior School

  9,000

  Walkergate Infant School

  9,000

  Thomas Walling Primary School

  9,000

  Welbeck Primary School

  9,000

  Westgate Hill Primary School

  9,000

  West Walker Primary School

  9,000

  Wharrier Street Primary School

  9,000

  Wingrove Primary School

  9,000

  Wyndham Primary School

  9,000

  Kenton Bar Primary School

  9,000

  Kingston Park Primary School

  9,000

  Hotspur Primary School

  9,000

  Moorside Community Primary School

  9,000

  Christ Church CofE Primary School, Newcastle

  6,000

  St. Anthony's CofE Primary School

  6,000

  Archbishop Runcie CofE First School

  6,000

  St. Charles' RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Oswald's RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Mark's RC Primary School

  6,000

  St. George's RC Primary School

  6,000

  St. Cuthbert's RC Primary School

  6,000

  St. John Vianney RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Paul's CofE Primary School

  9,000

  English Martyrs' RC Primary School

  9,000

  Sacred Heart RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Bede's RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Cuthbert's Catholic Primary School

  9,000

  St. Catherine's RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  6,000

  St. Lawrence's RC Primary School

  9,000

  Our Lady and St. Anne's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  9,000

  St. Michael's RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Teresa's Catholic Primary School

  9,000

  St. Vincent's RC Primary School

  9,000

  St. Alban's RC Primary School

  9,000

  Chapel Park Middle School

  30,000

  Chapel House Middle School

  30,000

  Throckley Middle School

  30,000

  Gosforth Central Middle School

  30,000

  Gosforth West Middle School

  30,000

  Gosforth East Middle School

  30,000

  West Denton High School

  30,000

  Gosforth High School

  50,000

  Walbottle Campus

  50,000

  Walker Technology College

  50,000

  Benfield School

  40,000

  Kenton School

  50,000

  584W

  School Standards Grant—Newcastle LEA

  Name of school

  Amount(£)

  Denton Park Middle School

  30,000

  Chevyside Middle School

  30,000

  Heaton Manor School

  50,000

  Lemington Middle School

  30,000

  West Gate Community College

  50,000

  Firfield Community School

  30,000

  St. Mary's Catholic Comprehensive School

  40,000

  St. Cuthbert's High School

  40,000

  Sacred Heart RC Comprehensive School

  50,000

  Trinity School

  15,000

  Hadrian School

  15,000

  Sir Charles Parsons School

  15,000

  Thomas Bewick School

  15,000

  Total

  1,526,000

  Education Funding (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out for each authority in the former county of Tyne and Wear the allocations under(a) New Deal for Schools, (b) the Standards Fund in 2000–01 and 2001–02, (c) Excellence in Cities in 2001–02 and (d) the additional support for recruitment retention in schools tackling educational disadvantage in 2001–02. [148818]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: Listed in the following tables are the allocations for each authority in the former county of Tyne and Wear under (a) New Deal for Schools from 1997–98 to 2000–01, (b) the Standards Fund in 2000–01 and 2001–02 and (c) Excellence in Cities (EiC) in 2001–02. New Deal for Schools and EiC funding are issued through the Standards Fund and are not included in the following Standards Fund allocations. The EiC allocations cover initiatives for Learning mentors, Learning support units, Gifted and Talented and Beacon Schools. They do not cover initiatives for City Learning Centres, Specialist Schools and Mini-Education Action Zones where total allocations are still to be determined. The Standards Fund allocations for 2001–02 have not yet been finalised. They include allocations already advised to local education authorities, but there are further grants for which allocations have not yet been announced.

  New Deal for schools allocations

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Gateshead

  352

  1,187

  962

  2,816

  Newcastle

  487

  4,612

  6,318

  3,300

  North Tyneside

  406

  613

  1,364

  2,705

  South Tyneside

  536

  1,675

  1,270

  2,058

  Sunderland

  719

  960

  2,030

  3,872

  Standards Fund allocations

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Gateshead

  8,901

  10,635

  Newcastle

  14,885

  13,955

  North Tyneside

  8,533

  9,621

  South Tyneside

  7,242

  9,059

  Sunderland

  11,954

  15,165

  585W

  Excellence in Cities allocations

  £000

  2001–02

  Gateshead

  1,542

  Newcastle

  1,943

  North Tyneside

  1,595

  South Tyneside

  1,497

  Sunderland

  2,655

  £210 million is available under the School Improvement Grant in 2001–02. The majority of this will be devolved to all schools to fund locally identified school improvement priorities. Fifteen per cent. of the grant will be allocated to schools in challenging circumstances. These funds have been allocated to support secondary schools with low levels of attainment or free high school meals and schools in special measures. Allocations of School Improvement Grant (which includes allocations for schools in challenging circumstances) for each authority in the former county of Tyne and Wear are set out in the following table.

  School Improvement Grant allocations—2000–01

  £000

  School Improvement

  Allocation of School Improvement for schools in challenging circumstances

  Gateshead

  810

  130

  Newcastle

  956

  110

  North Tyneside

  667

  0

  South Tyneside

  653

  50

  Sunderland

  1,129

  105

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £ 300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £ 150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Maintained primary1

  Maintained secondary1

  Maintained special1

  Total

  England

  1,366

  8,636

  436

  10,438

  London

  249

  1,471

  62

  1,782

  Inner London

  109

  500

  30

  639

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  3

  24

  5

  32

  Hackney

  13

  18

  5

  36

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  44

  0

  48

  Haringey

  11

  30

  2

  43

  Islington

  8

  28

  0

  36

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7

  20

  2

  29

  Lambeth

  9

  27

  4

  40

  Lewisham

  14

  48

  3

  65

  Newham

  14

  40

  0

  54

  Southwark

  12

  94

  2

  108

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  28

  3

  32

  Wandsworth

  11

  61

  4

  76

  Westminster

  2

  38

  0

  40

  Outer London

  140

  971

  32

  1,143

  Barking and Dagenham

  13

  25

  1

  39

  Barnet

  6

  36

  0

  42

  Bexley

  18

  42

  1

  61

  Brent

  6

  69

  2

  77

  Bromley

  6

  77

  4

  87

  Croydon

  16

  109

  6

  131

  Ealing

  5

  68

  1

  74

  Enfield

  5

  71

  0

  76

  586W
  Government, funding per pupil fell by £ 60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further Increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £ 370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £ 700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were expelled or suspended from school in each of the London education authorities during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [148898]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available data on permanent exclusions are shown in the following table. Data on permanent exclusions in the school year 1999–2000 will be collected in January 2001 and published in May 2001 (provisional date). Further information on permanent exclusions was published in the Statistical Bulletin "Permanent Exclusions from Maintained Schools in England" on 29 November 2000, copies of which are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department for Education and Employment statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  We are providing £ 174 million this year to help schools and LEAs tackle exclusion—a third more than in 1999–2000 and 10 times more than in 1996–97. This is helping to pay for more than 1,000 on-site Learning Support Units which take disruptive pupils out of the classroom quickly, improve their behaviour and reduce the need for exclusion. Where an exclusion is necessary, provision for excluded pupils is being greatly increased. There are now 1,000 more places and 250 more teachers in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) than in 1997. The quality of PRUs is improving and by 2002 all local education authorities will be required to provide a full timetable for excluded pupils.
  587W

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Maintained primary1

  Maintained secondary1

  Maintained special2

  Total

  Greenwich

  17

  59

  3

  79

  Harrow

  8

  33

  1

  42

  Havering

  2

  39

  0

  41

  Hillingdon

  4

  59

  3

  66

  Hounslow

  4

  62

  1

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  24

  0

  25

  Merton

  5

  19

  0

  24

  Redbridge

  7

  33

  2

  42

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  43

  1

  45

  Sutton

  8

  29

  2

  39

  Waltham Forest

  8

  74

  4

  86

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed

  1 Includes Maintained and Non-Maintained Special Schools

  Post-16 Curriculum 2000 Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what resources were allocated by his Department for each LEA for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 to support post-16 Curriculum 2000 initiatives; [148983]

  (2) what extra funds he has made available for the implementation of the new curriculum in the second year of sixth form studies; where those funds are allocated within the standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement. [149285]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Qualifying for Success—the post-16 curriculum reforms was introduced in September 2000. Funding was not therefore made available to support this initiative until 2000–01. £ 35 million was included in Education Standard Spending in 2000–01 and a further £ 60 million has been included for 2001–02. Since local authority funding is unhypothecated, the funding is not located within any particular part of the standard spending assessment. It is for local education authorities, in consultation with their schools, to dedicate an appropriate proportion of their Education SSA to support the additional costs of Qualifying for Success in their area.

  Table A: Central Government capital investment in schools in Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  360

  407

  451

  896

  644

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  243

  1,215

  1,394

  692

  97

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  376

  837

  702

  237

  328

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  487

  4,612

  6,318

  3,300

  School Security Grant

  —

  68

  84

  85

  84

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  363

  74

  79

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  1,016

  885

  820

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  33

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,787

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  170

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  2

  —

  —

  13

  42

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  Total

  981

  3,014

  8,692

  9,233

  7,588

  Note:

  The high levels of allocations through Supplementary Credit Approvals in 1997–98 and 1998–99 reflect exceptional funding for two major projects—the provision of Special Educational Needs facilities across the authority and the removal of surplus places at Blakelaw Secondary school. In addition, New Deal for Schools investment was specifically targeted in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to meet the costs of two major redevelopment projects at Heaton Manor and Gosforth High Schools respectively.
  588W

  Capital Investment (Schools)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital investment in schools in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne and in the county of Northumberland from 1996 to 1999,(a) in total and (b) by funding stream; and what is his forecast for the next three years. [149214]

  Jacqui Smith
  The following Table A shows the capital allocations made to Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority, by funding stream, from 1996–97 to 2000–01. Table B shows the capital allocations made to Northumberland local education authority, by funding stream, from 1996–97 to 2000–01. Table C shows the forecast investment for both local education authorities over the next three years.

  Nationally, capital investment in school buildings has tripled from £ 683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £ 2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £ 3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.
  589W

  Table B; Central Government capital investment in schools in Northumberland local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  2,304

  1,325

  940

  1,280

  3,920

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  287

  297

  199

  1,090

  195

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  146

  287

  259

  203

  262

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  542

  1,985

  1,908

  6,577

  School Security Grant

  —

  101

  126

  130

  129

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  237

  —

  —

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  103

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  146

  939

  132

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  489

  525

  1,307

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  66

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  208

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,870

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  216

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  102

  Early Excellence Centre Grant

  —

  —

  22

  75

  101

  Total

  3,012

  2,552

  4,506

  6,216

  16,034

  Table C: Forecast investment in schools

  £000

  Funding stream

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority

  Basic Credit Approvals

  286

  1—

  1—

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  1,216

  1—

  1—

  Private Finance Initiative Credits

  37,200

  1—

  1—

  New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula

  944

  1,270

  2,451

  New Deal for Schools Condition Funding

  682

  1,922

  2,440

  Seed Challenge Funding

  193

  323

  323

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  170

  1—

  1—

  Schools Access Initiative

  232

  1—

  1—

  Total

  40,923

  3,515

  5,214

  Northumberland local education authority

  Basic Credit Approvals

  1,855

  1—

  1—

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  225

  1—

  1—

  New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula

  1,539

  2,072

  3,973

  New Deal for Schools Condition Funding

  963

  2,769

  3,513

  Seed Challenge Funding

  234

  401

  401

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  216

  1—

  1—

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  89

  1—

  1—

  Schools Access Initiative

  349

  1—

  1—

  Total

  5,470

  5,242

  7,887

  Notes:1

  Future years' allocations shown in the table are those already announced as being attributable to Newcastle upon Tyne and Northumberland local education authorities.

  In addition to the amounts shown, schools in both authorities will also benefit from a share of other programmes where allocations have not yet been made. These include over £1 billion of credit approvals, mainly to provide new pupil places; £440 million of grant to governors of Voluntary Aided schools; £555 million funding through the NDS Modernisation programme and £170 million worth of funding under the Schools Access Initiative.

  This funding will be augmented by capital receipts and other contributions from local education authority sources, and the contribution which governors of Voluntary Aided schools make to their building work. In addition, more than £1 billion is available nationally through Private Finance Initiative Credits for projects which will sign in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Funding specifically ring fenced for the renewal of school laboratories and secondary learning support units is ending in 2001–02. Local authorities will be able to prioritise their other increased funding for this purpose, if they wish.

  Departmental Policies (Bolton, West)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Bolton, West constituency, the effect on Bolton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149102]

  Mr.Wills
  [holding answer 6 February 20011: Details of the effect on the Bolton, West constituency and Bolton LEA of a range of the Department's policies are outlined as follows.
  590W
  Sure Start:

  The Sure Start programme is situated in north-west Bolton covering three wards. The programme addresses the need to reshape services and improve parents awareness on child care issues. It works closely with parents to deliver services that address their needs such as the expansion of the books for babies project. On primary health issues they are working closely with the National Childbirth Trust to build on existing services.
  591W
  The programme was allocated £2.5 million over three years until 2000–01.

  Beacon Schools:

  Bolton has four beacon schools: Canon Slade CE School, Gilnow County Primary School, St. Teresa's RC Primary School and St. Thomas of Canterbury RC Primary School.

  Specialist Schools:

  Bolton has four Specialist Schools: Turton High School (Arts), Little Lever School (Language), St. Joseph's RC High School (Sports) and Rivington and Blackrod High School (Technology). Turton will become operational from September 2001.

  Education Action Zones:

  The Breightment and Tong EAZ began in April 2000 and involves 15 primary, two secondary and one special school.

  Key activities: Recruitment of local residents to become classroom assistants and reading helpers; a programme of curriculum enhancement, including partnership with World Challenge to develop the personal and social skills of pupils; extended family literacy and parenting skills courses throughout the Zone; out-of-school hours education; and individualised professional development for teachers and non-teaching staff.

  LEA Performance figures:

  Key Stage 2 results

  Percentage

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  English:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA

  75

  70

  65

  63

  England

  75

  71

  65

  63

  Maths:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA

  73

  70

  60

  63

  England

  72

  69

  59

  62

  Science:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA

  82

  77

  64

  67

  England

  85

  78

  69

  69

  Capital allocations for the LEA

  £000

  2001–02

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  ACG

  780

  1,992

  2,460

  1,272

  1,422

  SCA

  —

  800

  1,040

  502

  548

  NDS

  —

  3,850

  3,310

  1,422

  381

  VA grant

  1,422

  937

  628

  426

  947

  Seed

  —

  192

  —

  —

  —

  PPP

  2,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Capital formula

  —

  2,056

  —

  —

  —

  NGFL

  —

  957

  608

  750

  —

  Science labs

  185

  185

  —

  —

  —

  SSLU

  62

  71

  —

  —

  —

  Access at per cent. 85

  348

  33

  22

  21

  13

  Security

  —

  97

  97

  91

  72

  Class Size

  —

  422

  782

  11

  —

  Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  —

  174

  —

  Energy Efficiency

  —

  —

  —

  86

  —

  Assistance with AMPs

  —

  —

  38

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  67

  —

  —

  —

  592W

  GCSE and GNVQ results

  Percentage

  2000

  7999

  1998

  1997

  5+A∗-C:

  LEA average

  41.3

  43.2

  40.3

  40.0

  England average

  49.2

  47.9

  46.3

  45.1

  5+A∗-G:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA average

  89.2

  87.6

  86.3

  86.0

  England average

  88.9

  88.5

  87.5

  86.4

  No passes:

  —

  —

  —

  —

  LEA average

  5.3

  7.3

  8.6

  8.5

  England average

  5.6

  6.0

  6.6

  7.7

  Infant class sizes

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Revenue

  0

  807,000

  1,610,754

  Capital

  273,546

  785,539

  156,825

  The September 2000 figure shows that there are now no pupils remaining in infant class sizes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 4,835 (48.4 per cent.).

  Education Maintenance Allowance:
  The Bolton EMA model is a variation of the core model in that the £ 30 per week is paid to the parent. In addition there is a term £50 retention bonus plus a £ 50 achievement bonus. All the bonuses are paid to the young person.

  In the academic year 1999–2000 the EMA expenditure in Bolton on paying EMAs to young people was £ 746,000. Their EMA allocation for this year is £ 2,733,183 as an EMA is now available to eligible young people in years 12 and 13. The actual spend is likely to be less than this figure as it depends on the uptake of EMAs in the area by young people.
  593W
  PPP:

  PFI Credits: £ 2.4 million—This project is to rebuild Castle Hill Primary School and provide a learning resource centre offering facilities to the wider community.

  Examples of New Deal for Schools projects in Bolton, West:

  NDS 1: Total Allocation £ 381,000.

  Included within a eight school package: heating facilities—Blackrod Primary and Church Road Primary Schools. Included within a 12 school package: lighting—

  Further education: Student numbers at all FEFC-funded institutions where home postcode is in the Bolton LEA 1996–97 to 1999–20001

  Council funded

  Non Council funded

  16–18

  19+

  16–18

  19+

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Grand total

  Students at FE colleges and external institutions

  1996–97

  3,020

  962

  884

  14,208

  123

  285

  13

  770

  20,391

  1997–98

  2,906

  959

  649

  13,553

  138

  412

  13

  632

  19,380

  1998–99

  2,741

  774

  570

  13,391

  170

  389

  14

  607

  18,783

  1999–2000

  2,902

  769

  555

  13,439

  152

  658

  12

  807

  19,407

  FE students at higher education institutions

  1996–97

  47

  14

  16

  120

  —

  1"

  —

  2

  200"

  1997–98

  31

  25

  11

  165

  —

  —

  —

  4

  236"

  1998–99

  28

  21

  16

  120

  —

  —

  —

  —

  186

  1999–2000

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Excludes students with invalid/missing postcodes

  2 Data for higher education institutions not yet available

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Since 2 May 1997, we know of 1,049 starts on Modern Apprenticeships in the Bolton, West constituency (as at 31 October 2000). Broken down by financial year these are:

  Financial year

  Foundation modern apprenticeships1

  Advanced modern apprenticeships2

  Total

  1997–98

  0

  145

  145

  1998–99

  90

  183

  273

  1999–2000

  193

  197

  390

  2000–013

  116

  125

  241

  Total

  399

  650

  1,049

  1 Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as National Traineeships, were introduced nationally in September 1997

  2 Advanced Modern Apprenticeships, formerly known as Modern Apprenticeships, were introduced nationally in September 1995

  3 To date

  Notes:

  1. The Trainee Database System (TDS), from which these data are taken, is less complete than Management Information supplied to the Department by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) (around 95 per cent.).

  2. In addition, the postcode information on the TDS, from which parliamentary constituency data are compiled, are 95 per cent. complete.

  3. TEC Management Information does not provide information at parliamentary constituency level.

  Source:

  WBTYP trainee database

  New Deal Statistics:

  In the Bolton, West constituency to the end of November 2000, 438 young people have joined the New Deal, with 235 finding employment. Of these, 174 have entered sustained employment.
  594W
  Church Road Primary and St. Joseph's RC Secondary Schools.

  NDS 3: Total Allocation £3.31 million

  The Deane School—Refurbishment of school: £2,683,186 the Woodside Senior School—Relocation of school: £626,729

  NDS4: Total Allocation £3.85 million

  Included in a seven school package: Replacement of temporary classrooms—£1,506,040. Devonshire Road Primary, Lord Street Primary and Markland Hill Primary Schools.

  Labour Market:

  The working age employment rate in Bolton Unitary Authority in autumn 2000 was 74.0 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 72.2 per cent. and in autumn 1999 73.8 per cent. The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 3.2 per cent. in December 1997 to 2.8 per cent. in December 2000 in the Bolton, West constituency.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances asylum seekers are able to access Programme Centre facilities. [149213]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 7 February 2001:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the circumstances under which Asylum Seekers are able to access Programme Centre facilities. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  In answer to your specific question, access to Programme Centre facilities depends on the date which individuals applied for political asylum. Following the Introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the eligibility criteria for Asylum Seekers who wish to participate in Programme Centre provision have changed.

  595W
  For those people who applied for asylum prior to 3 April 2000, non-EEA Overseas Nationals who are subject to employment restrictions and/or a time limit on their stay in the UK are not eligible to join Programme Centres with the following exceptions:
  Refugees with indefinite, limited or exceptional leave to stay in the UK; and
  Asylum Seekers who have applied for political asylum and who are awaiting a decision to stay in the UK, but have been given permission to work and train in this country by the Home Office.
  Both Refugees and Asylum Seekers must then satisfy the usual eligibility conditions that apply to citizens in the UK.
  For those people who applied for political asylum after 3 April 2000, Asylum Seekers cannot participate in Programme Centre provision until their application has been processed by the National Asylum Seekers Support (NASS). If the Asylum Seeker is then granted either Refugee Status, or exceptional leave to remain in the UK, they can make a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance and, subject to meeting the normal eligibility conditions, access Programme Centre facilities.
  The usual eligibility conditions for access to Programme Centre provision are that participants should be aged 25 or over, unemployed for over 26 weeks, and continuously in receipt (either directly or indirectly) of Jobseeker's Allowance or most other Social Security benefits for those of working age. However, some people who are judged to be at a particular disadvantage in the labour market can have access to Programme Centre provision from day one of unemployment and this flexibility already covers most Asylum Seekers. From 1 April this year this flexibility will be further extended so that all Asylum Seekers aged 25 or over who are entitled to claim Jobseeker's Allowance will be eligible for immediate access to Programme Centre provision. For those aged 18–24 similar provision will be available through the New Deal.
  I hope this is helpful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hawk Sale
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to help BAE Systems secure an order for Hawk aircraft from the Government of India. [147679]

  The Prime Minister
  During his visit to the UK in June last year I met Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes and offered my full support for BAE Systems' Hawk proposal. Both the company and the Indian Government have indicated that they are optimistic a final decision will be reached shortly.

  NATO
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met the leaders of other member states of NATO, they discussed matters relating to the future structure, functions and membership of the organisation. [147686]

  The Prime Minister
  NATO leaders last met at the Washington Summit in April 1999. We discussed a wide range of issues including NATO's Open Door policy on enlargement and Alliance plans for meeting future security challenges as outlined in Strategic Concept, which the Summit approved. Copies of the Washington Summit Communique are available in the Library.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the objectives of the attack on Samawa, Iraq, on Saturday 20 January. [147786]
  596W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 25 January 2001,Official Report, columns 659–60W. This action had no other objective than the protection of our aircrews while they carry out humanitarian patrols of the no-fly zones. In January alone the Iraqis fired on coalition aircraft on at least 17 occasions, more than in any month in the previous year. In the face of these continuing, determined attempts by the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System to kill coalition pilots, we will take the appropriate measures to protect them.

  Prime Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the items discussed and (b) conclusions reached at his meeting with Chancellor Schröder. [148763]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a range of issues with Chancellor Schroder, including the future direction of the European Union following the Nice Treaty, EU Enlargement, reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and European defence. We also discussed transatlantic relations and Russia. Finally, we discussed football transfers, in advance of our joint statement issued the following day.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ghana
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's development priorities in Ghana. [147645]

  Clare Short
  In December Ghana elected a new Government who have committed themselves to continuing economic reform and poverty reduction. Prior to the elections their economic reform programme went off track and there are difficult decisions to be made. Ghana could qualify for HIPC debt relief but has up to now decided not to apply. I will be visiting Ghana to discuss these issues later this month.

  Zambia
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the Government's role in reducing debt in Zambia. [147646]

  Clare Short
  After years of growing poverty and corruption, Zambia has embarked on a programme of economic reform. In 2000 the Zambia copper mines which were inefficiently run and massively subsidised were finally privatised thus releasing resources for social expenditure. The UK provided $81 million to support his reform. This and commitments to improved economic management and focus on poverty reduction enabled Zambia to qualify for debt relief in December 2000. Debt repayments stand to be reduced by $270 million a year over the next three years. However, calls for President Chiluba to stand again for election in breach of the constitution and a halt to the agreed programme of economic reform could endanger further debt relief.
  597W
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of micro-credit schemes in Zambia in reducing poverty. [147648]

  Clare Short
  We provide £10 million for micro-credit programmes in Zambia.

  These programmes are currently providing credit to 11,000 people rising to 50,000 over the next four years, both in rural and urban areas, more than half of whom are women.

  Our assessments of these programmes have shown that micro-credit clients have higher incomes, better household nutrition and increased access to education and health services.

  AIDS
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps Britain and the international community are taking to combat AIDS world wide; and if she will make a statement. [147647]

  Clare Short
  The fight against HIV/AIDS is a key priority for my Department. We continue to give greatest priority to prevention, but we also place great emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and death caused by the disease.

  Five per cent. of the population of Africa are infected though rates vary greatly between countries. Infection rates among young people in Uganda, Kenya and Zambia are falling.

  Infection rates are rising sharply in China, India, Bangladesh and other Asian countries. Because of the large population in Asia there is a risk that numbers of infections will far outweigh those of Africa.

  We spent over £100 million on HIV/AIDS related work last year, and we fully expect to spend more this year.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's work on AIDS in southern Africa. [147656]

  Clare Short
  We have recently agreed with Southern African Development Community (SADC) a Regional HIV/AIDS Programme channelled through the SADC Health Sector Co-ordination Unit, for the provision of £7.5 million over four years for Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia. The programme focuses on developing the capacity within each country and across the region to mount an effective response to the epidemic. It complements a number of existing DFID supported HIV/AIDS programmes in South Africa, including support for the National Aids Centre, condom social marketing, Carltonville mineworkers, National Reproductive Health and Provincial reproductive health and in Lesotho, a condom social marketing programme and activities supported by the World Bank, EC, USAID, Belgium and other development assistance programmes.

  We are also funding the design of a youth magazine on HIV and AIDS with the goal of distributing a copy to every 12 to 18-year old in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. The first official launch of the "Choose Life" booklet took place on 31 January in Botswana.
  598W
  In South Africa itself, we are planning a new HIV/AIDS Programme to commence this year with a budget of £13 million over four years. This programme will focus on attitudinal and behavioural change activities and technical responses to issues such as Sexually Transmitted Diseases and TB.

  EU Aid Budget
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met the EU Commissioner for International Development to discuss the EU aid budget. [147649]

  Clare Short
  I last met EC Development Commissioner Poul Nielson at the EC Development Council on 10 November. I shall be meeting him again tomorrow, 8 February. We have worked closely with Commissioner Nielson to put in place a major reform programme to increase the poverty focus and effectiveness of European Commission development efforts. The new EC Development Policy Statement and action programme are a great advance. We are now focusing our efforts on implementation.

  Administration of Justice
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help she is giving to poorer countries to improve the administration of justice and prisons. [147650]

  Clare Short
  Insecurity caused by crime, is—as the Voices of the Poor study showed—a major concern for poor people, ranking in importance with hunger, unemployment and lack of safe drinking water. We are supporting programmes of reform to make the justice system as a whole more responsive to the needs of poor people in Bangladesh, Jamaica, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda.

  Our new approach designed to make justice systems work for the poor is described in detail in the DFID publication "Justice and Poverty Reduction", which has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Palestine
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on efforts to combat poverty in the west bank and Gaza strip. [147651]

  Clare Short
  Britain is providing £25 million of assistance to the Palestinian Authority to help reduce poverty and build an accountable, democratic government. However, continuing Israeli closures are causing widespread hardship, economic decline and delays to humanitarian aid.

  Conflict Prevention (Africa)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is contributing to conflict prevention and resolution in Africa. [147652]

  Clare Short
  Out of 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 20 are in conflict or recovering from conflict affecting 20 per cent. of population. This is a cause of deep suffering and a major barrier to development.
  599W
  We contribute to UN and EU efforts to prevent and resolve conflict. We work in many countries to help build democratic systems and respect for human rights in order to prevent the growth of poverty and inequality that fuels conflict.

  A joint strategy for conflict prevention and resolution is currently being developed by DFID, FCO and MOD, as part of the arrangements for the Africa Conflict Prevention Joint Pool.

  Congo
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid is being given to the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if she will make a statement. [147653]

  Clare Short
  The UK committed £3 million in humanitarian assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in financial year 2000–01. These funds have been targeted on health and nutrition, assistance to refugees and other vulnerable groups, and rehabilitation of child soldiers in the eastern provinces. We also contribute £4.2 million of assistance through the EU.

  The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused untold suffering and damage in the country and in the surrounding region. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance and to use our influence to try to promote an end to the DRC's conflict. We continue to support the Lusaka Peace Agreement of July 1999 as the most realistic formula for peace, and in all our contacts with signatories to the Lusaka Agreement we urge its implementation. UK bilateral assistance includes technical and financial support for the peace-keeping and political aspects of the Agreement.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on bilateral and European Union aid to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [147654]

  Clare Short
  The UK committed £3 million in humanitarian assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in financial year 2000–01. These funds have been targeted on health and nutrition, assistance to refugees and other vulnerable groups, and rehabilitation of child soldiers in the eastern provinces. We also contribute £4.2 million of assistance through the EU.

  The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has caused untold suffering and damage in the country and in the surrounding region. We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance and to use our influence to try to promote an end to the DRC's conflict. We continue to support the Lusaka Peace Agreement of July 1999 as the most realistic formula for peace, and in all our contacts with signatories to the Lusaka Agreement we urge its implementation. UK bilateral assistance includes technical and financial support for the peace-keeping and political aspects of the Agreement.

  The European Community Humanitarian Office provided over 25 million euro of humanitarian assistance to the DRC in 2000 and intends to make 35 million euro available in 2001. The EU will also fund a longer-term rehabilitation strategy for the DRC, including projects in the justice, institutional reform, sanitation, agriculture and
  600W
  transport sectors. The first of these projects is planned to start in 2002, and focus on the judicial system. It will cost 28 million euro over four years.

  India
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for poverty reduction in India. [147657]

  Clare Short
  We are providing over £100 million in development assistance to India this year. This figure is projected at least to triple over the next four years. One in three of the world's poor lives in India, and there are substantial opportunities to work effectively with government and civil society to reduce poverty.

  Our programme in India is focused on helping government, at both national and state level, to deliver pro-poor policies and services. We have identified four partner states committed to poverty reduction, with whom we are working closely, including on their programmes of fiscal and public sector reform. We are also working, both at the national level and in our partner states, on increasing access to basic education, health, water and sanitation services for the poor, promoting better management of the natural and physical environment, and promoting greater empowerment of the poor, especially women and members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.

  In addition to long term development assistance, we remain ready to respond quickly and generously to requests for emergency relief as we have done in the case of the recent catastrophic earthquake in Gujarat.

  A copy of our India Country Strategy Paper is in the Library of the House.

  Land Mines
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress in eradicating land mines. [147658]

  Clare Short
  In late 1997 I pledged to double my Department's annual bilateral expenditure on humanitarian mine action from under £5 million in 1997–98 to £10 million in 2000–01. This expenditure target has been achieved, based on a three year policy which has four main objectives: promoting the globalisation of the Ottawa Convention; undertaking effective mine clearance projects and capacity building in developing countries; strengthening international response; and supporting technological innovation.

  Progress reports on the Humanitarian Mine Action programme were placed in the Library of the House in February 1999 and September 2000. A further report, planned for mid-2001, will summarise the three-year programme and evaluate its impact.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's priorities for operations in southern Africa. [147659]
  601W
  Clare Short
  In addition to our programme in South Africa which is focused on governance, health, education and sustainable livelihoods, we are strengthening our regional focus on trade and co-operation, HIV/AIDS, water and enterprise development. In developing our future strategy, we will consult regionally to develop a clearer analysis of the regional dimensions of poverty. This will look at economic interdependence, trade, migration, conflict, disease and the use of scarce natural resources.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations her Department made to the IMF regarding levels of third world indebtedness. [147660]

  Clare Short
  The UK works closely with the IMF and the World bank in implementing the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Last week, 1 met the Managing Director, Horst Kohler, and the World bank President, Jim Wolfensohn, to discuss debt and other development issues.

  EU (Swedish Presidency)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Swedish Development Ministry about Sweden's development priorities during its presidency of the EU. [147661]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the Swedish Development Ministry on development priorities for their EU presidency in January-June 2001. The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), visited Stockholm in October for discussions prior to the Swedish presidency and there are frequent contacts between officials.

  The Swedish EU presidency January to June 2001 is an important opportunity to take forward recent efforts to improve the effectiveness of EC development programmes. In particular, Sweden shares our view that it is essential to see early progress in implementing the EC's recently agreed development policy, with its central objective of reducing poverty.

  El Salvador
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the extent of the disaster in El Salvador; and what her Department's response has been. [147662]

  Clare Short
  The earthquake in El Salvador measured 7.6 on the Richter scale and caused damage affecting over 602W
  1 million people, leaving at least 46,000 people in need of direct humanitarian assistance. It is estimated that some 60,000 people are now in temporary shelters. The worst affected areas are now confirmed to be La Libertad, La Paz, Cuscatlan, Sansonate, and San Vicente. Over 700 people are confirmed dead and more than 4,000 people injured. There has been extensive damage to housing and public buildings including six hospitals. Almost all primary routes are now open and electricity supply has been restored to most parts.

  My Department has contributed some £1.3 million for the purchase and distribution of immediate relief assistance including shelter, water and sanitation and medical supplies to those affected by the earthquake in El Salvador. This support is being channelled through the UN, Red Cross and a number of NGOs.

  The table summarises the funding allocation and the type of assistance provided.

  £

  Organisation

  Type of assistance

  Amount

  UNOCHA

  UN disaster assessment and co-ordination team

  35,000

  PAHO

  Health

  300,000

  IFRC

  Shelter, food, health, water and sanitation

  100,000

  Oxfam

  Water and sanitation

  300,000

  CARE

  IDP support

  138,900

  Christian Aid

  Emergency shelter

  100,000

  Plan International

  IDP support

  50,000

  Save the Children UK

  Public health, non-food, education

  200,000

  SCIAF

  Emergency shelter

  100,000

  Total

  1,323,900

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work undertaken by British water companies in developing nations to develop clean water sources and the co-operation given to them by her Department. [147663]

  Clare Short
  My Department works closely with DETR, the sponsoring Department for the UK water industry, to ensure the companies are fully aware of DF1D's work in developing countries and the role they might play in it. My officials meet regularly with representatives of water companies, and the chairman of Severn Trent Water was a member of the UK delegation to last years World Water Forum in The Hague.

  DFID supports the World Bank's Business Partners for Development initiative. This involves a number of the companies in pilot projects. Through this initiative water companies are developing new relationships with civil society and public government bodies and exploring collaborative approaches to extending water supply and sanitation services to the poor.

  We also recognise the valuable support provided by the customers and employees of British water companies to WaterAid.
  603W

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how far the budget of her Department relating to poverty reduction is set to increase over the next three years. [147664]

  Clare Short
  All United Kingdom development assistance is focused on the elimination of poverty.

  My Department's budget will increase by an average of 6.2 per cent. over the next three years, taking it to the highest level ever both in cash and real terms—almost £ 3.6 billion—by 2003–04.

  Drugs Trade (Colombia)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has held with her ministerial colleagues in other European countries concerning the plan by the Colombian Government to tackle the drugs trade; and if she will make a statement. [147665]

  Clare Short
  Plan Colombia sets out the Colombian Government's proposals for tackling violence, social and economic inequalities, abuse of human rights, drug cultivation and trafficking.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the plan with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 3 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office attended a meeting in Madrid on 7 July on behalf of the UK when representatives of European and other countries discussed the issue with members of the Colombian Government. I have not discussed Plan Colombia with European colleagues.

  The European Union has pledged assistance of 105 million euro over the period 2000–06 of which the UK share will be about £ 18 million. It has made clear that
  604W
  this is not a contribution to Plan Colombia but a package targeted towards support for human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence.

  Firearms
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact on development programmes of the availability of small firearms. [147666]

  Clare Short
  The ready availability of small arms has a direct and negative impact upon levels of crime and conflict in developing countries. We are supporting various peace building and disarmament initiatives that address small arms and other conflict related problems, including work to ensure a successful outcome to the "UN 2001 Conference on The Illicit Trade In Small Arms and Light Weapons: All Its Aspects".

  Balkans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assess the effectiveness of aid programmes in the Balkans. [147667]

  Clare Short
  We have recently published country strategies for our programmes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania which assess the impact of past aid. We shall review progress on them annually. We are currently reviewing progress on our interim strategies for Kosovo and Macedonia and will revise them as necessary in consultation with their authorities. We are also reviewing our activities in Croatia since the election of the present Government; we shall revise it as necessary.

