Sitting of 9 January 2001

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

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That the promoters of the Medway Council Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
  That in the present Session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
  That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

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

    Modernisation Fund
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on allocations under the modernisation fund. [142896]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the last two years, £4 billion worth of extra investment for the national health service has been provided through the modernisation fund. It has been used to expand critical care, cancer and heart services. Among other purposes, it has been used to cut waiting times for treatment and to increase the number of nurses in training.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: On how many occasions have the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues overridden the advice of civil servants on the allocation of money to bids for the fund?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman has confused the modernisation fund and the special assistance fund—perhaps he is starting the year as he means to go on. He appears to be alluding to the special assistance fund in calling for extra money for his health authority. It is true that we received advice suggesting that we put more money into West Surrey health authority than we initially put in under the special assistance fund, but we have agreed with official advice on how much money we should put into general allocations for that health authority. This year, £30 million extra will go to West Surrey as a consequence of the investment that we are making, and next year there will be extra investment of £31 million.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's determination to modernise the national health service, especially in west Cumbria and my constituency. I also welcome the substantial increase in the budget of North Cumbria health authority. However, does he recognise that money is not the sole issue? Will he examine specifically and urgently the collapse of breast services at the West Cumberland hospital in Copeland? There is widespread concern, not because the resources to sustain the service are not available but because it is proving very difficult to recruit radiologists of sufficient standing to fill the posts. When he considers the problem, will he also ensure that the solution is designed for the convenience and better health care of the women who need such services, and not for the convenience of administrators and consultants?
    Mr. Milburn: I shall gladly consider the concerns that my right hon. Friend has raised. He has already raised them informally with me and I shall be glad to examine the specific problem. It is true that we have a problem with the recruitment of radiologists and surgeons for oncology services. That is the position throughout the country and, in large part, it reflects the problems that the

    859
    NHS faces today, which are no longer problems of cash, but problems of capacity. There is a shortage of trained and skilled nurses and doctors. Over time, we will put that right. As a result of the record levels of investment that we are making, over the next four or five years, the six major specialties that deal with cancer services will see a 25 per cent. increase in numbers.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: I am glad that the Secretary of State has come clean about his intervention to reduce the amount of money recommended by his officials for West Surrey health authority under transitional funding arrangements, but does he not understand that if he fails to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about how, when and why he departs from official recommendations when making allocations under the modernisation fund, he will not dispel the suspicion that it is being used as a multibillion-pound slush fund, dispensed at his whim in an attempt to buy friends and influence in the run-up to the general election?
    Mr. Milburn: I honestly do not know to what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) are alluding. Let me give them some examples of the use to which we have put the modernisation fund, then let the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) substantiate his allegation.
    In 1999–2000, to get waiting times down, we put an extra £260 million into the local health service through the modernisation fund; we also put extra money into cancer and coronary heart disease services. I think that, in the last financial year and the current one, we have put an extra £150 million into critical care services. The hon. Gentleman always bleats about lack of investment in such services, but I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that critical care, heart disease and cancer services, and efforts to cut waiting and modernise accident and emergency services are precisely the priorities of the national health service and the modernisation fund.

    Primary Care
    Helen Jackson: What progress has been made in involving patients in primary care groups. [142897]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Excellent progress in involving patients has been made by primary care groups and primary care trusts. Those new organisations reflect and represent the interests of the community that they serve, partly through the lay membership, but largely by working together to engage and involve local people.
    Helen Jackson: Sheffield has a good community health council that has stimulated an excellent community health forum in my constituency, but there is concern that, in the new system, the patients and public who participate in it will not have the same opportunities to get their voices heard. During the transition from community health councils to the new patients forums, how will my hon.
    860
    Friend ensure that there will be no break in continuity when good initiatives, such as the one that I have mentioned, are in place?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The establishment of primary care groups has, so far as we can tell, led to an explosion in the number of patients forums throughout the country. Some are supported by CHCs and others are directly supported by the primary care group. The primary care group in my hon. Friend's constituency is one of several that want to become primary care trusts from April this year, and will therefore benefit from the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill for every trust to have a statutory independent patients forum, which will not be appointed by Ministers, to represent patients' interests.
    During the transition to the new arrangement, it will be important to ensure that valuable local forums are properly supported, and we will look to the health authority to do that. I understand that the primary care group wants Stocksbridge community health forum to continue. It is at an early stage of planning next year's budget and has not been able to make firm commitments, but it recognises the forum's value.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Minister agree that the Government are introducing new mechanisms for public involvement in the national health service because of their policy unnecessarily to abolish community health councils? If the councils are unsuited to represent patients' needs, will he tell the House why the National Assembly for Wales will not be abolishing them?
    Mr. Denham: Many CHCs have done a good job, but that has largely been owing to the qualities of the individuals involved as officers and lay members rather than to their legal structure and powers. We want a step change and improvement in patient influence in the NHS. That is why the Health and Social Care Bill will, for the first time, put a statutory duty on every NHS organisation to involve and consult patients. It will establish for every trust an independent patients forum with the power to oversee the advocacy and liaison service in each trust. We shall ensure that there is an effective complaints system for individual patients and an independent source of advice and support for patients who want to take their complaint through that system. We shall give democratic local government the role that it should have had of overseeing the local health service. All those measures give patients a greater say in the future of the NHS. The functions carried out by CHCs will be performed by other bodies and new functions added. That is a step forward.
    Helen Jones: I am pleased to hear about that progress, but can my hon. Friend assure me that the new system will not replicate the problems of health authorities and trusts in which the poorest and most health-deprived areas are consistently under-represented in the forums, as they are in my area? Will he ensure that people with the greatest health needs get their proper say?
    Mr. Denham: We hope to achieve that through a number of mechanisms. First, an independent appointments commission will appoint members of the patients forums, and we will look to those bodies to

    861
    ensure that they are properly representative of the communities that they serve. Secondly, we propose—I am sure that we shall discuss this in detail in Standing Committee—to find arrangements to draw on a representative cross-section of people who have recently used the NHS to be members of the patients forums. Both those methods will allow us to achieve the aim that my hon. Friend sets out.

    Waiting Times (Avon)
    Mr. Brian Cotter: If he will make a statement on the average out-patient waiting time for an ear, nose and throat consultation in the Avon health authority area in the last 12 months [142898]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The latest figures, for the quarter ending 30 September 2000, show that in Avon health authority the number of ENT out-patients being seen in less than 13 weeks increased from 54 per cent. to 57 per cent., compared with the previous year. On that date, the number of patients in Avon waiting more than 13 weeks was 7.8 per cent. lower than on the same day in 1999. Avon health authority, like others, will benefit from the action in the NHS plan to cut maximum waiting times for out-patients.
    Mr. Cotter: We in Weston-super-Mare must be very unlucky. Is the Minister aware chat the mother of a five-year-old suffering from a recurrent ear infection has been told that the child must wait a year for an appointment? I am sure that she will agree that that is a long time for a child to suffer discomfort.
    Yvette Cooper: I know that the Weston area health NHS trust has shown the greatest improvement in dealing with ENT long-waiters, with 63 per cent. having their out-patient appointment in less than 13 weeks, compared with 43 per cent. the previous year. However, I shall look into the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Ms Julia Drown: Has the NHS executive for the region covering Avon health authority been charged with ensuring that best practice is spread from one trust to another, so that those in Avon health authority can benefit from best practice elsewhere? My local trust, at Princess Margaret hospital, has reduced the number of people waiting 13 weeks for ENT appointments from 200 to 75 in only three months. We want such progress to be made throughout the country. No one should wait more than 26 weeks. Such best practice should be spread to Avon health authority and elsewhere.
    Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to spread throughout the country the best practice used in many areas. That is what the action on ENT programme is all about. The pilot of the partial booking system in Basildon has already met the three-month wait target for out-patients set in the NHS plan, and we shall introduce that system throughout the country.
    Dr. Liam Fox: As one who shares the Avon health authority area with the hon. Member for
    862
    Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), I can confirm that cases such as the one that he mentioned occur throughout the region. Does the Minister accept that the situation in Avon is mirrored throughout the country? Can she confirm that the waiting list for the waiting list, which is what the hon. Gentleman described, is now 55,000 higher than when the Government came to office; and that consultants throughout the country are now saying that the waiting list initiative itself means that they are spending a disproportionate amount of time in theatre dealing with minor cases, while the sickest patients often wait longer to see a consultant in out-patients? How many patients will have to suffer as a consequence of that policy before it is abandoned?
    Yvette Cooper: I am proud that the Government have met our manifesto pledge to cut in-patient waiting lists by more than 100,000. It is absolutely right that we should cut waiting times in in-patients and out-patients, and that is exactly what is set out in the NHS plan. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain why he said that patients should wait longer for certain treatments. Will he say which of his constituents in Avon he believes should wait longer as a result of his proposals?

    Cannabis
    Mr. Peter Bradley: What advice he has received about the medical properties of cannabis. [142899]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The Government have approved a number of clinical trials into the medicinal use of cannabis. Once the results of the trials have been properly evaluated, we will have an evidence base that will allow us to decide how to proceed.
    Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but it will come as little relief to the thousands of people throughout the country who suffer the torment of multiple sclerosis. They include a courageous but desperate constituent of mine: courageous because she has allowed me to use her name—indeed, she has encouraged me to do so—and desperate because she suffers the pain of MS. Until relatively recently, she was an undercover drugs squad officer with West Midlands police; it was her job to pursue and lock up people who peddle drugs. Now, she is out on the streets trying to secure her only relief from the pain that she suffers. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she and her colleagues will try to persuade the Home Office and the police service that such people are victims, not criminals? They are victims of the torment of MS, and they should not be made victims of injustice.
    Ms Stuart: I sympathise with any patient who is suffering and feels that an effective medicine is not available. However, as with any chronic illness, it is important to evaluate the benefits and risks of treatment. It is therefore extremely important that the research that we are undertaking is properly supervised. It involves 660 MS sufferers and there will be a report in 2003. We shall make a decision based on that clinical evidence.
    It is important to put it on the record that the possession of cannabis is against the law for good scientific reasons in terms of acute and chronic health effects. However,

    863
    at each stage of the criminal justice system, there is discretion to allow for public interest considerations to be weighed in the balance. It is right that each case should be considered on its merit; to do otherwise would raise issues of constitutional propriety. The important point is that cannabis and any medicine that is used must be properly tested and assessed. Only when it is seen to be safe and effective will it be used in the NHS.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there has for a long time been evidence of the benefit of cannabis to MS sufferers? Is it not time that the Government made more rapid progress to relieve those people of worries about potential law-breaking, or that they might be unable to get the cannabis that they need for their treatment? Will the hon. Lady give an undertaking that, if necessary, legislation will be introduced when she has enough evidence to make that decision?
    Ms Stuart: That is precisely what we are doing. That is why the trials were set up in 1999 and why £950,000 has been put into them. They will be properly conducted and the results properly assessed. When those involved report back with their evidence, we shall take appropriate action. However, that action will be based on reliable scientific evidence and not on anecdotal evidence, which is what we have had so far.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Cannabis has been trialled and tested for 5,000 years in every continent by millions of people, and it has not had any serious side effect throughout that period. One hundred Members of Parliament, the majority of the British Medical Association and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology all agree that natural cannabis should now be used medicinally. Is it not ironic that Clare Hodges, who has gone to the Belgium Parliament and convinced it to change its law in the past three months to allow medicinal cannabis to be prescribed, has to go on the streets of this country to get her own cannabis? She is an MS sufferer. Another MS sufferer was dragged through the courts six months ago. The policy is stupid and cruel.
    Ms Stuart: We need to draw a clear distinction between a drug that is illegal—that is, cannabis—and a medicine that is used within the NHS. The medicine will be used only when it has been properly trialled and tested under clinical conditions. That is what is happening in respect of the medicinal use of cannabis, and it is the right and proper way to proceed.

    Over-prescribing (Alzheimer's Disease)
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What assessment he has made of injurious impact of over-prescribing of drugs for patients with Alzheimer's disease. [142900]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): All prescribing for older people, including those with Alzheimer's disease, should be undertaken and monitored carefully by the doctor responsible. The Department published advice in 1998 on prescribing in residential and nursing homes, which covered the use of neuroleptic drugs. The national service
    864
    framework for older people will also contribute to improving the care of older people with dementia by setting new national standards for health and social care services.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that response and the standard that has been set. I also welcome the improved care for those with Alzheimer's disease and look forward to more discoveries that will help them and cure them. Having said that, does the Minister share my concern that, although some of us thought that the liquid cosh was a thing of the past, there seem to be more reports of people being drugged so that they are subdued and do not cause trouble to their carers?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. There is little doubt that dealing with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia is one of the greatest health and social care challenges that our society faces. Currently, 600,000 people suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and it is estimated that the number will increase substantially in the years ahead as the number of people in our society aged over 80 increases significantly.
    I am aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members have expressed about the use of neuroleptic drugs in care homes. Almost two years ago, Age Concern produced some helpful advice, which included the recommendation that there should be regular reviews of the prescription of neuroleptic drugs. The hon. Gentleman and I share a common interest. We shall make sure that the use of such drugs is kept under proper review.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that some doctors in this country—I have in mind a constituency case—are urging dementia patients to take drugs that are banned in America by the Food and Drug Administration? We need a lot more information. Anybody who suffers from or has an elderly relative who suffers from one of the 200 dementing illnesses faces huge personal and social pressure, and it is wrong for doctors casually to say, "This drug will do the trick for you", when it may be banned in other countries. We are working through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to achieve an even balance throughout the country, but we need more publicity, openness and information. I hope that his Department can help to provide that.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Of course, he is absolutely right. NICE is reviewing a range of available drug treatments for those who have been afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, and I understand that the final appraisal advice will be available shortly.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: With respect to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), Alzheimer's sufferers would say that the problem is under-prescribing of the drugs that they need. In the west midlands, Aricept is not available on the NHS unless the patient is prepared to take part in a trial, which is unnecessary and merely aggravates the problem of

    865
    postcode prescribing to which the Government have failed to deliver a solution. The Secretary of State said:
    It is important … that we achieve our aim, which is to ensure the introduction of more effective treatments into the national health service more quickly than has been possible before.—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 136.]
    What went wrong?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that that confirms that the modern Conservative party is the stupid party of British politics. The hon. Lady complains about the postcode lottery of care, but she might remind the House of the solution proposed by her party and the Conservative Government: they created the lottery of care and their NHS reforms made it impossible to deal with those problems. She is aware, as I hope the whole House is, that NICE is reviewing the evidence surrounding the use of such drugs and will shortly publish its final advice.