  Individual bilateral projects are subject to a standard process of review for impact and effectiveness.

  We have contributed to the design of the new EC Regulation covering assistance to the Balkans with a view to more effective design and delivery. We also work closely with the international financial institutions to encourage high quality programme design which draws on the lessons of experience.
  605W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Patrols
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of uniformed police patrols was in(a) England and Wales as a whole and (b) each individual police force in England and Wales in each of the last five years for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [148063]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 31 January 20011: The table records the number of officers who are predominantly assigned to foot, car and beat patrol duties for each year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000. Information for 2000–01 will be available later in the year following its collection at the end of March by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  I understand from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary that in 1999–2000, 50.3 per cent. of the total number of officers in England and Wales were deployed to patrol duties. Most of the other half of the police service are deployed to other operational duties, such as Criminal Investigation Department, traffic, and other specialist operational activities.

  Officers predominantly assigned to foot/car/beat patrol duty by force

  Time periods

  Forces

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  1,442.2

  1,432.2

  1,438.3

  1,538.6

  Bedfordshire

  543.5

  457.0

  479.1

  478.3

  Cambridgeshire

  655.7

  614.0

  586.2

  581.9

  Cheshire

  976.2

  1,022.9

  969.9

  867.3

  City of London

  369.9

  353.2

  385.2

  342.2

  Cleveland

  771.2

  742.7

  552.0

  676.1

  Cumbria

  607.0

  630.0

  619.0

  571.1

  Derbyshire

  911.2

  867.7

  842.9

  818.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,499.9

  1,522.4

  1,488.1

  1,444.4

  Dorset

  671.0

  663.0

  665.0

  612.1

  Durham

  694.9

  720.1

  764.0

  741.7

  Dyfed—Powys

  559.4

  601.3

  595.9

  598.7

  Essex

  1,407.6

  1,549.4

  1,512.4

  1,535.9

  Gloucestershire

  565.0

  551.2

  533.4

  501.9

  Greater Manchester

  3,245.6

  3,361.2

  3,321.4

  3,615.6

  Gwent

  732.5

  707.8

  770.1

  735.4

  Hampshire

  1,975.8

  2,094.3

  2,030.1

  1,912.3

  Hertfordshire

  919.5

  910.6

  878.7

  968.8

  Humberside

  1,081.6

  1,100.6

  1,106.5

  1,147.5

  Kent

  1,542.1

  1,352.1

  1,116.8

  1,132.3

  Lancashire

  1,465.9

  1,274.0

  1,489.7

  1,585.6

  Leicestershire

  1,010.4

  1,007.0

  1,016.0

  1,083.5

  Lincolnshire

  607.8

  717.1

  661.2

  613.8

  Merseyside

  2,300.0

  2,211.7

  2,033.2

  2,098.1

  Metropolitan police

  12,307.0

  12,158.7

  11,716.4

  12,312.2

  Norfolk

  761.7

  789.0

  714.0

  691.4

  Northamptonshire

  622.4

  592.8

  648.6

  557.5

  Northumbria

  1,965.7

  1,909.3

  1,972.9

  2,069.8

  North Wales

  730.0

  752.0

  615.0

  656.0

  North Yorkshire

  685.4

  716.2

  713.4

  749.3

  Nottinghamshire

  1,198.1

  1,198.1

  1,185.2

  1,099.7

  South Wales

  1,537.0

  1,472.9

  1,604.7

  1,610.6

  South Yorkshire

  1,404.9

  1,498.9

  1,418.0

  1,467.6

  Staffordshire

  1,044.0

  1,255.7

  1,220.2

  996.7

  Suffolk

  660.4

  642.7

  628.7

  639.7

  Surrey

  813.5

  659.8

  786.4

  710.8

  Sussex

  1,601.4

  1,512.0

  1,324.9

  1,175.8

  Thames Valley

  1,888.8

  1,906.3

  2,001.7

  1,761.0

  Warwickshire

  429.9

  452.4

  450.6

  458.7

  West Mercia

  906.0

  925.9

  903.9

  798.0

  West Midlands

  3,841.6

  3,994.7

  4,410.6

  4,401.9

  West Yorkshire

  2,677.6

  2,725.3

  2,614.3

  2,487.4

  606W

  Officers predominantly assigned to foot/car/beat patrol duty by force

  Time periods

  Forces

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Wiltshire

  541.6

  577.3

  593.2

  555.6

  England and Wales

  62,172.4

  62,202.7

  61,377.5

  61,401.3

  Notes:

  Figures are full-time equivalent officers

  Passport Fraud
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of obtaining British passports by fraud have occurred in each of the last 10 years. [149361]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Passport Agency's statistics for British passports obtained by fraud in each of the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number issued

  20001

  68

  1999

  153

  1998

  146

  1997

  281

  1996

  190

  1995

  204

  1994

  182

  1993

  317

  1992

  220

  1991

  144

  Total

  1,905

  1 These figures are for the period 1 January to 30 September 2000

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) police officers in each of the standard age groups were employed by each police force and in total (i) in 1992, (ii) in 1997 and (iii) on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [148012]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The information requested is not centrally collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the breakdown was of(a) length of service and (b) age profile of police officers serving in the Metropolitan police on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [148011]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The latest information available from the Metropolitan Police Service is for 31 December 2000. I would therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 109W.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new responsibilities have been given to probation services since 1997, including new court orders; and if he will make a statement. [148570]
  607W
  Mr. Boateng
  The following are new requirements or responsibilities since 1997:Criminal Justice Act 1991: Sections 12 and 13 introduced the power to impose a curfew order. Following successful pilots, these orders were rolled out nationally in December 1999. Pre-sentence, the probation service is required to establish the suitability of the proposed curfew address. The order is electronically monitored and enforced by contractors, who liaise with the service.
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Sections 58–60 deal with extended sentences requiring probation services to supervise certain sexual and violent offenders for longer than normal periods following release from prison.
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Sections 89–95 introduced the power to impose a drug treatment and testing order. These orders were rolled out nationally on 1 October 2000.
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Sections 100 and 101 introduced the Home Detention Curfew scheme from 28 January 1999 for prisoners serving sentences of between three months and four years. They are eligible for release up to two months before they would otherwise be released, to serve the remaining part of their sentence in the community subject to an electronically monitored curfew. The probation service contributes to the risk assessment prior to release.
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Sections 104 and 105 require probation services to supervise offenders following periods of recall or return to custody where previously those offenders would not have been re-released on licence.

  In addition there is supporting work:
  Multi-Agency Risk Management Work: all areas now have some form of multi-agency arrangements for the assessment and management of risk posed by sex offenders. In many areas similar arrangements apply to other violent offenders. Probation has a key role in this work and is central to risk assessment and planning.

  Increases in financial support to local probation areas

  Expenditure implied by cash limit

  Percentage increase

  Percentage increase

  1992–93 (£ million)

  1997–98 (£ million)

  Actual

  Real

  Annual real

  Expenditure implied by cash limit 2001–02 (£ million)

  Actual

  Real

  Annual real

  Avon and Somerset

  9.267

  10.961

  18.3

  4.1

  0.8

  13.48

  23.0

  11.7

  2.9

  Bedfordshire

  3.233

  3.748

  15.9

  2.0

  0.4

  5.135

  37.0

  24.5

  6.1

  Cambridgeshire

  3.435

  4.243

  23.5

  8.7

  1.7

  5.545

  30.7

  18.7

  4.7

  Cheshire

  5.053

  6.389

  26.4

  11.2

  2.2

  9.216

  44.2

  31.1

  7.8

  Cumbria

  3.667

  4.231

  15.4

  1.5

  0.3

  5.151

  21.7

  10.6

  2.7

  Derbyshire

  4.512

  5.696

  26.2

  11.1

  2.2

  8.601

  51.0

  37.2

  9.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  8.523

  10.294

  20.8

  6.3

  1.3

  13.071

  27.0

  15.4

  3.8

  Dorset

  3.851

  4.493

  16.7

  2.6

  0.5

  5.475

  21.9

  10.7

  2.7

  Durham

  3.94

  4.503

  14.3

  0.5

  0.1

  6.357

  41.2

  28.3

  7.1

  Essex

  7.886

  9.268

  17.5

  3.4

  0.7

  13.068

  41.0

  28.1

  7.0

  Gloucestershire

  3.303

  4.004

  21.2

  6.6

  1.3

  4.863

  21.5

  10.3

  2.6

  Hampshire

  7.962

  9.755

  22.5

  7.8

  1.6

  14.647

  50.1

  36.4

  9.1

  Hertfordshire

  5.08

  5.918

  16.5

  2.5

  0.5

  7.306

  23.5

  12.2

  3.0

  Humberside

  5.469

  6.574

  20.2

  5.8

  1.2

  9.37

  42.5

  29.5

  7.4

  Kent

  8.389

  10.385

  23.8

  8.9

  1.8

  14.415

  38.8

  26.1

  6.5

  Lancashire

  7.88

  9.916

  25.8

  10.7

  2.1

  15.49

  56.2

  41.9

  10.5

  Leicestershire

  4.744

  5.723

  20.6

  6.1

  1.2

  8.608

  50.4

  36.6

  9.2

  Lincolnshire

  3.404

  4.049

  18.9

  4.6

  0.9

  5.629

  39.0

  26.3

  6.6

  Norfolk

  3.469

  4.395

  26.7

  11.5

  2.3

  6.627

  50.8

  37.0

  9.2

  Northamptonshire

  2.913

  3.576

  22.8

  8.0

  1.6

  5.07

  41.8

  28.8

  7.2

  North Yorkshire

  2.707

  3.705

  36.9

  20.4

  4.1

  5.835

  57.5

  43.1

  10.8

  Nottinghamshire

  7.709

  8.908

  15.6

  1.7

  0.3

  11.281

  26.6

  15.1

  3.8

  Staffordshire

  6.799

  7.558

  11.2

  -2.2

  -0.4

  9.201

  21.7

  10.6

  2.7

  Suffolk

  3.165

  3.805

  20.2

  5.8

  1.2

  5.31

  39.6

  26.8

  6.7

  Surrey

  4.837

  5.85

  20.9

  6.4

  1.3

  6.996

  19.6

  8.6

  2.2

  Sussex

  6.316

  7.873

  24.7

  9.7

  1.9

  10.95

  39.1

  26.4

  6.6

  Teesside

  4.399

  5.455

  24.0

  9.1

  1.8

  7.957

  45.9

  32.5

  8.1

  Thames Valley

  11.995

  13.73

  14.5

  0.7

  0.1

  16.729

  21.8

  10.7

  2.7

  608W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set for Probation Service officer recruitment; what changes in the number of Probation Service officers have taken place since targets have been set; and if he will make a statement. [148571]

  Mr. Boateng
  No central targets have been set. The considered assessment is that the numbers of Probation Service officers, and kindred grades, will need almost to double, from 2,400 to 4,660, by the year 2003–04. This is part of the overall probation staff increase from 12,835 to 17,250 (including an increase from 4,964 to 5,770 in main grade probation officers-about 16.5 per cent.) in the same period to deliver accredited programmes under the "What Works" initiative. (All figures are full-time equivalents).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the real-terms change in(a) central funding and (b) total spending was (i) in each probation service and (ii) for the probation service in total between (A) 1992 and 1997 and (B) 1997 and the latest date for which figures are available; what the estimated real terms changes are in total funding in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [148569]

  Mr. Boateng
  The detailed information relating to each probation service for 1992–93 to 1997–98 and 1997–98 to 2001–02 is set out in the table. In total, probation service funding is projected to increase from £ 542 million in 2000–01 to £ 713 million in 2003–04, an increase of 31.5 per cent., equivalent to a real-terms increase of 22 per cent. over the three years covered by the spending review 2000 period.
  609W

  Increases in financial support to local probation areas

  Expenditure implied by cash limit

  Percentage increase

  Percentage increase

  1992–93 (£ million)

  1997–98 (£ million)

  Actual

  Real

  Annual real

  Expenditure implied by cash limit 2001–02 (£ million)

  Actual

  Real

  Annual real

  Warwickshire

  3.06

  3.523

  15.1

  1.3

  0.3

  4.212

  19.6

  8.6

  2.2

  West Mercia

  6.242

  7.133

  14.3

  0.5

  0.1

  9.258

  29.8

  17.9

  4.5

  Wiltshire

  2.946

  3.515

  19.3

  5.0

  1.0

  4.959

  41.1

  28.2

  7.0

  Greater Manchester

  21.129

  25.528

  20.8

  6.3

  1.3

  32.058

  25.6

  14.1

  3.5

  Merseyside

  14.096

  15.733

  11.6

  -1.8

  -0.4

  19.329

  22.9

  11.6

  2.9

  Northumbria

  10.784

  12.631

  17.1

  3.0

  0.6

  17.587

  39.2

  26.5

  6.6

  South Yorkshire

  10.763

  12.465

  15.8

  1.9

  0.4

  15.657

  25.6

  14.1

  3.5

  West Midlands

  22.217

  26.155

  17.7

  3.6

  0.7

  32.532

  24.4

  13.0

  3.3

  West Yorkshire

  16.827

  19.981

  18.7

  4.5

  0.9

  24.978

  25.0

  13.6

  3.4

  Greater London

  65.721

  77.819

  18.4

  4.2

  0.8

  94.147

  21.0

  9.9

  2.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  2.307

  3.01

  30.5

  14.8

  3.0

  4.687

  55.7

  41.5

  10.4

  Gwent1

  2.343

  3.771

  60.9

  41.6

  8.3

  5.852

  55.2

  41.0

  10.2

  North Wales

  3.009

  3.921

  30.3

  14.6

  2.9

  6.229

  58.9

  44.3

  11.1

  South Wales1

  9.76

  10.943

  12.1

  -1.4

  -0.3

  15.13

  38.3

  25.6

  6.4

  Total

  345.111

  411.133

  19.1

  4.8

  1.0

  537.998

  30.9

  18.9

  4.7

  1 The figures for Gwent and South Wales are affected by a substantial boundary change

  Notes:

  1. Before 2001–02, funding for local probation services was 80 per cent. by Home Office grant and 20 per cent. by local authority contribution. From 2001–02 funding will be 100 per cent. Home Office grant.

  2. Figures are provided for the probation boards that will be in existence in 2001–02. Where amalgamations have taken place, previous years figures have been amalgamated for the local probation areas concerned.

  3. In order to provide a realistic comparison, the 2001–02 figures include provision for the Family Court Welfare Service which transfers to the Lord Chancellor's Department from April 2001.

  Asylum Seekers (Homes)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of homes allocated to asylum seekers by(a) NASS and (b) local authorities have been inspected in the last 12 months. [148718]

  Mrs. Roche
  Inspections have been carried out on 100 per cent. of properties provided by the private sector and included on the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) database at 1 October 2000. Inspections have been carried out on 55 per cent. of properties provided by the private sector and included on the NASS database since 1 October. Inspections have been carried out on 5 per cent. of public sector accommodation included on the NASS database since 1 October 2000.

  Youth Inclusion Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the areas where youth inclusion projects will be operational by March; and what resources will be allocated to each. [148559]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Youth Justice Board managed youth inclusion programme aims to provide funding for 70 projects, of which 59 are now operational and another seven are expected to go live by March 2001.

  Each project receives annually £75,000 from local partnerships and £75,000 from the Youth Justice Board.
  610W
  The Areas where youth inclusion projects will be operational by March 2001 are listed in the table.

  Areas in which youth inclusion projects will be operational by March 2001

  Neighbourhood

  Area

  Projects currently operational

  Wyrley Birch

  Birmingham

  Central, Barrow Island and Walney North

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Whitebirk

  Blackburn

  Mill Hill

  Blackburn

  Gascoigne and Barking Roding Valley

  Barking and Dagenham

  Shard End

  Birmingham

  Washwood Heath

  Birmingham

  Kingstanding

  Birmingham

  Farnworth SRB area

  Bolton

  Horton

  Bradford

  Newlands

  Bradford

  Church End Estate

  Brent

  Barton Hill

  Bristol

  Mixenden and Ovenden

  Calderdale

  Castlehaven

  Camden

  Llanrumney Ward

  Cardiff

  Wood End

  Coventry

  Osmaston Estate

  Derby

  Trafalgar Estate

  Doncaster

  Acre Rigg, Dene House and Dene Hill Wards in Peterlee

  Easington

  Beacon Lough East, Springwell, Leam Lane

  Gateshead

  Page Estate

  Greenwich

  Woodbury Down

  Hackney

  Preston Road

  Hull

  North Fulham neighbourhood

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Tottenham and Wood Green

  Haringey

  Holloway and Tollington

  Islington

  Dalgarno

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Dewsbury Moor

  Kirklees

  Clapham Park Estate

  Lambeth

  Middleton

  Leeds City (South)

  Sandford-Ganners area of Bramley

  Leeds West

  Bury Park

  Luton

  Beswick

  Manchester

  Gurnos and Galon Uchaf Estates

  Merthyr tydfil

  611W

  Areas in which youth inclusion projects will be operational by March 2001

  Neighbourhood

  Area

  West Middlesbrough NDC area

  Middlesbrough

  Sandfields

  Neath Port Talbot

  Scotswood

  Newcastle

  Forest Gate

  Newham

  Radford and Lenton NDC area

  Nottingham

  Hathershaw and Fitton Hill

  Oldham

  Avenham Ward

  Preston

  Barne Barton

  Plymouth

  Gladstone

  Peterborough

  Portsea

  Portsmouth

  Langley Estate

  Rochdale

  Langworthy/Seedley

  Sal ford

  Shirecliffe

  Sheffield

  Lawson, Rokingham, Heygate and Draper

  Southwark

  West Itchen

  Southampton

  Biddick Hall

  South Tyneside

  Newtown

  Stockton-on-Tees

  North Washington

  Sunderland

  Dunkinfield

  Tameside

  Blakenall Ward

  Walsall

  Alton Estate

  Wandsworth

  Woodhouse Close Estate and St. Helen Auckland Estate

  Wear Valley

  Bushbury/Lowhill

  Wolverhampton

  Caia Park Estate

  Wrexham

  Projects expected to be operational by March 2001

  East Brighton

  Brighton and Hove

  Fincham, Woolfall Heath and Hillside areas of Huyton

  Knowsley

  Kensington

  Liverpool

  Maltby

  Rotherham

  Pendle/Barkdaley

  Sefton

  Stansfield Estate, Burslem

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Birkenhead North

  Wirral

  Soft-tipped Bullets
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the advice of the Police Scientific Development Branch on the use of soft-tipped bullets by the police. [148859]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Soft-point ammunition in use by the police service is designed to transfer the maximum energy or "stopping power" to the target. It is less likely to endanger others by passing through the immediate target, or ricocheting from a hard surface. It is not intended to cause unnecessary injury.

  It is not in the public interest to publish technical advice on the performance of ammunition suitable for police use. It contains information which could put both police officers and members of the public at risk and undermine the operational effectiveness of the police service.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made in(a) thumbria, (b) South Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire, (d) Merseyside, (e) the West Midlands and (f) Greater Manchester. [148611]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of orders made in each area by the end of September, the latest date for which figures are available, can be found in the table.
  612W

  Area

  Number

  Northumbria

  8

  South Yorkshire

  3

  West Yorkshire

  5

  Merseyside

  8

  West Midlands

  15

  Greater Manchester

  12

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made in each police authority area in(a) Wales and (b) England. [148667]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  By the end of September, the latest date for which figures are available, orders were made in the following areas:

  Area

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  Cleveland

  4

  Cumbria

  1

  Derbyshire

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  2

  Durham

  2

  Greater Manchester

  12

  Hampshire

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Humberside

  2

  Lancashire

  7

  Leicestershire

  1

  Met. Police area

  18

  Merseyside

  8

  Norfolk

  6

  North Wales

  1

  North Yorkshire

  4

  Northumbria

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  South Wales

  1

  South Yorkshire

  3

  Suffolk

  3

  Surrey

  1

  Sussex

  3

  Thames Valley

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Mercia

  10

  West Midlands

  15

  West Yorkshire

  5

  The figures for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 were provided by police forces. Figures for the period 1 June 2000 to 31 September 2000, provided by magistrates courts committees.

  Cigarette Sales (Children)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average fine levied on those found guilty of selling cigarettes to children aged under 16 years in 1999–2000. [148854]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information has been taken from the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database. Ninety persons were fined after being found guilty of selling tobacco based products (including cigarettes) under section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by Section 1 of the
  613W
  Children (Protection From Tobacco) Act 1991, to children aged under 16 years in 1999. The average fine levied was £237.

  Two persons were fined after being found guilty under section 3 of the Children (Protection From Tobacco) Act 1991 for selling unpackaged cigarettes to children under 16 in 1999. The average fine was £200.

  Shotguns
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representatives he has received on the length of time taken to process shotgun certificate renewal; what the average length of time taken to process shotgun certificate renewals in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) North Yorkshire was in (i) 1996 and (ii) 2000; and how frequently local authority firearm consultative committees should meet. [148645]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has received a number of representations about the time taken to renew shotgun certificates from a range of shooters and shooting bodies.

  Figures for average renewal times are not collected centrally and were not so collected in 1996. We understand from information as is immediately available that the average time taken to renew a shotgun certificate is as follows, the 1996 figure being an estimate.

  Average renewal time in weeks

  1996

  2000

  England

  4

  7

  Wales

  2

  9

  North Yorkshire

  3

  8

  The main reason for this increase in most forces is that following Lord Cullen's report into the Dunblane tragedy, most forces have moved from renewing shotgun certificates by post to visiting applicants personally prior to renewal.

  The Home Office has not issued advice on how often local firearms consultative bodies should meet; nor have we received any representations on this issue in recent years. We understand that those forces that do hold such consultative meetings do so between two and four times a year.

  Violent Crime (Wales)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held on measures to reduce violent crimes against the person and street crimes in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [148648]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have held no specific consultations on measures to reduce violent crimes against the person and street crimes in Wales alone. The measures which the Government are taking to tackle violent crime across England and Wales are set out in "Fighting violent crime together an action plan", published in January, based on a wide range of consultation and partnership working across the country. Our strategy is based on improving support for victims, better policing, more effective punishment and tackling the causes of crime.
  614W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he intends to take to reduce violent crimes against the person and street crimes in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [148647]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to reducing violent crime and the fear of violent crime and to ensuring that individuals and communities are protected and feel safe. We are working in partnership with the police and other agencies, both in England and Wales, on a wide range of ways of tackling violent crime, underpinned by our overall strategy, "Fighting violent crime together: an action plan", published in January.

  The Government are putting in place the investment to make sure that the police have the resources they need. Under the crime fighting fund, the Welsh police forces have been allocated 422 additional recruits over and above previous plans, over a three-year period from 2000 to 2003.

  Under the Government's Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, the Welsh police forces are working with other agencies to put in place a number of initiatives to tackle violent crime, notably alcohol-related violence.

  Last year, the Home Office awarded the South Wales Constabulary a grant of £498,000 to the Cardiff street violence reduction project, with the aim of reducing alcohol-related violence. This will involve collecting more comprehensive and better quality information as to the essence of street violence in Cardiff gathered from a variety of agencies including the accident and emergency department at the hospital; acting on information either co-operatively or punitively so as to control environments; establishing a licensees' forum; establishing an awareness campaign; and providing victims with referral to community health care services and victim support.

  Sussex Police
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the actual strength was of the Sussex Police for each quarter since 1995. [148355]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: Information on police numbers for England and Wales are collected on a six-monthly basis (March and September). Six-monthly strength figures for the Sussex Police are set out in the table.

  Sussex Police—numbers since March 1995

  Year

  31 March

  30 September

  1995

  2,931

  3,020

  1996

  3,074

  3,097

  1997

  3,085

  3,040

  1998

  2,996

  2,924

  1999

  2,847

  2,909

  2000

  2,822

  2,812

  Part of the reduction in police numbers since 1997 was a consequence of the Chief Constable's decision to civilianise a significant number of police posts. Between 31 March 1997 and 30 September 2000 the number of civilian support staff in the Sussex Police increased by 256 to 1,405.
  615W

  Crime Statistics, (South Gloucester)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he collates on levels and types of crime and over what period for the area covered by the South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority since 1979. [148741]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has been collecting and publishing data relating to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Police Basic Command Units, which include South Gloucestershire, for the period since 1 April 1999. The data include the number of offences and the rates per 1,000 population for the six subject areas of violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary of a dwelling, theft of vehicles and theft from vehicles. Also included is the number of burglaries of a dwelling per 1,000 households, and the number and proportion of the above offences which are cleared up in each Basic Command Unit. The most recently available information was published on 16 January 2001 in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin number 1–01, "Recorded Crime, England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000", which is available in the Library.

  Cemeteries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cemeteries there are in England; how many are full; if he intends more land to be made over to this use; and if he will make a statement. [148399]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the number and remaining capacity of cemeteries in England are not held centrally by the Home Office. I propose to hold a consultation exercise later this year to consider ways of meeting future demands for burial facilities, and will take account of the findings of the current inquiry into cemeteries by the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs.

  Deportation (Prisoners)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent involvement his Department has had with high commissioners and ambassadors based in the UK concerning nationals from their country being held in prison in the UK awaiting deportation; and if he will make a statement. [148894]

  Mr. Boateng
  A Prison Service seminar for consular and embassy staff, in co-operation with the Foreign Nationals Unit of Middlesex Probation Service, to consider training and other issues of general interest or concern is normally held annually. The last seminar was on 20 June 2000 and the next event will be held on 22 February 2001.

  The United Kingdom is a signatory to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This requires the disclosure of information on foreign national prisoners to those countries with which bilateral consular conventions or agreements requiring notification of the arrest and detention of their nationals are in force. However, these arrangements do not apply when it is known that a foreign national is seeking asylum in this country or is detained under the Immigration Act 1971 and is representing on political, religious or ethnic grounds that they should not be deported or removed. In such circumstances
  616W
  notification should be sent to the consular officer, nor should the foreign national be allowed to communicate with a consular officer until directions have been obtained from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It would not be appropriate to disclose details of individual cases of foreign nationals being held in prison awaiting deportation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the longest period a person currently being held in prison in England and Wales awaiting deportation has been held. [148895]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 31 December 2000, there were 101 people held in prison in England and Wales who were recorded as awaiting deportation. The longest period any of these persons had been held awaiting deportation was 282 days, having been held since 24 March 2000.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales on 1 January. [148919]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information for the 31 December 2000 shows that 4,521 men and 160 women were serving a life prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales at that time.

  Prison Education
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of expenditure in each prison budget was used for educational purposes(a) as a percentage of a prison's overall budget and (b) per prisoner; in each year since 1992. [149051]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. The tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library, set out operational spend for each prison (i.e. excluding any capital expenditure), spend on certain separately identifiable areas of education spend, covering payments to education providers and purchase of education materials, and the figure produced when that spend is divided by the average population for each prison in that year. These cover the financial years 1995–96 to 1999–2000; information for earlier years is not readily available; neither is information on education costs at private sector prisons. It should be noted that the figures for 1999–2000 are on a slightly different basis to those for earlier years due to differences in accounting procedure, in that they do not include VAT refunds.

  Misuse of Drugs Act
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the report on the Police Foundation inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. [149425]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I wrote to Viscountess Runciman, Chairman of this Inquiry, today enclosing a memorandum setting out the Government's response. I have written in similar terms to the Home Affairs Committee which had also sought the Government's views on the report. A copy of the response has been placed in the Library. I understand that the Home Affairs
  617W
  Committee has decided to publish this response today as its second special report HC 226 and this is available on www.parliament. uk/commons/selcom/hmafhome. htm.

  Annual Report
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the criminal justice system annual report. [149617]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. and noble Friends the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I have today published jointly an annual report for the criminal justice system in England and Wales for 1999–2000

  The annual report is a formal report back on the first Criminal Justice System Strategic and Business Plan, which was published in March 1999.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will undertake a study of the costs and benefits of large scale conversion from petrol to liquid petroleum gas in remote regions; and if she will make a statement. [149337]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Liquid petroleum gas is a cleaner fuel that has significant environmental benefits over the use of petrol and diesel. It is for this reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the last Budget held duty on road fuel gases to 15p per kilogram. The extension of the use of liquid petroleum gas by motorists in remote areas can also help address higher fuel costs faced in remote parts of Scotland caused by problems of low turnover of fuel sales and lack of competition.

  Responsibility in Scotland for the Powershift scheme, which provides grants for the purchase and conversion of vehicles to alternative fuels including LPG, and for the Rural Transport Fund, which provides grants for the installation of LPG tanks in rural petrol stations, lies with the Scottish Executive. From the next financial year the Scottish Executive will provide £ 990,000 per year for Powershift. Measures to promote LPG supplies in rural areas are funded from the Scottish Executive Rural Transport Fund. Further details of that funding are expected soon. I understand that the Scottish Executive has no plans at this stage to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of large-scale conversion to LPG in remote areas.

  Employment (Glasgow)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in (i) the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok and (ii) in Glasgow (A) in May 1997 and (B) on 29 January; and what the percentage change was in each case. [148127]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The number of people who were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in Glasgow City unitary authority in Spring (March to May) 1997 and Autumn (September to November) 2000 are shown in the
  618W
  table. No equivalent figures, showing numbers of people, for the parliamentary constituency of Glasgow, Pollok are available.

  Glasgow City

  Full-time employment:

  Spring 1997

  168,000

  Autumn 2000

  188,000

  Percentage change

  +12

  Part-time employment:

  Spring 1997

  47,000

  Autumn 2000

  61,000

  Percentage change

  +30

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey Office for National statistics

  A75
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Trans-European Network funding has been paid to assist in the upgrading of the A75; how many separate grants have been made; in which year; and for which projects. [148134]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scottish Executive is responsible for trunk roads within Scotland. To be considered for funding under the Trans-European Network (TEN) Multi-annual Indicative Programme (MIP), schemes must be submitted to the Commission as part of an overall UK bid. Trans-European Network (TEN) funding of some £ 350,000 was received in 1997 as a contribution to the improvement of the A75 at The Glen. The project has since been completed and a further claim for the outstanding amount of £ 780,000 is being prepared. No other TEN funding has been received for upgrading the A75.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing (Job Losses)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many manufacturing jobs have been lost in(a) the Northern Region and (b) the Jarrow constituency, since 1997; and how many manufacturing jobs have been created in (a) the Northern Region and (b) the Jarrow constituency, since 1997. [148610]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 7 February 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of manufacturing jobs that have been lost and created in the Northern Region and Jarrow since 1997 (148610).
  Information is not available separately for job losses and job gains, but the net effect is measured in the Annual Employment Survey (AES) in September of each year. Between September 1997 and September 1998 (the latest year for which figures are available), the AES shows net increases in the number of employee jobs in manufacturing of 5,200 in the Northern Region and 1,800 in the Jarrow Constituency.
  619W

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how income received as a result of fines levied on individuals for non-completion of tax returns is(a) accounted for and (b) allocated. [148985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Taxpayers who do not complete tax returns under the self-assessment system render themselves liable for penalties. When penalties are paid they are allocated to the taxpayer's account, and brought to account as SA penalties. The income received from such penalty receipts is paid over as a CFER (consolidated fund extra receipt). These receipts are paid over to the Treasury and are reported within the Appropriation Account (Class XVI Vote 4).

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of beneficiaries of(a) taper relief and (b) exemption from capital gains accrued but unrealised at death in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [146042]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: About 90 per cent. of the 190,000 CGT taxpayers for 2000–01 are expected to realise some gains to which the applicable taper rate will be less than 100 per cent.

  It is estimated that, for 2000–01, 55,000 estates might benefit from the exemption for capital gains accrued but unrealised at death.

  Corresponding information for 2001–02 is not available.

  Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Department's policies and actions(a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149137]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. In April 1997, claimant unemployment in the constituency stood at 1,385. By December 2000 it had fallen 41 per cent. to 822. Over the same period, youth unemployment in Staffordshire, Moorlands has fallen by 90 per cent., and long-term unemployment has dropped by 73 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of November 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 454 young people in Staffordshire, Moorlands gain valuable skills and experience-254 (56 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,800 families in Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency were benefiting from WFTC.
  620W
  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 17,300 in Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £ 5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £ 8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,500 in Staffordshire, Moorlands.

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149088]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Morecambe and Lunesdale, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 935, or 33 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 88 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 66 per cent.

  Macroeconomic stability is being complemented at the microeconomic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of November 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,080 young people in Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency gain valuable skills and experience—564 (52 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,100 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 18,600 in Morecambe and Lunesdale, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £ 5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £ 8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 12,000 in Morecambe and Lunesdale.

  Lump Sum Payments
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of tax not collected as a result of the concession on lump sums paid on retirement in the most recent year for which figures are available. [148638]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information can be found in the footnotes to table 7.7 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2000, a copy of which is in the Library.
  621W

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have contacted their local tax office to request a children's tax credit form. [146356]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over 100,000 people have contacted an Inland Revenue tax office to request a children's tax credit form.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children's tax credit forms have been returned since 20 October 2000. [146357]

  Dawn Primarolo
  To date, around 2.9 million children's tax credit claim forms have been returned.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the requirements, in respect of the operation and management of the euro by(a) the European Community and (b) the European Central Bank, concerning the need for (i) alignment and (ii) further harmonisation of tax rates and policies on income arising from commercial transactions, capital gains, non-occupational personal income from sources (A) inside and (B) outside the European Union, indirect taxation and taxes other than personal occupational income tax. [149184]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no such requirements.

  Revenue Yield
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of(a) cutting age-related personal allowances to the level of the basic personal allowance and (b) increasing class IV national insurance payments to a rate of 22.2 per cent. [146251]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yield from cutting the age-related personal allowances to the basic personal allowance is £950 million for 2000–01. The effect of making a change to the class 4 rate is given in table 1.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2000.

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget Report.

  Childcare Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the childcare tax credit will continue when the integrated child credit is introduced. [148494]
  622W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit in Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) currently delivers help with child care costs to over 124,000 families, compared with under 50,000 families who benefited from the child care disregard in family credit. The child care tax credit helps families to overcome the barrier that child care costs present when moving into work. The new tax credits, which will be introduced from 2003 and replace WFTC, will build on the success of WFTC and continue to provide support for families.

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to introduce the reduced rate of VAT for listed churches; and if this proposal has been approved by the European Commission. [147750]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made on his proposal to reduce the VAT rate on repairs, maintenance and conservation work for churches and chapels. [147405]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indication he has received about the timetable for European Commission proposals to include repairs, maintenance and improvements to places of worship listed in Annex H of the 6 VAT Directive, to make it possible for member states to apply a reduced rate of VAT to such services; and what assessment he has made of the likelihood of such a change being agreed. [149449]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The Government are continuing their discussions with the European Commission on a reduced VAT rate for listed places of worship. A preliminary reply has indicated that this will be considered by the Commission in their general review of reduced rates that will take place in 2003. In the interim period the Government are considering special arrangements to help congregations pay for repairs to listed church buildings.

  Stamp Duty Exemption (Brownfield Sites)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the areas he has designated as brownfield sites eligible for exemption from stamp duty. [148846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are working closely with the devolved authorities to ensure that the stamp duty relief for deprived communities announced in the pre-Budget report is targeted at the most disadvantaged areas in all parts of the UK. The areas to qualify for the relief will be published in Budget 2001.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before public business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Portugal and Spain on 12th, 13th and 14th February, when the House will sit. I will be holding meetings with Members of the government and the judiciary in both countries and will be addressing the joint British Council/Spanish Bar Association human rights and law conference. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Speaker's Conference
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a Speaker's Conference to examine the role and performance of both Houses of Parliament and their relationship to each other.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I do not think that that would be appropriate. A Speaker's Conference traditionally consists only of Members of the other place. It would be wrong for it to examine the role and performance of your Lordships' House and its relationship with the other place. The Government continue to believe that the proper vehicle for this examination, which we agree is important, is a Joint Committee of both Houses, as we have already proposed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I quite understand that the Government are well content with the domination they presently enjoy over both Houses of Parliament. However, in the long term, would it not be wise for the Government actively to seek ways in which public respect for Parliament might be restored? They could perhaps start by making it appear as though Parliament were not so much a part of their own far from infallible machine.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure that your Lordships would agree that the Government have domination over this House. We hold Parliament in the greatest respect. We have taken steps to see what advances can be made, in particular the appointment of a Royal Commission. We hope that many matters of value to Parliament will be considered by the Joint Committee.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, are the Government really proposing to move to a stage two Bill on House of Lords reform without any form of parliamentary consultation, either through a Speaker's Conference or a Joint Committee of both Houses, on issues such as the composition of your Lordships' House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we set up a Royal Commission; the Royal Commission received evidence from a wide range of sources; there could be a public debate on the Royal Commission's findings. We have proposed a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary aspects, and we are discussing through the usual channels the detail of that Joint Committee.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, now that we have had the opportunity of experiencing the changes and of living with them for some time, would it not be sensible to have a serious debate on the various options in order that the views of the House can be made known to the Joint Committee when it is eventually set up?
Lord Falconer of Thornton: My Lords, there should be a national debate in response to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission aimed—in my view, correctly—to gather together a wide range of opinions and then express a conclusion in its report, which it did.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in considering this matter further, will the Government bear in mind that the major factor to be considered is the vast amount of legislation that there now is, and has been for some years, and that this House is so much better qualified in its expertise and experience than another place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the issue of the scrutiny of legislation is incredibly important and needs to be looked at. It is an issue at which the Joint Committee which is being discussed through the usual channels could look in detail.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that another important piece of unfinished business is the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Does he not think that legislation could conveniently be hived off to the Welsh Assembly and that it is time for urgent consideration of the possibility of equating the Assembly's legislative powers to those of the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not think that. We should see how the Welsh Assembly operates over a period of time. I do not think it is appropriate to consider any changes in relation to it at the moment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to know that I agree with his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. However, does he not think it appropriate to examine the ways in which both

1147
Houses now devise primary legislation? That would assist the National Assembly for Wales, when devising its secondary, subordinate legislation, to ensure that it is more properly related to what happens in this House. Is there not an opportunity here to look at the way in which secondary legislation is scrutinised throughout England and Wales to ensure a clearer way of devising primary legislation—and, indeed, the ways in which the National Assembly for Wales is referred to in primary legislation? There is a consistent inconsistency within government in the way that Bills are drafted. There is no clarity as to where the Assembly's powers are derived from in terms of primary legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, both Houses should consider the scrutiny of legislation, both primary and secondary. The Joint Committee will look at that issue. The noble Lord is right, the Welsh Assembly also looks at secondary legislation. It would plainly have an interest in seeing how it was done.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, can the Minister be more precise about the timing of the announcement of the Joint Committee? When shall we know its membership and its programme? Will it be before May or after May?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, discussions are going on through the usual channels as to, for example, whether or not the Liberal Democrats agree to such a committee and what its composition should be. When those discussions are complete, obviously we can make an announcement. But I am not in a position to make an announcement as to timing at the moment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am baffled by the Minister's answers. He has just said that it is up to the Liberal Democrats to decide whether there will be a Joint Committee. Surely that is for the Government to decide. Will the Minister answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; namely, why do the Government wish to exclude Parliament from the consultative process of the Joint Committee in discussing the composition of this House? Should not Parliament be the primary place for Parliament itself to come to a conclusion about composition, and to place that conclusion before the Government? Secondly, can the Minister give a single example of how Parliament has been strengthened in the past three and a half years?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, discussions are going on about the form of the Joint Committee. It would be wrong to make any announcement before those discussions have been completed. It would also be wrong to suggest—as the noble Lord said I did—that the Liberal Democrats in any sense have a veto in relation to that process. The noble Lord's second point was whether Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the composition of this House. Of course it
1148
will. There has been a Royal Commission; there will be a Joint Committee; and when legislation is proposed, Parliament will then have an opportunity to discuss it. Thirdly, he asked whether there has been any example of Parliament being strengthened. The reform of the House of Lords has been introduced—in our view, that strengthens Parliament.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while we on these Benches certainly do not expect to have a veto, we do expect to have a voice. I should like to lend support to the proposal that there should be a full discussion in Parliament before draft legislation goes ahead. In my experience, once legislation is drafted it is always too late to make major changes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says about the Liberal Democrats not having a veto, but it is plainly right that they should have a voice in determining the terms of the Joint Committee. I hope that they accept that that is the process that is going on at present.
As regards the issue of second stage reform, there has been a Royal Commission; there will be a Joint Committee; then there should be a national debate; then, it seems to me, the next stage should be legislation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, surely this House and another place should have a voice before legislation is tabled. Once a Bill is on the table, there is a narrow corridor down which you have to go. Unless you kill the Bill, you finish up with some variety of what has been put there by the Government. Parliament is here to control the Government, not to be steered by them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, both Houses of Parliament will obviously have a view and a voice in relation to what happens. It is a matter for the usual channels to determine what debates should take place. But the process has so far involved stage one reform—which was accompanied by a large number of debates in both Houses about stage two reform; then there was a Royal Commission; a Joint Committee will follow; then there will be a national debate, and then legislation.

Food Imports: Inspection
2.46 p.m.
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following recent concerns about contaminated food entering the United Kingdom, they will ensure that adequate numbers of inspectors are appointed to cover all possible ports of entry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, food inspection services at ports are the responsibility of the relevant local authorities. It is incumbent on these authorities to ensure that they have the resources and facilities in place to carry out their statutory duties in relation to imported foods.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. My Question was tied to the deplorable importation of contaminated meat from Germany, which has occurred five times over the past months. The imports included spinal cord, which is one of several specified risk materials and which has been very visible in these cases. Is it possible, however, that more specified risk materials may have slipped through into this country? According to a report in the Sunday Express, the Food Standards Agency is said to be furious. So it should be. What action have the Government recommended in regard to the importation of contaminated meat, and what action will they now take?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the seriousness of these matters. However, the very fact that the Meat Hygiene Service was able, through sample inspections, to detect what had happened indicates that the system is working well in this country. But we cannot be complacent. As a result, with effect from 30th January, the official veterinary service has been instructed by the Meat Hygiene Service, when carrying out its next routine visits to a cutting plant or a cold store, to perform a specified risk material inspection of all beef carcasses imported from Germany. In addition, the Food Standards Agency has written to all local authorities advising them that all premises likely to receive consignments of German beef should be subject to further random checks, and that any beef imported from Germany should be inspected during these visits. At the same time, we have vigorously taken up with the European Union the issue of whether the German Government are enforcing the rules and regulations effectively in Germany as regards this matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would the problem be avoided if we were allowed to stamp meat as being imported from Germany; or are we prevented from doing so? Why, as was reported in the newspapers last Sunday, has the research into the BSE prion been delayed for two years? Surely it is important that this should be resumed immediately?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards research and the general issues regarding BSE, the Government's response to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, will be published very shortly.
As regards the labelling of beef, there is no issue as regards the source of the beef which was the subject of concerns identified by the Meat Hygiene Service. The issue is that elements of specified risk material were
1150
discovered. The question is whether the German Government have an effective system to ensure that the proper rules and regulations are implemented. As a result of what has been discovered in the past few weeks, the Food Standards Agency has taken up this matter directly with the European Union. The chair of the Food Standards Agency will meet with Commissioner Byrne, who is the commissioner responsible, tonight. One of the issues he will discuss with the commissioner is the German authorities' responsibilities in this area.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it possible for German beef to be processed in this country, for example, to be minced, and then sold packaged without it being plain to the consumer that it is German beef? Is it in the British national interest, given the present state of agriculture in this country, that we should import foreign beef?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we import little beef from Germany or, indeed, France. I certainly believe that British beef should be enjoyed and bought with vigour by people in this country. But I do not believe that we should put in place arbitrary restrictions on imports that go beyond the EU rules and regulations. As regards French imports, for example, other countries sought to stop them and the issue is now the subject of proceedings by the European Union. The best procedure is to be vigorous, as the Meat Hygiene Service is, to ensure that where we discover problems we pursue them vigorously through the European Union. That is what we are doing.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend share my surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, who lectured this country for years when Secretary of State about the virtues of a market economy, seems to have changed his mind? Is not the real issue that we need to press not only the German authorities to adopt the same standards that exist in our abattoirs, but that all European Union countries should adopt those standards immediately?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, certainly we can be proud of the way in which abattoirs in this country are managed and inspected. I hope that the rigour with which this country pursues those inspections will be followed by other countries within the European Union. That is why we are pressing as determinedly as we can for action to be taken by the European Union in relation to Germany where clearly things have gone wrong in the past few months. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, he is right that products containing beef are not subject to the labelling requirements of the EU beef labelling system, but they, like other foods, are subject to the place of origin requirements of the food labelling regulations 1996. In relation to labelling, we continue to press for much clearer information for all products.

Intimidation: Protection of Public
2.54m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they have taken to prevent the intimidation of people engaged in lawful activities; together with associated arson and criminal damage; and whether such measures have had any success.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to help the police to tackle intimidation. Tough laws exist to protect businesses and individuals from violent or threatening protests, but we intend to strengthen these further to give the police additional powers to ensure that businesses and individuals can go about their business without fear of violence or intimidation. The measures we are proposing will allow the police to take action to prevent extremists protesting outside people's homes and will also strengthen the law against the sending of malicious communications.
Arson and criminal damage are serious criminal offences and perpetrators are liable to arrest and prosecution. The Government are consulting closely with the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to achieve an effective and consistent approach to enforcement of the law, focusing particularly on animal rights extremists.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that intimidation has gone quite beyond animal rights terrorism to include such things as last year's fuel protest, numerous attacks on synagogues and mosques in recent months and some intimidation of witnesses? Will the Government seek to mobilise public opinion as well as the police against this kind of behaviour and in protection of public safety and the Queen's peace?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, sadly, the various forms of intimidation to which the noble Lord referred have been a feature of modern life for some time. The police do an excellent job in balancing the legitimate rights of peaceful protest with effective enforcement action. Our Government stand firm against intimidation, as we demonstrated clearly last year when the fuel protestors acted in the way they did in certain circumstances. We stand firm against intimidation wherever it comes from. That is our avowed course and intent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether any arrests have been made in recent months arising from personal injury or damage to personal property committed by those who claim to represent animal rights?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have some statistics for the Cambridgeshire police which indicate
1152
that around 200 people have been arrested, reported or warned in connection with protests at the Huntingdon Life Sciences centre between April and December of last year. The latest information suggests that there have not been any arrests since the commencement of this year but that the police have been effective and vigorous in their policing of protests there. They deserve to be supported not just by the Government but also by your Lordships' House and the public at large.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us take the view that these attacks on the scientific community by so-called "animal rights activists" are wholly outrageous and that every possible step must be taken to deal with them? Is he aware, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that it would be helpful if the Government could get some information from the Crown Prosecution Service and ACPO on the figures for arrests outside the county of Cambridgeshire?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before I answer the question, I hope that I may say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord resume his usual position.
We, of course, design our processes and procedures so that we collect information effectively through the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which works with the Metropolitan Police and very closely with the ACPO steering group to collate information about arrests of the kind that the noble Lord mentioned. It is important that we collect such information. People need to know that the police are taking a firm grip of the situation; they certainly have done so in places such as Cambridgeshire. As I said earlier, the police deserve our sympathy and support. They have a difficult job to do sometimes in trying circumstances.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just those who are carrying out research on animals who are threatened? I have just come from the National Farmers Union conference. Many farmers are worried about the intimidation that they and their families are subjected to. What are the Government doing about that? The difficulty is that most of these farmers live in rural areas and the Government have failed to provide enough policemen in those areas.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we greatly sympathise with the position of farmers. We want to ensure that they are well protected. Where there are problems, I am sure that farmers make detailed notes of the situation and ensure that their local constabularies are well informed. It is worth reflecting that this Government have done more to ensure that rural police forces are supported than any previous government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords groan and wince, but we have ensured that the police

1153
funding formula favours rural police forces. We have given specific grants to ensure that police services are well served, well supported and adequately funded.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House of violence done to others by members of hunts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always like to help the noble Lord but on this occasion I cannot do so.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, would the Minister like some information about the violence done to people who pursue a lawful activity—hunting?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, for the Minister to sit there looking pained is not good enough.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a fox recently bit a hunt protester?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not aware of that. People who enjoy such activities should enjoy them for what they are. Some of these questions go far beyond my brief.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are into the 25th minute of Question Time and there is another important Question.

Transplant Operations
3.1 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to restore confidence in transplant operations following the events at Alder Hey children's hospital.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is an important distinction between donation of organs for immediate use in life-saving transplants when family agreement is always sought and keeping organs for retention following post mortem. We are shortly holding a summit to reinforce this distinction and to consider how to boost organ donation rates for transplantation.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that we need to draw the clearest distinction between organ retention and organ transplantation. I am sure my noble friend will agree that it would be a tragedy if the natural anger and concern felt over the events at Alder Hey were to lead to a fall in the number of organs for transplantation given that 6,000 patients are awaiting transplants.
Will the summit meeting consider all the aspects concerning donors, in particular whether there are new ways in which people can make clear a wish to leave their organs for transplantation? Can the noble Lord
1154
confirm that placing leaflets in pay bills, credit card bills and census returns will be considered as ways of encouraging people to make available their organs for transplantation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, we want to encourage as many people as possible to put forward their names for membership of the organ donor register and, as importantly, to inform their relatives that they would be prepared to be a donor should the circumstances arise.
We shall consider a number of initiatives. In the past year there have been some good initiatives. I refer to Boots charge cards and the Goldfish credit card. The Sun is again launching a campaign which has resulted in many more thousands of people signing on to the register. At present, we have 8.3 million people on the register. That figure is impressive but it would be marvellous if we could encourage millions more.
Lord Laming: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the monitoring of the clinical performance of doctors?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the steps taken by the Government over the past three years go a long way towards ensuring the effective monitoring of the clinical performance of doctors. Specifically, clinical governance lays down a corporate responsibility on the boards of NHS trusts. In addition, we have to tackle the issue of poorly performing doctors. The assessment centres to be established will be able to tackle poor performance as soon as problems are identified, dealing with poor performance in a more effective and sensitive way.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, as someone who has donated the organ of a loved one for transplantation, I welcome the summit and wish it well. However, will the Minister further inform the House of the proper procedures for returning to bereaved parents the babies' organs which have been kept at Alder Hey for research? If what one heard from one of the parents on the "Kilroy" programme last Friday is true, at present the procedure lacks sensitivity for the feelings of the bereaved parents.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in addition to the trauma suffered because of the activities of Professor Van Velzen, one of the conclusions of the Redfern report was that over the past year, the return of organs should have been handled more sensitively. Some parents have had the trauma of being misinformed. Some parents have endured the trauma of having to attend three to four funerals of their child.

1155
In publishing the Redfern report, one of the Government's most important conclusions was the establishment of the retained organs commission. It will have an important role: advising NHS trusts on how to handle organ returns sensitively, effectively and efficiently in the future. There may now be some delay regarding return of organs because it is important that NHS trusts first receive that advice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the House has been informed previously that even with the existence of a donor card, when one dies, one's body—even that of an adult—is not one's own at the time of death. The consent of relatives still has to be sought. Is that still the position or has there been any change?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the consent of relatives must be sought. I believe that that is done, particularly through transplant co-ordinators, in the most sensitive way possible. That is why, when people sign on to the organ donor register, they are encouraged at the same time to tell their relatives of their action so that relatives know of their intention.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Whitaker set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Tomlinson to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Global Poverty
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Whitakerrose to call attention to HM Government's commitment to the White Paper Eliminating Global Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this debate was proposed in the debate on the gracious Speech last year by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce it. The White Paper, Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, is particularly timely. That is not because globalisation is really a new phenomenon. The spur to trade from new means of communication is an ancient human pattern, although vastly accelerated by the liberalisation of more of the world's economies and the rapid growth of information technology. What makes the White Paper timely is the connection of globalisation with its other strapline, eliminating world poverty, and the prospect of a better world order to achieve that.
1156
For the world to turn its back on the good companion of globalization—the reform of international institutions, the spread of good governance and active civil society—risks driving ever more of a wedge between the fifth of the world's population which lives in extreme poverty and the rest. That wedge is not just a prosperity, health, education or digital divide but also a dangerous divide across which can leap organised crime, disease and war—with its attendant consequences of forced migration and unprecedented numbers of refugees—to draw the developed world into conflict.
These are issues which arouse strong feelings, particularly among young people. Oxfam, Christian Aid, ActionAid, Save the Children Fund and CAFOD supporters include many young people—some through family links, like many of those who joined in the voluntary response to the tragic earthquake in Gujerat. Where politics may have turned young people off, international development turns them on, whether it is the struggle for a sustainable environment or humanitarian aid, the rewarding experience of teaching in a gap year or working as a trained VSO nurse. Those young people will take note of the White Paper and recognise the quality of the Government who produced it. The nearly 8,000 hits last month on the White Paper website, which is the medium of the younger generation, added to the sell-out of its first print run of 10,000, suggests that it is being taken note of.
A few young people think that we can turn back globalisation. There is a robust debate about how, or even whether, the liberalisation of the world economy can be achieved fairly and justly. That debate was rather roughly conducted at Seattle, Prague and recently Davos. But it seems to me that the issues of world poverty and globalisation engage young people in politics as it should be—and that means the exercise of choice and decisions about life chances for all, for the many, not the few. In the words of Amartya Sen's recent British Academy lecture on "Other People":
"The themes of these protests have been consistently more important than their theses".
I disagree with the thesis that globalisation undermines the route out from poverty, and I think that the White Paper presents more hopeful alternatives. It confronts squarely the issues of managing globalisation. I congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development and her colleagues on it. It covers topics ranging from growth, trade, governance and conflict prevention to the need to invest in people's health and education, technology transfer and targeted research. It deals with the role of private finance, the sustainable environment, more effective development assistance and the part to be played by the international institutions. It integrates the role of the Government in enabling economic growth with the need to ensure equitable distribution through the democratic process. It holds out the prospect of realisable achievement of the targets for eliminating poverty in the first White Paper.

1157
The White Paper also promises a development Bill—the first primary legislation on the subject since 1980. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about its contents.
I look forward to the contributions of distinguished noble Lords. I shall therefore confine my remarks to the untying of aid, the influence of corruption, the importance of civil society and trends in research priorities.
Development is impeded when aid is tied to the products and services of the donor country. The receiving country loses the benefits of fair competition, the chance of local procurements and the sense of responsibility for its own budgets. Our Government are to be congratulated on joining others in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development who have agreed to untie financial assistance to the least developed countries. That sends the right signal that British aid will be clearly aimed at the relief of poverty. It increases the pressure on the few remaining countries that confound their aid with their trade through that form of protectionism.
It is notable, but hardly surprising, that the CBI supports untied aid. There is some distance to go. The admirable campaign by the charity ActionAid to challenge tied aid as a breach of European Union competition policy has yet to reach fruition.
When countries with centrally planned economies move towards market economies, their governments have enormous powers of patronage during the privatisation and deregulation process. The ensuing development has often been distorted by corruption. The UK's commitment to implementing the OECD convention on combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions is to be applauded. I declare an interest as a member of the UK advisory council of Transparency International, which, through its 75 international chapters, promotes understanding of the damaging effects of corruption and tights against it. It is excellent that legislation has been promised in the UK. It will be better still when the legislation has been passed. Can my noble friend give any indication of when it will be brought forward?
As well as so-called grand corruption in government contracts, there is also petty corruption. While grand corruption can hold up the development of essential infrastructure or substantially reduce public revenue, corruption on the part of the hospital service, the university admissions board, the village policeman or even the installer of telephones makes the everyday life of individuals a misery. It is costly for those who can afford it and marginalising for those who cannot. Few things can so destroy faith in political processes or the management of society.
It is important for people who live in a country where corruption is viewed as an aberration to understand what it is like for people who live where it is the norm—where no public service can be accessed without bribery and there is no proper redress. The effective counters to petty corruption are in the institutions of civil society—a mix of independent institutions, such as the judiciary and the media, and
1158
citizens' interest groups, which can freely draw attention to abuse and obtain impartial inquiries. Non-governmental organisations, not least women's organisations, have a strong part to play. The Department for International Development is doing good work on civil service reform and the better management of public finance. How can the Government strengthen civil society further, particularly local NGOs?
The interests of the developed world predominate in health research, which massively affects the lives of poor people in the medium term. The White Paper draws attention to the fact that less than 10 per cent of international research goes to 90 per cent of the world's disease burden. What can the Government do to redress that balance? There are also concerns about whether the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights will increase the cost of essential treatment drugs for poor people. The Government's proposal for a commission on intellectual property rights is most timely. When will it be up and running?
Agricultural research is one of the keys to better food production from our finite land mass. I look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, on the potential of crop enhancement—unhelpfully known as genetic modification—for agriculture in marginal lands. When I was last in Kenya, I saw at first hand a drylands project administered by SOS Sahel, in which I declare an interest as a board member. The farmers were trained and enabled to carry out trials and make decisions about the best varieties. That process produced more secure food supplies and, most importantly, it put the power to improve their lives back in the farmers' hands through the development of their own expertise. That is how research can include the voice of the poor.
Many of my observations refer back to the lack of influence that the poor have over the factors that control their lives. That is reflected in the conduct and composition of the international institutions, as other noble Lords will analyse and as the White Paper indicates. There is a need for international rules which allow exploitation of opportunity to flourish without imposing damaging consequences on the people caught up in the slipstream.
Globalisation could work within the framework of universal human rights and shared social objectives, to quote Kofi Annan, and the international institutions could enable the process to work more effectively. We can take heart from the success which has been achieved so far in the debt relief campaign initiated by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the end of last year, 22 countries had been approved—more than recently forecast. That represented an effective marshalling of world conduct through international institutions.
But, in conclusion, all the targets set out so forcefully in the first White Paper for the elimination of poverty and urged on the World Trade Organisation by my right honourable friend will be

1159
reached only if globalisation can be made to work for the poor. If it can—and I am convinced that with political will it can—the elimination of extreme poverty is within reach, as is greater peace, stability and prosperity for the whole world. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on initiating this debate. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the White Paper. It provides an opportunity to examine exactly what we can do for others in less fortunate circumstances in some of the harshest parts of the world.
By definition, it also provides an opportunity for us to examine our own lifestyles. We live in a fertile country; we do not want for food; we live in relative comfort with all modern amenities—electricity and safe drinking water—and our lives are made easier and more bearable thanks to the technological advances which we sometimes take for granted. We must not forget that those benefits are underpinned by a stable democracy and the fair rule of law. We should never take those last two for granted, but I fear that we do. It is right that we should want those who are less fortunate than ourselves to share the benefits.
It is a fact of modern-day life that the first that we hear and see of the Third World is from the television. We sit in the safety of our warm homes and watch pictures beamed in live from around the world. Watching pictures in real time transfixes us all but, at the end of it, we turn off the television and get on with our lives. However, we are still unable to stop thinking about those desperate people.
It is a sad fact that in the media bad news is good news. The cameraman who arrives first at scenes of suffering and destruction gets the scoop. All too often we witness not only the suffering of others but also our own inefficiencies. Never has the expression "Time is of the essence" been more appropriate than when dealing with disaster regions.
We share the horror of those who are suffering. I always feel proud of the way that British people respond with immediate offers of financial and other provision. However, I am saddened by the knowledge that the response to those in trouble is often delayed and is sometimes too late to assist those for whom the help was intended.
Last year, the Government were found wanting in their response to the flooding in Mozambique. It was embarrassing to see the squabbling between government departments over who would pay for helicopters. With that in mind, I consider it strange that this White Paper does not mention disaster relief at all. That is in contrast to the 1997 White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, in which the subject was given prominence.
I seek an assurance from the Government that the faults of last year have been remedied and that, when we are next called upon to send heavy life-saving
1160
equipment to a remote part of the world, it will be done swiftly and without bureaucratic hold-ups. We saw a swift response to the tragic events in India. Our teams were able to take high-tech equipment and get to work within a few days of the earthquake striking. Now we must ensure that India is given assistance in rebuilding the infrastructure of the affected region. Again, that must be done without added bureaucracy.
Therefore, I am somewhat bemused that the Government intend to increase the funding to the EU by almost £300 million. Last year, the International Development Select Committee published a report, The Effectiveness of EC Development Assistance. It makes quite shocking reading. Perhaps I may quote from the document, which states:
"The fundamental mistake has been to allocate excessive funds in the first place for predominantly political reasons".
The Communication on the Reform of the Management of External Assistance—an EU body—was frank in its admission of the extent of the problem, stating:
"The average length of project/programme implementation has continuously increased over the last few years with a corresponding trend in the backlog of outstanding commitments that reached over 20 billion euros by the end of 1999. In the last five years the average delay in disbursement of committed funds has increased from 3 years to 4.5 years. For certain programmes, the backlog of outstanding commitments is equivalent to more than 8.5 years' payments".
The committee was also concerned to discover that not a single penny of the 250 million euros allocated for reconstruction in Nicaragua in the wake of Hurricane Mitch had been spent.
The Patten report has made recommendations, including the need for more staff. I should have thought that more staff would be last on the list when trying to eradicate excess bureaucracy. Would it not make more sense to place greater emphasis on bilateral aid programmes? As a method of delivery, they are swifter, and aid can be better targeted. They are also subject to proper scrutiny by Members in another place and by your Lordships. Holding a Brussels-based institution to account from these shores is difficult, to say the least. Better accountability ensures that the job gets done with the minimum fuss.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government will consider increasing bilateral aid programmes. If the European Union gets its house in order and if we are satisfied that the reforms have been successful, perhaps we can then reconsider increasing our aid flows through that institution.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this debate and on the way she did so. We are all most grateful to her. In this otherwise excellent paper, there are two weak areas which I want to address: health and food.
Success in fighting world poverty depends crucially on better health and more efficient farming. With a global decline in government spending, progress in both depends to a considerable extent on global companies. However, such companies largely have

1161
their own agenda: making profits from the rich. For example, only 1 per cent of the 1,200 or so new pharmaceutical compounds marketed in the past 20 years was intended for tropical diseases. In a recent article in Prospect, The Economist journalist, Shereen El Feki, pointed out that in pharmaceutical laboratories much work is done on arthritis and hypertension, but little on schistosomiasis or other parasitic diseases.
Fortunately, the position is improving. Merck has long provided free drugs to cure river blindness; Pfizer is helping to eliminate trachoma in Morocco; and drugs to combat AIDS are at last becoming available in Africa at more reasonable prices. However, the governments of the developed world need to consider incentives to encourage more work to be done on the diseases of the developing world.
I turn to agriculture. The green revolution has run out of steam. As I have previously argued, a major contribution to the need to feed 2 billion extra mouths must come from the use of transgenic crops, although they are, of course, only part of the solution. In many of the poorest parts of the world huge benefits could flow from very simple improvements in farming methods, but they have never been tried. Other good, older practices have in many cases been forgotten. However, in view of the pressure on marginal land and the scarcity of water resources, there is need for plants that are modified to be drought resistant and for more productive cereals.
I am appalled by the fact that some NGOs attack the technology which can produce those crops—crops, for example, which can modify rice to help provide vital nutrients such as iron and vitamin A, and vaccines which can be taken through eating genetically modified bananas instead of being injected by syringe. To oppose those developments is sheer prejudice. Such opposition is not based on any scientific evidence. It would represent a victory of dogma over humanity. It is in fact downright immoral.
However, it is a fact of commercial life that multinational companies—the agro-businesses—look for their profits mainly from products designed for the developed world. The OECD and the DfID should support the application of that new technology to the developing world by incentives and every other possible means. The White Paper makes no mention of that, perhaps because the proposal is controversial.
The multinationals do make a useful contribution. Syngenta and the two inventors of golden rice are assigning all their commercial rights to the International Rice Institute in Manila. That means that subsistence farmers in any developing country will in time be able to cultivate golden rice varieties licence-free. Syngenta and Monsanto have also made freely available their valuable data on the sequence of the complete rice genome. In time, that will benefit wheat, corn and barley crops. Thanks to the Rockerfeller Foundation, increasing numbers of scientists in the developing world can now promote GM technology locally.
1162
It is important for NGOs to accept the new technology, as in time they will. I believe that some of them are already looking at it again. The role of NGOs could be vital.
The green revolution saved much of the world from hunger, but it had its downside. Its approach was uniform and drove many small farmers off the land. GM technology, if misapplied, could also lead to a greater degree of monoculture. The next green revolution must be based on local communities and local practices and cultures, and it must recognise the need for complexity and diversity. The NGOs are dedicated to the improvement of the life of the poor. Once they are reconciled to the new technology they, as much as anyone else, can ensure that it is effectively applied.
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, whose knowledge of this subject and whose sincerity are well known in the House. I welcomed the White Paper in our debate on the Queen's Speech, and I am delighted to do so again.
This is a White Paper of admirable policy statements rather than an action plan, and it is therefore difficult to criticise. In fact, it is so comprehensive that I cannot find anything missing from it—not even disaster relief.
I shall, however, start by challenging the Government on the amount of development assistance that they promise in chapter 7. Paragraph 286 refers to a "radical shift" from 0.26 per cent of GNP in 1997 up to 0.33 per cent in 2003–04. That is a welcome increase but seen over a longer period it is no increase at all. We have been at 0.33 per cent before and I well remember the Labour Party advocating a much higher figure during the 1980s.
Surely the Government should be planning to make a genuine move towards the UN target—perhaps 0.37 per cent or 0.38 per cent. If they did that, they would have the right to boast about it. With the 2015 targets in mind, we need to make provision now for spending more than 0.33 per cent, which will make a difference in 14 years.
Far from proving that we are meeting the international development targets, the White Paper rather candidly shows that we are already falling behind them. That was pointed out by one of the UN agencies this week. The wavy red lines in the figures on pages 21–22 of the White Paper show that infant mortality, gender disparity and primary school enrolment are not moving fast enough. Even the number of extreme poor, which has declined recently in absolute terms, disguises huge regional imbalances. Meanwhile, as the departmental report last year pointed out and the White Paper again admits, there is a "critical shortfall" in statistical capacity and evaluation.
I would like to see at least one target kept to; that is, universal primary education. In that context there is, potentially, enough political will. We all want children to succeed or to have the opportunity to do so

1163
However, it has become clear since Dakar that the Education for All movement led by UNESCO has failed to make any real progress for a decade. The same thing happened to Alma Ata. That is because of the lack of local participation and of coherent policies on the part of international financial agencies.
It is not too late to pull the situation around. ActionAid estimates that it would need an additional 8 billion dollars a year from all sources over the next 10 years if there is to be any hope of meeting the targets. That is a realistic figure and the Government would do well to aim at it during their coming period in office.
Education deserves a particular focus. Paragraph 352 of the White Paper appears to confirm that the G8 summit in 1999 decided that progress towards the targets would be measured annually. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness clarified that.
I have seen a six-point plan for eliminating child poverty. It was signed by 14 charities, including Christian Aid and Save the Children. I declare an interest in the work of several of those charities, and I know that their conclusions are based on field experience. They say that an unacceptable number of children—at least 600 million world-wide—are living in poverty. Of that number, nearly half are aged between five and 14 and are working full time or part time to help their families to survive. Another 183 million are under five and weigh less than they should for their age.
Education comes high in the six-point plan, but not as high as economic reform, which includes debt relief and reform of the way in which aid is delivered to children. It is significant that aid agencies which are primarily concerned with child welfare should single out improvements in economic policy, the management of public sector expenditure and reforms in the way in which foreign aid is delivered. Failures in the system are not attributable only to conditions in developing countries, as is commonly assumed; they are very often the result of poor planning and mismanagement in donor countries, as we know from the shambles of the EU's development assistance programme.
In that context, I readily acknowledge the commitment demonstrated in the White Paper towards improving the effectiveness of EC aid, including the aim of achieving the 70 per cent figure in relation to low-income countries by 2006.
Again, however, what is the value of that kind of target when we in "developed" Europe have been unable to deliver aid on time or to the right people for more than 13 years? Other improvements in the quality and targeting of aid will undoubtedly benefit the poor. They include the untying of UK assistance, which I welcome, and continuing support for debt relief. Such measures have been widely welcomed by the aid agencies.
I had intended to say a lot about globalisation but, in the short time available, I congratulate the Government on their success with global citizenship.
1164
I suggest linking the DfEE with two international departments—that could even be the subject of the next White Paper.
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on this important debate.
I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the tremendous way in which she tours the country helping people to begin to understand international development issues. She is indefatigable. Two or more weeks ago, I was at a meeting in Shipley that was addressed by Clare Short. It was in a church hall that was packed to the doors and it had attracted people from a wide range of backgrounds who were concerned about and committed to international development. That raised a question: how representative of the general public was that group? The feeling is that they were very unrepresentative. Questions were asked about what profile would be given to international development issues in the manifestos that will be forthcoming (if there is a general election) from any party that aspires to power.
I read in a very interesting book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman, the following:
"You need a picture of the world because no policy is sustainable without a public that broadly understands why it is necessary and sees the world the way you do".
I join others who commend the White Paper. But nobody for one moment would pretend that the White Paper itself is going to educate, convince and motivate the general public. I should be grateful to hear from those who are to reply to the debate their plans to help to educate the public and to get the public motivated to grasp the nettles of globalisation.
The word "globalisation" has almost become a kind of bogey word. That is a great pity. Certainly in the long term, we all stand to benefit. An appeal to self-interest is quite appropriate here because every single one of us stands to benefit from improvements in the conditions of people throughout the world. But, in the short term, there is a price to pay. It is an extremely painful price for those who lose their jobs and who face despair in their lives.
It is extremely important that a vision is given, not a very learned document, which helps to open the eyes of the public and to motivate them. I hope very much that whoever has the reins of power will continue to work with the Churches, voluntary organisations and NGOs because I believe that they have a key role to play in public motivation and education.
It is often said at public meetings that there are certain problem countries and that those countries are very difficult to help. I take the point. Paragraph 78 of the White Paper states:
"Violent conflict is one of the biggest barriers to development in many of the world's poorest countries…It is estimated that 10.6 million people in Africa are internally displaced—the majority of them uprooted by war".
That is true of Sudan. In two weeks' time, I hope to be in Sudan again. Many who have been to that country have seen the deprivation and poverty, not least of

1165
southerners displaced into refugee camps around Khartoum and Port Sudan—and there has been a war in Sudan for 18 years. But oil is now beginning to flow, and to flow profusely. I understand that one of the companies involved is BP Amoco. People around the village and church halls of the country are asking on what that revenue is spent. I am conscious of the fact that just a few weeks ago, the Anglican cathedral in Lui was bombed, presumably mistaken for a military target, and has now been flattened.
I wonder whether the Government and those who aspire to power have, or will have, conversations with bodies like BP Amoco to discuss the possible use of the revenues that arise from their involvement in such a country.
I wonder also what the Government will do in terms of what we crudely call "joined-up thinking". International development and the concerns of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must come together, and the search for peace and reconciliation must be pursued with all urgency. My plea is that the so-called "problem countries" will not be put on the back-burner but will be given even more special attention.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, from these Benches it is my pleasant duty to congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on introducing this debate and giving us an excellent start.
I shall confine my remarks to the last chapter of the report, which is all about international institutions and I shall speak only about international financial institutions. However, before I do that, perhaps I may say that one particular feature of globalisation is that it affects them and us. In that respect, the poor and the people who may lose out from globalisation are not just out there and the people who gain from globalisation all here. There are costs as well as gains involved in globalisation and it is extremely difficult to say that we want only the costs and do not want the gains. Those things come together. When a plant in Llanwern shuts down, that is as much an effect of globalisation which is happening in Wales as when something happens which, for example, shifts manufacturing from here to China or Malaysia. Therefore, we must understand globalisation as a process which is here and which is not going to go away. It is not possible to drive it; it is not a motor car. We must understand it and try to grapple with it and see what can be done about trying to harness its energies rather more towards gain than loss.
The most important aspect is the institutions of global governance. It is a particular feature of our post-war world that most of the institutions which are currently important—the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations—were set up in 1945 when the world was a very different place. It was different in two respects. First, there seemed to be at that time a faith that a concert of great powers would run the world in a benevolent way. Therefore, the Security Council was set up with five permanent powers which,
1166
unfortunately, are above any international law. Therefore, the UN itself started in a hierarchical way and continues to be a hierarchical institution.
The IMF and the World Bank also share the characteristic that the majority of their governing bodies are represented by what we now call the G7 powers. They have the money and the quotas, and votes come with the quotas, not one nation one vote. But since globalisation finally came to have an impact on the world, roughly from the 1980s onwards, the legitimacy of that governance and those institutions has increasingly been doubted. Their impact is greater but it is very difficult to appeal to them or to change their ways of thinking. That is particularly true of the International Monetary Fund because both in the structural adjustment problems of the 1980s and the Asian crisis, it was seen that very often its analysis was wrong. It is difficult for victims to appeal to it and to influence its ways.
We need a more accountable, democratic voting structure in the IMF, the World Bank and, one hopes also, the UN. I suggest that a qualified majority voting system, which has been adopted increasingly in EU decision-making procedures, should be urged upon the UN Security Council. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government could take a lead in that respect.
The one institution which I would strengthen and which I should like to champion, an institution which has been demonised, is the WTO. The WTO is the first institution of the globalisation age. There is a symmetry between all nations. No nation sits in judgment on another. Of course, there are large nations and small nations, rich nations and poor nations. But its procedures are such that even the United States must be subject to its decisions; it cannot escape that.
Somehow, we need to harness that sort of model in which countries are treated symmetrically and there is obedience to a framework of rules. A framework of rules built in such a way as to give legitimacy to the international institutions of today would be very welcome.
In that respect, we must find ways to harness the tremendous energy which civil society possesses through NGOs and various other fora. Somehow we must be able to plug that into the global governance process. If we could do that either at UN level or somewhere else, that would be a very welcome change.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating a debate on this significant White Paper. In the short time available I shall concentrate on access to justice, protection from crime and violence and its relationship to poverty.
I declare an interest as a board member of Penal Reform International and an associate of the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College, London, where I am involved in work in this area.