    Primary Care
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What action he is taking to improve access to primary health care. [142901]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The NHS plan sets ambitious targets to improve waiting times in primary care and expand the range of services available locally to patients. In June last year, we made £54.5 million available to kick-start a four-year programme to improve access to family doctors, nurses and other professionals and to extend the range of treatments and services that could be provided in the community.
    Mr. Goggins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve access to primary health care is to make better use of existing skills and resources? I draw his attention to a new initiative by the South Manchester primary care trust, which is about to introduce a new primary care triage service in which practice nurses give telephone advice to patients who ring up to request a same-day appointment with their GP. The service will not remove their right to see their GP, but it will mean that they receive professional advice immediately.
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of some of the South Manchester PCT's work following my visit, which my hon. Friend will recall. The PCT has been involved in the walk-in centre at Manchester airport and some sure start initiatives. It is doing good work, which goes to show, first, that, provided investment is made, an expansion in primary care services can be achieved—we can do a lot more in the community and in primary care than we have done hitherto. Secondly, the investment agenda has to run alongside fundamental reforms of the way in which primary care services and health care services as a whole are delivered. In some parts of the country, the first fruits of investment in modernisation are coming through to benefit patients. I very much hope that that is the case in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Manchester as a whole.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Secretary of State accept—I have written to him on the subject— that the availability of complementary and alternative
    866
    medicine through primary care groups has been reduced since the switch from GP fundholding? Now that the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on complementary medicine has been published and an early-day motion broadly supporting it has been signed by 160 Members of Parliament, should not the Government respond urgently to the report? Can he give a date for that response? What will he do to achieve greater availability of complementary and alternative medicine through primary care groups?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman wins the award for consistency at Health questions and for being unrelenting on that issue. I hope that we have responded to at least some of his concerns. As he is no doubt aware, last year, for the first time, we issued detailed guidance to all primary care groups in all parts of the country on the potential uses to which complementary therapies may be put. The report is important and we will respond to it in due course, but the position remains as it always has been: it is for the individual GP to decide what form of treatment—whether a mainstream treatment or a complementary treatment—is best suited to the needs of the individual patient.
    Ms Chris McCafferty: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the failure of the complaints system in respect of primary health care services. Will he join me in welcoming the appointment of the new chair and chief executive of the new National Clinical Assessment Authority? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will provide much better protection for patients and support for doctors? Does he also agree that, if such an authority had been in place earlier, Harold Shipman would have been far less likely to be able to murder so many people over such a long period, particularly in Hyde and in Todmorden in my constituency?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about matters relating to Todmorden in her constituency and the sterling work that she has been doing to offer whatever help and support she can to some of the families who were affected. It is important that we get the case of Harold Shipman in perspective. Harold Shipman was a cold, calculating, evil killer. He abused his position of trust in an indescribable way, and it beggars belief that he got away with it for so long.
    We must now do three things. First, we must offer whatever help, information and support we can to the very many families affected by his actions. Secondly, we must get on with the public inquiry, so that we all learn the lessons of what went wrong. Thirdly, we must take appropriate action to strengthen the bond of trust that exists between our country's excellent family doctor service and patients.
    It is important that all hon. Members understand that Harold Shipman was a one-off. We have an excellent family doctor service. Harold Shipman has done enough damage. I am determined—I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House share that determination—to ensure that he does not inflict further lasting damage on the special relationship between family doctors and their patients.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in future, pressure

    867
    on primary care services will be increased if children who need serious surgery do not get it in a timely fashion? Will he take a personal interest in the case of a 14-year-old constituent of mine, Joshua Bruer, who, with 67 other children, is awaiting spinal surgery at the Royal Manchester children's hospital in Pendlebury? Surgery has been delayed as a result of the collapse of the floor of one of the operating theatres, which was built only two and a half years ago. I have corresponded on the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt. The waiting time is now 14 months for such surgery. Children who need spinal surgery need it quickly, otherwise the injury that they have suffered will be compounded as they grow taller and they will have further problems in later life. Will the right hon. Gentleman take a direct personal interest in the problems of spinal surgery for children in Manchester?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the case.

    NHS Complaints
    Mr. John Austin: When he intends to publish a report on his review of the NHS complaints system. [142902]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): The evaluation of the complaints procedure has been completed and the project team will submit its report at the end of this month. We will publish the report as soon as possible, once we have had the opportunity to consider its findings.
    Mr. Austin: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the report by Age Concern "Speaking Out", which expressed concern about upper age limits for treatment, negative attitudes to elderly people and the fact that a third of the respondents recorded the difficulty that they had in accessing the complaints machinery and their fear of recriminations. In the light of Age Concern's report, what action is being taken to combat age discrimination in the NHS and to ensure that elderly people have access to and confidence in an independent complaints machinery?
    Ms Stuart: I am aware of Age Concern's report. It is important to put it on the record that we do not accept age discrimination within the NHS at any level, whether in the handling of complaints or in treatment. Many accident and emergency departments have fast-tracking for hip fractures, which particularly affect the elderly. We must distinguish between the process of making a complaint and providing support for that. With regard to speeding up the complaints process and giving people the support that they need, we are making progress with our evaluation at the end of the month, and the new patient advocacy and liaison services and the patients forums will provide independent support for all who need it, taking proper account of the needs of people of all ages.
    Mr. David Davis: How will the new complaints procedure work with the Commission for Health Improvement and, in particular, the National Clinical Assessment Authority?
    Ms Stuart: It is important to recognise the Government's commitment that the NHS as an
    868
    organisation should always learn from its mistakes, and complaints are one of the mechanisms by which we learn that mistakes have occurred. From the chief medical officer's report "An Organisation with a Memory" and our acceptance of that report, to the implementation of serious incident monitoring, to the relationship with the patients forums, whenever the Commission for Health Improvement or the National Clinical Assessment Authority investigates an area, there will be a two-way feedback mechanism whereby both organisations can learn from the complaints received. That two-way valve will allow not only the trusts but the NHS as a whole to learn from such feedback. In addition, there will be an assessment of the complaints made against all doctors as part of their review in our annual appraisal system. We hope that the whole package will reduce any necessity for complaints and ensure that serious incidents are picked up at every level.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key component of any complaints system should be its independence? Does she accept that the placement of the patient advocacy function contained in the Health and Social Care Bill in the hands of the health authorities that will commission them seriously compromises that independence?
    Ms Stuart: We wish independence to be established at every level. The Health and Social Care Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, contains a clear statutory provision for patients forums, part of whose function will be to ensure that independent support is put in place. Whether local health authorities should provide such independent support or whether there should be some other mechanism will be an ideal subject for debate in Committee.
    Dr. Liam Fox: What real redress will patients have when they find themselves in a situation such as that described by Mr. Ross Carter, consultant in gastroenterology and pancreatic surgery, who said today that his unit had inadequate theatre access to deal with emergencies and malignancies, let alone
    those unfortunate patients currently languishing on our waiting lists
    and little prospect of admission for patients owing to waiting list management transfers on to deferred lists. Ross Carter says:
    We have … reached the stage beyond the every day chaos … I feel the clinicians and nurses involved within our unit can no longer be held responsible for patient safety.
    What redress can patients in that situation have?
    Ms Stuart: Patients already have means of redress and they will have even more as a result of our increased investment in the NHS which will provide us with more doctors and nurses. Just for the record, if the hon. Gentleman is interested in what has happened since the Government took office, there have been some 290,000 more emergency admissions than under the previous Tory Government, as well as 623,000 more routine admissions and 686,000 more first out-patient attendances. There is a continuous improvement and that will go on. The Tories' proposal to privatise the NHS is no solution.
    Tony Wright: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the part of the NHS complaints

    869
    system which has the complete confidence of patients because of its independence is the ombudsman system. The ombudsman also has regular dealings with community health councils as they attempt to negotiate people through the complaints system. Has there been consultation with the ombudsman about the Government's proposals for the abolition of CHCs—and, if not, could there be?
    Ms Stuart: It is important to recognise that only something like 50 per cent. of CHC 's support individual complainants. To assume that the current structure of dealing with complaints is completely covered by CHCs is not the whole picture. Regarding consultation with the ombudsman, that is something that we can take forward.

    Prosthetics
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for New Forest, East of 7 December, what progress his Department has made in making artificial limbs with lifelike silicone coatings available to NHS patients. [142903]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): In cases in which silicone cosmesis is clinically appropriate, we wish to see equitable access across the country. In 2001–02 and recurrently, funding will therefore be provided for the NHS to increase existing provision of high to low definition cosmesis which, in future, will be available through a new contract from the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.
    Dr. Lewis: I welcome the Minister's response, but may I express concern about whether that provision will ever appear? Does he recall the case of my constituent, a little girl called Laura Giddings, whose lower leg was blown off in the Planet Hollywood terrorist outrage in South Africa? Does he recall the campaign that was waged throughout the second half of 1999 to enable the parents of children in that position to get realistic-looking limbs for them? Does he recall the meeting that we had in October that year, and the letter that he wrote in November 1999? In that letter, he said:
    I am looking at ways in which we can make improved silicone cosmesis available through the NHS
    If the Minister is saying that silicone cosmesis is going to come, but that he does not know when that will be, so far down the line and so close to a general election, will he at least reconsider a proposal which he always refused to consider in the past, and allow parents who choose to get more lifelike limbs for their children to at least be given the value of the free limb as a contribution to the cost of the more expensive limb, which gives the child a chance to look normal? Otherwise, it is just more warm words and more great headlines for the Government, but no real action whatever.
    Mr. Hutton: We have just had a classic example of an hon. Member reading out a pre-rehearsed question and completely disregarding the answer given by a Minister from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not expecting me to announce that, from April 2001 onwards, the new high definition/low definition cosmesis will be available on the NHS—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is going to happen. I know that the hon.
    870
    Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not like that, but I must point out to him that his party had nearly 20 years in which to make that provision available, but they never did. I have just announced that the new cosmesis will be available on the NHS, and it is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman could not find any words to welcome that important announcement.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: I pay tribute to the response of the Department of Health to the campaign that was waged locally by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), a number of other people and me on lifelike prosthetic limbs, and which was supported by our local newspaper, The Southern Daily Echo. Does my hon. Friend accept that the provision will make a tremendous difference to the life chances of children for whom this treatment will now be available, as it will enable them to wear lifelike limbs out and about, to school and wherever they go? I assure him that Justin Gregory and Hannah Rideout, who are children of my constituents, will benefit directly from the change and will regard the provision as a great step forward, enabling them to lead a life enhanced by this change in NHS policy.
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work that he and others have done in drawing attention to this issue. Making the new equipment available is an important step change for the NHS. It is long overdue, but we are now taking action. It is obviously important, especially for young people, but also for everyone who has had a limb amputated, as they should have access to the latest technology and the widest range of choice in prosthetic limbs. We are taking action, and this is a good example of what we mean by modernising the NHS. It is a great pity that the Opposition do not recognise that.

    Domiciliary Care
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: If he will make a statement on the availability of domiciliary care for the elderly. [142904]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS plan is providing an extra £900 million by 2003–04 for investment in intermediate care and related services to promote independence and improve quality of care for older people. These additional resources will enable 50,000 more people to live independently at home through additional home care and other support services. In 1999–2000, the number of people aged 65 and over who were helped to live at home rose by 20,000 compared with the previous year. Overall, the total revenue provision for social services in 2001–02 will be £9.848 billion, which represents an increase on provision in 2000–01 of 6.2 per cent. in cash terms.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be warmly received in Cambridge, which has a huge domiciliary care shortage that causes severe problems, especially for elderly people. Will he tell me whether the Government plan to ease recruitment and retention problems in places such as Cambridge? Will he

    871
    also comment on the situation that might arise if we had, say, £24 million worth of cuts in the constituency? Would he like to say how that might impact on the situation?
    Mr. Hutton: Yes, I might like to say how that would impact. We all recognise that we need to do much more to support and promote independence, especially to allow older people to stay at home for longer, and we are beginning to take that action. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in Cambridgeshire, where the council provided home care support to an extra 6 per cent. of people this year.
    I hear what my hon. Friend says about local recruitment difficulties. We are working with the Local Government Association and others to ease recruitment and retention problems. The new single status agreement that has been negotiated for local authority employees will allow authorities to tailor their pay rates to meet local labour market conditions. We have a great deal more to do, but it is clear that all the progress that we have made would be compromised and jeopardised by the return to government of a Conservative party that is not pledged to match our expenditure on social services, which would cut social services spending and which would threaten the independence and health of many older people in our country.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: Ministers have said several times in recent weeks—indeed, the Prime Minister made the same comment before Christmas—that there has been a big rise in the number of domiciliary care packages during the past year and that that offsets the loss in care home places. If that is so, and 20,000 new domiciliary care packages are available, will the Minister tell us where the packages are and how they are being costed and paid for? Will he publish an area-by-area list showing where they are? Even at this late stage, on the eve of introducing legislation, will the Government reconsider the report of their royal commission on the matter? It recommended that all personal care, whether provided on a domiciliary basis or in residential care homes, should be paid for. Is the hon. Gentleman genuinely satisfied with the current circumstances, which are so illogical that those with long-term chronic conditions do not get their personal care paid for, while those with acute conditions do? That cannot be right or just, so will the Government reconsider the matter before introducing legislation?
    Mr. Hutton: The initial figures that the hon. Gentleman wants have already been made available by the publication of the performance assessment framework. The collection of the statistics was overseen by the Office for National Statistics. Figures are available by authority, so he and other Liberal Democrat Members might wish to consider those statistics. I am sure that he will find the information that he seeks.
    The hon. Gentleman's other point concerned personal and nursing care. We and our society have a choice to make. The Government have decided to make available nearly £1 billion of new investment to support a wider range of health and social care services that will benefit hundreds of thousands of older people in our society. Of course, we could have spent that money in the manner proposed by the royal commission, but that would have benefited relatively few people. We have decided to benefit the many, not the few. It is not true when the hon.
    872
    Gentleman says that people do not receive help for their personal care costs when they are in residential care. Seven out of 10 people in nursing homes already receive help with all or some of their personal care costs.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Will my hon. Friend tell me whether Ministers have concluded their response to Professor Edwards's report into elderly care provision in north Staffordshire? If they have done so, when will the response be available?
    Mr. Hutton: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question specifically, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives an answer as soon as possible.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Now that the Prime Minister has started to count the beds of patients who are receiving domiciliary care as NHS beds, can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister believes that he has potentially created 20 million beds? Will he also tell us whether a double bed now counts as two beds and whether a room with two beds now constitutes a ward in the Prime Minister's fantasy NHS?
    Mr. Hutton: What a bunch of hypocrites members of the modern Tory party are!
    The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in all that he says. We are not counting the extra 20,000 home care packages as NHS beds; that is completely untrue. We are providing more beds in the NHS.
    I think most Labour Members will take the hon. Gentleman's complaints about bed losses with a pinch of salt. He might like to know how many beds were lost when his party was in government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us."] I will: 40,000.