1167
Quite rightly, the White Paper points out the importance of justice. It says that the provision of law and order is a priority for the poor. Poverty does not mean being without only food, medicine, clothes and shelter, but also suffering other forms of deprivation. It can mean villagers being without protection from people who steal their cows or their crops. It can also mean being at the mercy of corrupt police who arrest poor people regardless of guilt or innocence, expect money in exchange for release and if no money is forthcoming, the poor are charged and thrown into an overcrowded jail where there is little food and water and where infectious diseases are rife. Poor people can be arrested, charged and left in prison for years waiting for a trial that never happens. In Malawi I met a man in prison charged with murder who had been waiting 10 years for his trial.
Women are particularly likely to find no protection in the justice system and often children are completely powerless. The White Paper quotes the World Bank Voices of the Poor Study, which shows that poor people attach great importance to security, without which it is impossible to improve their lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, pointed out how we take the rule of law for granted, but too often in developing countries the services that provide that security—the police and the criminal justice system—are themselves sources of abuse and violence.
Such unequal power relations are deeply embedded in many societies. Without action to reform the justice area, poverty will not be reduced. In a recent document published by DfID, called Justice and Poverty Reduction, those arguments are set out in greater detail, along with suggestions for policies that address them. The approach in that document is welcome. For too long, assistance to the justice systems of developing countries has consisted of imposing on them a structure based on western systems that they could not afford and which denied the strengths of their own approaches to justice. The emphasis on a British-style judicial process and legal framework has left many poor people in developing countries with no access to justice. The formal courts are too far away from the villages; they are conducted in a language that most poor people do not understand; and the proceedings often require goods that are in short supply such as interpreters, photocopiers and electricity. Sometimes bribes are required.
For those reasons, many poor people rely on traditional and customary systems that have many advantages. They aim at reconciliation and restitution rather than punishment and they involve the community. Instead of the end product being isolation from society and social exclusion, it is reconciliation and an agreement that satisfies both parties and restores social harmony. The moves by DfID to fund programmes, to make those traditional justice systems more attuned to human rights considerations and fairer towards women are very welcome.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister what plans DfID has to disseminate the message about the new policy on justice and poverty reduction, first, throughout
1168
DfID itself and the offices overseas and, secondly, to other development donors who are not all so far forward and are still spending millions of pounds trying to impose western justice systems wholesale on poor countries with different traditions. Can the Minister also say whether there are any targets or output measures for work in the justice and poverty area and, if so, what they are? If not, does DfID intend to develop some?
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing this debate with such dedication. Many issues have already been raised by noble Lords but I shall focus on one or two. I declare an interest as I work as a consultant in health education programmes in developing countries, largely in the former Soviet Union. I shall talk mainly about HIV/AIDS in developing countries. I wish that I had time to speak of wider health issues, such as TB and malaria, and I wish that I had time to address issues of reproductive health. We know that in developing countries and in countries in transition, syphilis and chlamydia pose severe problems and that every year many thousands of women die from unsafe abortions. In poor societies, fertility regulation is complex and difficult.
In parts of the former Soviet Union, I see devastation from poverty and its resultant health problems such as TB, alcoholism and gastro-intestinal diseases as well as sexually transmitted infections. HIV/AIDS is becoming a major threat.
Before discussing HIV/AIDS in more detail I have two questions for the Minister. First, can she assure the House that, if the United States decreases its funding, the British Government will consider extra funding for population and reproductive health programmes? Secondly, is she able to give an indication of continued UK support to the former Soviet Union?
As many noble Lords know, HIV/AIDS constitute a global crisis. AIDS-related illnesses and high death rates, particularly in Africa and Asia, mean that there are shortages of skilled workers, families are left without support, children are orphaned, and children do not attend school because of family crises. All that has a serious impact on social and economic development.
In the White Paper it is encouraging to see recognition of that problem, describing it as,
"both a human and development tragedy".
The statistics are stark. More than 22 million people have already died of AIDS, with 16,000 new infections every day. More than 90 per cent of those infections occur in the developing world. The cost to economies is huge. Average life expectancy has fallen by 20 years in a number of sub-Saharan African countries. African countries where less than 5 per cent of the adult population is infected will experience a modest impact on GDP growth rate. However, as HIV prevalence

1169
rises to 20 per cent or more, as it has in a number of countries in Southern Africa, GDP rates may decline by up to 2 per cent a year.
Human suffering from loss of loved ones or personal affliction is great. UNAIDS points out that many people with HIV or AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa die without even aspirin for pain relief or lotion to soothe skin irritation. Yet another tragedy is that big European and American drug companies do not attempt to ensure that people in, for example, Southern Africa, have easy access to life-saving drugs. I am somewhat more cynical than the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
The VSO position paper on drug deals points out that in many cases, prices of originator medicines are higher in developing countries than in developed countries. What a dreadful irony! Drug companies are seeking to persuade western governments to impose trade rules that will stop poor countries buying drugs more cheaply or producing them more cheaply themselves. Under World Trade Organisation rules governing standards for intellectual property rights (TRIPS), that could be possible. The DfID has announced a commission on intellectual property rights in order to benefit developing countries. Perhaps the Minister can give the House yet another assurance that such a commission will be open and accountable and will involve all stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and developing countries.
4 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we sometimes overuse hyperbole in Parliament. Any adverse event becomes a crisis. Faced with the crisis with which this debate deals—one in four of the world's population living in grinding, absolute poverty, not the relative poverty that we often discuss in this country—we can hardly find the words to deal with it. We therefore owe the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, our gratitude for giving us an opportunity to convey our sense of urgency to discuss the consequences of the crisis and to consider what can and should be done about it. There is no doubt that we are considering a deadly combination of personal misery and global instability on a vast scale, which I believe is as much a challenge to the conscience and statesmanship of the wealthy developed world as the plight of the Victorian poor was to the comfortable and powerful in this country 150 years ago.
What can be done? In general, we can all set our hands to the plough of sustainable development, striving for a better balance between economic, environmental and social goods and continuing to grow our economies, but having a greater regard for both inter-generational equity, that is, environmental conservation, and intra-generational equity, that is, poverty remediation. That requires a better context of global governance, to which several noble Lords have referred, and more appropriate local action, both in partnership between all the players—government, NGOs, business and local communities. I believe that
1170
business in particular has a constructive role to play in such partnerships. I welcome the emphasis on this in the White Paper.
I have just returned from the United Nations Environmental Programme Agency's governing council in Nairobi, at which I represented the world business community on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. We discussed the follow up to Kofi Annan's global compact, which was agreed last year between the UN and a number of major international companies, including several From the UK—Unilever, BP, Shell and Rio Tinto, of which I should declare I was a director and still advise.
As noble Lords will know, the compact covers human rights, labour and the environment. Interestingly, the main concern in Nairobi on all sides was that this admirable agenda be more fully extended to cover the social dimension of poverty by the time of the world summit (Rio + 10), scheduled to be held in Johannesburg next autumn. Perhaps the Minister in her reply will assure us that Her Majesty's Government intend to take next year's world summit as seriously as the United Nations, business and the NGOs plan to. In that context, it is interesting that business finds it easier to deal with the idea of sustainable livelihoods and the creation of sustainable livelihoods than simply with the idea of poverty relief.
Of course, there are global imperatives—debt relief, market access, continuing flow of targeted aid, improved international institutions—but the place where business can particularly be effective is locally. Let us remember that four-fifths of the capital flows into the third world now comprise foreign direct investment. Therefore, the key issue concerns the multiplier that can be applied to that foreign direct investment.
There are many examples of humanitarian aid. Last week Rio Tinto gave 1 million dollars to the disaster fund for Gujarat, the region in which most of its Australian diamonds are cut and polished. It is not so much that kind of one-off humanitarian assistance that matters, but that responsible business should weekly be conducted in the developing world in a way that helps to multiply its effectiveness: transferring technology, which the Kyoto protocol envisaged; outsourcing to local suppliers; subcontracting to small and medium local companies; providing training for employees and the local community; building local infrastructure in an environmentally and socially responsible way; outreach programmes on health, education and enterprise creation. The banks and insurance companies have a special role to play in the provision of micro-credit and micro-insurance, which is relevant to ensuring shock resistance, to which the poor are particularly prone and with which sustainable livelihoods deal so well.
There is growing support in business. Much is being done, but much more needs to be done. The key to that support lies in partnerships with local communities, bringing in all the actors and ensuring that business plays a part. The task, which requires all hands to the

1171
pump, is enormous. Partnership is the key to that. I therefore welcome the lead given by Her Majesty's Government in this direction in the White Paper.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and as a trustee and member of other development NGOs, as well as doing professional work with Saferworld, the NGO think-tank on security matters.
I, too, warmly thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for the opportunity to debate this vital matter today. The Secretary of State, her civil servants and political advisers are to be congratulated on a timely and challenging White Paper. We now eagerly await the promised Bill to give it substance.
Despite the White Paper's encouraging optimism, the task remains complex and immense. Only this week the International Fund for Agricultural Development has said that the target to cut world poverty by half by 2015 will not be met. The fund argues that fewer than half the number of people required, if the target is to be met, are in fact escaping from poverty each year; yet still, it points out, 1.2 billion people exist on less than one dollar per day. Aid is being diverted to big cities from rural areas, where 75 per cent of the population live. Land reform, with improved access to markets, remains essential, as does the provision of water in rural areas for irrigation.
There is much in the White Paper on which I should like to comment—not least, the environment, debt and the indispensability of the redistribution of wealth. However, in the very short time available, I shall concentrate on only three points. First, I am reassured by the acknowledgement in the White Paper that the OECD, with its exclusive, wealthy membership, was not the right forum for negotiating a genuinely multilateral agreement on investment. Level playing fields in themselves are not an end. It is important that nations should be enabled to reach a level of fitness to play on those fields. That requires country-by-country tailor-made arrangements, for obviously no two countries are ever exactly the same. That understanding must remain central to any development strategy.
Secondly, I am sorry that DfID does not take a more forward position in the immigration, refugee and asylum policy. The issue is certainly one of globalisation. It is centrally related to the human rights that the White Paper espouses. It is closely related to the global market which DfID dutifully embraces, a market, incidentally, of free movement of goods and capital but not of labour—a gigantic distortion in market principles. And now—and the White Paper is uncharacteristically tentative on this—while DfID stresses the priority of building up human resources, we may be preparing still further to drain the developing countries of the skilled people they most need.
The issue is also intimately bound up with security, to which DfID now pays great attention. We need the voice of DfID in the formulation of asylum policy. Has
1172
DfID had any input at all into what will be considered at the Paris summit this week? Its commitment to humanity should be a sobering voice of reason in an ever more hysterical debate, disturbingly influenced by an apparent competition in playing to prejudice.
Thirdly, it is good that DfID is taking conflict, the arms trade and the reform of the security sector seriously. Too often conflict and opportunist arms trade, together with bad and corrupt armed forces and police, undermine the prospect of progress. Will my noble friend the Minister update us? Is the new policy planning unit in the Council secretariat of the European Union paying enough attention to the provision of resources for non-military preventive policies and programmes in conflict-prone regions outside Europe, notably in the high risk area of sub-Saharan Africa? If not, why not? And can DfID push for change? What specific action is being taken by DfID to persuade the Development Council that security sector reform is an appropriate priority for the European Union development budget? Strategic export control legislation remains essential. Five years have elapsed since the Scott report. When shall we see the draft Bill promised in the Queen's Speech? As for the arms brokers, who are too often the sinister merchants of death, when will the undertaking given by Stephen Byers at last year's Labour Party conference be honoured? When will a licensing system be introduced and will that system cover the activities of arms dealers who are British citizens wherever they reside or operate?
Finally, will the sensible recommendations of the quadripartite Select Committee in the other place be implemented? Will prior parliamentary scrutiny of arms deals be introduced? Retrospective scrutiny is clearly not enough.
The White Paper is impressive. We have a Minister and a department with determination and vision. They deserve all possible support in the battle which has yet to be won. Not least, we should cheer them on in their concern to make the European Union the effective force in that battle, which it has so far lamentably failed to be.
4.10 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on having introduced this extremely important debate. She has given the House one of its first opportunities extensively to discuss the issue.
There is no doubt that eliminating the scourge of poverty is one of the greatest moral challenges facing the world in the 21st century. I commend the objectives and targets set out in the report. I also welcome the focus on eliminating world poverty and the shift away from aid-for-trade policies.
I want to focus on two issues. The first is the plight and key challenges facing the poor in sub-Saharan Africa. The second is how the Internet could accelerate the process of achieving some of the targets outlined in the report.

1173
The recent World Bank report, headed "Can Africa claim the 21st Century?", makes fairly alarming reading. The average income per capita in many sub-Saharan countries is lower now than at the end of the 1960s, with incomes, assets and access to essential services unevenly distributed. The lagging primary school enrolments, high child mortality and endemic diseases, particularly malaria and HIV/AIDS, have imposed costs on Africa of at least twice that of other developing regions. HIV/AIDS, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is one of the biggest plights facing sub-Saharan Africa. It is reversing some of the social gains of the past 40 years, with more than 25 per cent of the adult population in Botswana and Zimbabwe now infected with HIV.
The situation has been made worse by the massive capital flight and the loss of skills. It is estimated that 40 per cent of African private wealth is abroad, not to mention the high proportion of educated Africans living abroad. What a difference it would make if both wealth and people from Africa went home!
On several occasions during the 1990s, international agencies proclaimed a turning point in the economic fortunes of sub-Saharan Africa. I have often alluded to the words of President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa on the African renaissance. Those hopes of an African recovery have sadly been dashed by the violent events beyond its borders, particularly in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as by the political and economic crises in Zimbabwe. These conflicts perpetuate poverty, which can be reversed only by long-running peace building and political reforms.
It is remarkable how rapidly countries can recover with a consequential return of capital investment when peace and stability is achieved. A good example of that is Mozambique, despite its recent hiccups. Halving severe poverty by 2015 will require annual growth of more than 7 per cent. Investing in people, particularly women, is essential for accelerating poverty reduction. There is no doubt that gender equality can be a potent force for accelerating poverty reduction.
Chapter 3 of the report covers the use of the Internet. Many commentators believe that the information revolution could widen the already horrendous divide between the very rich and the very poor. In Africa, less than half the population has ever made a telephone call and one in 1,000 Africans currently have access to the Internet. I must declare an interest as managing director of a large global Internet service provider. I am convinced that the Internet will play an ever-increasing role in both giving access to greater education and opening new economic markets for under-developed countries. The challenge will not be in the delivery of content, but more in the delivery of affordable access to the Internet. As most of Africa lacks a fibre optic infrastructure, the cost of satellite access will need to be reduced dramatically.
My time is up. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that,
"the future is a matter of political will and change—.
1174
There are no short-term solutions, but I believe that the report provides a clear light at the end of the tunnel.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating the debate. I also thank the Secretary of State for International Development and her colleagues for producing an impressive and fascinating document.
Some of us who grew up in India lived in the midst of poverty, although perhaps not in it. We know that the poverty we are talking about is not the kind that is to be seen in the West. It is a poverty which often results in a painful, premature and lingering death; sometimes life is no better than death itself. Life is wretched and devoid of dignity and it is morally obscene that 1.2 billion people in the world should be living that kind of existence. It addresses the conscience of all of us and it is in that context that I want enormously to welcome the report.
Several noble Lords spoke of the type of changes they want to see made. My noble friend Lord Desai spoke of democratising international institutions. I want to highlight four points which the report fails to notice or to which it does not give adequate importance. First, part of the responsibility lies with the governments and the well-off people within the developing countries, a point which needs to be made. It is striking that often in developing countries one sees only limited protest against poverty and that the middle classes and the affluent sections of society should be unwilling to pay taxes or to make the required sacrifices. Their consciences need to be pricked and their sense of social responsibility awakened. Therefore, there is much to be said for mounting international pressure and for supporting radical and progressive growth in those societies.
Secondly, although trade is important—I am all in favour of globalization—it is important to recognise that it has its limits. It leads to a complicated international circuit. The raw material originates in one part of the world; it travels thousands of miles to be manufactured in some other; it goes back a few thousand miles to where it will be transported in the ships of another country; and finally the product arrives where the raw material began its initial journey.
Let us look at the consequences of that process. Transport costs rise; currency exchanges and speculation distort the international circuit; and the local markets (where the material originated and the products were expected to be consumed) are subjected to the fragility of the international economy.
Therefore, although there is much to be said for global trade, there is also a good deal to be said for localised production and the establishment of industries where the raw materials and the people to do the work are located. The report uncritically assumes, as its very title suggests, that globalisation is the only way to eliminate poverty. I do not share that fashionable fad.

1175
Thirdly, as the report rightly recognises, poverty is tied to acute armed conflict and the absence of any kind of stable political and legal institutions. Twenty-four of the 40 poorest countries suffer poverty precisely because of such conflicts. The problem is particularly acute in Africa where every fifth person is a victim of such conflicts. If we are serious about tackling poverty, we should also be able to tackle conflicts, which means anticipating them and working out political solutions to control and, it is hoped, eliminate them. There is much to be said for specialised agencies of the European Union and the United Nations liaising with academic institutions to work on conflict solution, to spot conflicts before they appear on the horizon and to find ways to mobilise the concerned citizens in those countries.
Finally, the report relies rather heavily on governments. I entirely agree that governments in the West and elsewhere have a great role to play in tackling poverty. However, we should not forget that ordinary citizens in the West also have an important role to play. After all, governments can give only what they are able to obtain from citizens. Therefore, unless ordinary citizens are actively engaged in the problems of the poor, governments will be handicapped in a variety of ways. I suggest that, rather than rely on the compassion of ordinary citizens, we should mobilise a sense of international solidarity and partnership.
Various ideas have been floated, only two of which I mention. First, I have heard it argued that an international lottery similar to the UK's National Lottery may be a good idea. Secondly, hypothecated tax, involving no more than, say, one extra penny, could generate far more money than the development aid that is currently available. That hypothecated tax, which might be based on income or luxury goods, could be compulsory or binding only on those who volunteered for it. In short, the problem that faces us is acute and heart-breaking, and it is about time that we broke away from traditional thinking and explored new and imaginative ideas.
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, we are hugely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating this debate. We are also grateful to Her Majesty's Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, for a second White Paper on development issues, raising their profile so effectively in the community. We need to continue that conversation in the coming months. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not rehearse the many points in the White Paper on which I am in agreement but instead focus on a matter which I believe requires further debate. I am not wholly convinced that the White Paper has grasped the downside of the liberalisation of world trade. Globalisation and liberalisation have gone hand in hand in recent years. Those of us who speak for the civil society agencies—I speak for Christian Aid—see far too much evidence of the mixed impact of globalisation today. This is a complex matter which I believe requires prolonged effort and fresh thought.
1176
Whatever our point of view, all of us have a duty to work together on these issues for the benefit of the poor.
I begin by referring to the World Trade Organisation. Neither its present structure nor policy wins a huge level of support in the agencies or large sectors of the emerging economies of the south. Over half of the least developed nations do not have representatives at the WTO in Geneva, and 30 countries did not send representatives to Seattle. The manner in which the WTO conducts its business is heavily biased towards the economies of the north. Many believe that the policy of liberalisation has done little to decrease the growing gap between rich and poor. While it is true that there are some gains to liberalising trade, manifest problems need to be addressed at a fundamental level. For example, the involvement of large companies by the WTO in the process of drafting and negotiating deals does not create confidence among the peoples whom they seek to serve.
The danger of the present structure and policy is that the power of the corporate and financial sectors rooted in the north drives growth in international trade in ways that benefit the north but do not focus on the needs of the south. Instead of communities producing food and goods to meet local needs and enable local development, economies are pressed to restructure and serve the trading interests of the powerful in the north. That could hasten the process of urbanisation in the south through the impoverishment of rural farming. Those with small subsistence holdings will be driven out of the market and there will be a hastening drift into the cities. Unemployment, squalor and disease attached to burgeoning African cities, already happening in South Africa, are not a recipe for reducing poverty by 2015; rather, those developments will feed social, moral and political disorder. Globalisation cannot be harnessed to the needs of the poor through a simple commitment to trade liberalisation. In an unequal world, justice for the poor requires protection within the systems of trade with some agreed and enforceable rules.
When one visits, as I have done, the poorest communities in some of the poorest countries of the world one realises how dependent are large numbers of people on basic farming. They need security of tenure, targeted help to develop good food production, training and support in education and healthcare. Those matters are basic to their survival and development. Interestingly, a similar issue arises in the United Kingdom where farmers struggle to engage in an unequal relationship with major retailers. They are beginning to believe that they need to develop more immediate local trade structures with their local communities. How the local and the global live together in harmony is at the heart of this issue.
Development needs three things: the removal of the burden of debt; fair structures of trade; and strong locally rooted systems of investment and development. The White Paper has made an excellent start on which the Government are to be congratulated, but it needs

1177
a deeper and longer journey to deal with the structures of trade if we are to effect the kind of change that will truly liberate the world's poor.
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too join in thanking my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate. Poverty may be flashed across our television screens every day. Images of the outbreak of internecine conflict, the heart-wrenching consequences of famine and drought and the impacts of natural disasters, as we saw just last week in India, remind us of the horrors of poverty and the toll that it takes on people's lives. But those disasters which grab the headlines tell only a tiny part of the story of poverty. Often they occur in places where poverty is already acute and widespread. Sometimes poverty itself fuels the flames of ethnic conflict or compounds the consequences of natural disasters. However, away from the glare of the television camera there is another set of images: grinding poverty around the world which makes inroads into people's lives and is oppressive, harsh and desperately unfair.
The Government's White Paper is a tribute to the understanding and sensitivity of colleagues in the Department for International Development who are to be commended, as is the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his global initiatives on debt relief. The enormity of the problems is overwhelming. The agenda set out by the White Paper for an assault on poverty is one in which the organisation which I chair, the British Council, has an important role to play. In my job I am fortunate to be able to travel to many different parts of the world. I have the opportunity to meet the citizens of very poor countries. Those I speak to urge the British Council to focus its work on young people. They say we must seek to protect their human rights, their opportunities for the future, and their right to an education, to democracy, to employment, and, more than anything, to self-respect and dignity. The British Council may not be able to help the orphans of Ahmadabad. Mozambique, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, but it has a role to play in making their worlds better places for tomorrow.
The White Paper ranges widely over issues of poverty and is a great insight into the problem. The British Council suggests a number of areas of priority, but focuses on three in particular. The first is working to establish more democratic and accountable systems. Poor countries deserve that. The issue of governance must be a priority. It is one where Britain can make a contribution and a great impact. The second is to ensure that all people have access to education throughout their lives. The third is the establishment of a communications infrastructure that will support these priorities. These are areas where the UK can really add value and make a difference.
It is not only our long history of democracy but also our constant evolution that gives Britain really valuable experience. Devolution, the way in which we compromise with the EU, changing the role of this House and the way in which we have established new human rights legislation are all experiences which
1178
show how British democratic institutions can evolve in tune with contemporary needs. It means that we can join debates with representatives of the developing world as partners, share experiences and learn but not impose solutions from outside. That is what makes Britain such a valuable partner in this kind of work.
It has become clear in our connections with the developing world that free and responsible media are central to any new access to information, power and rights. New communications technologies have given rise to a whole new generation of young journalists who have a vital role to play in safeguarding democratic systems. It is important that their work is supported and that links are made between journalists. The British Council is playing its part in that.
Our experience in Britain of dynamic government and the role of the media in an accountable democracy is invaluable. In its work in poor countries the council's programmes in governance and human rights seek to exploit the benefit of our experience as Britons working in partnership with people to help them to realise their basic rights.
There are other areas I should like to mention. One hugely important area is education. Getting all children around the world, particularly girls, into school is a top priority. The UK has an important role to play in that. Decentralisation in Britain has brought schools and the communities they serve much closer together. There is an invaluable role for the council in assisting that kind of thinking in the developing world.
Finally, there are great concerns about the digital divide marginalising poor countries and communities and threatening to isolate those countries from the global economy. Again, the British Council has a way of working in developing countries. It has received some additional funding and hopes to establish a network of knowledge and learning centres in order to make those technological facilities available to the poor of the world.
Therefore, I gratefully welcome the White Paper. I commend it to the House. It will make a great contribution to the debate on poverty in the 21st century and a great contribution to changing the reality of many people's lives.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I want to give special emphasis in the debate to the effects of globalisation on the poor children of the developing world.
I declare an interest as an honorary member of the Consortium for Street Children. I have visited many children's projects in Latin America and Asia. What saw very well reflects what Charles Dickens wrote in Bleak House when he said that in the little world in which children live nothing is more finely perceived and nothing more keenly felt than injustice.
There are 250 million children who work. Millions live as internal refugees because of armed or civil conflict. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, of the 1.3 billion on this planet living in extreme poverty, 600 million to 700 million are young children. They escape sometimes from their hunger and misery,

1179
not to a better life but to a worse life on the streets, to drug addiction, to sex tourism or violence. What injustice.
Fortunately, there are those who seek to overcome it. I identify three groups. The first are governments, local communities and NGOs in the countries of the developing world. Many of them do their best. But they have not the money, the resources or the experience to achieve what they should. Secondly, NGOs and charitable organisations in this country and around the world—the consortium that I have mentioned and well known organisations such as Save the Children—do an enormous amount for children. But it is vital to remember that they are not an alternative to government or community action. They are supplementary to it, although in many countries I fear their role is regarded as a substitute for action rather than a supplement.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, action needs to be taken by our government and other governments. There are three aspects to that. The first is debt relief. It is a waste of time expecting a poor debt-ridden country to produce the framework that will solve poverty. It cannot be done. The Government, the Chancellor in Cologne and our unilateral action last autumn emphasised the need for effective debt relief.
Secondly, there is the Department for International Development. It has taken three steps which I commend. First, it has stimulated other countries to act as we are acting. Secondly, it has required of the donee countries that they, too, seek to develop and solve their own problems. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it has targeted poverty. It has done that through a most effective Secretary of State. She says what she thinks; and she fights for what is right. What a happy coincidence to find these qualities in a Secretary of State for International Development.
Those three actions by the Government make up an effective programme. I want to add four more. First, international companies are at the base of globalisation. It is a tragedy that in 1998 the OECD programme for ethical development collapsed. It must be revived. International companies must invest and develop in an ethical and reasonable way. Secondly, following the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford, we should educate the young. I suspect that many of those in that audience that night were young people. Why does not the DfID, through the Department for Education and Employment, bring this problem to our young people? I suspect that the response would be immense.
Thirdly, there is sex tourism. It is an unpleasant topic, but it is a blight on South-East Asia, the Caribbean and Latin American countries. We should work internationally for the same kind of programme of registration of sex offenders that we believe is fit to protect our children. Why should it not apply to the children of the developing world?
1180
Last of all, when countries receive help, at the end of each year is it not reasonable that they tell their population and the world what they have done that year for children, health, welfare and education? Surely, that is not too much to ask them to do.
This debate does not give time for reasoned argument, but it is an opportunity for a clear message. Globalisation is, if anything, an economic concept. It has no moral content. It needs to be invested with one. Kofi Annan has said so and the White Paper says so. Children deserve nothing less than a reasonable minimum of food, schooling, jobs and a future of hope rather than despair. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, on moving the Motion. I applaud the Government for their programme and I invite the House to be continually watchful about what is happening to the poor children of the developing world.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for choosing this subject for debate. I have listened with great interest to the well informed and interesting contributions from all sides of the House. Although my work in this field has been largely in the UK and in Europe, I am a board member of the International Federation on Ageing and was formerly its secretary-general.
I am delighted at Her Majesty's Government commitment to international development and for the aims expressed both in this White Paper on global poverty and in the first one published in 1997. However, I have one quite serious criticism of the White Paper. It is that it does not get across the vital importance of tackling global poverty among older and indeed chronically disabled people.
I, together with Help Age International, an organisation of which I am a trustee, firmly believe that older people should be specifically targeted for poverty reduction. The White Paper is largely silent about them. Yet the inclusion of older people in development policy and practice across the board—from poverty to AIDS and from gender to human rights—is one of the critical issues for the 21st century, not least because we live in a rapidly ageing world.
In Africa, the proportion of older people is projected to increase by over 90 per cent within 20 years. In China, nearly one-third of the population of Beijing will be over 60 by 2025. In Asia, the numbers of people aged 65 and over will more than double in 25 years. Longevity is projected to increase across the world, especially for women and for those people reaching 75 and over. This shift is occurring much more rapidly than here in the developed world. Ageing in this part of the universe took place very slowly. It was a long process. We were rich by the time our population started to become old. For example, it took 100 years for the proportion of French older people to double. In the developing world a similar shift is likely to occur in 20 years.
Furthermore, demographic change is happening in most developing countries but without an infrastructure of social security or pensions. Where

1181
they do exist, only 10 per cent of older people have access to them. So we need to ask ourselves: if we are concerned to end global poverty, how will we reach this goal in an ageing world? That question is all the more pertinent when we consider that older people also tend to be the poorest, wherever they live. The future that currently beckons for those growing old in the developing world is one of chronic and debilitating poverty.
It is also important to recognise older people as contributors to family and community. They need to be valued in old age as participants in society. The age of retirement is not an issue in almost all developing countries. As Senator Julia Alverez, an excellent campaigner for older people and ambassador to the United Nations from the Dominican Republic, said:
"It is not an issue because it doesn't happen. You work until you die".
That is why we must include an older person's angle in research, from which older people are often excluded, and in programmes that impact on older people directly, including poverty. In short, we should uphold the UN principles of older persons: care, dignity, participation, self-fulfilment and independence.
Another group I wish to single out is widows. In many parts of the world, widows lose all their possessions and their rights to them, including their home, their children and any social standing they once had. They are not necessarily old people. In fact, very often they tend to be very young. They are punished for committing a heinous crime. The crime is to have married a man who has subsequently died. In many places, the status of widowhood confers on them a life sentence of dire poverty.
As we speak, a conference bringing together organisations and representatives of widows in many parts of Africa and the Indian sub-continent is taking place in London. There are 40 million widows in India. In Africa, 60 per cent of adult women are widows. They are in poverty due to the tragic consequences of widowhood together with conflict and AIDS. The organisation running the conference—Empowering Widows in Development—is a small and new NGO. I was a founding trustee of it and I respect its aim, which is to give these women the ability to change the negative attitudes and lack of rights which they face and which often condemn them to a life of acute poverty and to be outcasts in their own societies.
In conclusion, I seek reassurance that the enormous implications of our ageing world and the situation of widows of all ages will become issues for development work by international development policy-makers. Poverty is the main threat to older people and to widows world-wide. They are consistently and disproportionately among the poorest of the poor. It is a matter of basic human rights that we address this issue. I hope that we in this country can begin to do so. I hope that the Minister can add to the work that the Government have already done in the White Paper and much else besides when, a year or so from now, Her Majesty's Government attend the United Nations Assembly on Ageing in Madrid. Let us make sure that poverty is on that agenda and that more is done to
1182
eliminate it. Inaction will surely undermine any current targets of the UK Government and of the UN agencies, targets which are so important to all of us.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on the way she introduced this excellent debate. I shall speak briefly about the issue of land reform, the importance of which is described in paragraph 92 of the White Paper. It states:
"Land reform, providing secure access to land and other productive assets for poor people, whether through ownership, tenure or customary use rights, is essential in building a market economy which will work for the poor".
I agree. But more needs to be done to give effect to that expression of good intentions.
I have an interest as patron of the Terre Initiative in ensuring that the interests of the poor in central and eastern Europe are looked after. This endeavour is strongly supported by the Real Estate Advisory Group of the United. Nations, the Economic Commission for Europe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors through its foundation. Economic progress in central and eastern Europe is uneven and often concentrated in the urban areas, with the result that rural communities are falling behind. Page 21 of the White Paper shows that over the period 1990 to 1998 the number of people in eastern Europe and central Asia living on less than one dollar a day has increased from seven million to 24 million. It is very much in the interests of all sections of Europe that the central and eastern European region should be economically successful and that those countries which are applicant members for the EU should be able to take full advantage of their membership. In that way it will be possible for the continent as a whole to devote its limited resources to the areas of even greater need elsewhere in the world.
The challenge for mature economies now is to harness land in developing countries in a way that will help in a country's social and economic development. The creation of a viable market in real estate can increase a country's GDP by between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. In enabling land rights, we must not forget the increasingly serious issue of the environmental impact of different land uses. As we know only too well in our own country, facilitating the use of land must be linked with environmental controls.
Land as an asset does not need to be made. It already exists. What is required is the creation of the legal and administrative framework and supporting systems such as banking, valuation services and insurance. It is only through the exchange mechanism of a market that the value of land can be realised.
At present, the EU considers land reform to be a country-specific matter. Accordingly, with respect to the EU accession candidate countries, it concerns itself with the issue only to the extent that a country's policies in land restrict capital flows, such as on ownership of land by foreigners. This may be fine for existing EU countries because, by and large, they all

1183
have mature land markets. But for accession countries, the situation is very different. They are faced with what appears to be indifference on the part of the EU as to what needs to be done, but at the same time they are told that nothing must be done to prevent foreigners from owning full rights in their land. They find it difficult to obtain co-ordinated help because the EU and other international bodies have not organised their funding support on a cross-sector basis.
The United Nations, through its Real Estate Advisory Group in Geneva, is beginning to get this right. In December, it accepted a paper from the RIGS Foundation, produced with the support of the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which will now be going to the UN General Assembly for policy acceptance.
However, it is the EU which must change its approach. If more is not done now to help central and eastern Europe, the reform process could stumble and be delayed for perhaps a generation. The Know-How Fund used to facilitate the transfer of information and expertise so that people were enabled to help themselves. That is what is needed here. With help, the transition economies can defeat one of the last barriers to achieving the degree of market capacity required so that their people can truly benefit from globalisation.
The Government's White Paper represents an excellent opportunity for the UK to take a strong initiative in Europe and to lead a co-ordinated drive to get the EU to change its policy in this important area of land reform. I hope that, when my noble friend comes to reply to the debate, she will be able to give the House some comfort on this issue.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Whitaker on raising this debate. To learn that Her Majesty's Government will work to manage globalisation in the interests of poor people, that they are setting themselves development targets, that the connected world is to work for everyone and that the international rules by which countries play will be fair, is music to the ear. In my few minutes, I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to the small islands of the Caribbean.
Over the years, the islands have seen their agricultural base slaughtered in the struggle for trade. Cocoa, sugar, nutmeg and bananas are the most important crops. I realise that the White Paper urges that we should not try to prevent change, but rather look towards reform in order to improve life in the countryside and provide support for those who are losing out, so that they can adapt and move forward. Those are fine sentiments. But the CARICOM countries comprise small and heavily populated landmasses. Grenada, for example, is 21 miles long by 12 miles wide. Others are even smaller. No matter how successful such an island may become through advanced technology, I fear that to neglect the agricultural base could be seen by some as folly indeed.
1184
The islands may not be able to produce the volume, shape or size of produce needed by world markets, but they can trade successfully within the basin, if only they receive help.
I have recently returned from Grenada where I met traders who complained that they were unable to find small trading ships to transport their produce. The large ones have disappeared because they are no longer competitive in world markets. A market exists between the islands. However, producers have been losing heart because their produce has been allowed to rot. Airfreight is far too expensive, while there are too few small vessels.
Another area of concern which I should like to raise is that Her Majesty's Government have refused to pay proper pensions to the over-60s who have returned to the Caribbean after a lifetime of work in the UK. In the 1950s, they were the people who worked on the railways and in factories, as well as being the mainstay of the National Health Service. They paid their contributions towards their pensions. I cannot understand why they are being treated less favourably than those who remain in Britain. Furthermore, Britain encounters a downside by not paying proper pensions. When illness strikes these people, they return to Britain for treatment, thus placing a heavy burden on health services and causing unnecessary stress for the individuals concerned.
Does the Minister agree that, for reasons of history, Her Majesty's Government should be at the forefront of international development assistance to the increasingly beleaguered Caribbean region? Does she further agree that, in the light of uncertain times ahead for Caribbean economies and increasing threats to social stability from drugs and crime, as well as vulnerability to natural disasters, the Caribbean should be treated as a special case and that assistance for development in the region should be increased?
Perhaps I may also ask the Minister what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist the small, heavily burdened governments of the region to identify and nurture alternative forms of economic development. Should UK development assistance be increased to target this important area?
4.58 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for introducing this important debate. I should declare an interest as a patron of RAPID UK—Rescue and Preparedness in Disaster—an NGO charitable organisation. Noble Lords may have heard a RAPID volunteer, John Miller, describing the rescue of a child in India when he returned to Manchester early last weekend.
It is well recognised and self-evident that in many poverty-stricken areas of the world, natural disasters restrict and destroy well funded attempts at eliminating world poverty. I should like to discuss two areas in which this country is among the world's leaders. The first relates to immediate response to such disasters—as in the Indian earthquake; that is, response between the time of occurrence and five to six

1185
days afterwards. Secondly, I should like to mention preparedness for disasters in areas particularly prone to them.
I should like to emphasise, first, that I am full of admiration for the work of the Minister's department through the UN and through its own emergency response unit. We should also be very proud of our NGOs in this field, such as the International Rescue Corps, RAPID UK and Care International, to mention only a few. Co-operation between such groups is still in its infancy, but better co-ordination and support result in better outcomes. That means the saving of more lives quickly.
The UK response to the San Salvador and Indian disasters was absolutely correct, but at opposite ends of the scale. In the first, a decision was taken by an official in the Minister's department not to send search-and-rescue units due to the localised nature of the mudslides, when the need was for people and shovels rather than for high-tech search-and-rescue units. In the case of India, the decision from her department, almost immediately, was to put search-and-rescue units on standby and to organise transport for them. However, in between the two extremes there are grey areas where we should strive to improve the assessment, deployment and command structure on site.
We are dealing with part-time volunteers and a full-time department. However, there is no commonly agreed line of communication between either each of the different search-and-rescue groups or between them and the department. For example, on frequent occasions, these NGOs independently contact our embassies in the disaster countries directly; independently they ring different departments at various airlines to try to find seats. I must pay tribute to the airlines—especially British Airways—for, over the years, giving up free seats to them.
At the same time, the Government's emergency response unit is doing the same thing. Independent assessments are being made with sometimes conflicting outcomes: "Do we go or not"? There have even been questions over who booked what seat, and of some people cancelling other seats when they decide not to go. Therefore, there are sometimes different reaction times and confusion as to who has gone where, with the appropriate equipment or otherwise.
On site, the co-ordinating role is not always clear—or, indeed, sufficiently knowledgeable—as to the capability and expertise contained in the different units. This hinders efficiency and can cost lives. There are no commonly agreed practices—such as the hours to be worked, whether to work overnight and so on—and it is embarrassing for people to be resting when survivors are digging out their relatives.
My second area concerns preparedness for disasters. I shall give two examples, but noble Lords should bear in mind that I am talking about volunteers, on a shoestring budget with little or no government funding. What they do costs only several thousands of pounds, not the millions spent in support of post-disaster efforts.
1186
Over the past four years, RAPID has, on its own initiative, been involved in providing advice to, and training of, emergency services in the disaster-prone, shanty-town area of Lima in Peru. This work is recognised by both governments.
In 1998 it took up the same role in the Quindio region of Columbia. A preliminary report was submitted with the intention of a full report and a development plan to follow. Prior to the latter taking place, there was a devastating earthquake, which killed many thousands. However, even the advice contained in the preliminary report saved many lives. The Government of Columbia recognised this and presented a representative of RAPID with their distinguished service medal for pre-disaster help and quick response to the earthquake.
Some of the advice was elementary—or would seem to be—but it was effective. I refer, for example, to clearing a road from the airport so that search and rescue and other aid could get to the site. RAPID was also shown a brand-new fire station with its control centre on the roof. However, the authorities were advised, luckily, that after an earthquake neither would exist.
Finally, perhaps the Minister will consider appointing an independent person or group, acceptable to her department and the NGOs, to see whether the administration of the UK's response could be improved. Funding must play an important part. I fear that disaster reduction preparedness lies between emergency response and development programmes. However, it is relevant to both.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. It is a good opportunity to discuss a most important and credible White Paper from a Government whose policies on relief of global poverty are not only more generous than those of previous governments and many other developed countries, but also contain many highly intelligent and original aspects, especially in stopping futile debt repayments and in connecting different initiatives. Nevertheless, there are gaps in the policies that could be remedied.
It is essential that there should be more emphasis on helping countries to reduce the impact of natural disasters, a point made earlier, and other adverse environmental factors. Paragraph 260 of the White Paper points out that natural disasters are as devastating as conflicts—as the Red Cross has also emphasised—but the rest of this section of the White Paper is devoted to the longer-term problem over the next 50 years of climate change, which will certainly have a devastating effect. As sea levels rise, it will cause flooding on low-lying coastal areas and islands; as temperatures rise, it will lead to many thousands of deaths in urban areas, especially of poorer people, as we have seen already in countries such as the USA and China.
However, in the short term, there are so many natural disasters every year, which cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and enormous financial damage,

1187
that one might have expected to see more emphasis on this in the White Paper. There have been mudslides in Venezuela, earthquakes in Gujarat, hurricanes in the Caribbean, and Hurricane Mitch destroyed much of the economy of one or two countries.
The media focus on the human tragedies but do not emphasise that in some countries the impact of such disasters is now much less through the use of science and technology and social and economic actions, as one sees in Hong Kong, Japan and India. At a major conference held at the Royal Society in 1999, at the end of the International Decade of Natural Disaster Reduction, we learnt that disasters are now much better forecast and the risks are much better mapped. For example, tropical cyclone and mudslide damage in Hong Kong is now quite small in comparison with the effects we regrettably saw in Venezuela.
Similarly, there has been a reduction of the impact of disasters through better engineering, which has greatly reduced the loss of life in more advanced countries. The social organisation in some countries is also very effective in post-disaster situations. Drought and seasonal variations which cause disaster in some countries are now fairly well predicted in other countries and special agricultural steps are taken.
The question for the department is how these developments can be spread to more countries. The United Nations agencies—which perhaps have not had a very good day here today—can play a great role, especially in the exchange of information. The present situation is fairly chronic in terms of the lack of information, as Mr George McGovern, the United States delegate to the Food and Agricultural Organisation, pointed out. Only when data are freely available will the kind of Internet revolution referred to earlier be possible.
Such co-ordination between UN agencies requires, in the first instance, co-ordination between the government departments and agencies which send their representatives to these UN agencies. Such coordination in the UK and in most countries of the world is still quite weak, as I saw when I was the chief executive of a UK government agency, the Met Office, and represented the UK at the United Nations agency for weather and hydrology—namely, the World Meteorological Office.
I was very pleased to learn recently of the setting-up of the new environmental planning department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. One of its objectives—which is slightly sotto voce in the document—is co-ordination. There is a problem between co-ordination and leadership by a department, an aspect of Whitehall mystique which we need not go into today. I hope it will be able to involve the 10 to 20 government agencies and institutes and, it is to be hoped, the private sector more effectively in future. I include in that the Hazards Forum Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction, in which I declare an interest as a member.
The United States Government are rather more effective at involving all their agencies and organisations with the UN than we are in the UK and
1188
most other European countries. There is a danger that the United States may take more of a lead in this whole area.
Finally, I should like to encourage the early work of the department to involve the London insurance markets and the poorest 42 Commonwealth countries in insuring each other against the effects of natural disasters through the newly-formed Disaster Management Agency, whose chairman, Sir Humphrey Maud, had a letter published recently in the Economist. As we heard, unlike the European Union, this organisation aims to pay out after five days. That is a good example of the commercialisation and globalisation that I hope we shall see in the future. I hope that the UK will involve all its strengths in this area. The DfID will have a vital role in facilitating this UK strength.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak. As one might expect of a banker—I am an advisory director of HSBC Investment Bank—I want to talk about money—or, rather, about money laundering.
I welcome the sentiments of the White Paper. The first thing to be said about money laundering is that this slangy terminology is a pity. It is a seriously corrosive offence, and one that is worthy of all our attention and co-operation in confronting it.
Money laundering is the process of inserting the proceeds of drug dealing, extortion, bribery and corruption into the global banking system, so that it sits on a par with the savings of ordinary people or the profits of legitimate businesses. The point is that money laundering enables the perpetrators of widespread unpleasant crimes to benefit from them financially. While we fail to counter the efforts of money launderers, the drug dealing and corruption which make life totally miserable for ordinary people in developing countries, and which make economic growth so difficult to achieve, will continue.
Efforts to counter money laundering tend to be directed in two directions. The first—the one that we hear about—is the effort that is made to encourage banks and financial institutions in the developing countries to behave in a responsible way: to make sure that they know their customers and inquire assiduously into the origins of any funds that flow into their accounts. That is very important for the long term; however, in the short term it is very difficult to achieve—because the one thing that money launderers have at their disposal is lots of money, and it is easy to bribe people in developing countries because they have very little. In this case, the action lies not with exhortation to the developing countries, but right here, in the developed countries.
The goal sought by a money launderer is an account with a licensed bank in one of the developed countries. An account with the "Cosa Nostra Bank of Domenica"—or for that matter, with the real life

1189
Overseas Development Bank and Trust of Domenica—is a very limited utility. The goal is an account with the Chase Manhattan, with the Credit Agricole, or with my own bank, HSBC. It is primarily, therefore, for us in the developed countries to enforce and strengthen our defences against this offence.
In some ways this has been a good week for law enforcement. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has produced guidance to banks and supervisors on customer due diligence. It could not sound more boring, but it is extremely important. There is also an FATF progress report on the non-co-operative countries—the many countries that are making no serious attempt whatever to control this offence. All this increases the pressure on financial institutions to get their procedures right and to pay attention to all the detail that helps to repel the criminal customer.
However, per contra, the recent report published in America by the Senate Government Affairs Committee on correspondent banking sinks the heart. A correspondent bank is one in another country with which one has a trading arrangement. It was originally conceived as a service for customers—and so it has proved to be; except that, squarely in the eye of the committee, although not in the dock, are a dozen US-based banks, including very respectable names such as the Bank of America and Chase Manhattan, which have formed alliances with offshore banks. They have taken no trouble whatsoever to find out with whom they are allied, and have washed a great deal of money through their accounts. To quote Senator Levin:
"Some of these foreign banks operate without the most basic controls or oversight that Americans expect at a regulated financial institution, and they have highly questionable owners, employees, and customers. Yet all of them managed to open U.S. bank accounts and run millions of dollars through them. The U.S. banks that gave them accounts were, at best, asleep at the switch and, at worst, didn't care what these foreign banks or their clients were doing".
Frankly, I should be amazed if any report on English-based banks produced such a damning indictment. I do not believe that we are either as negligent or as delinquent. But, to paraphrase the well known statement, it is not enough for respectable bankers to refrain from doing evil; they must actively confront those who would do evil.
In that context, I welcome the undertaking in the White Paper, which repeats the commitment in the Queen's Speech, to introduce legislation to strengthen our capacity to deal with money laundering. I look forward to helping to discuss the matter in this House.
5.14 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by commenting on the White Paper in general terms and then focus on a narrow but important area; namely, reproductive health. It is an interest that I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I am grateful to her for giving me the chance to address the subject. I want also to pay an oblique tribute to the Secretary of State, and also to George Foulkes, who was until recently the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
1190
of State at the Department for International Development. He has done an extremely good job and has been extremely helpful and effective in the area that I have mentioned. We wish him well in his promotion. I would have liked to say more about work in this area if there had been time.
To turn to the White Paper, there is no doubt about the Government's commitment—to use the word in the Motion. For the moment, I still accept as beneficial the use and purpose of targets—some fairly distant—as, among other uses, a way of providing some focus and ambition. What I feel less sure about is the somewhat idealistic view of human nature and the implication that we should all be ready to resort to sweet reason and that this will help us to cure the awkward failings that human beings are heir to. In fact, I support that language in the White Paper. I think it useful to have ideals described and to keep them in mind as a kind of optimists' map of future progress. However, as someone who is almost an "old hand", I am only too aware of the failings of human beings, not only individually but also as collectives, tribes or nations, not least in political groups.
With this White Paper we are partly addressing the shortcomings of systems in other countries. However, the Secretary of State reminded us, in her refreshingly robust and colourful language, of the serious shortcomings in the management of our EU management budget contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, attempted to flesh that out with statistics. However, her colourful language came nowhere near that of the Secretary of State.
Similarly, the White Paper acknowledges the grossly distorting nature of the EU common agricultural policy and the need for its reform: and we are here exhorting other, less privileged countries to standards of good housekeeping, order and rationality. Perhaps I am saying that we are long on giving advice, but short on taking our own advice. Nevertheless, that advice may generally be good.
I now focus on the narrow but integral area of reproductive health. The international development target, confirmed on page 13 of the White Paper, is:
"Access through the primary healthcare system to reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible, and no later than the year 2015".
I remind the House that the essence of that is enabling choice; there is no longer the idea of compulsion or of playing the numbers game.
This philosophy is not, and should not be regarded as, an optional add-on to development. It is coming to be regarded as an essential right for people, especially women, to be able to make the choice that they deem appropriate.
In the wider context of the White Paper, focusing on the poor, it is also accepted that the infrastructure of a fragile developing country can be overwhelmed by population increasing at a greater rate than its environment can sustain.

1191
Turning to a more specific matter in this field, following on the US election, we understand that we are faced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, said, with a significant possible cut in supporting American funds to international NGOs which have any connection with abortion. If that is so—as seems to be happening, judging by newspaper reports this week—the EU development section can begin to redeem its lamentable record by trying to make up some of the difference. This is likely to affect the vital on-going and future programmes of such respected organisations as the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).
I very much hope that the Secretary of State can give the Government's firm and speedy support to what seems to be an initiative led by the Danish EU Commissioner. Poul Nielson. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, may be able to give us some assurance on the Government's views and their willingness to make up some of what is apparently called the "decency gap". Such a contribution by us would seem to be a splendid example of globalisation at work.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, this very comprehensive and challenging White Paper sees globalisation as a potential means of lifting people out of poverty, but admits that, as it is, it may increase rather than decrease poverty. But to me the generally upbeat style lends it a rather unreal flavour. It gives little indication that international trade and investment is, and always has been, based on maximising profit. The multinational companies that now undertake two-thirds of the world's trade invest where they can get the best return for their money; the basic principles are much the same now as they were 200 years ago. The private sector does not usually ask "What is needed, how can I help?" but rather "How much can I get for my money?". Perhaps we have moved on from the time when the following passage was written:
"Surplus capital will never he used for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses … instead it will be used to increase profits by exporting the capital abroad, to backward countries [where] profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, [and] raw materials are cheap".
That was written in 1916 on the subject of imperialism. I shall leave it to noble Lords to guess the name of the author but one clue is that when it was written Karl Marx was already 30 years dead. Though we do not refer to imperialism much now, it is still alive and well though it wears kid gloves. Alhough the international financial institutions, the World Trade Organisation and the multinational corporations deal with nominally independent states, their economic power, compounded as it is by international debt, is today's equivalent of yesterday's gunboat or Maxim gun, and the net flow of wealth is from the south to the north, especially in Africa.
1192
The White Paper recommends that the influence of developing countries on the decisions of the international financial institutions and the World Trade Organisation be increased. But there are many difficulties. Paragraph 239, for instance, states:
"23 least-developed country members of the WTO have no representation in Geneva, where there can be more than 40 meetings a week across a diverse range of subjects".
And the multinationals are probably in the wings, skilfully lobbying country members. Like my noble friend Lord Desai I should be most interested to hear from my noble friend how we intend to correct this kind of gross imbalance.
When Britain was at its economic peak in the late Victorian era we pressed vigorously for free trade while the USA and Germany built their economic strength behind tariff walls, as Japan did after 1945, and the Asian tigers a few years later. It is surely unfair to expect poorer countries to abolish their tariff protection when their economies are still weak. To flood them with cheap industrial goods or subsidised agricultural products is to stifle indigenous enterprise and agriculture and condemn them to continued poverty. But tariffs are no bar to foreign direct investment which can still be quite profitable. I would love to be able to refer to other noble Lords' points as I go along but time presses.
Rural people in the developing world are having to leave the land and move to slums in the cities, as our ancestors did in the 19th century. But we achieved our "affluent society"—though 20 per cent of us are still relatively poor—through political and industrial struggle over the past two centuries. Should we not encourage the people of developing countries to do likewise, preferably with the help of the International Labour Organisation?
The White Paper speaks of,
"strengthening the voices of civil society"
—a fine sentiment—but will we defend the human rights of trade unionists who organise and strike for a living wage? Will we protest vigorously enough if they are arrested or extra judicially murdered, as they frequently are in developing countries with whom we trade? Or will we acquiesce with governments who label them as hooligans, communists or terrorists?
Finally, I have one question to my noble friend about health. Globalisation has contributed greatly to the spread of the HIV pandemic. I am very pleased that DfID is funding research into the much hoped for vaccine. However, if the pharmaceutical industry could be persuaded to reduce the price of its combination therapy to its marginal cost, which it could do without losing money—it might accept that it would forgo some profits and yet, as it is not selling to Africa, it is not making any profits there anyhow—it might become affordable to treat people with HIV/ AIDS in the developing world and prolong their lives, with enormous economic benefit. A better health infrastructure would also be needed, of course, to administer the treatment, but if this were also achieved, it would remain as a permanent gain for the countries concerned, helping to achieve the

1193
international development targets in health which are now slipping well behind schedule. This would be a sound and very popular investment in any case. Has my noble friend any news on that front?
5.25 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, like many noble Lords, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for allowing us finally to debate the White Paper. The Minister will have a difficult job in replying to such a wide-ranging debate.
The White Paper deals with the Government's approach to globalisation. As documents go, it is readable; it is well put together and shows a sensible approach. Many noble Lords have discussed the dangers that globalisation poses. Many have mentioned that the rich will become richer, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out. Indeed, some of the institutions that are part of the make-up of globalisation, such as the WTO, show the dangers that are inherent in it. A particular example is America, a country which does not grow or sell any bananas itself but has taken it upon itself, through the WTO, almost to destroy the ACP countries' banana production. That lobbying in Washington on behalf of the banana industry—and the money spent—has threatened such diverse industries as the cashmere industry in Scotland.
However, the danger areas should not be over expressed; there are a number of benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, discussed the benefits that industry brings. Although there is a danger that industry will look to making profits, it is only through inward investment and private capital flows that many of the developing countries will break the cycle of poverty and aid dependency.
Agriculture and genetics were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Taverne. Although I thoroughly agreed with the point he made that in the future genetic manipulation of core crops will yield benefits, there was always the danger that seed companies developed the science of genetics and terminator genes to gain a monopoly of seed grain. Happily, however, that threat has been averted.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, mentioned the Internet. I agree that the Internet is a closed book to many in Africa. However, I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who said that the British Council, through its offices in many countries, is giving people access to the Internet. I have visited many British Council offices and have seen evidence of that in their libraries.
It is dangerous to suggest that the DfID is the only player in the fields of aid and development. That is obviously not the case. However, I believe that it is one of the best. A good example is DfID's response to the recent earthquakes. The earthquake in India was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. The question is not what should be done, but why, as the DfID is already on the ground, as it were, we are not spending more.
1194
Development issues have been at the centre of government policy. Many people associate themselves with the issue in the fields of education and health, and with regard to the real threat of the pandemic of AIDS which afflicts the poorest countries. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford referred to the meeting in a village hall; I have been to many such village hall meetings. It is an issue which affects people from all strata of life.
I applaud the DfID, in particular for the lead it is taking in ending the policy of tied aid. However, we need to consider the area of scrutiny at home. One of the Government's key policy commitments is that they will,
"work with others to reduce violent conflict, including through tighter control over the arms trade".
An issue has raised its head recently which must cause concern if that is one of the Government' aims. In an open session of the Joint Select Committee considering strategic export controls on 30th January 2001—unusually, the official report has not yet appeared on the Internet; a transcript was taken from the video of the session—the Foreign Secretary said:
"Since the UN mission there, MINURSO is actually overseeing the refurbishment of the guns … This was a licence which was originally refused and there was then an appeal submitted. In between our refusal and the hearing of the appeal the UN, in both the Western Sahara and New York, confirmed the refurbishment was within the terms of the ceasefire agreement, and that they were willing to supervise the refurbishment. They assessed the project as 'force neutral'. On that basis—with the full agreement of the UN—we then proceeded to grant the appeal".
For those who are not aware, at stake is the refurbishment of 105 millimetre Royal Ordnance guns—they are capable of hurling high explosive shells 17 kilometres—positioned on the berm, a sand wall which has divided the Western Sahara for over 15 years and is armed against the Polisario. Refurbishment of those guns has to indicate a change in government policy. Under a ceasefire, the area is being monitored by the UN. To state that the UN is overseeing that refurbishment is no justification.
I refer to a change in government policy because in a letter of 7th September 1998, Derek Fatchett stated:
"When considering Export Licence Applications for Morocco, the situation in the Western Sahara is an overriding concern. As you know we support the United Nations in their efforts to achieve a resolution of the dispute through a free and fair Referendum. We would not be able to reconcile this objective with supporting one side or the other be it via the export of arms or through some other channel".
I do not understand how the Foreign Secretary can state that refurbishment of light artillery—it is very effective, portable artillery—can be force neutral. I also fail to understand how a licence was given on appeal considering that it breaks the criteria used when considering conventional arms export licence applications. In paragraph 8 under "international aggression", a Select Committee report states:
"The Government will not issue an export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim".

1195
Even if the Government can reconcile their position within the criteria on applications for licence, the question is raised whether that position drives a coach and horses through the EU code of conduct on arms exports. The Council of the European Union is,
"DETERMINED to prevent the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression or international aggression, or contribute to regional instability".
It is an area that faces an internationally adjudicated referendum. The fortification divides the Western Sahara, occupied by Moroccan forces, from the Polisario group which may be on the point of re-initiating hostilities. I hope that that will not occur. How can refurbishment of artillery pieces be regarded as force neutral? Will the DfID make representations to the Foreign Office to review the matter? The decision should be reviewed within government departments. Consideration of a judicial review is under way.
Perhaps this issue will prompt the introduction of a system which was promised in chapter 2 on page 33 of the White Paper. It states that the Government will,
"Introduce a licensing system to control UK arms brokers and traffickers, and work for tighter controls internationally at next year's UN conference on small arms".
From the speeches today, we know that such a Bill would be welcomed.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating a high quality debate. It has been more an occasion for messages, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said in a telling speech, than elaborate discussion. There is no doubt that the White Paper has been well received by commentators and those concerned with development. The general view is that it is long and strong on analysis and discussion—perhaps a "White Essay" rather than a White Paper—and somewhat weaker on developing policy initiatives to meet the entirely new global conditions that the development process now faces. When we consider the detailed actions there is a tendency for the White Paper to have caught that fatal infection described in the The Times as "targetitis". I shall return to that issue.
I start on a more positive note. The analysis of globalisation and its effects is excellent. The emphasis placed by the Secretary of State on the need to use globalisation to harness accelerated development and the uplifting of those in poverty is right. The point made in the White Paper is correct: that globalisation is not the danger. It is not the risks that flow from globalisation; the dangers were there already. The process of globalization—the gigantic transparency and competitive forces which it generates—are powerful potential instruments for meeting those dangers. So globalisation itself is not the evil; it is the means of meeting the evil.
Much has been said about the globalising process applying only to a prosperous minority of the world, excluding 70 per cent or the 1.2 billion to 1.3 billion
1196
people who live in extreme poverty. I am not sure that that is right. The globalisation process, with its gigantic accompanying revolution in communication and information spread, reaches every society whether we talk about the poorest in drought-ridden sub-Saharan Africa or those squatting in the suburbs of swollen mega-cities. All those people are entwined in the revolutionary processes of information technology, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, remarked. Nor am I happy about the phrase "digital divide". It is very fashionable; it is used in the White Paper. It was much used at the Davos world economic forum, and has been used in many speeches. It implies that somehow the digital revolution has caused the divide. That is not so. The inequalities were possibly greater 20 years ago, before anyone had heard of the Internet. Those inequalities have been accelerated by years of anti-market, illiberal, anti-globalisation policies. Anyone in India, for example, knows that those policies have made poverty worse in some quarters. The one hope is that globalisation can be mobilised and harnessed to reverse those trends.
It used to be said that free trade helped the strongest. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others mentioned that. That is no longer the case. In today's world, trade liberalisation is the instrument that helps the poorest. However bad its organisation, the WTO is the one hope for trade liberalisation. Trade restriction is used by the richer and more advanced countries to protect their monopolies and labour standards. That was the problem at Seattle. To his shame, President Clinton said that he was going to support the lobbies of the American labour unions. That was a signal to the world's poorest countries that the game was over before it had begun. They were not going to get a fair deal at Seattle, which ended in chaos.
There is a good deal of confusion about the effects of trade liberalisation. I had the privilege of attending the Davos conference, which was solely about ways in which globalisation could be mobilised to help the world's poorest people. There were many brilliant ideas about how that could be done, some of which are being put into practice. I was surprised and saddened—or perhaps I was not surprised—that when I left Davos my way was blocked by screaming protesters who appeared to be against the causes that would help them most. It is a crazy world of contradiction that we live in. Those who protest most are trying to destroy the goals they claim to support.
One lesson that we have learned about the problem of "targetitis", identified by The Times, is that aid and development effectiveness cannot be measured by aid volume. I hope that the Government have learned that. There is a machismo about percentages. That is a hangover from the days of aid donor giving, with each country saying how good it was because it was giving more. That language is out of date. We should concentrate on quality rather than quantity of aid.
It has been argued that simply setting big and ambitious targets does some good in itself. That is not so. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned, has told us frankly that the 2015 target for

1197
halving the number of those living in poverty is doomed. We still have the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP hanging round our necks, but it looks more remote than ever and it is unrealistic in terms of aid effect and development.
Giving more to the UN agencies will not necessarily help development, because they are very inefficient. They need checking before we pour more funds into them. The European Union has rightly received a pasting today, not least from my noble friend Lady Seccombe in her well focused speech early in the debate. However, nothing that has been said in the debate can equal the robust words of the Secretary of State, who has described the EU as the worst agency in the world. We cannot go further than that. We should long since have applied new methods to the co-ordination of aid in Europe. That should not include creating vast bureaucracies in Brussels.
The problem is that grand theories stumble on crippling detail. The new reality in development is beginning to emerge. There is no better recent book for analysing that new reality than Hernando de Soto's Mystery of Capital. He argues that development cannot succeed, however much aid is poured in, without property rights and local capital. Those are the key to poorer societies becoming less poor. I give the Government credit for mentioning that in paragraphs 53 and 92 of the White Paper, but those comments are in the wings of the general thrust of the document when they should be centre stage.
De Soto argues that the poor have assets, but they cannot turn them into wealth. To do that, they need the rule of law and political stability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, reminded us. They also need good governance, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Those are tasks that the British Council is superbly equipped for. That is where our priorities in aid promotion and using our resources should be.
The basis of the new reality that we have to face is that non-governmental organisations, private corporations and new and novel coalitions between public and private bodies will be the driving forces of development. That means that private corporations have an increasing social responsibility for the corporate governance standards that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned. We should not rail against multinationals and tell them to keep away from development. Far from suffering from wicked multinationals, the poorest societies need much more attention than the feeble flow of foreign direct investment that they currently receive. They need more globalisation, not less.
That is the message of the debate and the White Paper. We can have plenty of good ideas and express all our concerns vividly about the fact that billions of people still live in poverty and billions of children suffer appallingly, but we must not be distracted by yesterday's stale aid debate. We need to focus on the new way in which development can be promoted and the ways in which globalisation, the informational paradigm and the Internet system that now links the
1198
world in an entirely new relationship can carry development forward more vigorously and more hopefully than ever before.
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Amos: I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I cannot begin to do justice to the breadth of the issues raised. The debate has been well-informed and wide-ranging. Noble Lords have given me a Herculean task in trying to respond to all the issues that have been raised. I shall write to anyone whose specific questions I am unable to answer because of lack of time. I also thank noble Lords for their positive comments about the work of the department and its officials and the leadership provided by the Secretary of State.
A number of noble Lords have already reminded us of the reasons for having the debate. In an era of growing wealth, 1.2 billion people live in abject poverty, without adequate food, water, healthcare or education for their children. It is within our grasp to remove extreme poverty from the world. That is the greatest moral challenge facing our generation. However, it is not just a moral duty; it is also in our interests. Many of the world's biggest challenges—growing conflict, refugee movements, disease, environmental degradation and rapid population growth—are caused and exacerbated by poverty and inequality. That will bring instability and danger to future generations wherever they live.
The White Paper on globalisation is the continuation of the process begun in 1997, when our first White Paper committed the Government to reducing the proportion of people living in poverty by half by 2015, working to establish a safer and more secure world and promoting greater global social justice. Therefore, the White Papers must be read together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that significant mention was made of disaster preparedness in the first White Paper. In terms of a continuation of the debate, the second White Paper puts disaster preparedness into the context of environmental degradation. That is why more specific comments are found in the first White Paper and more general comments in the second one.
We recognised that achieving the international development targets required a new approach—one which saw development as an investment in the building of a more equitable and sustainable world. It meant putting poverty reduction at the centre of our discussions with developing countries and working with them to develop their own poverty reduction strategies. It meant supporting developing countries in a number of ways; for example, through debt relief. Many noble Lords touched on the UK's key role in delivering deeper and faster debt relief.
Achievement of the targets also meant providing support through aid untying, working for a more open international trading system, helping developing countries to build their own capacity in order that they

1199
might play an effective part in trade negotiations, and working for reform of the international institutions. It has also meant taking a more coherent and integrated approach across government.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker made reference to the international development Bill. The Bill will establish in legislation the Government's over-arching aim of reducing world poverty. We have made a lot of progress but much remains to be done. This White Paper examines the opportunities and risks created by the process of globalization—the growing inter-connectedness and interdependence of the modern world.
I say to noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the action plan is contained within the White Paper. At the beginning and end of each chapter we say what we will do. Underpinned by the two White Papers are target strategy papers, which look specifically at each of the international development targets.
The central message of the White Paper is clear. We can help to shape globalisation so that it works for the world's poor. Access to knowledge, technology, goods, services, capital and markets can create the conditions for faster reduction in poverty, enabling developing countries to benefit from global economic integration rather than being excluded from it.
However—here I agree with noble Lords—there are also risks. If the poorest countries are not drawn into the global economy, they will become more marginalised. For example, we know that growth rates in Africa—I believe that this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso—remain well below the level required to halve the incidence of poverty in the continent by the year 2015. Therefore, either outcome is possible. The future is a matter of political will and choice.
I believe that four key themes have underpinned today's debate. First, in order to capture the benefits of globalisation, we need a combination of efficient markets and effective governments. In response to my noble friend Lord Parekh, it is our view that strong private sectors and efficient markets are indispensable at global, regional, national and, indeed, local levels. But they are not everything. Effective governments are equally important. They must be equipped competently to carry out basic functions, including the provision of law and order. In addition, they must be accountable, responsive and democratic, with poor people being given a bigger voice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, talked in particular about the issue of security and justice. We are supporting programmes of reform in order to make the justice system as a whole more responsive to the needs of the poor in such countries as Bangladesh, Jamaica, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention to work with those countries on solutions which are appropriate for them.
1200
To my noble friend Lord Rea I say that rights at work are an important component of our human rights strategy. We have a commitment to the ILO core labour standards and to the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. We recognise that business must also play a part. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, plays an important role through his work on corporate social responsibility, bringing business and government together, and also through his work on the global social contact.
With regard to reproductive health, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and my noble friend Lady Massey raised the question of our reaction to the decision of the US Government to bar abortion-related NGO work. The US decision will make no difference to the commitment of this Government to help poor people to access good quality family planning and sexual reproductive health services.
The second theme to have come out of the debate is the need to establish a much more integrated and joined-up approach to development. We need to tackle, for example, conflict and corruption. Those areas were raised by my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Cohen. Of the 40 poorest countries in the world, 24 either are in the midst of armed conflict or have just emerged from it. In Africa, 20 per cent of the population live in countries affected by armed conflict. We have started a process of integrating conflict reduction programmes into our own programmes so that they promote the right environment in which to foster peace.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford made a plea for joined-up thinking. At present we are establishing two pooled budgets which will finance the conflict prevention activities currently resourced by the FCO, the MoD and the Department for International Development. One covers sub-Saharan Africa; the other covers the rest of the world.
While talking about issues of conflict and conflict prevention, perhaps I should address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. This Government have made our arms exports more accountable and transparent than has almost any other country. For the first time, we have established new national criteria on export licences and have followed that up by obtaining agreement for the EU code of conduct. For the first time, we have published annual reports which detail the export licences that we have agreed, deliberately inviting scrutiny. We have made clear our intentions to update our legislation on arms export controls in order to bring it into line at the earliest possible opportunity with the EU code of conduct.
My noble friend Lady Cohen gave a clear exposition of the process of money laundering. The Government have produced an anti-corruption strategy supported by commitment to legislation. A new proceeds of crime Bill will tighten the law on money laundering. We have also made a commitment through legislation to give the UK courts jurisdiction over UK nationals who commit offences of corruption abroad. At the international level, our priority is to generate stronger commitment to a co-ordinated approach among governments and development agencies.