    NHS National Plan
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: How many additional doctors will be employed in the NHS under his national plan. [142905]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Under the NHS plan, we will provide 7,500 more consultants and at least 2,000 more general practitioners by 2004. We will also provide 1,000 more specialist registrars, to provide further growth in consultant numbers beyond that period, as well as 450 more GPs in training.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the 2,000 extra doctors announced in the NHS plan included both those who were leaving general practice and those in training, is it not time for the Secretary of State to consider the proposals of the British Medical Association, and to discuss with the association how the number might be increased?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes; and I have always made it clear to the BMA and others that we regard the 2,000 figure— which, incidentally, represents a net increase of 2,000, consisting of extra recruits minus those who will be retiring and so forth—to be a floor, or minimum. If we can do more, we will.

    873
    While there will be substantial increases in the number of GPs and doctors generally during the next four years or so, there will be an even greater inc rease in the number of doctors in future years. We have already provided an extra 1,100 medical student places, and there will be a further 1,000. That represents a 40 per cent. increase in the number of medical students who will come through the system in the next five, six, seven and eight years, and will make a substantial difference to the quality not just of primary care but of the acute care services mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
    It is all a question of investment, and how much we are prepared to put in. The Government have made a clear choice. We are prepared to invest in the NHS and in social services; the question for the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and for his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, is whether they are prepared to match our levels of expenditure and investment—and not just in the NHS.
    The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) nods. Perhaps he will nod again in response to this question: is he prepared to match our investment in social services? If he is not, elderly care services will suffer, as will services for vulnerable children and disabled people.
    It should be remembered that the party whose members bleat about the number of bed blockers in hospitals will increase that number. It will also reduce the range of rehabilitation services in the community, and once again elderly people will end up paying the price for the Tories' failure to invest.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome the increase of £23.4 million for Shropshire health authority, which is more than double the increase achieved—if that is the right word—in the last full year of Tory government, 1996–97. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what our health service needs is certainty of funding in the future, so that planning can take place and doctors and nurses can be recruited? Does it not also need an administrative structure that is responsive to patient needs? Finally, does it not need another Labour Government?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is light about that, as he is about so many other things. Whit the NHS needs is sustained investment, not just for one year but over a period of years, and that is precisely what is happening. For instance, health authorities will receive average real-terms increases of 6.23 per cent. this year and 5.85 per cent. next year. Let me remind my hon. Friend of the position during the last two years of the last Government: the increase was 1.1 per cent. in 1996–97, and 0.85 per cent. in 1995–96.
    There is a choice for the country. It is, as it has always been, the choice between more investment in our public services with Labour, and cuts in public services with the Conservatives.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Secretary of State agree that additional doctors will not complete the picture unless there are additional staff beds for those doctors to treat patients in? In Oxfordshire, the John Radcliffe is absolutely full to bursting, with no beds in nursing homes available for patients to be
    874
    discharged into and no beds in community hospitals available for patients to be discharged into. Will he today urge the health authority to use the money that he has given—I accept that, this year, he has finally given a generous settlement—to reopen the community hospital beds that he closed, which are desperately needed? It is bad enough not letting people into hospital, without failing to let people out of hospital, too.
    Mr. Milburn: One of these days, the hon. Gentleman will have something positive to say about the NHS. I look forward to the day. On the situation in Oxfordshire, he is right: we have made more money available. As he and the Conservative party are always complaining about the need to ensure that local health services are in the driving seat in determining how best to spend the money, that is an issue for the local health service to resolve.
    On bed numbers, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is right. For 30 years, the number of beds in hospitals has been falling. A total of 40,000 beds disappeared in the last 10 years of the previous Government alone. The number is finally rising again precisely because of the investment that the Government are making and will continue to make.

    National Plan
    Mr. Alan Simpson: If there is to be a continuing and separate regulatory structure for midwives within the new national plan for the NHS. [142906]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Our proposals for a new Nursing and Midwifery Council provide for the separate registration of midwives and the regulation of their practice.
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful for that answer. My hon. Friend will know that, in the review that was commissioned by the Department on the delivery of midwifery services, recommendations were made about the creation of a statutory midwifery committee and about the nature of the representation of midwives on the new Nursing and Midwifery Council. In response to representations that have already been made by midwives in the House before Christmas, can he say whether midwives will have equal representation with nurses on the committee and whether they will have a separate and independent midwifery committee?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend will understand that it would be premature to anticipate the result of the consultation, which is still continuing, but I can confirm that midwives will have equal representation with the other professions that will be regulated: nurses and health visitors. The new council will have a duty to set training standards for midwifery. The issue of a separate midwifery committee has been raised during the consultation. I simply confirm that we are considering those representations.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: We know that, for the first time in many years, the number of students applying to become doctors has declined. Is it the same for midwifery?
    Mr. Denham: I am pleased to say that we have more than enough midwifery applications, despite the fact that there are now 55 per cent. more training places for pre-registration midwifery than three years ago. There are not enough midwives at the moment. As so often, the reason is that the previous Government failed to invest in training enough professional staff for the NHS. This Government are investing in those extra training places. We are attracting the applicants and those midwives will become available to the NHS.
    The hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, this month, with the Royal College of Midwives, we are launching a new campaign that is designed to attract qualified midwives back to the NHS. We have had tremendous success with our return to nursing campaign. This month, we are extending that to the midwifery profession because we need more midwives in the NHS.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that there will be a separate body for midwives. I met midwives in the Medway maritime hospital. They were concerned about their ability to be able to influence policy at both a national and local level. They were particularly concerned about the number of midwifery-led units in hospitals and wanted an increase. Obviously, recruitment is crucial, but does he not agree that midwives have a distinct and unique role to play both in influencing and in assisting NHS policy as we move forward with the NHS plan?
    Mr. Denham: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, but for the avoidance of confusion I should make it clear that I did not say that there would be a separate body for midwives. There will be a Nursing and Midwifery Council on which midwives will be represented, as will nurses and health visitors. I was responding to the proposal that there should be a separate midwifery committee. I can confirm that that issue has been raised in consultation and we are actively considering it now. We accept the importance of the midwifery profession and will look to reflect that in our final proposals.

Depleted Uranium
3.30 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I apologise to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), for the short time that the statement has been available.
During the last few days, concern has been expressed in the media and in the House about the possible exposure of United Kingdom forces to depleted uranium in the Balkans. This reflects a series of reports from the media and elsewhere that the health of peacekeepers in Bosnia or Kosovo may have been affected by its use. It is suggested that some UK service personnel may have become ill as a result of exposure to depleted uranium in the Balkans.
This afternoon, I shall set out our position on depleted uranium, and list the steps we are taking and intend to take. Depleted uranium is a very dense heavy metal. It results from the uranium enrichment process, and because the majority of the more radioactive isotopes are removed in this process, depleted uranium is about 40 per cent. less radioactive than natural uranium. Because of its density and metallurgic properties, depleted uranium is ideally suited for use as a kinetic energy penetrator for use in anti-armour munitions. The UK has developed and deployed a 120 mm armour-piercing round for use in the Challenger main battle tank. This ammunition was used in the Gulf war, where about 100 rounds were fired by us against Iraqi armour, as well as some rounds during training in Saudi Arabia. This ammunition provides a battle-winning military capability. Alternative materials are not as effective. Therefore, DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future, because when this country commits our forces to conflict, we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do that. To deny them a legitimate capability would be quite wrong.
Handled in accordance with the regulations, DU shells present no hazard to our forces. We have long recognised, however, that on the battlefield its debris might present a hazard from chemical toxicity, in the same way as any heavy metal such as lead, and a low-level radiological hazard. The risk from chemical toxicity would arise from ingestion of the soluble depleted uranium oxides, and the radiological risk primarily from inhalation of the insoluble depleted uranium oxides. Those risks arise from the dust created when DU strikes a hard target such as an armoured vehicle. In its massive form, as expended rounds or solid fragments, it is a negligible hazard.
In response to the health concerns of Gulf veterans, the Ministry of Defence has, both in 1993 and 1999, published details of those hazards together with our estimates of the risk that they might have posed to troops in the Gulf. We believe those risks to have been low, which is borne out by the findings of our medical assessment programme for Gulf veterans. There has been no evidence, during the deployment or subsequently, of the kidney damage that would be the chief indication of heavy metal poisoning. Radiological damage would become manifested as an increased rate of cancer only after a long period of latency. Furthermore, there is currently no evidence, after 10 years, of a higher rate of
878
cancer among Gulf veterans compared to a control group. We currently offer tests to Gulf veterans who attend the medical assessment programme for whole body load of uranium, if there is a clinical indication that uranium might be linked to the illnesses that they manifest.
Substantial amounts of research into the health risks of uranium have been conducted and published over many years. Recent work by reputable bodies has assessed this literature in the context of possible battlefield exposures to DU.
The conclusions of all that work, including that by the RAND corporation, the US Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, and the US Institute of Medicine, is that there is no evidence linking DU to cancers or to the more general ill health being experienced by some Gulf veterans. As regards exposures, important work at the Baltimore Veterans Affairs clinic in the United States is monitoring Gulf veterans known to be at the highest risk of exposure due to "friendly-fire" incidents. None of those troops, including those who retain DU shrapnel in their bodies, have health problems related to DU. Testing of Gulf and Balkans veterans for uranium in the US, Canada and Belgium has failed to show any of them excreting higher than background levels unless they have embedded shrapnel.
Depleted uranium has also been fired by NATO forces during operations in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995, and in Kosovo in 1999. Compared with around 300 tonnes fired in the Gulf, only 3 tonnes were fired in Bosnia and around 9 tonnes in Kosovo, very little of it in the British sector.
Conscious of the potential risks that DU posed, we issued precautionary guidance to our forces in Kosovo about the need not to approach recently struck, burned-out armoured vehicles possibly hit by DU, which present the main hazard, and about the need to wear suitable protective clothing if they had to work in the vicinity of those vehicles.
The working environment of our forces in the Balkans is already closely monitored because of health and safety and environmental concerns about the theatre, which extend well beyond the question of DU. The Ministry of Defence is aware of no evidence to date of unusual ill health among our Balkan peacekeepers, or specifically of any ill health that would suggest heavy-metal poisoning. Indeed, a thorough epidemiological study was done by King's college in the context of Gulf health, which examined a cohort of nearly 4,000 Bosnia peacekeepers. The study found no difference in the level of symptoms between them and troops who had been deployed neither to the Gulf nor to Bosnia.
Media reports have also focused on the test firing of DU at UK ranges. Apart from a small amount of contained firing at Foulness and Aldermaston, that has been concentrated in the ranges at Kirkcudbright on the Solway Firth, and at Eskmeals in Cumbria. It is fired at Kirkcudbright into the sea, and at Eskmeals—until 1995—into armour plate targets. Safety at the ranges, and in their environs, has been a paramount concern. The DU firing programme is subject to regulation under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2000. The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency also have oversight of the firing programme. A detailed review of the environmental impact of firing DU at these ranges was undertaken by the independent environmental consultants W. S. Atkins. The consultants

879
concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public and the associated risks from DU released into the environment were extremely low.
I have spelled out the background to depleted uranium, and to our and other existing research on the issue, because it is important to put some of the inaccurate and inflammatory media coverage in context. These issues are not new, and we must not unduly alarm service personnel or their families about the position.
That said, we recognise that there are concerns among our people, and we recognise a need to reassure them. We take very seriously our responsibility to our service personnel, given the demands that we make on them during operations.
Our response, therefore, will be to identify an additional appropriate voluntary screening programme for our service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans. We shall do that on the basis of the best available science. We shall consult appropriate national bodies, such as the United Kingdom national screening committee of the Department of Health. Another important source of external scientific advice will be the report currently under preparation by the Royal Society, which is taking an independent look at depleted uranium.
It will be important also to co-ordinate an approach with allies, many of whom are assessing the same reports as I make this statement. A crucial part of our approach will be to discuss with allies their data on risks to health in the Balkans, the health of peacekeepers in the Balkans, the responses that they plan, and to ensure that all data available across NATO are pooled as a basis for subsequent decisions. We are also conscious that the United Nations environmental programme has surveyed sites in Kosovo and we await the publication of its final report with interest. I should add that its interim statement refers to only slightly elevated levels of radiation at eight of the sites that the programme monitored. I am also announcing that the UK will enhance its existing environmental surveillance programme in the Balkans to ensure that no health threats to our forces, and indeed to the local civilian population, are overlooked. In the meantime, any individual who believes that their health may have been damaged by service in the Balkans should seek medical advice. If their doctor considers that there is evidence that depleted uranium might have contributed to ill health, tests for uranium levels will be carried out.
I hope that this statement puts the current debate into context, provides the necessary reassurance to the House as well as to our forces and their families, and indicates the way ahead. We are providing battle-winning equipment for our forces and taking seriously our responsibility for our forces' welfare. I am sure that the House will agree that they deserve no less.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving me a copy of the statement before he came to the Dispatch Box. I also welcome the statement generally, given all the press speculation over the past few weeks.
The Minister is right to be here today. The reasons for the Government to have acted are threefold: first, to calm the speculation that has been raging for some time, not only in the past couple of days but over the Christmas
880
period and before; secondly—as the Minister said—to reassure service personnel and their families that the Ministry of Defence is concerned enough about their well-being to be prepared to investigate if such investigation is necessary; and, thirdly, to find out whether there is any basis in truth for the recent spate of allegations, which appear to have come mostly from the Italians, but also from elsewhere. Most of the Italian cases come from Bosnia, as I am sure the Minister will confirm. I shall say more about that in a second.
The Minister referred to reports published earlier that suggest that there is no risk. For example, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations have said that they do not think that there is a radiation risk. They refer to this as a toxicity issue rather than a radiation issue. Will the Minister spend a little more time explaining the basis for those statements? The Ministry of Defence produced a report, "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict", which came to similar conclusions.
I also note, given the point about the Italian cases in Bosnia, that a Mrs. Obradovic, a haematologist in the Serb-controlled half of Bosnia, said recently that the leukaemia rate among the 500,000 residents in that section was the same as before the Bosnian war. That was one of the areas that experienced the greatest concentration of the use of these weapons. I would, therefore, be concerned if they were experiencing no change while we are apparently seeing a change in service personnel, whoever they may be.
Will the Minister confirm that there was no firing of depleted uranium rounds on the testing range at Bovington on the Salisbury plain?
I would like to know what has changed in the past 24 hours. A Ministry of Defence spokesman ruled out health checks yesterday, then suddenly, in today's papers, we were being briefed that there would be health checks. The Minister said that there was no new evidence, so perhaps he could explain whether this change has been driven from sources outside the Ministry of Defence, particularly from Downing street, which appears to have provided the statement. Will he explain the reason for the change and for this early statement?
Given that this issue has created some concern over the past few weeks, why did the Minister and his colleagues choose not to make the sort of statement that he has made today to clarify the position? Surely that would have soothed some of the more ludicrous press comments. Why, then, did the Ministry choose to leave officials to make only simple statements?
What will the Minister's response to other NATO nations be? The Italians are reported as saying that if they do not get the weapons banned, they will withdraw from NATO. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the Italian Government on that? Expletives can be deleted in this case.
Is not the Minister's real point, with which I agree, that there is an issue of balance of risk? After all, we are dealing with war-fighting weapons that are used in the most dangerous and risky circumstances. The weapons are used to protect British or allied forces, which may have to engage tanks or armoured vehicles that would otherwise be likely to destroy their position or even kill them. Is not that ultimately the main decision—whether there is any risk and what the balance of risk is, given the