1201
We also need to boost investment in education and health. Investment in people, skills and knowledge is essential for countries that wish to be part of the globalising economy. That, of course, includes children. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the Government, through the leadership of the Chancellor, have decided to spearhead an initiative to address child poverty through improved progress to reach the international development targets by the year 2015. The UN and the World Bank will produce an annual report on the achievement of those targets for the G8.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and other noble Lords mentioned education. The achievement of universal primary education is an absolute priority for us. Of our total education commitment of resources of £800 million, almost 80 per cent is allocated to basic and primary education. I shall not go into further detail on what we are doing with regard to education, but I shall be happy to write to noble Lords on the matter.
My noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen and other noble Lords raised the problem of AIDS/HIV. We are committed to a strategic response to AIDS/HIV by raising the profile of the epidemic, creating enabling environments for HIV prevention and control, caring for people who live with HIV/AIDS, and improving knowledge and technology. We have committed more than £100 million to HIV/AIDS work since the start of 1999, and we have recently committed a further £25 million to the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa and to other initiatives, and £14 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
On the subject of drugs, which was raised by my noble friends Lord Rea and Lady Massey, we are working in collaboration with many partners, including drug companies and national governments, to make existing drugs affordable and accessible through several strategies while at the same time retaining incentives for future drugs development.
We also need to spread the benefits of technology and research. That matter was picked up by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. The Government commissioned work to develop proposals to tackle the lack of incentives for and perceived risks of increased investment in research into vaccines and treatments to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who spoke in particular about health and food, that our approach to GMOs and to developing countries is based on the general principle that the health of people and the environment is of primary concern. We believe that GM technologies could have the potential, when managed responsibly, to produce considerable benefits for poor people and the environment. We are working to promote efforts to help to build bio-safety capacity in developing countries.
Underpinning all of those efforts is our commitment to policies that promote human rights, including the rights of women and girls, and those that support effective governance and democracy. Those are areas
1202
in which the British Council has been particularly effective. I agree with my noble friend Lady Kennedy that work on governance needs to be given priority.
A third strand of the debate involves the need to improve the effectiveness of development assistance; that is a vital priority. Too many resources are not targeted at the poor. A significant proportion of resources remains tied to the purchase of goods and services from donor countries.
As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, we will untie all UK development assistance from 1st April 2001 and we will urge others to follow our lead. We will also increase development assistance to 0.33 per cent of GNP by 2003–04. I inform the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who questioned that amount, that the aid budget will have increased by 45 per cent in real terms between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Our ultimate goal is the 0.7 per cent figure, but we recognise that we have to take steps along the way to achieve that.
The fourth theme of the debate was the need for a stronger international system that focuses on the systematic reduction of poverty to enhance the efforts of governments and to take collective action when required. We need the IMF, the World Bank. regional development banks, the UN and all development agencies to collaborate to support governments that are committed to meeting the international development targets.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that we must have fair international rules and strong international institutions to harness private capital and trading opportunities in order to improve the life of the poor. We need representative institutions, in which all can pursue their interests equally. That is what the World Trade Organisation is for.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—we need fair structures of trade. I agree that developing countries must be able to participate effectively in the WTO. We are doubling our effort in that regard and looking at ways in which to do more with other donors to boost capacity in Geneva and in the capital.
Before I turn to specific matters raised in this debate, I want to make one final general point. The partnership approach—working with governments, business, trade unions and NGOs—is an absolute priority. I inform the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the right reverend Prelate that our relationships with NGOs are particularly important to our work.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the question of co-ordination during disasters. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also raised the issue of disasters. Our strategic partnership with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is strengthening the capacity of the UN system as a whole to co-ordinate the international response to humanitarian emergencies and national disasters. We want a system that is efficient and effective. While our ultimate aim is to build a better international humanitarian system, there is a role fm donor governments such as the UK to fill a gap with regard to rapid direct response.

1203
I inform the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who thought that we were found wanting in our response to the floods in Mozambique, that we were the first on the ground there, that it was our money that paid for some of the fuel and some of the helicopters that we saw being flown by South African pilots to rescue people in Mozambique. Our aim is always to source regionally because that is faster and more effective than always trying to send resources from the UK to places where disasters have happened.
I do not have time to discuss the EU, but part of our strategy involves levering those aspects of the international system that have the capacity to be effective. In 1998, the EC was the fifth largest provider of aid and the largest provider of humanitarian assistance. We have to reform the EC and make it effective.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for raising the issue of older people. As life expectancy has risen from 46 to 64 since the 1960s, it is becoming increasingly important to address that matter.
I inform my noble friend Lord Faulkner that land reform is essential in building a market economy that will work for the poor. I agree with my noble friend Baroness Howells that Caribbean countries remain particularly vulnerable to changes in the global trading system. We are taking several initiatives in that area. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness on that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that achieving the targets in Africa will depend primarily on action being taken by African governments. I shall write to the noble Lord on those issues.
Development awareness, which was raised by several noble Lords, is important. We have several regional policy fora and development awareness schemes in schools to take forward the debate. I shall write to my noble friends on the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights.
I conclude by repeating the words of the Secretary of State for International Development. She said:
"Cynicism and negativism are the enemies of progress".
It is when people see that progress is possible that the demand for reform and advances is energised. This debate has demonstrated that the ideas and policy commitments in the White Paper can play a central role in helping us to shape a more decent and sustainable future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Baroness wish to withdraw the Motion?
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, yes, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Union Enlargement
6.8 p.m.
Lord Tomlinsonrose to call attention to the Nice Treaty and the case for European Union enlargement; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: The Nice Intergovernmental Conference was not a unique or special process. There had been three previous intergovernmental conferences, each of which led to significant treaty changes. First, there was the Single European Act. Since I am speaking in this House, I must acknowledge the leading role of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the production of that legislation.
Secondly, there was the Treaty on European Union, the so-called Maastricht Treaty, for which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and Mr. Francis Maude deserve high praise. I praise them even though the noble Lord has shown reluctance to have his responsibility laid against him for posterity. That is made clear in his book, In Office, in which he wrote:
"After our morning prayers meeting I was talking to Francis Maude, the Financial Secretary, and said, 'I just wish I didn't have to go over to Holland and sign the Maastricht Treaty. I can't bear the thought that my signature will forever be on that Treaty. 'Francis replied, 'Really? I am very happy to go if you want".
It was stunning prose, so good that it makes the Treaty of Nice seem an exciting read. But Francis Maude did go and Francis Maude did sign.
It is important to reflect on what, among other things, he signed on our behalf. He signed a treaty which at Article J.4.1 states:
"The Common Foreign and Security policy shall include all questions relating to security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
So in the discussions post-Nice, let us, perhaps, hear no more cant from any Conservative spokesman about European defence co-operation.
Finally, there was the third of the treaties, the Amsterdam Treaty, for which I must give due praise to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister because I believe that he deserves substantial credit in that regard.
Such intergovernmental conferences or, rather, the subsequent treaty changes that emerge from them should, I believe, be seen as Treaty of Rome amendment Acts, bringing that treaty, the treaty which we, the British people ratified by referendum, up to date in the changing circumstances which include enlarged membership.
In anticipation of the Nice summit, the European Union Select Committee produced what I believe was an extremely useful report on the Nice intergovernmental conference in advance of that conference taking place. The report of the Select Committee pointed with abundant clarity to the organic link that existed between the next enlargement involving those current applicants who qualify and the necessary institutional changes to the European Union

1205
itself which had to be addressed but which had not been resolved at Amsterdam, the so-called Amsterdam left-overs.
Obligations, therefore, existed on both sides—on the side of the applicant countries and on the side of the European Union. Applicants had been told back in 1993, at the Copenhagen European summit that they had to satisfy the so-called Copenhagen criteria and those criteria are quite specific. I remind your Lordships what they were. The summit conclusions stated:
"Membership requires that the candidate countries has achieved stability of institutions, guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law. human rights and respect for and protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union".
That was what we expected of applicant countries. All we had to do was to do at Nice that which we had singularly failed to do at Amsterdam; namely, to effect the institutional change.
The European Union obligation was quite specifically post-Amsterdam, attached to the Amsterdam Treaty as a protocol, a protocol on the institutions with the prospect of enlargement of the European Union. That protocol set out our agenda—the need to deal with both the size and composition of the Commission, and the reweighting of votes in the Council. To that agenda was added subsequently, by declaration, the consideration of a significant extension of recourse to qualified majority voting.
So the link of the outcome of Nice to enlargement was clear. The Treaty of Nice dealt fully with the Amsterdam left-overs and brings into effect the three main institutional reforms which need to be implemented as a precondition of enlargement.
The first is qualified majority voting. It serves our interests, as much as anybody else's, to see the extension of qualified majority voting into areas such as trade liberalisation and improved financial controls. That was done while safeguarding what were perceived as essential British interests in relation to the need for unanimity on treaty changes, border controls, defence, social security, taxation and own resources.
The second issue was the reweighting of votes in Council. In that regard, the increase, the first since Britain joined the European Union, in the strength of our votes in Council is to be welcomed. It was brought about by a Treaty of Nice which reweighted the votes of all member states to give greater weight to the proportional size of each member.
Thirdly, there was the Commission's size, which could in part be seen as a quid pro quo for the reweighting of votes in Council where we, together with the other larger countries which had two Commissioners, agreed that by 2005 we should give up our second Commissioner, that decision limiting the increase in the size of the Commission after enlargement.
1206
Some people, not necessarily in your Lordships' House, have suggested that the extension of qualified majority voting is somehow wrong in principle. But I have referred to the earlier treaty changes and in those two treaty changes—those with which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, were heavily involved—there were no fewer than 42 extensions of qualified majority voting, 12 of them in the Single European Act of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher and 30 in the Treaty of Maastricht. So in principle there is nothing sacrosanct about changes in qualified majority voting.
As I say, Nice was necessary to create the balanced equation. Nice fulfils the institutional reforms needed for enlargement while serving our essential interests; and the Copenhagen criteria outlined the obligations of the applicants in the enlargement negotiations.
I know that the Treaty of Nice covered other matters besides the Amsterdam left-overs—the charter of fundamental rights, enhanced co-operation, European defence, a subsequent IGC in 2004. All those issues are important, necessary and deserving of agreement but I shall not deal with them today as they are not directly linked to enlargement.
So we turn to the central question: why is the enlargement, which required so much preparation in the Nice summit, such an important goal and why is it worth so much effort? I say with absolute confidence that the peace, stability and security enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of the states who have been members of the European Union for over 50 years must now be extended to the countries of central and eastern Europe.
Enlargement, at the same time, brings a reduction in barriers to trade and business. The single market, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, spent so much of her time, is a single market which will now grow with enlargement by up to 40 per cent to a market of 500 million consumers.
Enlargement increases our international competitiveness, with consequential benefits of both employment and consumer benefits. It also increases the rate of our economic growth. The whole process of enlargement reduces pressures which have been of great concern in your Lordships' House and in another place—the pressures for economic migration which currently exist in the countries of central and eastern Europe.
Additionally, the process of enlargement, by bringing applicants into the European Union and by bringing their police and border controls into line with our common standards, plays a significant role in aiding the fight against international crime. That boosts pan-European environmental standards. Also enlargement brings about great benefits in terms of culture, tourism and sport.
Finally, when we look at some of the benefits of the process of enlargement, more than anything the process entrenches democracy and underpins respect for human rights. However, we should not see enlargement as an act of altruism towards our

1207
neighbours. Enlargement is a process that serves our interests and our needs every bit as much as theirs.
In what I hope was a relatively rash moment—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I agree with the thrust of his argument in relation to enlargement. However, when he talks about the benefits to trade, does he believe that it is extraordinary that a country like Estonia on joining the EU will have to increase tariffs, re-introduce subsidies on agriculture and raise taxes? Is that not a rather odd thing to have to do?
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, that does not quite fit in with the thrust of what I was saying. It is a pity that the noble Lord did not have the foresight to put his name down on the speakers' list in order to give us directly his wisdom, so much of which rests on his experience of treaty enlargement negotiations—the Maastricht Treaty.
As I was saying, in what I hope was merely a rash moment of opposition politics Mr William Hague threatened to campaign against ratification of the Nice Treaty. I say, as seriously as I can, that I believe that such an act would not only be a betrayal of the hopes that successive governments in this country have encouraged in the applicant countries, but it would also be a betrayal of our self-interest.
This Government have done well by Europe in the Nice Treaty; they have done well by our national interests. But they have also served us well in honouring our commitments to the countries that are seeking to consolidate their futures in the democratic community through membership of the European Union. I believe that this Government deserve our support in that. They will certainly have mine. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, for having initiated this debate and for the elegant way in which he has done so.
Enlargement is a worthy aim and Nice was billed as the summit to prepare for it. It is sad to note that, in the event, no firm target date was set for the accession of a single country. There is no doubt at all that Mr Blair signed up to a whole raft of measures that will not hasten enlargement by one day. Indeed, much of what was agreed had nothing whatever to do with enlargement; some of what was agreed was calculated to make enlargement more difficult; and the really important obstacles to enlargement were not addressed at all.
The Times rightly suggested that the heads of government may have come out of the last meeting reciting the general confession from the Book of Common Prayer,
"We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done".
1208
With their record it is a bit rich to argue, as some have, that those who say that the Nice Treaty should not be ratified while it includes matters that are completely irrelevant to and obstructive of enlargement are irresponsibly thwarting the ambitions of the applicant countries.
Of course, institutional change was necessary. The weighting of votes, the size of the Commission and the size of the Parliament are all matters to be addressed. It is hard to argue that the outcome was satisfactory. A Commission of up to 27 in number, when there are already more Commissioners than jobs to be done, and an even larger Parliament would look pretty absurd, but at least the heads of governments addressed the right problems. What on earth has the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to do with enlargement? The same can be said of the Rapid Reaction Force. With only seven minutes for my speech I cannot speak on that, much as I would like to do so.
Perhaps I can say a word about qualified majority voting. Some of the decisions, such as those regarding appointments and rules of procedure, seem sensible enough, but others certainly cannot be justified on the basis that without them an enlarged Union could not operate effectively. Those changes are calculated to increase the flood of unnecessary and damaging regulations, giving more and more power to the centre, when member states should have been trying to redeem some of the promises made at Maastricht and Amsterdam and make a reality of subsidiarity.
I make my point by referring to a few of the decisions on qualified majority voting. Article 191 enables regulations to be made governing political parties and, to the alarm of some, not only in regard to funding. More importantly, Article 13 deals with action to combat discrimination. That certainly has nothing to do with enlargement. Article 137 deals, among other things, with worker consultation and conditions of employment for third-country nationals. That does not contribute to enlargement. Article 144 involves the setting up of a committee to promote co-operation on social protection matters. Article 65 deals with judicial co-operation in civil matters. Article 159 deals with social and economic cohesion outside the structural funds. There is also the extension of EU competence in several home affairs matters.
Surely all those steps have in common the fact that they are all part of the remorseless move towards central government, the steady leaching of power from national governments to the centre. They will not make it easier for new members to join or for the EU to accept new members. It is demonstrably absurd to argue, as some have, that greater integration is necessary to make enlargement possible. One does not make it easier for new members to join a club by increasing the number of rules that they have to obey if they join. Instead of putting even more obstacles in the path of those wanting to be members and continuing to add to the acquis communautaire burden, it would have been more sensible for existing rules to be relaxed for new members. That would enable countries like Poland to join once they had

1209
agreed to abide by the EU's free market provisions, but without them having to conform to EU social policy. That would have been a much more constructive and sensible approach.
Then one comes to the biggest absurdity of all. Few would doubt that the most formidable barriers to enlargement are reform of the CAP and the budget, but neither was on the Nice agenda. Of course, it is true that the reform of the CAP did not require a treaty change, but plenty of matters were discussed that did not require a treaty change or an IGC. The other day, Mr Cook said that the reform of the CAP could not really be discussed and made a condition of enlargement because France would block the whole process. That is all very well, but how can enlargement work without reform? If the CAP were applied to Poland, where almost a quarter of the population live on small inefficient farms, the whole system would be at risk of collapse. That must be so, even after the changes agreed at the Berlin European Council. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in reply.
What of the budget? If dramatic changes are not made to the structural, social and cohesion funds, will not the admission of the first-wave applicants mean a tripling of the budget? Is that correct? If it is, how on earth can that be sustainable? Surely it is a problem that needs to be solved before enlargement can take place.
I have almost reached the end of my time. I sincerely hope that those difficulties, great as they are, will be overcome and that, in spite of those difficulties, we shall soon be welcoming as members the countries of eastern Europe in particular, when we shall have a truly European community.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Tomlinson in speaking in this debate from this side of the House.
I have, as always, listened to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, with interest, affection and some nostalgia. With respect, he is in the position of somebody who, seeing a brick wall, has an irresistible urge to bang his head against it. I know of nothing that would have been more supportive of a complete stop to the negotiating process than a major discussion of the CAP at Nice. It seems to me that that would be the way to bring it to a halt. Perhaps the noble Lord does want to bring it to a halt. I give him credit at least for not wanting to. In my modest life on the fringes of international diplomacy, it has always seemed to me very unwise to take an unanswerable issue and run your head against it, only to find that the whole of the negotiations come crashing down around your head when you fail. It does not make sense.
The issue about the Treaty of Nice can be put in the form of one question; namely, was that treaty successful in making enlargement easier and more practical? Put the other way round, if the agreements had not been reached at Nice, would enlargement be more or less difficult? I believe that the answer to those two questions is clear.
1210
Since we are in the seven minute rush in this debate, I fear that I shall not be able to make many of the points that I should have liked to advance, but I want to consider two issues. If enlargement had not been resolved at Nice, I do not think that it would have been as feasible as it is. The first issue concerns the size of the Commission; the second concerns qualified majority voting.
A Commission organised as it now is would clearly be unworkable even in a Union consisting of as many as 20-odd countries. One Commissioner per country is probably the best answer for the time being. I accept that. But I do not think that it will be a permanent measure. At some stage the issue of rotation will have to be considered. That is another issue which, had it been raised directly at Nice, would no doubt have made the negotiations much more difficult. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would have liked it to be raised for that reason.
Some countries would not, in the long term, be able to have a Commissioner for the whole term of the Commission. The question would then arise which commissioners would leave, for how long, and what effect their absence would have. It has been suggested that consideration may be given to the model of the Security Council of the United Nations, comprising a core of permanent members and a number of non-permanent members who serve on the Security Council for two years and then retire. It would be difficult to translate that model into the European context. In the European Union one is dealing with a greater national pride and a greater sense of national identity than exists at the United Nations in New York.
There is also a danger that a country with no Commissioner may prove to be much more difficult in the Council. If a country had not raised issues in the Commission and those issues came before the Council, there might be a tendency for that country to say, "We had nothing to do with it in the Commission. We shall not have very much to do with it in the Council either". I have no solution to this problem. However, the point that I want to make is that the arrangements will not necessarily be permanent. The chances are that they will have to be revisited.
I turn briefly to the second issue about which I want to say a few words—qualified majority voting. If a community of six cannot effectively and efficiently operate without extensive majority voting, clearly a European Union of 12 or 15 or more cannot. Experience has shown that the unanimity requirement entrenches national blocking positions, even when they are not necessarily in the long term interest of the member states concerned. The failure to make progress towards a single market in the first 30 years of the European Union's existence very clearly illustrates that point.
The scope for using qualified majority voting often brings about a willingness to reach an agreement acceptable to all concerned, taking account of their positions. It is an impasse towards consensus. One should not underestimate, first, the importance of

1211
achieving a consensus in a group of institutions such as the European Union and, secondly, the pressure on individual countries to do precisely that.
I sometimes wonder why Britain is so scared of qualified majority voting. The figures are very interesting. Britain has on occasions found itself in a minority, and thus been voted down. But far more often it has been in a majority. In the period 1998 to 1999 there were 85 contested qualified majority votes. In that period Britain abstained or was in a minority on only five of those occasions. On the other 80, we found ourselves in a position of agreement with the majority that emerged. Important British interest can be furthered only if there is majority voting, not only for the completion of a single market but for moves to a liberal world trading system in goods and services and for reform of the common agricultural policy.
I want to say a brief word about sovereignty. I do not understand—I have tried to understand it and I shall persist in trying to understand it, but it defeats me—the passion with which eurosceptics hang on to the notion of sovereignty and hang on to what I perceive to be outdated political ideology and, in many cases, outdated political institutions. A very interesting article by Dominique Moisi was published in the Financial Times in January about Nice, about sovereignty and about what is happening in Europe. It states:
"On the final day of the Nice summit, the lead story on the evening news on France's public television network was not EU diplomacy but the latest scare over food safety. What they eat is more important to ordinary Europeans than the relative weighting of national representatives who speak for them.
"Similarly. for companies engaged in the competitive world of mergers and acquisitions. nationality matters less and less. In its place, the notion of culture prevails. A perverse logic is at work: the less sovereignty means in our modern, interdependent world, the more desperately we stick to it".
I believe that that principle is right. I hope that those who contemplate voting against the ratification of this treaty will take note of it.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I welcome this debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. It gives us an opportunity to examine at least three important matters, now that we have been able to reflect a little on the results of the intergovernmental conference at Nice now that we have the final text; I received it today. In politics we receive a lot of instant reaction. Perhaps this House can make its contribution in the form of a more considered judgment.
The first question to be considered is whether there is genuine coherence and continuity in the sequence of intergovernmental conferences that have in recent years been held, and to some degree suffered, at least in terms of public perception of the European Union. In short, do we know where we are going? Intergovernmental conferences are extremely important. In some senses, they are constitutional conferences, intended to change either the division of
1212
responsibilities between the Union and the member states or the operation of the Union's powers and responsibilities. They are the exercise of the sovereignty of the member states which rule the European Union.
A recent reading of the Old Testament tempts me to express the situation as follows: Maastricht begat Amsterdam; Amsterdam begat Nice; and Nice is expected to beget another child in 2004. But are they planned babies—at least that in 2004? We shall see.
Secondly, we are now able to express a considered judgment on the main points which were decided at Nice. I should like to do that.
Thirdly, the completion of the Nice agenda makes it possible to set out more clearly the major priorities for action and politics in the EU in the coming years and how best to achieve them.
First among those is enlargement, which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, so rightly stressed. In response to the wish of many countries and more than 100 million people to share in the success of the EU, we are approaching a major change. I believe that, among the priorities, the public in this country deserve to be told what are the current and future objectives of the Union and not be fed from a diet of yesterday's European leftovers. Perhaps the Government can estimate the date of the arrival of the first new member states. I know that negotiations are still in progress.
I turn to the continuity of the policy from Maastricht to Amsterdam, to Nice, and apparently to Brussels in 2004. The grandfather of those children, Maastricht, had as its principal objective the treaty underpinning economic and monetary union and the single currency. However, in this age of mass communication, it is instructive to remind ourselves how, on the one hand, the leaders of Europe underestimated the hesitations of the public and how, on the other, commentators, particularly in the United Kingdom, underestimated the drive of those leaders to achieve economic and monetary union and the single currency. Economic assessment should always be very cautious. That applies to me today and in the perspective of enlargement. But some of the negative comments on the birth of economic and monetary union already appear somewhat bizarre. The actual picture of the euro-zone seems to be very positive. There is a good growth rate; there is very low inflation; there is steadily falling unemployment; there is rising confidence in the perspectives for the economy, particularly in France, and there is a remarkable moderation in wage settlements. The euro-zone will probably have a budget surplus this year—I must say that I would never have forecast that—because budget discipline has been maintained, including in Italy, France and Greece.
Furthermore, there is a continuity of policy in the economic and monetary field. Perhaps before long we shall be able to say that the policy is like the internal market, at cruising speed, and begin to think about the application of economic and monetary union in the acceding countries of central and eastern Europe.

1213
The actions which made inevitable Amsterdam and Nice were not in the economic field but in the so-called "political" changes in the treaty, because some of the Maastricht results were either demonstrably weak or difficult to operate. In addition, the treaty contained specific requirements to look again at the common foreign and security policy and defence. Thus there is again a continuous line from Amsterdam to the St Malo Declaration, the Cologne and Helsinki summits, and the decision to establish the EU capability of up to 60,000 troops for humanitarian and rescue tasks through to crisis management, including peacekeeping. We have discussed that in this House often enough.
I have travelled hopefully and I have now arrived at Nice. There, a new factor was enlargement. I believe that at that point the EU had woken up to enlargement. It had been around for quite some time, but the EU had by then woken up to it. In fact, Amsterdam did a lot for enlargement but it did not deal with the institutional issues. Those had to come to Nice, How then do we judge Nice? First, it achieved the political perception that potential barriers and difficulties for enlargement of the Union are now removed. It achieved that widely in Europe, perhaps with the sole exception of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and it is widely felt throughout Europe. That perception has not been dented in the period since Nice. It is worth a lot; it is a starting gun for enlargement about which I am pleased.
For the rest, the treaty changes will be examined carefully and will probably give rise to controversy. I can hear it already. I consider that for the most part they represent good housekeeping. The changes on voting weights are more favourable to the United Kingdom than is the present system, but they make it slightly harder to reach a QMV decision. The greater powers of the Commission President are a modest change. The number of Commissioners will be potentially restrained but we are not sure how. Qualified majority voting has been extended in relatively limited fields.
That sounds little more than faint praise. Overall, I take the view that what we have, or should have, for the Minister is loud applause for the expected impetus that the treaty will give to enlargement, and the "Good Housekeeping seal of approval" for much of the rest. However, I believe that in addition to potential benefits, there are risks from the rendezvous in 2004 and we shall need careful preplanning for that.
Finally, I hope that having passed this hurdle we shall make an effort to stress to the public what are the principal new priorities of the European Union now. They are enlargement to a more diverse Union; the success of economic and monetary union and the single currency, whether or not we are in; the Rapid Reaction Force; and new co-operation in the areas of immigration, asylum and the fight against drugs and crime. I have no hesitation in commending that programme to my fellow citizens.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like other speakers in the debate, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, on introducing it. When before Christmas I compulsively turned on my television set, trying to discover from news bulletins the progress and outcome of the Nice Summit, I felt much as I do on election night. I knew that in reality a step-change in our political history was taking place.
Like election day, the outcome is not a success for a series of distinct policies; rather it is a triumph for a particular package of policies. In the run-up to the IGC, politicians and the media debated the merits, or lack of them, of this policy, that policy and the other policy. But once the IGC concludes, we move, as it were, from the a la carte menu to the plat du jour. We in Britain, and those in other member states, are now given an old-fashioned Hobson's choice; a choice of take it or leave it. The changes must be taken as a whole or not at all. While I favour some and not others, we no longer have the pleasure and luxury of picking fastidiously between them.
I happen to believe that there is no evidence to support the wilder claims of those who argue that this agreement presages a Dark Age of European centralisation. It is my view that, taken overall. Europe is constitutionally much the same as it was before, which is no doubt why the extreme euro-centralisers, the upholders of the true faith of the Monnet doctrine, are accusing the heads of state of betraying the pure doctrine of Europeanism. Indeed, I suspect that one of the main messages from the Nice process is that there is no unanimity at all about where we go from here.
It is true that defence policy is on the move. But I suspect that given the way the world is changing that is inevitable. I believe that the issue is not change in itself but rather ensuring that change is compatible with, subordinate to and at ease with NATO. It is remarkable how little these far-ranging political changes require constitutional change.
As has been said, it is true that the political framework of the Union was left at Amsterdam lo be adjusted at a subsequent IGC to provide an adequate framework for enlargement, which I believe to be the overriding political imperative of the day. It has been done—just—but the outcome is not a glorious one; it shifts the structure just sufficiently.
While the outcome of this IGC is a necessary pre-condition of enlargement, it is not by itself a sufficient precondition, but the world of political reality is the one step that we must now take to bring that about. Other changes need to be made before enlargement can occur, but essentially they are policy and not constitutional changes. For example, as my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out, there must be CAP reform before enlargement. However, it is a little unfair to criticise Nice for not addressing that issue because at no point was it ever intended that it should. After events in Germany over the past few weeks, I begin to believe that it may be mad cows rather than mad policies that are the catalyst for that long-awaited and very desirable change.

1215
From my work in the European Parliament I sense a concern throughout the European institutions, which I share, that at European level we cannot go on in a state of permanent constitutional revolution. After all, there is agreement for another IGC in 2004, which in practice means that preparations must start now. Somehow or other we must find a constitutional settlement which simplifies the rules of European governance and makes them as understandable and user-friendly as possible. That settlement must set up a more stable relationship between the work of individual members in their own countries and their collective efforts across the Union. We must put in place arrangements which serve our fellow citizens, not merely the political elite, advance democratic principles and the rule of law, protect diversity while preserving coherence and find a way to ensure that subsidiarity not only works but is seen and, therefore, believed to work.
In many ways, Nice was inglorious. Its outcome was a modest compromise brokered by a politically divided presidency, but in part its significance is that it helped to pave the way for enlargement. However, it may be that, with the benefit of hindsight, in the more medium term its very modesty will clearly show the importance of achieving a settlement in European affairs and bringing to an end the helter-skelter of ad hoc European political evolution. I believe that that is a very real challenge which is almost certainly more difficult than the issues under consideration at Nice itself.
As a nation we must now get to grips with the post-Nice agenda without nostalgia for the 1950s—an era that has long since vanished—and our inheritance of classic diplomatic intergovernmentalism. In short, I suspect that perhaps the greatest importance of Nice is that it triggered the post-Nice agenda. That agenda is a very big challenge both for those countries like our own which are now members and for those which want to join and have moved one small step closer to doing so as a result of the Nice treaty.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for giving us this opportunity to debate Nice and enlargement after a period of reflection. Make no mistake: enlargement is a very big step and will have a major impact on all of us. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson reminded us that enlargement would make a major contribution to stability and security in Europe. I agree that it will encourage peace and democracy. There are implications for asylum and immigration. I refer not only to the movement of unskilled people but the luring away of educated people from new members. There are also implications for crime and drugs and the environment. Clearly, double standards over environmental policy would be unacceptable. However, I believe that, on balance, peace, democracy and stability and the co-operation that results will help to resolve the issues and that the effort will be worth while.
1216
What about the economy? Certainly, companies will benefit by having access to a larger single market, especially one that demands greater investment in infrastructure and more consumer goods. But there will also be more price and wage competition. More outsourcing to eastern Europe will mean the loss of more manufacturing jobs in western Europe. However, globalisation is now unstoppable with or without enlargement. Enlargement will bring globalisation to eastern Europe in a more orderly manner, in much the same way that the United States ordered its relationship with Mexico. Therefore, I believe that business will welcome enlargement, because in the end consumers will benefit both within the Union as it is today and in an enlarged Europe.
What about agriculture? Obviously, the CAP must be renegotiated before enlargement can take place. As my noble friend Lord Richard said, it must be at the right time. But is that a bad thing? I do not believe that it is. Renegotiation of the CAP is long overdue. Enlargement will not be easy, but on balance I believe it is right that it should go forward. With that in mind, how should we look back at Nice? Frankly, with mixed feelings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that Nice signalled that enlargement would happen and the British negotiators achieved their immediate objectives. We increased our voting power. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson reminded us that we preserved our veto on tax, social security, defence, border controls and treaty changes. We also secured QMV where it was in our interests so to do. But the manner in which that was done left a nasty taste. The spectacle of all 15 members scrambling for position was, frankly, embarrassing. There was very little intergovernmental co-operation but just self-interested bargaining between individual member states. Alliances were based on need and usually lasted just for a single issue. There was little demonstration that countries took a broader view of their common interests.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, may have a point that bargaining over voting power has the effect of adding further complications to the passing of new laws. The noble Lord is concerned that Europe is becoming a superstate. These are not the actions of a superstate.
Where do we go from here? A decision in principle has been made about enlargement but it is not a coherent one. Therefore, we need a clear sense of direction from the Government and a perception that enlargement is proceeding. There must first be moves towards intergovernmental co-operation. That has already begun with this week's announcement of co-operation on external frontiers and fighting drugs and crime. I believe that the British public will view action on those issues as a welcome demonstration of intergovernmental co-operation.
Agriculture: obviously, there must be a long and difficult transitional period and, therefore, we need to start talking soon.
Business and industry require some kind of road map for enlargement. Business will require a much clearer time frame if it is to plan its investment and

1217
development in a larger economic zone. Business will also ask for clarification of the division of power between the regions, national governments and the EU so that it knows with whom it must work on business projects. However, I believe that the most important way to give direction to the perception that enlargement is proceeding is to ensure the fair treatment of applicant countries. One reason why Nice left an unpleasant taste in my mouth was the way that the present members tried to allocate fewer votes to future members than their populations merited. I believe that that exploited power in an unwarranted way.
I hope that the Government will make clear that at the next constitutional conference in 2004 candidates for membership will be invited to attend and participate, not merely as observers, irrespective of the state of the negotiations. If applicants are to go through all the hoops to become members it is only right that they should be consulted on the rules of the organisation that they are to join. Perhaps if General de Gaulle had taken that attitude there would today be a much smaller hard core of anti-Europeans in this country. After Nice one thing is clear: we cannot choose to ignore enlargement; we can only choose not to act, and that would be a mistake.
7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this Motion, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, invites us to consider two matters which, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pointed out, are only partly interrelated—the Nice Treaty and the case for EU enlargement. Because the English translation of the final draft of the treaty has only just reached your Lordships' House, it is difficult to tackle the first issue effectively. No doubt that is why so many noble Lords one might have expected to be here today did not put down their names to speak. Even with the sketchy amount of small print which was not available to us until just the other day, it seems clear that the treaty is not nearly as innocuous as was claimed a few weeks ago.
There are many worrying aspects, including the sinister proposed Article 7. I should like the Minister to comment on one aspect in particular when she comes to reply; that is the proposal to regulate—in other words to fetter—EU-wide political parties. Is that not likely to lead to an eventual ban on parties which press for the retention or restoration of national sovereignty and which resist further integration? Of course the Government's hands will be largely tied, since they foolishly, in my view, agreed to abandon the veto in this area, as well as 38 others, with few real benefits being received in return.
Perhaps I may now turn to the second part of the Motion—the case for EU enlargement. I am a pro-European in the true sense of the word. First, for the obvious reasons that we have always been culturally and, for the most part, ethnically European; and, secondly, as a result of experience. I was first taken to continental Europe at the age of five; I started to go myself at the age of 15; and have gone innumerable
1218
times since. With five exceptions—Iceland, Poland, alas, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria—I have visited every country in Europe and can claim to know seven or eight reasonably well, including Turkey.
I like the people of the Continent, although not always their governments, in the same proportion broadly as I like the people of this country; in other words, very much more often than not. If the ordinary people of the Continent had been given the chance to decide by referendum whether British greengrocers should be allowed to go on selling apples and potatoes in imperial measurements, I have no doubt that 90 per cent, or possibly 95 per cent of them, would have said yes. But, of course, the decision was not in their hands but in the hands of an unrepresentative bossy elite.
It follows that I wish the people of the Continent well, particularly those of the applicant countries. It would be sad if they embarked on a course which might appear attractive now but which they might later come to regret. I do not think they would regret things if they entered into a fair and balanced—with the accent on fair—free trade agreement with the EU, or if they joined NATO. That is a step which would greatly reassure those applicant countries which fear a still heavily-armed Russian federation, Libya, or any other potential military threat. But I am far from sure that it would be to their net benefit to join an EU where, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood intimated, subsidiarity is a sick joke; where the CAP remains unreformed; and where the voracious expansion of the acquis communautaire ensures that the EU and its agencies continue to poke their noses into the nooks and crannies of people's everyday lives instead of merely ensuring that the single market functions smoothly. Indeed, that very point was made by an EU Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, only two days ago.
When I was in Malta in December—a country I have known for 35 years—a great row was brewing because the EU had ordered the country as a condition of entry to alter its waste disposal arrangements at great cost. It is not as if Malta were dumping its rubbish in the Mediterranean only to wash up on the shores of Sicily. In such an event the EU would have every right to interfere. No, it was a purely internal matter and accordingly no business of the Greeks, the Swedes, the Belgians, or, for that matter, the British. No wonder opinion polls now show only 50 per cent of the Maltese want to join the EU, with 40 per cent opposed.
It is no wonder, too, that 46 per cent of Estonians are now opposed to joining the EU. Not only do they and other applicants now realise that they will not be in line for the largesse which so much benefited the Greeks, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Republic of Ireland, but they stand to be treated as second class citizens if they join. Estonia has 1.42 million inhabitants, yet, as a consequence of backroom deals done at Nice, it has been allocated no more seats in the European Parliament and no more votes in the Council of Ministers than Luxembourg, which has only 30 per cent of the population of Estonia. To a