881
nature of the circumstances in which such weapons are likely to be used? Establishing these factors quickly, and doing so in the public domain as much as possible, would reassure service personnel and their families as much as others in the country who want to know that the Government and the Ministry of Defence will do whatever it takes.
Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his response, and should like to deal with some of the details that he raised. He rightly mentioned the greater risks from toxicity than from radiation, particularly the lack of any perceived link between radioactivity in the air and incidence of leukaemia. The World Health Organisation made its statement based on work that has been done with uranium miners who, while they show incidence of other cancers, do not show a higher incidence of leukaemia, and on the evidence from Chernobyl where, again, there was no increase in the incidence of leukaemia, as I understand from the WHO's reports. However, it is right to identify the fact that there are potential risks, and I shall come later to risk management.
The hon. Gentleman referred to data in other countries and how they are perceived. That reinforces the need to pool data and seek a common methodology and approach across the NATO countries. Discussions are taking place bilaterally and also at NATO level in that context. Indeed, there is a meeting of NATO countries this week.
I am advised that depleted uranium has not been fired at Bovington. I am happy to provide reassurance on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the reason for the change and the impact of media coverage. Inevitably, greater concern will be felt by our troops reading the weight of media coverage on the subject. It is important that our forces have the best possible reassurance regarding their position. That is why we are looking at an expanded programme, in dialogue with the appropriate medical and scientific authorities, to ensure that we have the best possible mechanism for delivering that. As the hon. Gentleman rightly anticipated, we shall be having meetings at NATO.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about risk. It is important to stress that the correct philosophy is not risk avoidance, which is impossible and, as he suggested, may carry much greater risks to our forces in terms of loss of military capability. That is why I believe that it would be fundamentally wrong to move away from justifiable weapons that enable our people to undertake the tasks that the country gives them when we send them into conflict to fight and win.
We are concerned, however, with risk management—the evaluation and handling of risk, and the avoidance of unnecessary risk. That is why we are looking at further environmental studies, as I outlined in the statement, and at individual monitoring. We believe that that is the responsible way in which to handle the issue. I hope that that provides the necessary and justified reassurance to our forces that we are making our best efforts and using our best endeavours for their welfare.
Mr. Bruce George: Will the Minister accept that almost everybody here welcomes not only the statement but the enthusiastic, unprompted, spontaneous factors that led to his appearance at the Dispatch Box this
882
afternoon? Will he confirm that the first two thirds of his speech was written by the same civil servants who wrote Government policy on the Gulf war syndrome between 1991 and 1997? Does he accept that I am elated that politicians sit on top of decision making in our system of government and not civil servants? Finally, does he recall what the Government said to the Select Committee on Defence in 1997? They said:
The new Government believes we have a debt of honour to those who have served their country in the Armed Forces …
I think that today's statement confirms that that debt of honour, for whatever reason, will be paid.
Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his concluding comments. When we came in as the new Administration, the previous occupant of this position, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), made it clear that we wanted to provide the best available resources to get to the facts and the truth and to be guided by the science. That is the basis of my statement today. We want to use the best possible scientific advice to establish the facts. If that means that we can only provide reassurance to our forces that there is no risk to them, that will be of value in itself. If there is a risk, we shall be able to consider how we can best manage it and remedy the position for individuals. Therefore, we have to be guided carefully by the science so that we make the best practical decisions for both the health of our forces and their operational effectiveness. My hon. Friend and his Select Committee will be working with us to achieve that aim.
Mr. Paul Keetch: On behalf of all those on the Liberal Democrat Benches may I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of it? As for the timing, Mr. Speaker, you hear almost weekly requests for statements from the Government from those on the Opposition Benches, so it would be churlish to criticise the timing when such a statement is made. We welcome it. We also welcome any aim to ascertain a connection between DU and health risks for service personnel and civilians. Will the screening that he has announced be a one-off or will it be on-going?
In the Gulf, the cocktail of immunisations, environmental pollution and any agencies used by Iraq make it difficult to ascertain whether there is a definite link between DU and ill health. In the Balkans, such a distinction could be made clearer. Can the Minister give us a few more details? When will the tests begin? Will they be connected with the study that is already being undertaken by the Royal Society into so-called Gulf war syndrome?
The Minister mentioned the allies. The weapons were used in United Nations and NATO operations. How will discussions with the allies take place? He also mentioned the two training grounds. Can he give an absolute guarantee that those munitions have not been used on other testing sites in the United Kingdom, as there have been suggestions that they have? If there is contamination, what guidance will be given to the civilian populations in areas where the weapons were used, to non-governmental organisations and even to the British police and civilians

883
who now operate there? Should not the cautionary principle that applies to sites where cluster bombs were used also be used for DU?
Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He asks about the timing of implementation of the programme. That will depend on the scientific advice that we receive. As he rightly says, that advice will also be guided by the independent study that the Royal Society is conducting. As the spokesman said, the Royal Society instigated that study, but we have been happy to co-operate. We will be working with the Royal Society to get the best advice on the nature and timing of the programme and, equally importantly, evaluation of the results. We shall have discussions through NATO with our allies on the issue, in particular to ensure that we pool data so that we have a much wider database for the programme.
I am not aware of any sites in the United Kingdom where depleted uranium has been fired, apart from those that I identified in my statement. Of course, in other areas, some of the vehicles that were hit will already have been removed. In many areas the level of radiation is fairly low. An environmental evaluation will need to be undertaken as part of the programme. We shall obviously work with the United Nations mission in Kosovo precisely to determine the best way to handle such matters, because much of the responsibility for them lies within UNMIK's remit, rather than that of KFOR.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister prepared to put in the Library the interim findings of the air cells unit of KFOR?
Mr. Spellar: I think that I shall have to write to my hon. Friend on that particular subject.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I welcome very much the assurance that the Minister has given to the Gulf veterans, does he accept that there is a need for continuing concern and care about the situation in areas where the weapons are being tested or destroyed? In particular, on the basis of the statement, can he give a clear assurance to the residents of Shoeburyness, Foulness and Great Wakering in my constituency that no meaningful health hazard has been identified from the activities there? Will he seek to persuade the local health authority to publish statistics that show that it has found no evidence of worrying health statistics that might be related to the destruction of weapons? Can he give us an assurance on supervision and control—for example, through the Environment Agency—when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency goes through the changes involved in privatisation?
We welcome the statement, and the Minister's intention in making it, but does he accept that there is a genuine need to give continuing care, concern and attention to the areas where such weapons have been tested or destroyed?
Mr. Spellar: As I identified in the statement, the work at those sites is already under the supervision of the appropriate environment agency. That will continue irrespective of the ownership status of any site. We have
884
no indication of any meaningful health hazard arising from the work at Shoeburyness and Foulness. Equally, we are not aware of any figures from the health authority, but we liaise with health authorities in all the areas where we work. I am more than happy to take up that matter on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, to provide the necessary reassurance to his constituents.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the Minister accept that some soldiers returning from the Gulf war and the Balkans have developed very serious illnesses? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—of my constituent, Mr. Dave Robertson? He went to the Gulf war a fit, healthy, active career soldier, but developed into an absolute wreck when he came back. His skin bleeds for no reason; he bleeds internally; he has developed epilepsy; he has regular seizures; and he has had a number of strokes. He sees a neurologist, an orthopaedic surgeon and a rheumatologist. He has respiratory problems; he has had pneumonia and pleurisy; and he has chronic fatigue syndrome. He needs permanent daily support just to exist.
If depleted uranium was not the cause of that, what was? If it was not depleted uranium, was it the toxic vaccines that were given to Mr. Robertson as a matter of course to prevent him from suffering illnesses? The previous Tory Government did nothing about that for nearly 10 years. There are many people, such as Mr. Robertson, who have deep, deep health problems, and it is the responsibility of a responsible, caring Government, such as this, to do something about it and try to find out exactly why Mr. Robertson and many of his colleagues have those illnesses.
Mr. Spellar: I fully understand the feeling that my hon. Friend has for his constituent. Indeed, several hon. Members have constituents who served in the Gulf and who are suffering from illnesses. That is precisely why previous Ministers for the Armed Forces have announced a range of studies, which the Government have continued, to try to ascertain the causes of those illnesses. There is a difference between veterans from the Gulf and those from Bosnia and Kosovo, in that those who served in the Balkans do not show higher levels of illness compared with a comparable group.
It is certainly true that a number of Gulf veterans suffer from illnesses and that they are showing considerable symptoms. However, the root causes of those illnesses is still not clear from the work that we and other allied countries have undertaken.
We have funded several programmes. Some of them have already reported, but others have still to report because they will run for a number of years and are extremely extensive. We have funded those programmes to get to the bottom of the causes of the Gulf war illnesses, to see what can be done to remedy the illnesses of those who served in the Gulf and to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I warmly welcome the Minister's statement? It is clear that he is doing the right thing, and that the research will build on the work that was put in place by the Secretary of State and the substantial work—I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge this—that was put in place by the previous Government but that failed to come to the same conclusion. Indeed, we are not significantly further

885
forward than we were several years ago. I also welcome the fact that he acknowledges that depleted uranium weapons are designed to inflict the most serious damage on the Queen's enemies and are an extremely effective weapon.
Will the Minister reassure the House that in the work done on testing armour-piercing weapons, all effective steps were taken to protect those who took part in the work? Will the research that now takes place consider in detail the equipment that was used and the clothes that were worn by those who examined the targets almost immediately after the test firings?
Mr. Spellar: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about the detailed points that he has raised. As I said in my statement, the work was undertaken under the control of the environmental agencies and under the appropriate ionising radiation regulations. It was subsequently evaluated by W. S. Atkins, who are extremely professional and experienced consultants on this matter. Therefore, we have received a considerable degree of reassurance regarding the environmental safety of the work force involved and the surrounding environment, and thus the residents in the area.
I fully acknowledge that work has been undertaken to try to ascertain the cause of the illnesses suffered by Gulf veterans that are now universally acknowledged to exist. Although we still have not determined the cause, we might have eliminated a number of possible causes.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny whether tests of the weapons have taken or will take place in Northumberland? As I suspect that he will tell us that the civilian population is safe, why does he not test the weapons in his constituency?
Mr. Spellar: Possibly because I represent one of the most urban constituencies in the country, where the amount of open land available is considerably less than at Otterburn. Its use by the armed forces is greatly welcomed by the residents for whom the work is a significant source of employment. The area's use helps to maintain an attractive national park and to sustain a considerable number of wildlife, which may be less disturbed by human intrusion.
I am not aware of depleted uranium rounds having been used at Otterburn. Equally, our application for the extension of Otterburn is related not to depleted uranium but much more to rocket-launching, systems and the capacity of the AS90, which is a considerable addition to our military capability and one that I am sure we shall all welcome.
Mr. Peter Viggers: In some countries—notably, the United States—the attitude is that if their service personnel are put in harm's way and suffer in any manner, they should be supported and compensated. However, in this country the attitude sometimes is that if a service man suffers injury, he must demonstrate that he is injured and that he derived that injury from serving in the armed forces. That is not a party political point; it is based on constituency experience.
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provisions for war pensions whereby the burden of proof
886
in the first seven years is on the Ministry of Defence, which has to establish that a particular condition was not caused by an individual's service in the armed forces. After seven years, the burden of proof shifts in the other direction. That is analogous to his description of arrangements in the United States.
It is right that we should compensate and seek to assist those people who are injured while serving the country. At the same time, we have a duty to the taxpayer to assure ourselves that an individual's claim is a proper case for compensation. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, war pensions are administered by the Department of Social Security. He will also be aware of the attributable pension, which is payable to people who are injured while serving in the armed forces, although with a slightly different burden of proof.
Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend rightly stressed the paramount need to reassure our armed forces. There will, of course, be similar concerns among our allies, the Portuguese, the Italians and the Greeks. He also properly said that there should be a pooling of data. Has that not been done comprehensively already? Are we initiating that? To what extent is that a matter not for individual Governments, but for NATO itself to lead?
Mr. Spellar: That matter will be discussed by NATO with a view to drawing up a common methodology, leading to a future pooling of data. However, the actual assessment of individuals' conditions, in all the countries that my right hon. Friend mentioned, is at an early stage. In the one or two countries where there have been programmes of testing for uranium, there has been a fairly limited take-up and, indeed, no presence of uranium has been detected. Urgent discussions are taking place between NATO members to ascertain each country's position. The prime responsibility for delivering programmes at the sharp end will lie with national Governments. However, it is appropriate for discussions to take place at a NATO level to try to co-ordinate them.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Can the Minister reassure my constituents that no depleted uranium has been fired, stored or transported at Aberporth in my constituency, and that there is no health risk to them? Will he also expand on what he said in response to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) regarding the responsibility for toxicity after the privatisation of DERA sites?
Mr. Spellar: That was a slightly different question from the one posed by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on the contamination of a site. As far as I am aware, responsibility for that will lie with the site's owner, although transitional arrangements will be undertaken, depending on the individual circumstances of each site. I am not aware that any depleted uranium rounds were fired at Aberporth. However, I shall check on details of its involvement with depleted uranium and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John McFall: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement, but will he take it from me that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence? Veterans' cases have demonstrated