1219
lesser degree, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania are also unfairly treated, even if, for some reason, Lithuania fares quite well.
As for those in the applicant countries who remain keen on joining, in my estimation a good proportion comprise well-educated young people who are less concerned with the long-term good of their country than with their own career prospects. That is perhaps understandable. They want to be able to seek work in London, Paris, Milan or Frankfurt without the hassle of visas or work permits. However, they have probably not yet realised that the Germans and the Austrians want to keep them out of the EU by demanding a seven-year moratorium, post accession, on labour mobility. So much for the spirit of European brotherhood which the EU claims to foster!
7.6 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for initiating the debate.
The agreements reached at Nice removed the last institutional barriers to enlargement—the Amsterdam leftovers—which is a cause for much satisfaction. The sighs of relief in the applicant countries have been audible. But there still remain formidable obstacles on the path to accession, as the candidate countries, to their intense frustration, are only too aware. When we speak, as we do, of enlargement as inevitable, that inevitability removes the word "if", but it still fails to answer the question "When?".
We should constantly bear in mind that public enthusiasm for accession in the applicant countries may still be wide, but in many counties it is not deep. That is true of Poland and the Czech Republic among others. Some countries have been preparing for membership for a decade now. They have done so with a conscientiousness not always complemented by an equivalent degree of commitment among some interlocutors within the Union. Protestations of support for enlargement among the existing members have sometimes been longer on rhetoric than they are on action.
I ask why the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Sweden in a joint article published in the Financial Times on 21st November 2000, stated that,
"the European Union should consider setting an early target date for the first accessions".
I ask why because I fear that this is another example of the hopes of the applicant countries being raised, only to be frustrated by subsequent shifts in policy. The Swedish presidency is to be praised for making enlargement its overriding priority, but it appears to have no plans to set during its presidency target dates for the conclusion of negotiations with any of the applicants. That is obviously a serious disappointment for the leading candidates and little encouragement for those who follow them. Will the Belgian presidency prove equally hesitant?
That said, I certainly take off my hat to Sweden's Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh, for her declared preparedness to move ahead of the indicative
1220
programme agreed at Nice and to bring forward, if possible, the launch of negotiations on some of the toughest issues, such as agriculture, regional policy, and justice and home affairs. That of course will depend critically on the applicant countries making available in time the information needed to let the negotiations proceed. That should not be beyond their capabilities, but the setting of target dates for completion and then entry would surely provide an extra incentive, not just to the applicants but to their EU interlocutors as well. It would certainly do wonders for public opinion in the applicant countries.
If the European Union governments are sincere in their wish to see the first wave of new entrants become members in time to participate in the European Parliament's elections in 2004, the new entrants will need, in view of the ratification process, to complete negotiations some time in 2003. If that is the intention, the Swedish presidency would do well not to let its presidency slip past without setting out a realistic timetable and seeking the European Union's and the candidate's commitment to stick to it. Some argue that target dates take the pressure off. I profoundly disagree. Let us not forget that the setting of, and strict adherence to, a precise timetable for the launch of European and monetary union contributed greatly to the ultimate keeping of the rendezvous with the single currency. I urge Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to encourage Sweden and all others to set out a calendar that is realistic and stringent.
In a seven-minute intervention one can touch only lightly on even the most important issues. Perhaps I may therefore list my further concerns about the enlargement process in the form of brief questions, not all of which I expect my noble friend the Minister to answer, because at present not all of them can be answered.
First, will the member governments of the Union do more to counter the spreading of unfounded fears that enlargement to the east will result in massive migration to western Europe and catastrophic loss of jobs? There is no credible evidence to sustain that prediction.
Secondly, will countries such as Germany take fully into account the difficulties faced by some applicant countries over the requirement to establish rigid frontiers with neighbouring countries with which they have currently very open relations? I am thinking in particular of Poland and Ukraine, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, assuming that the first is the earlier entrant, and Hungary, with its Hungarian ethnic minority, and Romania.
Thirdly, will Her Majesty's Government be vigilant in ensuring that applicant countries are party to any discussions on further EU reform that may follow the foreseen agreement at Laaken under the Belgian presidency in December 2001 where the content, calendar and working methods of such reform discussions will be decided? It goes without saying that they must be parties to the 2004 IGC.
Fourthly, will governments bear in mind, as the Swedish presidency has, that Spain has already warned that it will find it hard to broker a deal on the share-out

1221
of regional funds—a very sensitive issue for Spain—if that is still on the negotiating agenda when Spain takes over the presidency after Belgium in January 2002?
Fifthly, and most importantly, will Her Majesty's Government please not accept as inevitable that at France's demand there can be no opening of discussion on the reform of the CAP until after France's 2002 presidential elections? The costs of the BSE crisis in Europe risk blowing the CAP apart anyway, so why not bite the bullet and get down to the reform without further political prevarication?
Those are but a few of my concerns. They are all problems that will not easily be solved. But they can be, and must be. The objectives of enlargement demand that. But we are not just talking about peace and security on the continent of Europe. In that context, I quote President Kwasniewski of Poland, writing in a recent edition of European Voice. He wrote:
"At the end of the 20th century, another obstacle to unification disappeared: the threat of East-West confrontation. Integration became something more than just a remedy for the evil which Europe had imposed on itself. It became a means by which to pursue joint interests, an expression of the common identity of the Europeans".
Later in the article he wrote:
"The time has come to say that the Union will not threaten the existence of the nation-state. It is instead a projection of nations in a wider geopolitical space. The success of the European Union depends on a synergy of all that individual nations contribute".
We must not delay in opening the door to those now free, democratic nations which have so much to contribute.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to discuss a part of the Treaty of Nice which I believe will certainly be seen by the applicant countries as a factor linked to enlargement. I refer to the part on security and defence policy.
I have a preliminary problem in discussing this subject. My problem is finding a name for the organisation that is proposed. It started by being referred to as a European army. That was banned as being unsuitable. It then became a European rapid reaction force. The Secretary of State for Defence has made it perfectly clear that he does not like that either. I asked the Ministry of Defence what it is called. The answer was "a pool of capabilities". That does not seem to have exactly the ring required for an organisation of this kind. So, in order that we may discuss the matter with greater ease, I ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether she has a name for it; and if she does not, will she ask the Ministry of Defence whether it can produce one, preferably a name with some tone to it?
The leading document on the subject is the presidency conclusions. Those reached us very recently—slightly before the treaty itself. The French version reached us late in January; the English version, only late last week. What is the status of the presidency conclusions? I have never been able to discover that. Were they agreed by the conference itself? Have they
1222
been written by the French Government since the conference? Have they been agreed between the European Union members? Do their proposals constitute something for discussion with NATO? They are extremely relevant to NATO. If so, are they subject to alteration?
I am in favour of Europe playing a bigger role in its own defence and I have taken that view all working life. But I believe that this particular project has serious defects. In my recollection, it was first given strong support at St Malo, when the Prime Minister met President Chirac. In making the proposal, the Prime Minister reversed the line he had taken far the previous two years. The central problem with the proposal seems to be that France and the United Kingdom see in different ways what for convenience I shall call the rapid reaction force. France wants something distinctly separate from NATO. That is consistent with its long-standing desire to reduce the influence of the United States in Europe. The United Kingdom, I believe correctly, wants to see the organisation as close as possible to NATO, perhaps even within NATO. That creates a tension which is clear in reading the presidency conclusions. This issue is at the centre of United States concerns. We should have no doubt that the Americans are concerned.
Mr Rumsfeld, in Munich last weekend, said that he was "a little worried" by the proposals for the rapid reaction force. He went on to say:
"Actions that could reduce NATO's effectiveness by confusing duplication or perturbing the transatlantic link would not be positive".
Coming from the United States Secretary of Defense, those are fairly strong words.
General Colin Powell, whom the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs saw yesterday, putting his best face on it, said, as reported in The Times today:
"I think if we approach the European Strategic Defence Initiative [ESDI] with an understanding that it's firmly embedded in Nato, there's no reason to see this as destabilising".
He went on to say that the all-European force must not duplicate NATO planning structures and must augment the overall military capacity of both NATO and the European Union.
I believe that the present proposal fails both the tests put forward by General Powell. The presidency conclusions lay great emphasis on the autonomy of the European Union. They propose two separate military organisations—one from the European Union and one from NATO—running all the way down the line. That is clumsy, costly and unnecessary.
As I see it, the Americans are concerned for three reasons. First, they believe that the proposed structure will produce bureaucratic confusion. Secondly, it will cost more and will therefore impose an extra burden on the defence budgets of the European Union countries, which are greatly inadequate anyway, as I believe many of us agree. Thirdly, the Americans are concerned about the possibility of the development of a European organisation parallel to NATO which could mean at some stage a European group putting

1223
up a united front in opposition to the United States. Those are legitimate concerns and I believe that the proposal should be radically re-examined.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson for making this debate possible. Around 18 months ago, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend a conference organised by the British Council in Prague. Its theme was European enlargement. I should like to remark on the contrast between the aspirations for enlargement felt by the many people from eastern European countries attending the conference and the rather more detached and somewhat remote attitude demonstrated by those attending from western Europe. For the people of the eastern countries, enlargement of the EU and the ability of their countries to join the Union was the most overwhelmingly important item on their countries' respective political agendas. I was left with the feeling that enlargement was important not only for them, but also for the European Union as a whole and, more specifically, for this country.
As a consequence, I helped to establish an all-party European Union accession group which covers those who are keen on matters European and those who are a little more sceptical but nevertheless agree about the benefits of enlargement. I am grateful for the help given to the group by the ambassadors of a number of candidate countries. I hope that it is in order to mention them. I am delighted that the ambassadors from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have found the time to attend our debate this evening.
In the short time available, it will not be possible to deal with the specific issues of Cyprus, Malta and perhaps even Turkey, so I shall confine my remarks to the eastern European candidate countries. I believe that enlargement will bring enormous benefits to this country and to the European Union as a whole. The EU will then become the world's largest market. Enlargement will help to build the co-operation needed to tackle organised crime and drug trafficking and will help to improve environmental standards, so sadly neglected by the communist regimes of eastern Europe but now costly for the accession countries to remedy. High economic growth will result for the EU. British companies will benefit from access to a larger market. They will also benefit from increased competitiveness, which will be necessary through the enlarged market. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to this point, but I believe that we shall see reduced migration pressures, while democracy and human rights will become more firmly entrenched.
The timetable for all these developments is crucial. I look for a date to be set enabling the first wave of countries to join and take part in the European elections in 2004. That will set the standard by which various dates can be measured. It means that 1st January 2003 will probably become the latest date for acceptance, with ratification being completed soon
1224
afterwards, provided that parliaments throughout the EU work quickly. The June 2001 summit in Gothenburg will therefore represent an important benchmark in the process. It is important to bear in mind these dates, otherwise we shall see slippage.
It is worth noting that some of the countries included in the first wave—I refer in particular to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary—already increase their import and export trade with the European Union year on year. Slovakia, which started a little later, has also made rapid progress in moving towards increased trade and meeting the accession criteria.
I appreciate that agriculture presents a difficulty. While I was a Minister in Northern Ireland with responsibility for agriculture, I was able to attend some of the discussions held by the Agriculture Council in Brussels, in particular when Agenda 2000 was being debated. I have to say that if the negotiating position of the British Government—as it was put forward by my right honourable friend Nick Brown—had been accepted in full, we would have moved much further along the way to dealing with the difficult problems posed by the CAP. He pushed that issue very hard indeed. I believe that the forthcoming World Trade Organisation negotiations will also be helpful in this respect. I see CAP reform as a process on which we have already embarked and which we must continue to pursue. It will need to be developed further after the accession countries have joined.
Poland has the largest agricultural element among the first wave of accession countries. At present, it has to compete with EU-subsidised agriculture, which does not help it in its agricultural restructuring programme. Britain has a responsibility to offer legal advice and help, especially as regards trade and commerce—also matters which are costly for the accession countries. Indeed, it is worth remarking that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have already established links with western Europe through their membership of NATO.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying this. The EU must also concern itself with values: human rights, democracy and the upholding of certain standards we accept as normal but which were denied to the eastern European countries through the years under communism. The accession countries want to embrace these values and are moving rapidly towards achieving them. After the long, bleak years of communism, the accession countries want to rejoin a democratic Europe in its fullest sense. I believe that we have a responsibility—a moral obligation—to welcome them into the European Union as friends and allies. In turn, the accession countries will gain in political and economic stability. Membership of the European Union will help them in the important but difficult process of modernisation.
I know that the Government are supportive of this development, but I should like them to demonstrate their enthusiastic support. I hope that this debate will help to reinforce the Government's position; namely, that we need to move forward as soon as possible.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I welcome this short debate and I hope that the House will continue to follow the issues as we move from this conference on to the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. I should like to make three main points in my short contribution.
First, there are clear limitations to the intergovernmental haggling approach which we witnessed in all its gory detail at Nice. Afterwards, the British Prime Minister's remark to the effect that, "We cannot go on like this", is one that needs to be repeated. The European Union needs to have a more effective and efficient institutional structure. It is a major issue and one which we shall have to keep on debating from now until 2004.
Secondly, the IGC was marked by a clear change of atmosphere on the subject of enlargement. A number of member governments were still in denial that enlargement was going to take place until shortly before the Nice Summit. It now appears that enlargement is going to take place. From now on, we are considering an institution which, within three or four years, will have more than 20 members.
Thirdly, clear commitments were made to hold another intergovernmental conference in 2004 and to continue with an active debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, described as the "post-Nice agenda". That debate should be conducted as openly and widely as possible. It should involve national parliaments, the public and it should engage the candidate states.
The German Chancellor, reporting in detail on the Nice Treaty to the Bundestag on 19th January, stated that:
"We thus made it clear that we intend to continue to reflect on Europe. … I would just like to mention the demarcation of competences between the national and European level, the division of powers between institutions in Brussels, the future status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the reorganizing of the treaties and the role of national parliaments".
As we all know, the first "stocktaking" of progress on this debate is due to take place in December of this year at the Laaken European Council. Various reports stated that the British Government were unhappy about holding the debate in public and had exerted extreme pressure on Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, not to raise difficult questions during his visit to Britain a few weeks ago. I thought that that was extremely unfortunate. I hope, at the very least, that after the forthcoming general election—whenever it is held—that the British Government will overcome their fear of the media and launch a more active debate. Perhaps we could even look forward to a White Paper from the Foreign Office on this issue. It would help to move the debate forward.
I welcome the progress on enlargement. From now on, we are operating on the basis that we shall have a Community which, within four or five years, will embrace more than 20 members. Within six or seven years, the membership will have moved on to 25 or even 27 and beyond. I should like to emphasise that we are now engaged in a long-term process.
1226
A minor decision taken at the Nice European Council which will have long-term implications concerned the expansion of the European Conference to include not only Turkey, but also Iceland and Norway, the countries of the western Balkans and perhaps, in time, the Ukraine. The stability pact for south-eastern Europe clearly implies that in time—and that means 15 or 20 years ahead—Albania, Macedonia and the other states will eventually become members of the European community. That long-term commitment will cost a lot of money and we need to make sure that we all understand its long-term implications.
I praise the Commission for pressing forward with negotiations even when member governments have not been entirely happy with the speed at which they have been progressing, and for its clear commitment that these negotiations will conclude by the end of 2002. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will give the Commission every support in making sure that that progress is maintained.
However, I should like to flag that there are some problems ahead. Her Majesty's Government and others have not been giving sufficient importance to the delicacy of the position of Turkey. There is a real danger that the member governments will pretend to negotiate with Turkey and the Turkish Government will pretend to be moving towards accepting the Copenhagen conditions. We now need to give relations with Turkey as much importance almost as we are giving to relations with Poland if we are to prevent the Turkish question becoming a major problem within the next two or three years.
The post-Nice agenda clearly needs to start with a review of where we have now got to with the successes and the failures of the Nice Treaty. As the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Richard, said, the Commission as a college is clearly still too large. It will be absurdly large if we move towards a European Union with 25, 27, perhaps eventually 30 plus members.
The first step, however, has now been taken. The idea that there will not necessarily be one commissioner for every state has been accepted in principle. I hope that the British Government will now agree with the French that an efficient commission needs to be much smaller. The way forward has to be to strengthen the role of the permanent representatives in Brussels as the representatives of their states in the European policy process, and to move towards a small college of nine or 11, as the French and others have proposed.
I regret that, in the haggling, the French presidency allowed the European Parliament to become oversized. I hope that the Government will attempt to pull that back. I note that Her Majesty's Government, among others, are proposing that the role of national parliaments should be strengthened in various ways, and I welcome the current inquiry of your Lordships' European Union Committee.
Perhaps I may suggest to the Government that they should take on board and push the question of the seats of the institutions. At four o'clock in the morning

1227
on the last day of the Nice Treaty hagglings, the Belgians got a concession—which they may well live to regret—that, of the European Councils, two will in future be held in Brussels and eventually all four will be held in Brussels. It seems to me that there is a lot of haggling one could do the next time round about perhaps transferring the European Councils to Strasbourg. This would allow the European Parliament to meet in Brussels in future—which would be rather more efficient—and stop the absurd trek of the European Parliament's offices between Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels. We need efficient and effective European institutions.
I note that there has been some further development in justice and home affairs. I have seen almost no press comment that Articles 29 to 31 of the Nice Treaty establish a European judicial co-operation unit, the so-called "Eurojust". I hope that one of the sub-committees of your Lordships' European Union Committee will look at the implications of that.
I noticed also that there was some further progress on European security and defence policy, although I regret that—as it was reported in a number of other national newspapers—at the request of the British Government, this was underplayed because they did not wish to embarrass the British media.
I also strongly regret that qualified majority voting on structural funds failed because of Spanish opposition. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will attempt to reverse that decision well before enlargement.
We are heading towards a constitutional framework, and that is what we have to discuss in the post-Nice agenda. That ought not to frighten us. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, when he was Foreign Secretary, once said—when he thought that there were no reporters present—that we should now regard the Treaty of Rome as part of the British constitution. That is the state we have got to and, therefore, we need to make sure that Europe, as well as the United Kingdom, has a properly organised constitutional structure.
That would require Her Majesty's Government to take an active role in leading public debate on the implications of enlargement and on the structure of the institutions needed both at home and abroad. That means not only prime ministerial speeches in Warsaw but prime ministerial speeches also, please, in London, Manchester and Edinburgh—and, as the Spanish need to be alerted to the concessions they will have to make, they need to be made in Madrid. Her Majesty's Government need to maintain pressure on other governments for completion of enlargement negotiations.
What does this require of the Conservatives? We have to hope that after the election they will accept that Britain is in Europe, not half-way across the Atlantic; that the European region requires efficient and effective multilateral institutions; and that they will overcome their hysteria over any suggestion that the sharing of power among different levels of
1228
government, either within the United Kingdom or within the European region, unavoidably has some federal characteristics—particularly when they are so enthusiastic about drawing Britain much closer instead to the United States, which is a strong federation, and to Canada, which is a loose federation.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, for introducing the debate. We are grateful, too, that the treaty, in English, arrived in time for us to study it before the debate. The last time we debated a treaty—the Amsterdam Treaty—there was a document before us which set out in great detail the effect that all the amendments in the new treaty had on the existing treaty's structure. Before we debate this matter again—and I trust that we shall debate it many times before a Bill comes before the House, if and when a Bill comes before the House—I hope that we will have such a document. It makes it much easier to know which way we are going.
One would not expect it, but this debate is taking place against a background of a raging debate throughout the whole of Europe—in both the applicant state area and the existing EU—about the future structure of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, quite rightly referred to this, but it does not seem to be prominent in the Government's thinking or their publicity. The battle is between the integrationists, who think that the old model of more and more central power is the right way forward, and the inter-governmentalists, who are putting the brakes on. They may have been in favour of qualified majority voting in the past, but they are saying enough is enough, which is a reasonable comment to make. It is not only the British who are saying that.
I, personally, think that both models are out of date and that it will emerge in due course that the true path to European unity lies along lines which have not come into government discussion or perception—although, as I shall explain in a moment, one or two forward thinking research institutes, including those supported by the Government, are beginning to understand what is driving European unity, and it is not an endless series of treaty making and treaty structures.
There should be no doubt that we on this side of the House believe very strongly in enlargement. We think that the Europe of the future needs the nations of central Europe just as much as the nations of central Europe want to be part of the Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so eloquently said. We note the proposition before us in the debate that the Nice Treaty, the various protocols and the presidential conclusions removed the obstacles to enlargement. I wonder whether confidence of that kind is wise. It may be enthusiastic, but is it wise to hold that view with such simplistic zeal? As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, reminded us, there is a long way to go. As any discussions in London with any of the ambassadors of

1229
these countries—let alone any visits to their capitals—will reveal, the path still looks extremely long and the obstacles substantial.
Of course, the biggest obstacle—we should not pretend otherwise—is the whole agriculture support question, the common agricultural policy. Poland has more farmers than the United Kingdom, France and Germany put together. This is a huge task ahead of us. Now, on top of that, comes BSE, smashing the whole structure of the agricultural budget. This is an obstacle that towers above anything that may have been resolved by the odd protocol coming out of Nice about institutional reform. Although those matters are important, this is 10 times more so. The budget is still 44 billion euros. Although that is less than it was, it is still enormous. One has even heard suggestions from Belgium and other countries that, in order to meet the extra costs, a new tax on the citizens of Europe must be required. These are frightening prospects, and ones that have not yet been addressed.
In addition, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said with great eloquence and clarity, it is not only a question of reforming the CAP. The arithmetic of the budget must be addressed. It simply does not add up without changes to the structural and cohesion funds which, again, have not been addressed. If we are really interested in obstacles and in the path to enlargement, that is where we should focus our attention.
When we are asked to accept that Nice was the magic curtain raiser to enlargement, we have to point out that it also added new obstacles along the path. Everyone knows that the acquis communautaire is an enormous meal for the applicant countries to digest— and they may not all succeed. The Nice treaty made it substantially larger in adding to the acquis communautaire.
It is no more than common sense, as my noble friends pointed out, that the more decisions are organised centrally in the European context, the more difficult it will be to accommodate the enormous diversity of an enlarged Europe. Enlargement will bring in all kinds of new cultures, methods and patterns. It will bring in new labour standards and a vast range of matters in relation to which uniformity and standardisation will be the impossible enemy. So we should not merely accept the proposition that Nice equals the magic route to enlargement. It clearly does not. There are other major problems. It is unwise not to focus on those but merely to satisfy oneself with the lesser idea that Nice solves the whole matter.
The Nice treaty also paved the way for the European Commission to have a role in the controversial area of defence matters. That is another worrying development. Again, the applicant countries want to join a security structure based in NATO and in the Atlantic Alliance. Many people, particularly in Poland, are horrified that, just as they are arriving, they are finding the NATO structure thrown into question and, as my noble friend Lord Blaker said, full of new ambiguities.
Quite where we stand, I do not know. The Foreign Secretary, who is extremely agile in these matters, appeared to be telling the story in Washington
1230
yesterday (as quoted in The Times) to General Colin Powell that the new plan is firmly anchored in NATO. Tell that to the Turks, or to the Norwegians! They will not believe it. They have found that, although key members of NATO, they are not attached to a firm anchor. We must be clear as to what was really being proposed. Was it the St Malo formula; or have we retreated to something different? Before judging the virtues of the Nice summit, we must get that straight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other speakers mentioned, the Nice summit pointed the way to the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, which is billed as a kind of constitutional conference. There are those among the Europe-builders who want to see the European Charter of Fundamental Rights made mandatory, on top of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is something that we need to watch carefully in the interests of the applicant countries, which, again, are finding difficulties in meeting all these standards and which now see another great layer of standards placed before them that they must achieve.
I strongly share the view that the applicant states should be brought into the process now—not, as the treaty says, "in ways to be defined". That is too vague. They should be involved now in a structure that will be their lives and their European Union as well as ours. I have no difficulty in seeing the treaties as a kind of constitution. That is indeed what they are for Europe. Nor do I have difficulty with the idea, although it may be hard to achieve, that we are to have to simplified treaties.
Commissioner Bolkestein, who talks a great deal of sense, said yesterday that there is still,
"a danger of a creeping process of more and more things becoming the subject of legislation in Brussels".
He is absolutely right. He went on to say:
"Federalism is something we should forget about".
Perhaps the federalism scare is going away. It has certainly been there. The people of Europe have long since rejected the idea. The truth is that the federal model is failing.
We have been polite about Nice in this debate. Nevertheless, we know that the comments outside are that the Nice summit was badly botched and that there was little unanimity. I quote my noble friend Lord Inglewood. There are still all kinds of divisive issues at work which undermine the feeling of those of us who have always worked for a stronger Europe but who feel that some of the ideals are now being ground to dust under the present model and the present patterns of officialdom.
For me, the unlocking insight into what will happen next in Europe—this may help those who are in a "mental maze" as regards the European construction—is that we are not going to get a completed Europe; there is not a final destination, as Commissioner Barnier has been quoted as saying. That kind of Cartesian logic does not operate. The Europe that we shall see will possibly be one of several

1231
structures. The Economic and Social Research Council has conducted some fascinating studies in which it argues that,
"On a collective basis, in both in the European Union and other European institutions, novel forms of policy-making are being attempted".
The council goes on to question the whole doctrine of the acquis communautaire. The year 2004 will be an opportunity for new thinking for a diverse kind of Europe, not one in which one size fits all—a Europe in which nation states will be more important than ever as the bedrock of stability and identity.
In conclusion, you cannot bind people together by forcing people together. The apologists for Nice seem not to have learnt that; however, I believe that the rest of the people of Europe have.
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, for introducing the debate, and for his spirited canter through the history that brought us to Nice and the vision for the future. I find myself echoing much of what the noble Lord said.
I should say straightaway that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was right to remind the House that the CAP was never meant to be part of the Nice agenda. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that the Government are fully committed to EU enlargement and to CAP reform. Further CAP reform is clearly desirable, but it is not necessary for enlargement to take place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that making CAP reform a pre-condition for enlargement would have delayed accession.
The Nice Treaty is good news for Britain. I say that particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who I think, in his heart, may share that view. It is good news for the EU and good news for Europe as a whole. Nice will deliver a stronger Britain in a wider Europe.
We went to Nice with six objectives: to increase Britain's voting weight in the Council; to reform and streamline the Commission; to secure more qualified majority voting where this is in the UK's interest; to protect our veto where UK interests are best served by unanimity; to establish more flexible forms of EU co-operation; and to open the door for enlargement. I am glad to say that we have achieved all six of our objectives.
The deal on vote reweighting boosts the UK vote from 10 to 29. That enhances our influence relative to the medium and small countries. It ensures that the three largest member states (including the UK) will still be able to block decisions up to and including a European Union of 27; and it maintains our parity with Germany, even though Germany has 20 million more people. That is the first time since we joined the EU that we have increased our voting weight. We are proud to be the Government who secured this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and others who raised the issue, that this increase will benefit the smaller
1232
states. Her Majesty's Government have been a vigorous supporter of the smaller states and of enlargement. That will not change. Our voice will, it is hoped, be heard more effectively and more clearly.
We secured a smaller and better Commission. The next Commission will consist of one Commissioner per member state. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and a number of other noble Lords who emphasised the issue of institutional change and that the need for effective and efficient instruments with which to deliver that is of the utmost importance. Once we reach 27 member states, the Commission will be capped at a level below 27 with equal rotation for all member states.
We secured other reforms which will make for a more efficient Commission; for example, the right of the President of the Commission to decide on the Commission's internal organisation and to sack a Commission member if circumstances warrant. We secured more qualified majority voting where this was in the UK's interests. I was surprised and disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, did not see the benefits for democracy and human rights which have been achieved by the changes which he highlighted and which have been proposed but which he questioned. However, I was comforted by the balance and sense of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spoke immediately after.
Qualified majority voting has helped us in a number of ways, for instance, in the ECJ's procedures, where this will make for more efficient justice; in trade in services and industrial policy, where UK business will benefit; and on appointments, where we are now more likely to get the right person for the job. We preserved our veto exactly where we said we would on tax, social security, defence, own resources, border controls and treaty change. We secured a more flexible EU. The new enhanced co-operation arrangements mean that groups of member states can now more easily move forward together in a given area. The UK and others will have the freedom to opt in but do not have to take part. We have secured language that ensures there will be no threat to the single market, and no hard-core or second-class members.
If I may respectfully say so, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked the correct questions as regards assessing Nice. We opened the door for enlargement. Nice agreed that these institutional changes complete those necessary for the accession of new member states and confirmed that the EU will be ready to welcome them from the end of 2002.
We also secured a good outcome on what happens after Nice. We agreed that there will be another intergovernmental conference—as many noble Lords have already mentioned—in 2004. That IGC will consider, first, how best to deliver the competences of the EU; secondly, how best to simplify the treaties to make them easier to understand; thirdly, the role of national parliaments in the EU; and, fourthly, the future status of the charter of rights. We ensured that the next IGC will not be an obstacle to enlargement—in fact, the new member states and applicants will play

1233
a full and active role in that IGC—and that the review of the charter of rights in 2004 will be without prejudice as to the outcome.
Moreover, Nice also agreed on the need for a deeper and wider debate on the future of Europe, and that before the next IGC there should be far-reaching consultations involving the people of Europe, civil society, national parliaments and others with an interest. A number of noble Lords have rightly highlighted that issue. This is not a superstate agenda; it is a British agenda as laid out by the Prime Minister in Warsaw last October. It is a people's Europe agenda and we welcome it.
This is why we welcome the Nice Treaty; why, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has said, we aim to bring the treaty forward for ratification as soon as possible; and why we regret Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition's commitment to oppose a treaty which is manifestly in Britain's interests.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that Nice will not hasten enlargement. That is not a view taken by the applicant countries themselves. I was glad to hear that the view I have expressed was shared by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Williamson of Horton, Lord Inglewood, Lord Grenfell and Lord Dubs, and virtually all noble Lords who followed. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that neither the applicant countries nor Her Majesty's Government take a simplistic view in relation to this matter. They and we understand the complexities and believe that the confidence and satisfaction we feel about the result achieved at Nice is well founded.
Nice opened the door for enlargement and the re-union of Europe. If I may, I remind the House why this Government, and successive governments before us, have supported that goal. Enlargement will enhance stability and security in Europe. It will help to entrench democracy and human rights. It will bring down barriers to trade and business, giving UK companies access to a single market of half a billion people. It will increase the prosperity of UK companies. The accession of the central and eastern European applicants will boost UK GDP by, on independent estimates, £1.75 billion per annum. It will help the fight against international crime. It will strengthen Europe's, and so Britain's, voice in the world.
I wish at this stage to answer a number of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Dubs, about the progress made so far. Where are we? The Luxembourg six—Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia—have opened all but two chapters in negotiations; that is, 29 out of the 31 chapters of the acquis, including the main difficult areas and have provisionally closed chapters 12 to 17. Accession negotiations with the Helsinki six—Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia-launched on 15th February 2000, are well under way. They have each opened between nine and 16 chapters and have provisionally
1234
closed six to 12. Target dates have galvanised previous negotiations. It is Her Majesty's Government's view that there is a strong case for setting a target date at the Gothenburg European Council in June 2001. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was right to highlight that as an important date.
The Commission's strategy envisages completion of negotiations with the best prepared countries by June 2002. That gives real credibility to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's call for new member states to participate in the European parliamentary elections in 2004. With efforts on both sides there is no reason why that should not be achieved.
I hope that I shall be forgiven for mentioning once more the fact that over 50 per cent of our trade in goods and services is with the EU, that up to 3.5 million jobs depend on membership of the single market, and the fact that we attract inward investment because of our place in the EU. The UK gets 23 per cent of all investment into the EU, 40 per cent of all Japanese and US, and 50 per cent of Korean. As the chairman of Mitsubishi UK said last year:
"We locate in Britain because one of Britain's important strengths is its ability to act as a gateway to Europe".
The reforms which we agreed at Nice have strengthened further Her Majesty's Government's deeply held belief that the right policy, and the only realistic policy, for Britain is one of constructive engagement and partnership within the EU. We shall maintain that policy.
I turn to some of the specific questions that I was asked. First, I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the statute for European political parties. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the revised Article 119 which provides a legal base for the regulation of the funding of European political parties. European political parties already exist. They were first recognised in the Maastricht Treaty. This revision is to allow transparency in their funding and is a recommendation of the European Court of Auditors. We want a statute quickly. Qualified majority voting will help us to deliver that. The statute will apply to all European political parties regardless of their views and it will not, of course, apply to national political parties.
I turn next to the plethora of questions—if I may respectfully say so—fired by the noble Lord. Lord Grenfell, in his normal dynamic style. I agree that the fears of mass migration westward following enlargement are unfounded. We should make every effort to underline that fact. Her Majesty's Government's commitment to that is clear. The nature and efficacy of border controls are part of the accession discussions so there will be an opportunity for those matters to be dealt with. We are absolutely committed to involving applicant countries in the consultation process leading to the next IGC as well as in the IGC itself. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the common agricultural policy which I covered earlier.
I turn next to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and touched on gently by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to the name to be given to the

1235
European defence initiative; and the status of the European Council conclusions. I fear that the Ministry of Defence may have given the only possible answer to the noble Lord. The European strategic defence initiative creates only a capacity to act, not a standing force to do so. It may not be a catchy name; but the "European army" is simply misleading. I think that in this House, if in no other place, we appreciate accuracy. The conclusions of the European Council were agreed by the heads of government at Nice and are politically binding.
Having only 20 minutes allocated, I had thought that I should be racing through my speech. I can now speak more slowly.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness has a moment to clarify her remarks about party political funding. She spoke about more transparency but is it not a question of more money? Taxpayers' money is to be handed from the European institutions to parties which satisfy the criterion of being European. Is that right?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the real question is the effect. The need is to ensure transparency in the nature of the funding. The noble Lord knows well that the funding of European parties has been a matter of concern. How are they funded? From where does the money come? How do they account? There is unanimity of view that it is important that that transparency be maintained. These procedures will deliver that.
We have had a good debate. One of the interesting and warming aspects is that virtually without exception—there may have been two noble Lords who disagreed—there has been agreement that enlargement is a thoroughly good thing. Nice has brought about institutional changes which enable enlargement to take place more smoothly and effectively, although there may have been slight disagreements between ourselves as to how much further matters should have gone. Many different views are always expressed on Europe. A healthy debate is an important debate—and we have had a very healthy debate.
Nice has proved that developments in the European Union are going in the way that Her Majesty's Government and Britain would want. We have achieved the progress I mentioned because our partners know that we are committed to making a success of our EU partnership. It is essential that we remain part of it, influencing and driving the process where necessary. Our aim is the successful promotion and protection of British interests and the enhancement of peace and harmony in Europe generally.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, it has been an excellent short debate. I thank all noble Lords who participated. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the scope of her response. It has been an entirely satisfactory
1236
occasion on a subject to which undoubtedly noble Lords will have to return on other occasions. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001
8.5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order applies only to Northern Ireland and mirrors the provisions already introduced for other types of elections there. This order amends the local government election rules contained in the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1962 and extends certain provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.
Your Lordships may recall that among other things the 1998 Act provided the opportunity for political parties to register their names and, if they so chose, their party emblems. Once registered, a party benefits from protection against the unauthorised use of its registered name and its candidates may request the inclusion of their party emblem on the ballot paper. Under the 1998 Act returning officers have the power to ensure that candidates at elections do not provide a description for inclusion on the ballot paper that might lead voters to associate them with a registered party unless they produce the necessary authorisation. This authorisation takes the form of a signed consent form from the nominated officer of the registered political party concerned. The intention is to reduce any grounds for confusion for the voter at the polling station.
The 1998 Act also provides that where a candidate has been authorised by a registered political party to use that party's name on the ballot the candidate may, if he so chooses, request that the party's registered emblem be printed next to his name on the ballot paper.
The provisions of the Act did not apply to local elections held in Northern Ireland and, therefore, this draft order is necessary to afford registered parties the same protection as they have at other types of elections.
As noble Lords will see, the schedule to this draft instrument provides a new specimen ballot paper illustrating these changes. In addition, the provisions provide for expenses incurred by a third party in respect of an election to be brought into line with those of local government elections in Great Britain.
Articles 15, 16, 18, 19 and 24 reflect equivalent changes introduced by the Representation of the People Act 2000 to parliamentary election rules. Those provisions made it easier for blind or partially-sighted persons to vote without assistance and allowed for

1237
those with any physical incapacity to vote with the assistance of a companion. This order now extends those provisions to local election rules also.
The order further provides for suspension of the requirement to vacate an elected office following conviction for a corrupt or illegal practice during the period in which an appeal could be made. This follows changes to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and brings Northern Ireland local government elections into line with the procedures followed in parliamentary elections.
I consider these changes important not only in updating local election procedures in Northern Ireland but also bringing them in line with Great Britain. I beg to move.
Moved. That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, having voted early and often during my time in Northern Ireland, I observed that the ballot papers were invariably very long by British standards. There were many more candidates than I had been used to in England.
I am surprised, therefore, that in the mock ballot paper in the schedule at the back of the order the party logos shown are curiously selective including, as they do, the UMW, which has only two or three local councillors but excluding that of the Alliance Party which has 42 councillors across Northern Ireland. It is a strange omission given that the order refers to local government. Perhaps the Minister can explain that curious selection. Apart from that complaint, I have no objection to the order and warmly support it.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we have no objection to the order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the order. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is explained by the fact that the logos were intended to be by way of example and nothing else. The ballot paper is meant only to be illustrative and not prescriptive. That is the reason that it is in the form that it is.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reassurance. I hoped that it did not reflect a particular mindset.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001
8.10 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the regulations. made under the powers conferred by the Representation of the People Act 2000, put into effect
1238
the major part of the provisions of that Act and deal with the detailed arrangements for the registration of electors and the conduct of elections.
The Representation of the People Act 2000 emerged from the deliberations of the working party on electoral procedures which was set up after the last election with a mandate to review our electoral arrangements and make recommendations on improvements. The working party, chaired by my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Knowsley North and Sefton East, was a multi-disciplinary body that consisted of representatives from the major political parties as well as experts in the field, such as electoral administrators and government officials. In addition, all the smaller political parties and many other interested organisations were consulted on the various proposals. The working party reported in October 1999 and a Bill was immediately introduced to put into effect its recommendations. The Bill received Royal Assent in March 2000.
The regulations implement provisions for Northern Ireland similar to those due to be introduced for England and Wales and for Scotland. They relate to the rolling registration of electors. They also make better provision for disabled voters, allow for the registration of homeless people, remand prisoners and mental patients and implement a number of other changes to make it easier to register to vote.
I should make it clear that the provisions in the regulations for England and Wales easing the requirements for absent voting are not extended to Northern Ireland. It is not considered appropriate to ease the restrictions at present, due to the concerns that remain over electoral abuse.
Another provision that I wish to highlight is the device prescribed in Regulation 12 to assist blind voters. The device has been tested by groups of blind and partially sighted voters and received their support. It will be available in each polling station for those who want to use it. For the first time, a blind or partially sighted voter will be able to mark his or her ballot paper unaided and with the confidence that the mark has gone in the right place and against the candidate of their choice. It also allows the voter to remove the ballot paper, fold it and place it in the ballot box themselves, with no assistance from a companion or from the presiding officer.
The regulations also deal with the details of applying for registration as a service voter or an overseas elector. They mirror the provisions of the regulations for Great Britain.
Part III of the regulations deals with the new arrangements for registration. There will no longer be a single qualifying date for registration as an elector and only one time in the year when that registration can be changed. From the publication of the new register in a few weeks, when the regulations come into force, voters will be able to change their registration at any time of the year. They will no longer have to wait until the next annual canvass to get themselves on to the register in their new area. However, the stipulation

1239
that requires anyone registering in Northern Ireland to be resident there for three months before registering remains.
The regulations set out how registration officers will make the provision work. The electoral office will also have the power to delete names from the register, such as those of deceased persons or those who have registered elsewhere, as well as powers to seek further information to confirm eligibility.
All that will make for a more accurate and flexible electoral register, which will also be more user-friendly. We are aware that a large number of people remain unregistered. We hope that making it easier to register will make voters more inclined to do so.
I have one further point to draw to your Lordships' attention. Section 9 of the 2000 Act, concerning the sale and supply of the register, has not been dealt with in the regulations. That section provides for voters to opt out of having their name included on the register that is available for sale. We have not yet drafted regulations on the sale of the register, but we intend to turn our minds to that immediately.
The regulations make a fundamental shift in how we organise our electoral affairs in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the House will join me in recognising the important changes that are being made to the electoral system and will view the regulations as a step forward in making registering and voting simpler for all. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we welcome the regulations, which will modernise the polity of Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of having to congratulate the Government. I very rarely find myself in that position but, having read the orders, I feel that an attempt has been made to normalise the position in Northern Ireland.
It would not be right to build up our expectations that the regulations will ensure squeaky clean elections in Northern Ireland. That is highly unlikely. I remember my first election in 1951 when I was helping another candidate in West Belfast who won by 25 votes after five recounts. I am certain that those 25 votes were put into the ballot box illegally by some of his more enthusiastic supporters.
A few years later, I won my first election for a council seat by 17 votes. I am almost certain that I saw 17 of my supporters going down to two polling stations in North Belfast to render me their support.
There are two constituencies in Northern Ireland where there is real abuse of the electoral system—in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in Mid-Ulster. One has only to look at the postal vote returns in those constituencies to see that it would be impossible for those votes to be legally made without massive personation.
1240
I would like to think that the outcome of the coming elections will genuinely reflect what the people of Northern Ireland think. It will not be possible to say that we will have the cleanest election ever, but the Government's attempt to grapple with the problem of personation is to be admired.
The Minister referred to the provisions that will enable blind or disabled people to vote. One has only to hark back to a few months ago and remember the objections that were made about the Florida election. I hope that the regulations will make it possible for legitimate votes to be cast without any later challenge.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I associate my party with the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Anything that can be done to reduce the danger of personation is clearly welcome at this of all times.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has given us a little insight into one or two heavily fought elections or by-elections. He mentioned personation. I am sure that your Lordships and the Government are well aware of various other malpractices over the years—perhaps over the centuries—in Northern Ireland. They include voting by dead electors, multiple voting and, I am sorry to say, the intimidation of electors before or just after voting.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reassure us that the Government are doing their utmost to prevent such behaviour, given that the outcome of the forthcoming general election will be very important and significant for the further implementation of the Belfast agreement.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for all the support for the regulations from around the House. Of course I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Government will take every step to ensure that electoral practices are as proper as possible.
Under the new regulations, once a voter dies, they will be removed from the rolling register almost immediately. That does not happen under the current register. That is one of various examples—it would not be right to go through them all—of how the regulations will considerably improve the position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].

1241
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001. It may be convenient if I speak at the same time to the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. Both are made under powers conferred by the Representation of the People Act 2000. Although they differ in some points of detail, they will have the same effect in their respective parts of the United Kingdom. They are similar to the regulations moved in respect of Northern Ireland by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. In fact, he has stolen most of my script!
They put into effect the major parts of the provisions of the 2000 Act and deal with detailed arrangements for the registration of electors and the conduct of elections. The regulations implement the provision in the Act which relates to what we now refer to as "rolling" registration of electors. They ease the requirements for absent voting; they allow the registration of homeless people, remand prisoners and mental patients; they make better provision for disabled voters; and they make a number of other changes in order to make it easier to register to vote. The overall intention is to begin a process not only of modernisation of our electoral arrangements but of greater involvement and participation.
Part 1 of the regulations deals with various interpretational and miscellaneous points, including the provision for communication by electronic means. That means that inquiries can be e-mailed, application forms can be downloaded from the Internet for filling in and returning, and information will be available on websites. The intention is to bring the registration process up to date in order to meet the needs of modern lifestyles.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made comments about Part 1 of the regulations with which he dealt. That part is designed to provide a device to assist blind voters. I shall not go through that again. The provisions for England, Wales and Scotland are exactly the same.
Part 2 of the regulations deals with the details involved in applying for registration as a service voter or as an overseas elector. Again, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer described those details perfectly well and I do not need to repeat them. Similarly, he covered matters relating to registration.
It is perhaps worth saying that the regulations set out in detail how electoral registration officers will make the system work. Primarily, they give electoral registration officers the power to delete names from the register, such as in relation to deceased persons—this is an important point—or those who have registered elsewhere, as well as powers to seek further information to confirm eligibility. All that will ensure that we have a more accurate and more flexible electoral register and one which is more user-friendly.
Part 4 of the regulations concerns the provisions for absent voters. From 16th February, when the regulations come into force, there will no longer be a
1242
need for confirmation by a medical practitioner or employer that a voter cannot reasonably he expected to attend the polling station. In fact, voters will not be asked to give a reason for requesting a postal vote; they will be able to seek one for whatever reason
In line with the recommendation of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, no change has been made to the proxy voting arrangements, save in one regard—time limits for applications. For both proxy and postal votes, the time limit for applications to be received by EROs will be up to six days before polling day. That contrasts with the previous limit of 11 days. Again, all those arrangements make the system more accessible and it will be easier and more convenient for people to cast their vote in whichever way suits them best.
Part 5 of the regulations goes on to describe in detail the procedures involved in the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers where minor changes have taken place to enable greater flexibility.
These regulations have the broad support of electoral administrators, although understandably they are a little anxious about how they will apply them.
We have already said that the regulations are in place because some unfinished business remains in relation to the 2000 Act. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made reference to Section 9 of the Act. That section concerns the sale and supply of the register and provides for voters to opt out of having their names included on the register, which will be available for sale. Because we wanted to concentrate on the regulations which have an electoral impact, we have not yet drafted regulations in respect of the sale of the register. Those will be made under Section 9 of the Act. However, we shall turn to them immediately and we hope to have a draft available for consultation before Easter. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committed.]
Lord McNally: My Lords, we welcome the regulations. I want to make one or two small points. The whole thrust of the regulations—as, indeed, was the thrust of the Act—was to make it easier for people to vote. That is most welcome.
One worrying aspect of the Florida election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred, is that it has made new technology—or at least middle-aged technology—in elections fall into some disrepute. That is a pity. Although we want to avoid butterfly ballots and hanging chads, I believe that there is much to be said for using the newest of technologies both in composing the electoral register and in voting. We certainly welcome the idea of using electronic communications for registering votes and for keeping the register up to date.

1243
The question with regard to Section 9 is slightly worrying. As the Minister will recall, when we debated the Bill in this House concerns were expressed about the sale of the register. We are perhaps getting close to a general election. We are told that the new orders will be in place before Easter. However, I hope that Ministers recall the concerns that were expressed in Committee about how widely the register could be used for commercial reasons and about what rights people had to omit themselves from it. I am sure that we shall want to examine the Section 9 orders very carefully. We do not want to deal with them "on the bounce" on the last day before the Easter recess or anything so unworthy as that.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, we must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on not allowing his thunder to be stolen entirely by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I wish to point out that the procedure for objecting to registration and appeals depends very much on the skill of the election officials. I am sure that our confidence in that respect will not be misplaced, and we support the order.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I forgot to mention that the noble Lord should be very happy about the similarity of the two briefs. I believe that that is called "joined-up government".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords would be amazed at just how much effort is required to ensure that we are joined up.
I want to mention two issues in order to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNally. With regard to the presidential elections, I suppose that, on reflection, the Florida election was marred by the counting process and procedure. In the United Kingdom we have sought to introduce new technology in compiling the register and increasing its accuracy and timeliness.
I believe that preparation is important. If the register is well prepared, I am sure that it will be accurate and that there will be far fewer disputes. I consider that we are using new technology sensibly. However, I believe that we are probably stuck with the Thursday version of the stubby pencil in the cubicle for some while yet, but that may be overtaken in due course.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Section 9 orders. I can only reaffirm the reassurance which I believe I gave in my initial comments. Of course, it is an important matter. If the noble Lord is genuinely concerned, as I am sure he is, and if he wishes to rehearse his concerns, I shall be more than happy to set up meetings between now and when the orders are brought forward. I make that offer more generally to other noble Lords of both Opposition parties who may also have concerns.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman that I think that we have got some of the best election administrators in the world. They are highly trained and specialised, and they are very proud of their
1244
profession. I know that their professional organisation is very highly thought of by people in political parties. It goes without saying that they are highly skilled. They have welcomed the proposals. They believe that the proposals will simplify matters and make the administration of elections generally much easier for them and, more importantly, for electors. We all want a high turnout when the general election comes, whenever that is.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001
8.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001
  Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001
    Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order 2001

      Terrorism Act 2000 (Carding) Order 2001
      8.31 p.m.
      Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th, 16th and 29th January be approved [4th and 5th Reports from the Joint Committee].
      The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to expedite matters, I shall discuss simultaneously the four orders; namely, the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001, the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001, the draft Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order 2001 and the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Carding) Order 2001.
      These four draft orders represent a package of business that is relevant to the implementation of the Terrorism Act 2000, which, as noble Lords will be aware, is currently scheduled for 19th February.
      The purpose of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers) Order 2001 is to bring into force the draft codes of practice that were laid before the House on Monday, 15th January. Under paragraph 5 of

      1245
      Schedule 14 to the Terrorism Act, "officers", which by virtue of paragraph 1 of that schedule includes an authorised officer and an examining officer within the meanings of Section 24 of and Schedule 7 to the Act, are required to perform functions in accordance with any relevant code of practice. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 14, the Secretary of State is required to issue the aforementioned codes of practice.
      The code of practice for authorised officers, who by definition include a constable and immigration or customs officer, covers the exercise by such officers of functions relating to the seizure of terrorist cash. I recall that noble Lords were particularly interested in that subject during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000. In particular, I was asked why those powers were restricted to border seizures only; that is, to the UK's external borders and the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In answer, noble Lords will recall that I made reference to on-going work flowing from a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit which appeared in June last year on the proceeds of crime, resulting in a proceeds of crime Bill, which will be published in due course. The detail of that Bill is still under consideration and discussion, and I therefore regret that I am unable to give any assessment today of the way in which that Bill might impact upon the seizure provisions contained in the Terrorism Act, or, more pertinently, on whether those proposals will in any way supersede the provisions of that Act. However, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to reflect on that once the detail of the Bill is clear.
      Returning to the draft code of practice, authorised officers are reminded of the scope of the power to seize cash, which is defined as: coins and notes in any currency; postal orders; travellers cheques; and bankers drafts. It also covers the use of immigration and customs officers, who would be expected to act only rarely in the capacity of an authorised officer. The code stipulates also that prior authorisation to seize cash should be obtained from a senior officer—in the case of the police, that means an inspector. That, we believe, is a sensible precaution, particularly in view of the potential for interference with the ECHR right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
      There is no minimum or maximum amount of cash that can be seized under the Act. That fact is reflected in the draft code. Noble Lords will doubtless acknowledge the fact that terrorists do not necessarily need large amounts of money to pursue their objectives.
      Otherwise, the code sets out the procedures to be followed during seizure and includes important stipulations, such as counting cash in the presence of the individual concerned and not removing cash from the individual's presence until the cash has been physically seized. The code also has in its annexe a written notification to be handed to the individual; it gives important information about the seizure process and about what next will happen to the cash. Procedures for making applications to a court for the detention, further detention, forfeiture and release of such cash are provided for in Rules of Court under
      1246
      Section 31 of the Act; the Magistrates' Court (Detention and Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash) Rules 2001 and the Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2001 provide for appeals. Both sets of rules were made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I can confirm that they were laid before the House on 29th January.
      I turn to the code of practice for examining officers, which is also made under Schedule 14 to the Act. By virtue of paragraph 1 to that schedule, an examining officer is defined as a constable, an immigration officer and a customs officer designated for the purpose by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. As far as that is concerned, I can confirm that it is our intention that customs officers at ports in Great Britain will be designated for that purpose.
      As with authorised officers, the draft code of practice envisages that officers who are not constables would act only rarely as examining officers. That proposed supporting role should not in any way be seen, however, as undermining the value placed on those agencies to assist in the fight against terrorism—it is more a recognition of the front-line role taken by the police in combating terrorism.
      The code of practice for examining officers is designed to provide officers with key information about the scope of their powers, such as who they are entitled to examine and for what purpose—that is, for determining whether someone is, or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The draft code then seeks to remind examining officers of the kind of considerations that should accompany the application of those powers; that is, an appropriate degree of care and sensitivity, the intention being to cause minimum embarrassment or offence to the individual in question.
      Otherwise, noble Lords will see that the draft code covers issues such as the records of examinations; detention; searches; the production of information; and the treatment of juveniles and other vulnerable people. I hope that your Lordships agree that that last issue is of particular importance and that the code should acknowledge that. It would be naive to assume that juveniles would never find themselves caught up in terrorism. That regrettably means that examining officers may need to pay attention to such people. It is right, therefore, that the code should look to give examining officers guidance on how to proceed in those matters.
      As is currently the case, a notice will be handed to those who are examined beyond the one-hour point and it will give key information to the examinee. Your Lordships can find a copy of that notice in the annexe to the code. Paragraph 35 of the code in fact requires that that notice be displayed in a prominent position to try to ensure that nobody is left in any doubt about what is happening to them.
      In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the code represents a useful and helpful document that should go some way to achieving a degree of harmonisation in the way in which examining officers perform their functions under the Act.
      I shall now briefly discuss the next of the four draft orders before us; namely, the Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order. That order is made under paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 to the Act. Under that paragraph, the Secretary of State is required to make provision to require that in Scotland, except in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, where a person detained at a police station under Section 41 of the Act, or Schedule 7 to it, has been permitted to consult a solicitor, the solicitor shall be allowed to be present at any interview that is carried out in connection with a terrorist investigation or for the purposes of Schedule 7, which relates to port and border controls.
      Your Lordships may be wondering what the purpose of the order might be. It is essentially to enable provision to be made for a person arrested or detained in Scotland to have rights of access to a solicitor which are broadly equivalent to the rights which a person detained in the remainder of the UK would have. More specifically, it seeks to ensure that, within the distinctive and separate system of Scottish law and procedures, there is available for Scotland the facility to change the circumstances relative to a solicitor being excluded from interview broadly comparable to the flexibility achieved in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by, respectively, PACE code of practice C and the draft code of practice for the RUC under the Terrorism Act.
      If that enabling paragraph were not in the Act, the arrangements relating to access to a solicitor in Scotland would apply to terrorist cases also and the person detained would have no right to the presence of a solicitor during an interview.
      The order therefore seeks to mirror, so far as it can, whatever circumstances or conditions will apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The position in those jurisdictions, under PACE and the draft Northern Ireland code of practice for the police, is that a solicitor may be required to leave the interview only if his conduct is such that the investigating officer is unable properly to put questions to the subject. Article 4 of the draft Scotland order therefore introduces only a specified condition that the solicitor's behaviour should not interfere with or obstruct the conduct of the interview. We cannot see any justification for introducing any other circumstances or conditions for Scotland that would not apply elsewhere. The intention must be to harmonise procedures across the United Kingdom as far as is possible. I am advised that Scottish police fully support that aim.
      Before moving on from this draft order, it should, however, be recognised that the PACE codes and draft Northern Ireland code substantially qualify the action taken to remove a solicitor from interview in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those codes remind the police, for example, that this is a serious step to take and that an officer of the rank of superintendent or above who took the decision should consider whether the matter should be reported to the Law Society. Unfortunately, it is neither appropriate nor possible for such a provision to be included in paragraph 19 of the statutory instrument.
      Therefore, we propose in the circular on the Terrorism Act which the Government have in mind to issue to inform the chief officers for Scotland what the position is under PACE Code C for England and Wales and under the draft code of practice for Northern Ireland. Further, we shall suggest that if a police superintendent was of the view that a solicitor's conduct was such to cause him to require the solicitor to leave the interview, then the superintendent should also seriously consider whether there was need to inform the Law Society of Scotland of the solicitor's conduct. In that way, we hope that there would be a sufficient degree of consistency in the way that that issue was handled in the various United Kingdom jurisdictions. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that is highly desirable.
      The last of the four orders concerns carding, which was also the subject of considerable interest in this House during the passage of the Terrorism Bill. Before turning to the order in detail, I should like to take this opportunity to remind noble Lords just what the power means.
      Under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 7 to the Act, the Secretary of State may, by order, make provision requiring a person to whom paragraph 16 applies, if required to do so, to complete and produce to an examining officer a card containing such information as the order may specify. In accordance with paragraph 16(2), the order may also require the owners or agents of ships or aircraft to supply the cards. But I can confirm that this order will not impose that requirement and its supply will be left to the police.
      It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships to whom paragraph 16, and therefore the carding requirement, applies. It applies to those who disembark or embark at a sea or airport in Great Britain or Northern Ireland from or, as the case may be, on a ship or aircraft travelling between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the islands.
      I recall in discussion of this provision in Committee on the Terrorism Bill reminding noble Lords of how mindful we were, and are, about the sensitivities attached to implementing the carding provision and that we therefore believed it right to introduce a switch-on, switch-off mechanism to enable the provision to be taken out of use if the situation allowed. And that is the key, for we have said also that the prevailing security situation was likely to be one of the main factors, if not the main factor, in bringing forward a draft order. That being so, the regrettable fact is that there are still those, at present, opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process and determined to pursue their aims by violent means. This has been demonstrated, sadly, all too starkly in recent weeks and months by attacks both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain generally.
      Unfortunately, therefore, the security advice is that the provision should remain in force for the time being. And it is worth remembering that this order represents a continuation of the current position rather than the

      1249
      introduction of a new counter-terrorism measure. I regret the necessity for that but I regret more that there are those who refuse to put violence behind them.
      The information obtained via the cards will be the same as that obtained via cards issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act; that is, full name, nationality/citizenship, date and place of birth, home address, address visiting, purpose of visit, occupation and employer. The police have been consulted about the form of those cards and agree with the draft as set out in the schedule to the order.
      Finally, it is right to acknowledge some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee proceedings on the Terrorism Bill about this provision. If I recall correctly, there was discussion about the effect on operators of carding, not least if it is applied inconsiderately.
      In leaving it to the police to supply the cards, I hope that your Lordships will agree that at least one potential source of irritation to operators has been removed. And, from the application point of view, I should stress that police are aware of the need to implement the provision carefully and sensitively. Indeed, the draft code of practice for examining officers makes specific reference to that. Therefore, I hope and believe that that will result in proportionate use of the provision. Of course, there will always be concerns about the potential for such a measure to infringe on individual rights. But the Government are satisfied that, on balance, any interference is slight and represents a proportionate response to the very real threat of terrorism.
      I am sorry that I have had to go through the orders at length but it is important to place this on record and to put the matters fully before your Lordships' House. I commend the orders to the House.
      Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th, 16th and 29th January be approved [4th and 5th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
      Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord need give no apologies for going into such detail. The need to respond to various acts of terrorism over the years has produced various pieces of anti-terrorist legislation which has given concern that the ratchet on the civil liberties of us all has turned in the wrong direction.
      The object of us all is to try to reach a time when such special powers are not needed and the various activities can be covered by the normal criminal law. Alas, as the Minister pointed out, we have not yet reached that stage and reluctantly we must continue to give special powers to our authorities.
      There is also the fact that, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will confirm, many terrorist organisations seem to have slipped very easily into organised crime so that the overlap between any politically-motivated activities and purely criminal activities has long since become blurred.
      1250
      Therefore, we welcome the time that the Minister took to explain the Government's attitude and also the points he made that, where possible, the powers would lapse if circumstances changed. In that spirit, we give a warm welcome to the measures.
      Lord Fitt: My Lords, I too welcome the draft orders in so far as they apply to Northern Ireland. It does not take much reading of the affairs of Northern Ireland to recognise the totally different atmosphere which prevails there at present. In the past month, there have been 40 pipe bombs, which are very easily made and can be extremely destructive, thrown into the homes of innocent people because of their religion. That has happened particularly in Larne and Lurgan.
      There is a very real fear in Northern Ireland that the pipe bombs may get out of hand and innocent people will be killed. That could start a whole spiral of terrorist and political consequences.
      It is right that the Government should retain the powers that they have at the moment to try to combat that outburst of terrorism. In doing so, I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, there are some regulations which will never be acceptable to some people in Northern Ireland because they are engaged in a Mafia-type activity. That has been going on now for many years. The Minister should recognise that it will take a long time before we can eradicate that scourge of activity from the political face of Northern Ireland.
      I welcome the proposals in a very personal sense. When I was Member of Parliament for West Belfast, there was a great deal of terrorist activity going on. There were many people, innocent people, who lived in what could be classified as nationalist areas; in other words, Catholic areas. From my everyday work as a Member of Parliament in my advice centre, I know that many innocent people were taken to the interrogation centres and badly treated. Time and time again I made representations to various Ministers to prevent such things happening.
      I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned this matter a few days ago. If one gives way to such things, it simply helps the terrorists. The terrorists were able to exploit the situation in which young innocent people were ill treated in the interrogation centres. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, may remember that in February 1979, when the previous Labour government were in power, the then Chief Constable of Northern Ireland was an Englishman, Kenneth Newman. Allegations were made and there was such fear and hysteria in nationalist areas about young people in particular being ill treated in interrogation centres that the then Labour government set up what became known as the Bennett inquiry. A report was issued in February 1979 and although it said that there was no evidence on which to lay the blame on any particular policeman, one had only to read the conclusions of that report to realise that serious malpractice had been perpetrated by the police in those interrogation centres.

      1251
      In many ways the issues raised following the publication of that report, having regard to the way in which it highlighted the malpractice, led to the defeat of that Labour government two months after the report was published. In 1979 in my constituency in West Belfast, there was absolute hysteria about what was happening in those interrogation centres—I speak with knowledge of West Belfast, but it was happening elsewhere in Northern Ireland—so I found it impossible to vote with the government in a vote of confidence.
      For those reasons I welcome the codes of practice. I believe that they will do a great deal to instil confidence into those who will have to accept the continuation of interrogation centres, because they may not disappear overnight. One hopes that they will not last long and that the codes of practice may be unnecessary.
      I welcome these orders. However, the paramilitaries will be opposed to them. They do not find any police activity acceptable. They do not want a police force. That is clear, as they refuse to accept the new police force. In this situation, the orders are to be welcomed. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing these matters forward. We now have a Chief Constable in Northern Ireland who is from Belfast. He understands the sensitivities in relation to the interrogation centres and the allegations that are made. I believe that the codes of practice will make it impossible for such allegations to be made against the police in the months ahead.
      Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, following the fine contributions from the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Fitt, I have little to add. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has mentioned the increasing move into organised crime by the terrorists. With the ever-increasing sophistication of terrorism and, sadly, given the terrorist situation in various parts of the UK, we on these Benches are satisfied that these orders strike the correct balance between making the Act effective and respect for the individual. We support them.
      Lord Hylton: My Lords, on the Code of Practice for Examining Officers who will work at ports, an interview of nearly an hour may, in certain circumstances, cause a completely innocent person to miss their flight or boat or connection at the far end of their journey. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful if the Minister made it clear that the powers will be used only where there is real suspicion against a particular individual. In the past, as I am sure he knows, there have been many complaints about officers taking people in on the off-chance because they do not like a person's face. That is unhelpful and counter-productive. I hope that that does not happen now or in the future.
      Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the warm words of support from all sides of the House for these four orders. Any government are greatly helped when there is a broad range of support as that
      1252
      establishes two points: first, that we have achieved political consensus; and, secondly, it provides real confidence in government policy in these difficult areas.
      On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of course we appreciate that the powers need to be used with the utmost sensitivity. The intention is not to irritate passengers or to inconvenience them unnecessarily. Of course, the code reminds officers who deal with such sensitive matters of those important points. We need to secure public support for the measures, and the way in which they are operated will encourage that support. We entirely respect the point made by the noble Lord and we shall maintain that spirit.
      I spoke of the orders as they relate to Scotland and the circumstances in which solicitors would have access to their clients. I believe that that is a testament of the careful way in which we have approached this legislation, not least because I believe that it strengthens the position of the person being detained in a way that was not present before and because it modernises—a word that is not always popular in your Lordships' House—the way in which the anti-terrorism legislation works in the United Kingdom.
      We have tried to reflect on past practice, to improve procedure, to aid and abet transparency, and to improve the quality of primary and secondary legislation. That has been our objective. I believe that the orders give good effect to that. I am grateful for the encouragement and support of the House and for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I trust that the orders will have the full confidence of everyone.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on the Exercise of Police Powers) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001
      8.58 p.m.
      Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint committed
      The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this order I shall speak also to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. On the code of practice on video recording of interviews, we have already considered various UK-wide codes of practice to be made under the Terrorism Act 2000 and which are due to take effect on 19th February when the Act is commenced. No doubt your Lordships will recall from the excellent debates during the consideration of the Act that two further codes, specific to Northern Ireland, are to be made. The first is for police interviews with terrorist suspects to be video recorded with sound and for the video recording arrangements to be governed by a code of practice. The sound and vision code, if I may refer to it as such, will replace the existing system of silent video

      1253
      recording in Northern Ireland. The purpose of this order is to bring into force the code of practice under the Act governing the video recording, with sound, of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. Debates have already taken place in both Houses on a separate order, which will require the police in Northern Ireland to conduct interviews in accordance with the code.
      As I have said, this code replaces an existing code of practice governing the silent video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. The difference is that the new code requires video recording with sound. I hope that your Lordships will welcome this significant and positive development, which improves upon the existing silent video recording arrangements. Sound and vision provides additional protection for the detainee, guards against unrecorded interviews or verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment and helps to guard the police against unfounded allegations and complaints.
      The introduction of sound and vision recording of interviews with terrorist suspects has long been advocated by the current and previous Independent Commissioners for the Holding Centres. The Chief Constable of the RUC also fully supports this measure. Through this order and its related code, the Government are pleased to facilitate the system of sound and vision video recording.
      The draft code covers a range of issues that must apply when interviews with terrorist suspects are video recorded. The code also contains guidance for police officers and others on the application and interpretation of the code. Briefly, the code is in nine sections: general; obligation to video record interviews; objections by the detained person; requirements relating to video recording; the interview; after the interview; master tape security and access; copying of master tapes; and master tape destruction.
      I deal briefly with the consultation process that took place before the publication of the code. The publication of the draft code was announced on Monday, 6th November. The code was sent to a wide range of interested organisations and was made available on the Northern Ireland Office website. There followed an eight-week consultation period, ending on 29th December.
      Useful comments were received from a range of organisations. I am pleased to announce that the code has been modified to incorporate those. At paragraph 1.1, the code will be made available in Braille, in large print format and on audio cassette. Paragraph 3.4 advises that, where a person wishes to discuss matters unconnected with the investigation, the police should, where practicable, seek a medical opinion if they have concerns about an individual's capacity to elect for that discussion to be unrecorded. Paragraph 9.2 has been redrafted to make it clear that all tapes must be kept for at least six years. Some tapes will be kept for longer periods—for example, in the case of a prison sentence that exceeds six years. In addition, the language of the code has been made gender neutral.
      1254
      As required under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I can also confirm that an assessment of the impact of this code has been carried out. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the new code contains sufficient safeguard provisions to avoid an adverse impact on any of the nine equality groups in the Northern Ireland Office's equality scheme.
      I turn to the order dealing with the code of practice on the exercise of police powers. Section 99 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes provision for the exercise of police powers to be covered by a code. The purpose of the code of practice on the exercise of police powers order is to bring into force the code of practice under the Terrorism Act governing the detention, treatment and questioning of detained persons and the identification of persons by police officers in relation to terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. The order to give effect to the code is made under paragraph 101(4) of the Terrorism Act and was, as I have said, laid on 16th January.
      I should outline some of the detail. The code runs to 85 pages. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I give only the flavour of the content. The police code will apply only to the police in Northern Ireland. On 19th February it will replace the code currently in force under Section 61 of the Emergency Provisions Act 1996. The new code is modelled as closely as possible on the PACE codes of practice. In the light of helpful responses from the public consultation exercise, we have made improvements to the original draft. I should also say that the Home Office plans to review the PACE code. As a result of that review, additional changes to this code may be needed in due course.
      The code is in two parts. Part I covers the detention, treatment and questioning of detained persons. That part of the code applies to an interview, or any part of an interview, carried out by a police officer of a person detained under Section 41 or Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act after midnight on 18th February 2001, where the interview takes place in a police station. Part II covers the identification of persons by police officers. This part of the code applies to any identification carried out by a police officer, at a police station, of a person detained under Section 41 or Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act after midnight on 18th February 2001.
      Like the PACE codes, the police code is extremely detailed and comprehensive and contains thorough guidance for police officers and others on its application and interpretation. It features significant safeguards throughout. It should be welcomed as a continuation of, and improvement to, the existing safeguards that are in place via the EPA code. To mention three key features, the code provides, first, for the detainee's rights to be explained to him or her by the custody officer; secondly, it sets out the arrangements for access to medical attention; and, thirdly, it ensures that the need for detention is subject to regular review.
      Featured in the code is an important new safeguard which I know was of significant interest to your Lordships during the passage of the Act. Section 6 of

      1255
      Part I of the new code sets out provisions dealing with the right to legal advice. The Act intended to ensure that access arrangements were consistent across the UK. In paragraph 6.7, the new code specifically provides that solicitors shall be permitted to be present during police interviews of terrorist suspects at police stations in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to announce to your Lordships that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has already introduced this measure with effect from 29th September 2000. That is a welcome development which I am sure your Lordships will strongly endorse.
      The code was published in draft on Monday, 30th October. It was sent to a wide range of interested organisations and was made available on the Northern Ireland Office website. There was an eight-week consultation period, which ended on 22nd December. We received eight substantive responses, which covered a wide range of issues. A total of 96 distinct groups of issues were identified, and 36 substantive amendments were made to the code. In addition, the code will be made available in Braille, in large print format and on audio cassette. The language of the code has been made gender neutral.
      Further amendments may be made in due course. Some submissions raised issues which essentially read across to PACE. As I have already said, the PACE codes are due to be reviewed. To give just one example, some comments were made about the appropriate adult arrangements in this code and it is planned to revisit this in the light of the PACE review. Your Lordships will also want to note that a new caution to reflect the European Court of Human Rights judgments in the cases of Murray, Averill and Magee will need to be added, as will a caution in respect of Section 109 of the Act. The new caution to reflect the Murray, Averill and Magee judgments is likely to be a key feature of the PACE codes review.
      As required under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I can also confirm that an assessment of the impact of the code has been carried out. Again, the Secretary of State was satisfied that the new code contained sufficient safeguard provisions to avoid an adverse impact on any of the nine equality groups.
      In conclusion, the Government's aim is to ensure that the treatment of persons detained in police custody in connection with terrorist crime is fair, professional, transparent and accountable. We also want to see proper safeguards in place to protect the police from unjustified complaints. These new codes of practice are key to that aim.
      The range of safeguards contained in these codes of practice demonstrates that the Government continue to attach the greatest importance to the protection of the rights of all, including those in police custody. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in relation to the previous orders: it is essential that the process of detention is properly governed. I believe that the measures make a substantial contribution to that. I commend the order to the House.
      Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
      Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we welcome both orders. I endorse the Minister's observation that it is most helpful to all parties concerned, not least the police, that there will be both sound recordings and video recordings of interviews. We strongly support the orders.
      Lord Fitt: My Lords, discussions took place in Northern Ireland prior to the promulgation of the code of practice and I am sure that the Government interviewed as many responsible people as possible. Were all the political parties in Northern Ireland invited to take part in those discussions? Some political parties in Northern Ireland are allegedly associated with paramilitary activities, and I do not believe that they would be at all interested in a code of practice.
      Will the Minister state whether all the political parties took part in the discussions? Did it seem to him or to those involved in the discussions that the political parties were anxious to see the code brought into practice? If the Minister could tell us that some of the political parties did not want the code of practice, that would say something about Northern Ireland. It would be a serious indication of the ability of those parties still to comfort those who are engaged in paramilitary activities.
      Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the two codes of practice because they contain a large number of useful safeguards. It has been a long and sometimes uphill struggle to achieve both video and sound recording of interviews. That makes it all the more important that there should be no questioning of suspects and arrested persons outside the police station; for example, between the point of arrest and the police station in, say, a police or army vehicle. I would welcome reassurance on that issue.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the codes of practice have received from around the House. They represent a significant step forward. As regards the consultation process, I stated that both codes were sent to a wide range of interested organisations. They included every single political party. I am told that the only political party which responded was Sinn Fein and, as I understand it, Sinn Fein did not object to the content of either of the codes. Finally, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the point which he raised.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews) (Northern Ireland) Order 2001
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have spoken to the order. I beg to move.
      Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th January be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
      On Question, Motion agreed to.
      House adjourned at fourteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group Report
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group Report
  Merchant Shipping Act 1988
  Merchant Shipping Act 1988
  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: Response to Inquiry Report
  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: Response to Inquiry Report
  Traffic Signs Regulations: Bus Stop Clearway Orders
  Traffic Signs Regulations: Bus Stop Clearway Orders
  Home Condition Report Costs
  Home Condition Report Costs
  Local Government Ethical Standards
  Local Government Ethical Standards
  Redundancy Payments: Company Obligations
  Redundancy Payments: Company Obligations
  Criminal Justice System: Annual Report
  Criminal Justice System: Annual Report
  Overseas Territories: European Convention on Human Rights
  Overseas Territories: European Convention on Human Rights
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Armenian Massacre, 1915
  Armenian Massacre, 1915
  Overseas Estate
  Overseas Estate
  Ambassador's Residence, Buenos Aires
  Ambassador's Residence, Buenos Aires
  Northern Iraq: Withdrawal of Turkish Forces
  Northern Iraq: Withdrawal of Turkish Forces
  Ozgur Politika: Importation and Distribution in Turkey
  Ozgur Politika: Importation and Distribution in Turkey