887
that over the years and we must take the matter seriously. As for the European theatre, he will be aware that in France, four soldiers have contracted leukaemia; in Italy, six soldiers have died; in Belgium, five soldiers have been treated for cancer; and in Spain, eight soldiers are being treated. It is a European-wide and USA-wide issue. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is an effective NATO response and a uniformity of approach on medical issues? Will he also ensure that veterans will receive a much more sympathetic response than has been the case over the past 10 years?
Mr. Spellar: We must not jump to immediate conclusions on the data. My hon. Friend has mentioned a number of cases where people have sadly died. We are not as yet aware of the cause of death. Reports in one paper, for example, suggest that there was a range of different conditions among the six Italians. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is more versed in medical matters than I am, that these conditions are quite different.
We are talking about tens of thousands of people from each of the countries concerned. There are standard data tables which indicate for any population the expected numbers of people who will contract certain conditions and diseases. We must have regard to where there is an abnormal departure from those numbers. We must then consider the potential cause and examine the connection to establish causation and, if necessary, a remedy. That is very much what happened with the work on lung cancer and the smoking of cigarettes. There was an epidemiological study to assess whether there was a much higher incidence of lung cancer, which was followed by work on causation.
We must be concerned, but we must be careful to ensure that we are driven by science. That is the way in which we can best identify a remedy or a way to alleviate people's conditions. At the same time, it is the way in which we can manage the risk to try to avoid such problems in future.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister comment on the statement, which was reported yesterday, by Mr. Haavisto, who is the head of the United Nations environment programme team on Kosovo, that he and his team had been surprised at radiation levels in Kosovo? The team had tested a sample of 11 sites out of the 112 that NATO had identified as having been attacked with depleted uranium rounds. It found significantly increased radiation at eight of them. We agree that our forces should not be militarily disadvantaged in any war—the problem is what health effects remain after the war is over.
Mr. Spellar: The comment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, particularly on the vehicles, was about a slightly increased level of radiation. That is why I said in my statement that we await with interest the final report. I am not saying that to disparage the report. We want to see the full data, conclusions and, potentially, even recommendations. We shall be examining the report together with the Royal Society report to inform our thinking both about potential environmental remediation and individual cases. We must study the data to ascertain
888
whether they show any potential increase in levels of radioactivity. We must also evaluate the level of risk that the increased level of radioactivity might bring about.
Even in natural conditions there are quite considerable variations in levels of radioactivity between different parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in those areas with substantial amounts of granite, which will show higher levels of background radiation than elsewhere. We must obtain the data before we can make any response, and we hope to have them, in the not too distant future.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What information does my hon. Friend have at his disposal concerning the effects of radiation in Serbia, Iraq or Kosovo on the civil population? Is he prepared to publish whatever information he has? Is he aware that some people, on listening to his statement, would identify a degree of complacency about the effects of depleted uranium on British soldiers? The Italian and Portuguese Governments have expressed the deepest concern about deaths among their soldiers as a result of depleted uranium. Is it not urgent that my hon. Friend publishes at the earliest opportunity the information for which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked so that we can assess the real risk?
Mr. Spellar: 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 and both the situation and possible remedies. It is unfortunate, therefore, that my hon. Friend immediately leaps to the conclusion that some deaths were automatically caused by depleted uranium. There have been deaths from leukaemia and depleted uranium was used in Kosovo and Bosnia. At the moment, no linkage has been drawn and we therefore have to work on the best available scientific evidence to consider the condition of individuals, any causation and the environmental situation.
My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to draw attention to any possible threat to civilian populations. I mentioned the matter in my statement, particularly with regard to our further review of environmental conditions in the area as they affect our service personnel and civilians and the local civilian population.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I sit on a Royal British Legion working group concerned with the health of Gulf war veterans and I very much welcome the statement, but does the Minister recognise that Members on both sides of the House owe it to those who serve our country in the armed forces to take a careful and comprehensive attitude to their health following the exercises in which they engage on our behalf? He referred to the medical assessment programme. What proportion of service personnel who went to the Gulf or to the Balkans are having their health monitored? What consultation is taking place with the Royal British Legion to increase participation in the MAP? When does he expect to receive the Royal Society report?
Mr. Spellar: My recollection is that some 3,000 people have been through the medical assessment programme, but the hon. Gentleman should not consider any downturn in numbers to be a failure. Those who have illnesses that they believe may be attributable to service in the Gulf

889
may have already been seen and the great majority of the rest, if they have illnesses, either may not believe that those are Gulf related or, thank heavens, may be fit and well, as the great majority of those who served in the Gulf are. Therefore, as I have said a number of times, we must always consider the level of illness and whether it is abnormal compared with that in an equivalent cohort. I have already described our work comparing those who went to the Balkans or to the Gulf with those who did not. We are dealing with separate situations. We must recognise that and then use scientific method to ascertain possible reasons for differences. That leads to the question of possible remedies.
As yet, I am not aware of the time scale for the Royal Society report, but I am advised that it is coming along fairly well and will not be delayed too long.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Minister examine the 1993 letters from two of his predecessors to me which confirm, first, that those soldiers most at risk in the Gulf war—tank crews and other personnel—had no warning of the dangers of depleted uranium; and secondly, that test firings were carried out at four sites in Britain, including Foulness? Will he examine the answers given at that time to a range of parliamentary questions? One was tabled on 28 March 1991, during the Gulf war, and in 1993 an early-day motion demanded a full inquiry. All received contemptible and contemptuous answers from the Government of the day, who were informed by the Ministry of Defence. Is not it common sense that a battlefield covered with depleted uranium dust—tonnes of it—represents a hazard to human health and that the perception of danger is real? We need to protect those who put their lives on the line for this country from not only real dangers, but powerful perceptions of danger.
Mr. Spellar: I think that my hon. Friend welcomes the measures that I announced today. During my preparations, I did not have time to go back to questions from the early 1990s, but I will refresh my memory later. He is right that we must examine the potential risks faced by our forces when they are engaged in operations. Some risks are inevitable; some are potentially avoidable. If we can avoid them without losing battlefield effectiveness, we should
890
do so. It is important that we learn the lessons of every operation in order to improve our performance. That is why we have undertaken the work that I outlined in my statement. I hope that that will provide reassurance to my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and, most importantly, our service men and women.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I welcome the Minister's statement and hope that it will bring calm and reassurance to our soldiers, sailors and airmen who may be affected. It is distressing when soldiers, sailors and airmen do not know the cause of their illness, especially for those who might have been affected by depleted uranium or Gulf war syndrome.
Will the Minister confirm that those who think that they may be affected will receive the same benefits in the form of disability pension as equivalent service men wounded in the course of action or made ill by their service? Under the seven-year rule, the burden of proof of a causal connection between the illness and the service man's involvement in action—except, I understand, in the case of Gulf war syndrome—changes from the MOD to the service man affected after seven years. Will he also confirm that until the science is clearer, the seven-year rule will not apply in the case of alleged depleted uranium poisoning?
Mr. Spellar: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that. As I said in my statement, part of the assessment that we are undertaking involves the latency of possible impacts and the time scale within which leukaemia may be expected to appear from any possible causation. From studies of the various related groups who were affected by radioactive dust, that does not seem to increase the incidence of leukaemia, but we are conducting further work in that regard, and we are mindful of the delays that can take place. I will look into the detail of the provisions and write to the hon. Gentleman.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Eric Joyce Esq., for Falkirk, West.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a point of order of which I have given you some advance notice. As you will know, it relates to the conduct of yesterday's first Programming Sub-Committee of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Specifically, a number of my hon. Friends and I, and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), were gravely concerned to discover two facts at that meeting yesterday. I recognise that it might not be possible to give an immediate ruling, but some guidance would be appreciated.
The first fact is that we were told that the meeting was along the lines of a Select Committee, with no verbatim account of the meeting's proceedings or even a set of minutes, although it was not clear that there was any evidence in the Sessional Orders that it was to be constituted as a Select Committee and there was no resolution of the House to that effect.
Secondly, we were told that, on the principle of the model of a Select Committee meeting without a witness, the proceedings were to be held in private, although, again, there was no evidence as to why that is so.
Furthermore, we were very concerned because a Minister, a shadow Minister and two Whips were on the Sub-Committee. That did not seem coincidental and bore no resemblance to a Select Committee, but rather to a Standing Committee of which the Programming Sub-Committee was a sub-set.
Given that the Sessional Orders, part I, section C (3), specify that all members of the Sub-Committee should be members of the Bill Committee, it is clear that there is no resemblance whatever to a Select Committee. I and my hon. Friends should much appreciate guidance, on the
892
basis of that arrangement, on when and where and under whose authority it was approved, and whether it is up for consideration in the future.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me some notice of the matter. Perhaps I can look into his point relating to membership. On his other points, it is the practice of the House that proceedings of Business Sub-Committees under Standing Order No. 120 are analogous to those of a Select Committee. While deliberating, therefore, Business Sub-Committees sit in private. Programming Sub-Committees under the Sessional Order should, in logic, follow the same rules as their task is similar.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Another matter that arises concerns the motion offered to such a Programming Sub-Committee by the Government and any opportunity, or lack of it, by other members of the Sub-Committee to submit amendments. Could you give some consideration to whether ground rules should be laid down as to the notice given of such a resolution and, therefore, the opportunity given for hon. Members properly to submit amendments, preferably in writing, so that the Sub-Committee can give the matter proper consideration? That seems so far not to have been the case.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to think about that matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  CAPITAL ALLOWANCES
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms and Miss Melanie Johnson, presented a Bill to restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 10].
Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.28 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is principally concerned with the statutory framework for the system of discipline in the armed forces. That system of discipline is an essential ingredient of operational effectiveness. For everyone in the armed forces, that is axiomatic.
  In civil society, the vital importance of discipline is perhaps not so readily understood. However, while even in the Ministry of Defence Machiavelli is not everyone's role model, we would do well to heed his observation that
  Good order and discipline in any army are to be more depended upon than courage alone.
  We take it for granted in this country that our forces are disciplined. We also take their excellence for granted. Those two statements are intimately and inextricably linked. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the disciplinary framework remains fixed for the vital purpose of contributing to that excellence.
  The statutory bases for discipline in the armed forces are the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957—the service discipline Acts. Those have to be renewed every five years; otherwise they would expire. The single most important purpose of the Armed Forces Bill is to effect that renewal.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have often suspected that Machiavelli may be at work in the Ministry of Defence, but I accept the Minister's personal assurance that that is not so. However, what progress has been made in the Ministry on the question of combining the three service discipline Acts in a single Act? The increase in joint operations must surely make it desirable that there should be one code of discipline covering all three armed services.
  Mr. Spellar: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is suffering from premature intervention. I shall deal with his question a little later.
  The service discipline Acts were last renewed by the Armed Forces Act 1996, and are due to expire at the end of the year—hence the need to introduce the Bill in the current parliamentary Session. When passed into law, the Bill will give the Acts a further five-year lease of life. If that was all the Bill was seeking to achieve, it would not, of course, run to 41 clauses. However, like previous five-yearly armed forces Bills, this Bill proposes a number of changes to the existing legislation, mostly to the service discipline Acts, which need to be kept up to date. That is not out of modishness—something to which service discipline should never be susceptible—but for a variety of sound reasons.
  Introducing a Bill every five years and generally having little expectation of any other legislative opportunity in between is a useful discipline, albeit of a different kind, for the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. It spurs
  894
  us to review our procedures which, of course, can lead to the conclusion that some adjustments may be necessary, not for their own sake but to make the system work better. Although the services are operating an essentially separate justice system, we need to keep an eye on developments in the civilian system, but not so that we then slavishly copy it. There will necessarily remain key differences in the two systems, given their different purposes.
  However, for many procedures relating to the investigation, trial and punishment of offences, it is right that we should aim to keep in step with developments in the civilian system, since many of them are designed to secure the proper balance between the rights and duties of the prosecution and the accused, and it is appropriate that, when possible and relevant, those should be reflected in the armed forces' procedures. It has been the policy of successive Administrations that that should be so.
  Much of the Bill is therefore about bringing service procedures more closely into line with those in the civilian system. I shall now describe the main proposals in the Bill, but I hope the House will understand that time will not allow me to cover them all. We propose that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, as is normal with these five-yearly Bills, and I am confident that the detail of the Bill will then receive the customary close attention.
  Clause 1 allows the life of the service discipline Acts to be extended for a further five years, until the end of 2006. As now, that will be subject to annual renewal in the intervening period by the affirmative continuation orders debated in both Houses. The present legislation serves the armed forces well. It works, but it can still be improved. One area where we believe that to be the case relates to the administration of discipline in the growing joint service environment, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) alluded. That area needs a new legislative framework, which is why the Government have made clear their commitment to moving from the three present Acts to a single piece of discipline legislation.
  We aim to have the necessary legislation ready for introduction as part of the five-yearly Bill that we expect to be introduced in the 2005–06 Session. I realise that that will cause some understandable disappointment. However, it should be recognised that it will be no small task to produce a new Act covering the needs of all three services. Indeed, the strategic defence review White Paper, which proposed the tri-service Act, stated that it
  would be a substantial and complex undertaking which will take some years to complete.
  It was recognised from the outset that that could not be achieved in time for the current quinquennial Bill.
  Mr. Campbell: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as he has now caught up with my intervention. He will be aware that in relation to the Bill to ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, the relevant Department adopted the procedure of issuing a draft Bill and inviting consultation. Will he consider adopting the same approach to the Bill which he has just outlined?
  Mr. Spellar: As I recall, similar proposals concerning legislation were made by the Select Committee on Defence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's

  895
  suggestion is worth examining. My only hesitation and reservation concerns the time scale and how long it would take to pull together such a draft Bill. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a worthwhile point, which we shall certainly consider.
  In the meantime, we need to ensure that the existing body of legislation is effective. That is what the remainder of the Bill seeks to achieve. The more serious offences under the service discipline Acts are investigated by the service police, who generally operate in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, much as the civilian police do. Indeed, some provisions in PACE, such as those dealing with finger printing, already apply to the service police. However, in particular areas the service police act on the basis of commanding officers' inherent powers, rather than on any statutory basis, when they are investigating offences. We consider that the basis on which the service police exercise those functions needs to be clarified by being put on a statutory footing. That will enable those who are subject to the powers to have a clear understanding of the scopes and limits of police powers. That is dealt with in clauses 2 to 16.
  Clause 2 defines the circumstances in which a member of the service police may stop and search somebody, subject to service law, or stop and search service and certain other vehicles. Those circumstances apply where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search will reveal items such as stolen goods or controlled drugs. Service police are not ubiquitous, and it may sometimes be necessary for a search to be undertaken when they are not available. Clause 4 therefore provides residual powers for commanding officers to exercise the powers described in clause 2 through members of the armed forces who are not service policemen, but only where the timely assistance of the police cannot be secured.
  Inevitably, the investigation of an offence may call for the searching of someone's living accommodation. Clause 5 requires a service policeman to apply for a warrant from a judicial officer if he needs to search the home or living accommodation of service personnel in the course of an investigation into a serious offence. Clause 7 provides a residual power for a commanding officer to authorise the conducting of such a search by members of the armed forces who are not service policemen or by service police without a warrant. The commanding officer will be able to use the power only if using the service police or obtaining a warrant is not practicable.
  As under PACE, the power to search is limited to certain serious offences. Clause 8 makes the exercise of the commanding officer's powers to authorise a search subject to retrospective review by a judicial officer if anything has been seized during the search.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I should like to ask a question about that point, as I see that I have not been lucky enough to catch the selector's eye for the Select Committee that will consider the Bill. The retrospective review applies only when property is seized, but should it not apply in all circumstances? What are the arguments that made the Minister reach his conclusion on that point?
  Mr. Spellar: The matter should be considered in the context of each of the clauses. As I said, that context is
  896
  the seeking of stolen goods or controlled drugs, which raises the issue of whether anything has been seized during a search. The power of reference to a judicial officer is appropriate and qualifies the powers given to the commanding officer to move beyond the usual provisions, under which the service police would apply for a judicial warrant. The provisions create flexibility, but also require the reference back to a judicial officer, which ensures compliance.
  Mr. Blunt: I apologise for not having made myself completely clear. The search can be hurtful and demeaning to the person under investigation. Even if no seizure is made, there may be an impression that a military officer is exceeding his authority in the peculiar circumstances in which he must make his judgments. Why should not review also occur in such circumstances, even when no seizure is made?
  Mr. Spellar: That comes back to the further qualification: the commanding officer can use the power only if using the service police or obtaining a warrant is not practicable. The power to search is limited by the Bill, as it is by PACE, to certain serious offences. Of course, I shall consider the matter in further detail and write to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that the Conservative business managers did not see fit to bless the Select Committee with his presence.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the measure apply to living accommodation within the barracks as well as to residential accommodation such as a quarter? How will it impact on those blessed things that I remember and which I fear might still occur—room inspections?
  Mr. Spellar: That is an entirely different issue. We are discussing the exercise of search functions. We are not talking about inspections for dust or about straightening beds; we are talking about searches for stolen goods or controlled substances, and the commanding officer's powers—and his accountability in exercising them—when service police are not available, or when a warrant cannot be obtained.
  I would expect hon. Members to welcome this provision, because notwithstanding the wide variety of circumstances in which the services operate, it maintains the flexibility that allows a commanding officer to exercise his powers and to do so with accountability. The measure deals with concerns that have been expressed, and accords with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; but it also deals with specific circumstances in military life. As I said, I would expect that to be welcomed by hon. Members whose sometimes justifiable criticisms rest on the need to take such particular and varied circumstances into account.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Spellar: May I make some progress? There are a number of other clauses to discuss. The hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later.
  Clause 9 defines the powers to enter premises without a warrant for the purpose of effecting an arrest. They may generally be exercised only by a member of the service police, but if the arrest is in respect of a serious offence and if the delay in waiting for a policeman is likely to

  897
  frustrate the purpose of the entry, the commanding officer may authorise another member of the armed forces to enter the premises concerned.
  Clause 10 deals with the powers of search exercisable following arrest. Those powers reflect the fact that the service discipline Acts give powers of arrest to service personnel generally, not just to service police. Under clause 10, an arrested person may be searched if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he may be a danger to himself or others. The clause also provides for search for evidence, or for things that may aid an escape. However, the powers will generally be exercisable only by service policemen, unless one is unlikely to be available in time.
  The principles underlying the proposals in clauses 2 to 16 are clear. They provide a sound basis for an important area of service police activity, modelled on civilian procedures. They define the circumstances in which police powers may be exercised, making them subject to judicial supervision where appropriate. As I stressed earlier, however, the principles also recognise the realities of service life. An investigation should not be paralysed because the assistance of a service policeman cannot be secured in time. Instead, there is a clear framework within which the commanding officer will he able to authorise action.
  Mr. Robathan: Contrary to what the Minister obviously expects, I am not criticising him, for a change.
  Will the commanding officer, or officers acting on his behalf, have access to living accommodation in barracks, or in quasi-operational circumstances such as those operating in Northern Ireland? It is important to determine now whether the commanding officer—company commander, platoon commander or officer commanding a unit—will have access to such accommodation during the normal run of things, and whether it will be possible to search it with the commanding officer's authority.
  Mr. Spellar: That will depend on the availability of service policemen to undertake their proper role, and their ability to obtain warrants within an appropriate time scale. If that is not possible—which is unlikely, in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman—the commandant can instruct other personnel. It matches the provisions under PACE, but at the same time provides the necessary flexibility for a commanding officer to be able to undertake the role.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Spellar: These are points that hon. Members should draw to the attention of their Committee colleagues; otherwise, we will not be able to make sufficient progress during this debate.
  Part III makes a number of proposals for the reform of the procedures for the trial and punishment of offences under the service discipline Acts. Clause 17 will make it possible to deal summarily with relatively minor offences committed by naval officers. Essentially, that will bring the Royal Navy into line with the other two services.
  At present, within the services, only officers may sit as court martial members. In examining the previous Armed Forces Bill, the Select Committee considered whether
  898
  other ranks should be eligible, without reaching any firm conclusions. The previous Administration subsequently established a review of the issue.
  Following that, in 1998, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), announced that we wished courts martial to benefit from the wisdom and experience of warrant officers. Clause 19 therefore proposes changes to the legislation to allow warrant officers to sit as court martial members, in cases where the accused is of lower rank.
  Clause 20 provides a power to extend membership of the summary appeal courts to warrant officers. That is in recognition of views expressed by Opposition Members during the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 in the previous Session.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: When the Bill reaches Committee, will the Minister seek to justify the fact that a warrant officer, or an officer in the Navy of the rank of lieutenant or above, can sit as a member of a court martial, but a warrant officer who is promoted to sub-lieutenant cannot? Will he seek to defend that in Committee?
  Mr. Spellar: I am certain that, whatever change and progress one makes, it throws up further anomalies that need to be examined. It might therefore be appropriate to look at that matter. I recall that the hon. Gentleman was the Chairman of the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill. I hope that he welcomes the fact that we are acting on that Committee's recommendations. We can certainly examine the matter when the current Bill is considered by the Committee, but there has been welcome progress in implementing the Committee's wishes and, I believe, those of the House.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Why has my hon. Friend not had a more radical look at the court martial system, particularly for serious offences? What has he got against having the equivalent of a jury trial for those serious offences, moving away from other service men considering those cases?
  Mr. Spellar: It is simply because I am not a radical sort of fellow.
  We do not believe that it would be appropriate to make warrant officers members of the summary appeal courts immediately. We want first to obtain experience, both of the new courts in operation and of warrant officers as court martial members, before taking a view in due course on whether they should be eligible to sit on the new courts.
  The remainder of part III proposes adjustments to bring trial procedures into line with those in civilian courts. A number of the measures are intended to assist the service courts to operate more effectively. Others aim to help to get the right balance between the prosecution and the accused and between the wrongdoer and the community.
  Clause 21 will enable the Attorney-General to invite the courts martial appeal court to review a sentence that has been passed by a court martial, if he considers that the sentence is unduly lenient. That reflects a similar power in relation to sentences in the civilian court.

  899
  Also on sentencing, it has always been the intention that courts martial should be subject to the same requirement as civilian courts to impose mandatory, or minimum, sentences in certain circumstances: where they are dealing with an offender who has previously been convicted of specified serious offences and is being sentenced for a further similar offence. Clause 22 puts the service courts on the same footing as the civilian courts in that regard.
  The conduct of courts martial in hearing a case can be impeded if the defence seeks judicial review of a decision of the court during the trial. Where that happens, the trial must stop until the High Court has dealt with the application for judicial review. That can mean a long delay.
  Where cases are tried on indictment in the Crown court there is no right to seek judicial review. If the defence is unhappy with any aspect of the way in which the trial has been conducted, it has the right of appeal. Similarly, there can be appeal from the decisions of a court martial. Where appeal is possible, there is no need also to have access to judicial review. Clause 23, therefore, brings courts martial into line with the Crown court by removing trial proceedings from the scope of judicial review, which, I am sure it will be agreed, is a welcome development.
  Witnesses who fail to attend courts martial can delay or frustrate the administration of justice. At present, there are no effective means of ensuring the attendance of civilian witnesses. Clause 25 seeks to remedy that by giving judicial officers or judge advocates powers to order the arrest of witnesses who there is good reason to believe will fail to attend proceedings, or who actually fail to do so.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Clause 21 confers on the Attorney-General the power to review what are considered to be lenient sentences. Why does the Minister feel that it is necessary to invoke the Attorney-General, who is essentially responsible for administering the civilian courts? Would he consider that a military legal personality should be the authority responsible for deciding whether to refer to court martial appeal a sentence that is perceived to be over-lenient?
  It is a great pleasure to see the Minister here today and he is doing extremely well. However, I wonder whether, for this most important measure in five years, the Secretary of State should be here to deal with the points with which, as I have said, the Minister is dealing extremely well.
  Mr. Spellar: It is traditional for the Minister for the Armed Forces to deal with this legislation. As has been made clear, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having important discussions with one of our friendly powers. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) finds that amusing. However, I fully understand that, given his perspective, talking to foreigners is a highly suspect activity. We think it important to talk to our friends and allies.
  The appropriate answer to the intervention is that the Attorney-General, with considerable experience of dealing with such cases, is the appropriate legal office to seek such a review. After all, in many cases the Attorney-General is not the prosecuting authority in the
  900
  civilian courts, but provides a necessary position within Government to intervene in the public interest. That reads across effectively to the service provision. We have no difficulty with that and believe that it is a significant change that will bolster good order and discipline in the armed forces.
  Civilian courts have powers to award costs against parties in a criminal case, or against their legal representatives, where the court considers that the case has been conducted in a way that results in the other side incurring unnecessary expenditure. There are no corresponding powers available to service courts and there is now some evidence that they are needed. This would, for example, be to discourage lawyers unreasonably requesting the attendance at trials of witnesses whom they have no cause to suppose will be able to give relevant evidence. Clauses 26, 27 and 28 therefore give appropriate powers to service courts, similar to those available to the civilian courts.
  Finally in part III, I wish to mention clause 30. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 introduced a system of bail, similar to the civilian system, but which deals purely with custody prior to or during service trials. There is, however, no compelling reason why the services should continue to differ from the civilian system with regard to bail pending appeal. Clause 30 will enable procedures to be introduced, similar to the civilian system, allowing persons convicted by a service court to apply for bail pending the outcome of an appeal against conviction or sentence.
  Before I describe part IV, I should like to deal with clause 33. That is because it ties in with much of what this Bill is seeking to achieve in bringing service procedures into line with relevant civilian ones.
  Civilian criminal justice procedures are developing all the time, and we need to ensure that we respond. There are a number of ways in which we can achieve this. One way is to ensure that criminal justice legislation extends to the services from the outset. That occurs extensively, and sometimes the legislation immediately applies to the armed forces. Other Acts—such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—provide powers allowing certain of their provisions to be extended to the armed forces by secondary legislation. In that case, the power is generally couched in terms that the provisions may be modified to cater for the special requirements of the services.
  However, instances still arise where civilian procedures are altered, but even though we want to follow suit, we have no powers to do so. In such cases, we have to wait for the next five-yearly Bill. Clause 33 provides a means for enabling us to respond in a more timely manner. It will allow the Secretary of State to use statutory instruments to apply future changes in civilian criminal justice legislation to the services. That will be on the basis of making equivalent provision, with necessary modifications.
  The new power will provide flexibility. The House will want that to be used sensibly, but it is important to bear it in mind that the provisions we shall be seeking to extend to the services will already have been scrutinised by Parliament. Clause 33 provides a valuable tool to further the theme of much of this Bill, which is about keeping in step with relevant changes in civilian procedures.

  901
  Part IV deals with the Ministry of Defence police. This is a civilian police force, some 3,500 strong, within the Ministry of Defence. Its purpose is to provide effective policing of the defence estate and community. The force should not be confused with the service police, whom we were considering earlier. I am sure that hon. Members present for this debate would not do so.
  MDP officers possess constabulary powers, and their training is very similar to that of Home Department police officers. The force is subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Its officers provide for the security of a range of defence assets, including at locations where there is a likelihood of contact with the public or civilian employees.
  The jurisdiction of the MDP is defined in the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The overall effect of that Act is to give the force a jurisdiction to police defence land, property and personnel within the United Kingdom. The MDP is also able to operate on land in the vicinity of defence land, where a local force has asked for assistance.
  The image of the MDP as an essentially static force based at defence establishments no longer holds true. The force increasingly operates mobile patrols to get from one defence establishment to another. That inevitably brings MDP officers into greater contact with the public than before.
  Mr. David Heath: The Minister is about to explain the provisions of this part of the Bill, but will he say at whose behest the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police is being extended? Has it been requested by that police force itself, by territorial police forces, by the Ministry of Defence or by the Home Office?
  Mr. Spellar: The change has been proposed very much at the instigation of the Ministry of Defence police and the Defence Police Federation. Increasingly, as I shall describe, members of that force find themselves in situations in which they come into contact with the public. They are seen to wear the uniform of a policeman, but they have no more powers than the average citizen. It is to remedy that defect, and others, that we are introducing the Bill. That course of action seems appropriate and right.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome the provisions of clause 31, and I have been trying to secure similar changes for the other non-Home Office police forces, such as British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. However, the explanatory notes make it clear that the powers provided in the clause for a Ministry of Defence police officer to act in extremis—in London, for example, that necessity might arise in the absence of a Metropolitan police officer, or when it was necessary to go to the aid of such an officer—can be exercised only if there is the potential to
  prevent or minimise personal injury,
  or in response to
  the use or threat of violence.
  The power does not appear to extend to circumstances in which, for example, a possible burglary is witnessed. That is an anomaly: I believe that the in extremis powers should be available when no Home Office police officer is available.
  902
  My second point is that clause 32 also mentions land dealt with by the Atomic Energy Authority police and by the British Transport police, but does not mention the Royal Parks constabulary. The Royal Parks constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police have an interface close to this building, and circumstances such as those covered by clause 31 can often arise in such areas. Could that omission be looked into?
  Mr. Spellar: That question would have to be addressed to another Department. The Royal Parks constabulary comes under a separate institution, not the Ministry of Defence, although I often find that the Ministry has responsibilities that I had not previously understood it to have. My hon. Friend must understand that we are dealing with an anomaly, but we must be equally sensitive to the considerations of the county police forces. This is an appropriate measure to address the problems that we have identified, while maintaining the supremacy of the county forces. I shall certainly draw his comments on some of the other forces to the attention of the appropriate Minister.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I hope that I am not labouring the point, but looking at the body language of the Ministers, I rather thought that they agreed with me. Others may be frustrating this idea.
  If a Royal Parks constabulary officer in St. James's park were faced with a crime involving violence, clause 31 would not confer any more powers of arrest or intervention on a Ministry of Defence police officer in the circumstances than I would have as a civilian. That is ludicrous. The point of clause 31 is to remedy such anomalies, and does so in relation to the British Transport police. An officer of the Ministry of Defence police will be able to go into Westminster tube station to support an officer of the British Transport police when there is the potential for violence, but he will not be able to do so in St. James's park. I suspect that the Home Office, or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, is being awkward in this matter.
  Mr. Spellar: This matter will obviously be drawn to the attention of the Committee, which will give it further consideration.
  The greater contact between MDP officers and the public has consequences for expectations of how members of the force will act. If a member of the public is the victim of an assault, he or she may expect a passing police officer in uniform to assist. It is of no concern to the victim whether the police officer belongs to the MDP or the local constabulary.
  However, the present law does not allow an MDP officer to exercise constabulary powers when intervening in these circumstances, except near defence land. He would have the same standing in relation to the incident as any other citizen, as I said earlier. That is not satisfactory, as it can inhibit the officer from assisting effectively because he knows that his actions may subsequently be challenged.
  The Bill seeks to remedy that. Clauses 31 and 32, and schedule 5, make a number of changes to the jurisdiction of the MDP. A key change will enable MDP officers to act in an emergency in cases involving violence, the threat of violence or a risk of death or injury. This addition to individual MDP officers' powers is tightly circumscribed

  903
  to cases in which it is clear that the timely assistance of a Home Department police officer will not be available. The Bill also broadens the ability of individual officers to respond to requests for assistance from local police officers. At present, this is limited to the vicinity of defence land.
  These proposals will enable individual MDP officers to make a more effective contribution to policing the community. Other proposals in the Bill will make it easier for the force as a whole to co-operate with Home Department forces. They will allow the MDP to enter into standing arrangements if a local police force requests assistance in the longer-term policing of land in the vicinity of defence land.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have corresponded with the Ministry of Defence for a long time about the suggestion that the MDP be replaced in certain establishments by private security people. I am slightly confused that we seem to be widening the MDP's powers while suggesting that some jobs that it undertakes could be taken over by private security firms. Am I wrong in my assumptions?
  Mr. Spellar: I think that my hon. Friend is partly wrong. In a number of places where static guarding is carried out, the Ministry of Defence police force is being replaced by the Military Provost Guard Service, which is not a private security company but an integral part of the Ministry of Defence. The move from static guarding, in which Ministry of Defence police has played a considerable role, towards a more active policing role brings the force more into contact with the public. So the changes that my hon. Friend describes are part of the basis for the changes that we propose in the Bill.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Have any discussions taken place about the merger of the Ministry of Defence police and the UK energy police force, as their roles overlap in certain circumstances? Has such a merger been considered in terms of new powers?
  Mr. Spellar: That is not in the Bill and not currently under consideration.
  The Bill will also allow the force to meet requests for the provision of personnel or other resources to assist other police forces anywhere in the country and to meet special demands on their resources. Help given during the recent floods or a search for a missing person are examples of such provision.
  There will be two key provisos in relation to the provision of MDP assistance of this latter sort. First, such assistance will quite rightly be triggered only if there is a request from the relevant chief constable. Secondly, we intend that it should be found from within the force's own resources. There will be no additional resources for the MDP simply to enable the force to help Home Department constabularies.
  There are other proposals relating to the MDP which there is insufficient time to cover today. I can assure the House, however, that there is no intention to duplicate the role of the Home Department forces or to turn the MDP
  904
  into a general police force. It will continue to police the defence estate and the defence community. The extensions that I have described are tightly circumscribed. They are the minimum, in our view, to enable the force to operate effectively and collaborate with Home Department forces in the interests of joined-up policing.
  There is one final proposal in the Bill that I wish to cover in some detail. It is in clauses 34 and 35, which deal with testing for alcohol and drugs.
  It goes without saying that there is no room for the abuse of controlled drugs in service life. The armed forces' drug testing programmes, conducted on a random basis, have proved to be a useful tool in deterring and combating their use.
  There is no equivalent provision to allow testing for alcohol. The Services have extensive education programmes designed to promote a responsible attitude towards alcohol. However, it would not be appropriate to test for alcohol on a random basis, given that it does not have the same unlawful status as controlled drugs. Instead, the Bill seeks a power to enable the armed forces to test for alcohol or drugs in certain specified circumstances, such as when an incident has caused death, serious injury or serious damage, or could have done so. If it is considered that persons subject to service law may have contributed to the incident, they may be required to provide breath or urine samples to allow testing for alcohol or drugs. It will be an offence to refuse.
  The results of such tests will be used to assist in establishing the cause of the incident and therefore to inform a subsequent board of inquiry. The test results will be excluded from use against anyone in a subsequent service prosecution to ensure the fullest co-operation of all those called upon to participate in a test and, by analogy, with evidence given at other boards of inquiry. However, they could be used as evidence in civil proceedings, or as a basis for any subsequent service administrative action aimed at preventing an individual from exposing himself or others to similar risks in future.
  The underlying intention of the provision is, of course, to add to the range of measures to safeguard individuals involved in potentially hazardous duties and to discourage the inappropriate consumption of alcohol or the use of controlled drugs.
  The Bill also includes a miscellany of minor changes to the legislation affecting the armed forces, intended to rectify anomalies and so on.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, with regard to the miscellaneous provisions under part V, there has been an approach from the New Zealand House of Representatives or the New Zealand Government to use this measure to regularise the Act of Parliament that they passed in relation to British empire forces, over which only this Parliament can have jurisdiction? My hon. Friend will be aware that, to its eternal credit, the New Zealand Parliament unilaterally, but unconstitutionally, passed an Act of Parliament that could only be passed here to grant pardons to people in the Otago regiment who were executed in world war one. They were not New Zealand soldiers as such, but soldiers in the British empire forces over which, constitutionally, only this place has jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the New Zealand

  905
  Parliament passed that Act, which is to its credit, has there been a request for the position to be regularised using this measure? If not, why not?
  Mr. Spellar: I am not aware of any such approach.
  Returning to schedule 7, I shall not dwell on the anomalies that the Bill is intended to rectify today, except to mention one. At present, of the children of members of the armed forces, only daughters are eligible to be married in service chapels. The Bill proposes that sons and stepchildren should also be eligible. I am sure that the House will welcome that modest liberalising measure.
  Much of the Bill is technical and procedural. That does not lessen its importance to the services. The House and the Select Committee will give it the attention that it deserves.
  At the beginning of my speech I referred to the excellence of this country's armed forces. I do not want to conclude without paying tribute to them in more explicit terms. Indeed, I am sure that all hon. Members will want to join me in acknowledging the part that our armed forces play in maintaining Britain's place and reputation on the international stage. Around the world, they have shown consistently that they can make a real and positive difference to people's lives. That is because our forces as institutions, and the people who serve in them, are second to none. The Bill continues to maintain their effectiveness. I commend it to the House.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Armed Forces Bill, which neither consolidates the three existing Service Discipline Acts nor introduces a single tri-service Act; which fails to address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law; which omits legal clarification of employment in the services of young people under the age of 18; which fails to provide a statutory basis for equality of access by servicemen and women to free and impartial tribunals and resources to achieve that; and which encourages a further creeping advance of litigation that will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts."
  Much of this quinquennial Bill will be uncontroversial. Part I—the continuance of the services Acts—is a duty that the House must address for the sake of the good order and discipline of Her Majesty's forces. Part II, which deals with powers of entry, search and seizure, will demand close scrutiny, as will part III, on the trial and punishment of offences under the services discipline Acts.
  Part IV would extend the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. We broadly welcome that, although we will want to examine in depth the interface between the MOD, Home Office and military police and how the proposals will affect those relationships. The alignment of the forces discipline procedures with those of Home Department police forces has taken a long time to achieve. We will need to ensure that the procedures will be satisfactory.
  Part V is likely to give us the most difficulty. In it, the consent of the House is sought to give the Secretary of State for Defence power to make orders applying changes
  906
  in civilian criminal justice legislation to the armed forces. As the explanatory notes so helpfully provided by the Ministry of Defence put it:
  This clause provides a general order-making power which would enable the Secretary of State to make for the armed forces provisions equivalent to those contained in any future civilian criminal justice legislation or any existing legislation that it amends.
  Disarmingly, the note goes on to explain:
  The power may be exercised so far as is desired, i.e. the entire civilian legislation does not have to be adopted. Modifications or any incidental, consequential or transitional provisions which the Secretary of State thinks fit may be made.
  That is exactly the sort of thing at which hon. Members prick up their ears, and we shall be doing more than that in Committee. We have considerable doubts about the wisdom of the House giving general enabling powers to any Secretary of State. That part of the Bill will no doubt take some time in Committee.
  Those of us who served on the Committee on the previous quinquennial Bill, military lawyers and other defence buffs may have been under the impression that that was the whole purpose of the five-yearly armed forces Bill—and the Minister alluded to this. When civilian and military laws have got significantly out of kilter, the House redresses the balance through primary legislation. Sometimes the Secretary of State can use existing powers to remedy imbalances, which inevitably occur from time to time. However, clause 33 appears to change the whole process so that, rather than the House deciding every five years the extent to which military law and civilian law concur, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, change military law by order to bring it into line with civilian law. I can think of circumstances where that might be sensible and beneficial; I can think of others where the reverse is the case. We will need to tease out Ministers' motives in seeking to make that change.
  Clause 33 appears to encapsulate much of what the Chief of the Defence Staff flagged up in his presentation to the Royal United Services Institute last December. He ended that speech by warning that if we hamstring our fighting services with inadequate funding, poor equipment, undermanning and inappropriate legislation, we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie. He said:
  All symbolism and no substance. They will certainly not be made of the stuff that the British forces are today and what our country expects them to be like.
  Some people believe that the membership of the armed forces should reflect the general composition of our nation's population. Her Majesty's forces should most certainly be open to all who wish to serve their Queen and country. We believe that members of the armed forces are different, and should be different, from most civilians. That is exactly what the Chief of the Defence Staff said, too. He said in his RUSI speech that Defence Ministers understand the position of the military and have been robust in their defence of the case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. If that is what Defence Ministers really believe in the face of their colleagues, we agree with them—and with the chiefs of staff.
  Many people believe that, to ensure that Her Majesty's forces represent a cross-section of society, Ministers should impose changes on the military to ensure that they comply. We disagree. Such decisions should be for the chiefs of staff and the chain of command.

  907
  Some people believe that the argument about the emergence of a European defence force is only about north Atlantic power politics; it is not. It is also about the motives, the capability and the military effectiveness of our potential partners in the enterprise.
  I note in passing that some hon. Members think we have an exclusive prerogative to express views on those subjects. Apparently, some of those with military experience—particularly if they hold senior ranks and are members of the royal family—should be excluded from commenting, even in private to their friends. I regret very much that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is not present. It had not crossed my mind for a moment that he would not be here, but I understand that he has had to run off to another BBC studio. We should not be surprised that the Liberal Democrats' official spokesman on foreign affairs and defence who, only last week, joined the Foreign Secretary in saying that our existing political culture is not conducive to consensus-building and that the adversarial approach to debate promotes polarisation of opinion, and who called for constructive discussions, was the same party politician who, just before Christmas, told the Prince of Wales "to mind his own bloody business" when he dared discuss defence issues at a private dinner party, the conversation at which was subsequently leaked.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I am sure that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) had been aware that the hon. Gentleman would mention him in such detail during his opening remarks he would have ensured that he was here. In his defence—although he needs none from me—it is a constitutional point that the Prince of Wales of any day should not become involved in discussing party politics. I speak as a "friend" of His Royal Highness—[Interruption]—but the way in which His Royal Highness became involved was wrong.
  Mr. Key: I need not pass any comment on that intervention. I am very surprised. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife would need no defence from anyone, and he would have thoroughly enjoyed this little exchange if he had been present, but the hon. Gentleman's comment really does take the biscuit. Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is one of those supernumerary Scottish Members of Parliament who have more time on their hands, we should not be surprised that he has become the darling of the BBC and the favourite BBC all-purpose defence rent-a-quote. We had better move on swiftly before anyone else owns up to being a friend of His Royal Highness.
  If nations do not have a common purpose in defence, they will not discuss the same issues in the same way; they will not react to the same crises in the same way; and they will not be able to satisfy the Petersberg tasks coherently—let alone high-intensity warfare.
  Take the issue of women in the front line. We are frequently told that there is no problem with deploying them there and that the Israelis adopted that approach years ago. Advocates of the Israeli example do not seem to have heard that the Israelis also abandoned it years ago, because it reduced combat effectiveness and simply did not work.
  908
  Advocates of women in the front line say that, if our strongest partner, the United States, can deploy them, so can we. They fail to recognise that, with the exception of the marine corps, which continues to thrive and attract massive numbers of recruits, the American military has suffered severe setbacks in its military effectiveness and deployability—an issue that must be addressed by the incoming Bush Administration.
  Nearer to home, all eyes are on Germany. Only last week, on 3 January The Times reported from Berlin:
  Germany's first contingent of 240 female fighting troops signed up yesterday for the Army under strict orders that they remove their nose rings and stay chaste in barracks …
  "Frederick the Great must be spinning in his sarcophagus," one officer said, referring to the Prussian leader who hand-picked his strapping male grenadiers.
  We know that, last year, the European Court of Justice ruled that the German Government must provide equal opportunities for women in their forces. The Times adds:
  Special courses on "gender training" have been set up to instruct and reassure male non-commissioned officers how to deal with women under their command. The questions raised … show how deep is the unease. Can I order a woman soldier to cut her hair? What jewellery is acceptable? Should a section commander intervene if two members of his unit fall in love? What happens if the commander himself falls in love? How to prevent sexual harassment, or distinguish between genuine and false claims of harassment? What shall I do if a woman cries?
  A tank commander has written several rules which, according to the report, include:
  no sex in barracks, before, during or after duty. Anyone who transgresses will be punished. Knocking on doors … is now compulsory.
  The report points out:
  Every fifth German soldier, questioned by sociologists, said he was afraid that a woman would end up taking his job. The key, say German officers, is to provide the right mixture at platoon and company level. According to a US Army analyst, if there are only 20 per cent. women in a mixed unit, the men tend to be over-protective, reducing fighting competence. If there are more than 50 per cent. women in a unit, the men tend to slacken and are difficult to command.
  The Times also reported that the physical health and mental aptitude of women recruits were good. It reports Colonel Volker Spangenberg as saying:
  Almost all are pretty robust. They also ask questions more readily than men and they have a much clearer idea as to what they want from the army.
  However, does the army have a clear idea of what it wants from the women?
  Mr. Mackinlay: To which clause of the Bill is the hon. Gentleman directing his remarks?
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long to find out.
  The really fundamental problem is that, under the German constitution, the Germany military—undoubtedly a good NATO partner and a good partner in peacekeeping it has turned out to be—does not have a front-line offensive role. Its members are not trained for high-intensity warfare, which must remain the first priority for British forces. The sort of questions reported to be occupying the mind of the German military are only a small part of the story.

  909
  There is a mass of other evidence. I shall describe three examples that were related to me only last week by a military man of impeccable credentials whose words I have no reason to doubt. The first concerned a young officer commanding a United Nations patrol in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In their blue berets, the members of the patrol came to an unexpected roadblock manned by heavily armed rebels who heavily outnumbered the small British contingent. The commanding officer asked the interpreter what the rebels were discussing. He was told that they had identified a pretty British corporal and were deciding how they would extract her from the group and abduct her for their pleasure. The commanding officer had to decide whether to allow the rebels to take away the corporal unhindered; to call up assistance that might arrive too late; or to commence a fire fight that would almost certainly result in deaths on both sides. In the event, he persuaded the rebels to move on.
  The commanding officer said that the incident had changed his whole attitude. He had been a pretty liberal-minded officer, ready to accept change. This incident made him realise that women in the front line of the infantry was an altogether different matter. The crisis would not have arisen if the woman had not been there. It had nothing to do with the woman's ability to do her job, and her undoubted success was rewarded by promotion. It was not even a matter of the reaction of her fellow British soldiers. It was a question of how the modern fighting force of a liberal democracy could handle personal confrontation with illiberal, undemocratic armed forces.
  A second officer explained how he had been with the Royal Navy on a resupply-at-sea exercise in a British frigate in a force 6 sea. When the frigate came alongside the United States supply ship in the Atlantic, the pitch and roll were substantial. The visiting officer and the captain were on the bridge and observed the female rating on the bow of the frigate as she tried to pull across the very heavy wet rope. She was physically unable to do it. Her skill and determination were not in question—indeed, she lacerated her hands in the process. All that was lacking was physical strength. The visitor was ordered forward to assist. He subsequently received a stream of invective from the United States sailor, who could not believe that the Brits could be so stupid.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Last April, the Defence Committee visited our forces in the Gulf. We also went to Bahrain, where we saw the commanding officer of the British RAF personnel who provide support on the tankers that refuel the VC10s that enforce the no-fly zones over southern Iraq. That commanding officer was a woman, a pilot and an excellent person. Instead of denigrating the women in our forces, as the hon. Gentleman is doing, is it not time that he praised them?
  Mr. Key: I am second to none in my praise for women of all ranks in our armed forces. I was about to say that almost all female and male members of Her Majesty's forces comment on the problem of physical strength and endurance. There is no question of any lack of intellectual equality, motivation, drive or determination. I believe that the majority of women recognise that they would face problems of endurance on the battlefield, which is when the problem of unit cohesiveness will arise. What will be the reaction of the men when their brave female
  910
  colleagues cannot physically carry the battlefield load in the front line of the infantry, or when their female comrades are wounded or just utterly exhausted?
  Mr. Cohen: What is the hon. Gentleman's reaction when women do carry the physical endurance load? Should they not then be allowed in the front line? As for his example of the woman who could have been kidnapped, is he not aware that the last British soldier who was kidnapped was a man in Sierra Leone? All his arguments against women, which I think he and his party will regret, could be applied to women in the civilian workplace. Such arguments have been shown to be nonsense there, and they are nonsense in the armed forces as well.
  Mr. Key: I have great affection and respect for the hon. Gentleman, but there is one fundamental difference between us: I do not believe that it is his place or mine to tell the military how to do their job. That is for the chain of command. Politicians should not tell the military to be politically correct, but that is what the Bill is in danger of doing.
  My final example is of a young liaison officer to a tented brigade headquarters in a forest in Germany in the middle of winter. It was terribly cold, and he went unchallenged as he approached the headquarters down a track. Only when he was inside the tent and in the presence of all the senior officers was he challenged by the sentry, who was a female lance-corporal who had been allowed to stay inside the tent because of the cold. That was not a summer picnic at Catterick, but a training exercise for high-intensity warfare.
  Senior officers have also made it clear to me that it is no longer possible to say with any credibility that women should either be prohibited from serving in the front line or be allowed to serve only in the rear echelons. The reason is that in this age of asymmetric warfare, weapons of mass destruction, electronic warfare and rapidly developing defence technology, it is no longer possible to define a front line or a rear echelon.
  What are we to do about political correctness and the application of human rights legislation to the armed forces? I regret that neither this debate nor the proceedings of the Committee stage which will follow will be informed by the inquiry by the Ministry of Defence into women in the infantry, which will not report until March. In addition, we will not have the benefit of the Defence Committee's inquiry into personnel issues, which will be published soon. Both those reports would have helped us.
  The Secretary of State states on the face of the Bill that,
  under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998,
  his view is that
  the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
  However, the Bill was printed on 11 December last, and time moves on quickly in matters of political correctness.
  During the passage of the Human Rights Bill in 1998, assurances were given by the Lord Chancellor that it was not intended or anticipated that the armed forces would

  911
  be affected by it, and that if that appeared likely, special legislation might have to be introduced to correct it. He said:
  I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces.
  He went on to attempt to allay the concerns that were expressed about the possible effect on the armed forces. He indicated that he was willing to consider designating military courts as the proper venue for the consideration of complaints on convention grounds by armed forces personnel. Most interestingly, he said that
  the Secretary of State for Defence takes the view that the Bill raises no issues which are special to the Armed Forces.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1998; Vol. 585, c. 768.]
  Just over a year later, the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was dumped on the armed forces. They were given no blanket or partial derogation from human rights law, despite the Government's promise. The Defence Committee examined that matter in its fourth report on that legislation. It pointed out that some countries have approached difficulties with compliance of their armed forces discipline system with the European convention on human rights by obtaining a reservation on ratifying the convention. France did that on its accession in 1974. Of course, a reservation is available to a state only on accession to the convention. A state can make a derogation after acceding, under article 15, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
  The United Kingdom did not obtain a reservation when we acceded to the ECHR in 1951 because, as their lordships made clear in 1998, at the time no one believed or intended that the convention would apply to the armed services. In its fourth report, the Defence Committee records that it asked the Minister for the Armed Forces to comment on the suggestion that, as the summary justice system was such a vital element of service discipline, an alternative way of dealing with the problem of compliance would be to leave the ECHR and rejoin with a reservation on armed forces discipline.
  In paragraph 5 of the report, the Minister told the Committee:
  That would be a theoretical possibility but that does not seem to have commended itself to any Government since 1951 … It is a theoretical possibility but the question we would then have to face as the application to join at that time and the great complications that would be involved means it is a fairly far out possibility.
  The Committee reported to the House:
  This course of action did not appear to have been considered actively, and we would look forward to the Government addressing this possibility during debate on the further stages of the Bill's progress in this House.
  The Government did not address that possibility, and they certainly should have done so.
  During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill in another place, my noble Friend Lord Renton made a significant intervention. He said:
  I believe I should mention that I am one of the few people still living who attended the European Council when the European Convention on Human Rights was being considered. Indeed, I was closeted with M. Rolin, the Belgian lawyer who represented Dr Mossadek at The Hague in order to agree with him—and eventually it was agreed by all concerned—the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.
  912
  I feel obliged to mention that at that time—it was just a few years after the war—I do not believe that members of any party in this country gave a moment's thought to the effect of the convention on military discipline. But now we must consider it. I believe that the Government must review the convention and our acceptance of it in order to ensure that military discipline is maintained.
  Lord Renton went on to restate a basic principle. He said:
  I believe that especially in time of war—and we should be thinking in terms of the application of this Act in time of war—discipline must if necessary prevail over justice.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 691.]
  Our position is clear. On 21 December, my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, said:
  The Conservative party will change this culture of political correctness in the armed forces. We will exempt them from this nonsense. On arrival back in Government we will take the armed forces out of the Convention. It is no good the Government pretending they are using common sense when they are the ones who have imposed this politically correct culture on the armed forces.
  Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that before the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, Conservative Governments consistently lost cases in the European courts, and as a result it was necessary to change our law to make it proof against those decisions? The hon. Gentleman is proposing that in future we abrogate international agreements, move away from co-operation with other countries and leave ourselves open to further legal judgments in the European courts.
  Mr. Key: I am terrified by that prospect.
  Yes, the Conservative Government lost cases in the European court. Yes, the Labour Government have lost cases in the European court. It never happened to the French, the Germans or any other nation that had taken out a reservation. That is why we say that we agree with Lord Renton that we should come out of the convention and immediately rejoin—it is a technicality—with the reservation in place. That is why I think the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is so wrong.
  We must be prepared to front up to the entire issue of political correctness in relation to the armed forces. As I have said several times, it should not be for us to decide. These matters must be decided by the chiefs of staff and the chain of command.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Before my hon. Friend leaves the implications for the armed forces of the Human Rights Act 1998, may I ask him this? He will have seen that there are no fewer than four pages in the Bill which deal specifically with repeals that are consequential upon the enactment of the Human Rights Act. Some of the repeals relate to the abolition of the death penalty. Has my hon. Friend had the chance to study the minutiae of the four pages, and has he found anything significant in them?
  Mr. Key: I am looking forward to studying the Bill in great depth over the next couple of months. That is what

  913
  I intend to do. If my hon. Friend would be so kind as to draw my attention to particular points that he would like to be investigated, I shall do my best.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill.
  Mr. Key: I have read the Bill from cover to cover. The hon. Gentleman was thumbing desperately through the Bill trying to reach the end while making that comment.
  Last month, the Chief of the Defence Staff attracted a certain amount of controversy when he suggested that it might not be appropriate for disabled people to have equal opportunities in the armed forces. What did he actually say? He said:
  Our Defence Ministers do understand our position and have been robust in defence of our case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. I fully understand that those proposing this aspect of employment law were acting with good intentions and for entirely laudable aims. But if left unchecked the impact would have had a detrimental effect on the forces by insisting that disabled people had a right to serve. We need to guard against such ill-conceived ideas in future but the fact that some thought they should apply to the forces is a reflection of that lack of awareness of military issues, which I mentioned earlier. I don't blame them but they must understand that military life is, and should be, different.
  I agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff. He was immediately criticised by a long line of people, who I think misunderstood what he was trying to say.
  I believe that Parliament needs to have a proper debate about these matters and I believe also that the Bill is the best vehicle for that debate. I hope that the Select Committee will have the opportunity of taking evidence from organisations such as the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Disability Rights Commission, the all-party parliamentary disablement group, which is so ably led by Lord Ashley of Stoke, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the human rights organisation Liberty and others. We should hear also from the Secretary of State for Defence on the opt-out for the armed forces in respect of a clause in article 13 in the European Union treaty of Amsterdam which forbids employment discrimination on grounds of disability or age.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the hon. Gentleman not, in effect, answered his own point? I understood that the speech to which he was referring was made to make it clear that, when it came to matters of defence, it was essential that people should be required only to do that which they were capable of doing. That was the point. That would deal with the hon. Gentleman's anecdotal accounts of people who are physically unable to deal with wet ropes and with those who put people who are incapable of carrying out certain tasks in a position where they would be required to undertake them.
  Mr. Key: I respect the hon. Lady's views on these matters, as on so much else. If she will be patient for a little longer, she will understand what I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff was trying to say. There is another dimension to the matter.
  The armed forces of European Union members increasingly work alongside each other under the European security and defence initiative. Some personnel
  914
  are conscripts, some volunteers. Some are under 18. Under human rights and military law, what will be the legal basis of orders issued by a commanding officer from a country that forbids military service under 18 to a 17-year-old British regular soldier? On 20 December, the Prime Minister's spokesman made it clear that the Prime Minister backs General Sir Charles Guthrie and stated that
  there is no such thing as a non-combatant job …
  I think that I know what he meant, but he did not put it clearly and the Government need to clear up the confusion that has been caused.
  Back in 1995, the Conservative Government established the "Positive About Disabled People" programme. The Ministry of Defence, then and now, has an action plan to recruit more people with disabilities and to help disabled employees to develop their full potential at work. Only yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence told my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in a written answer that the MOD employs some 6,000 people with disabilities—about 6 per cent. of its civilian work force, which is about the same percentage as in the whole civilian work force. We know that the military has always sought to employ comrades injured in service, so that is not the issue.
  We have an opportunity to listen to and learn from those who believe that there is a case to be made for a rethink of the status quo. I shall certainly be prepared to do that, but the nub of the matter is whether it is right that anybody—anybody at all—should be able to apply for regular front-line infantry service. That is all that the Chief of the Defence Staff was seeking to clarify.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The shadow Minister is uttering at the Dispatch Box the same twaddle and Bumbledom that a very frustrated Douglas Bader heard before the battle of Britain—it is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has pointed out that people should be judged on the basis of capability, and if they can fulfil a function, their applications should be examined on their merits.
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Group Captain Bader was fully trained as an operational pilot and had an heroic record. He was injured in service. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that people with a disability—an injured leg or, indeed, no leg—should be able to train as fighter pilots. That is a problem.
  Mr. Blunt: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Key: Yes, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because there is a danger of a serious misunderstanding arising over the nature of service life and what service men must be able to do. Even Downing street appears to have it right, which is welcome news to me, and a surprise to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). There is no such thing as a non-combatant role in the armed services. It has been said that blind people could be radio operators, but radio operators have to be able to operate in a combat environment just like any other soldier. That is why we cannot start recruiting disabled people as service men.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend, who has direct experience of these matters, makes his point extremely well.

  915
  Just how far are the Government prepared to go with their agenda of political correctness? That matters very much because the Bill will give the Secretary of State wide powers, particularly in that respect. They are certainly prepared to go as far as the parade ground over sergeant-majors and military bands. The Minister for the Armed Forces took a roasting in the press and media when he confirmed that a team of MOD scientists, academics and civil musicians were reviewing noise levels. He is not present and I fully accept that he has to go to other forums to explain his remarks to the nation, so I shall constrain my remarks, especially as he did me the courtesy of providing an explanation. However, the matter represents a low for Ministers and the MOD and I hope that there will be a steady improvement. The point about brass bands and sergeant-majors has been appropriately derided.
  On the face of it, part IV, which will extend the jurisdiction of the MOD police, looks sensible. I served on the Committee that considered the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, which attracted considerable hostility from Home Office police forces. That has largely evaporated. However, there was always unfinished business, and the issue of jurisdiction was at the top of the list.
  The proposals cannot go unchallenged, not least because of the objections of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which believes that there are good reasons why the public, if they knew the full position, would object to an extension of the Ministry of Defence police jurisdiction. The Police Federation claims that Ministry of Defence police officers do not have relevant experience, and it does not consider that the Ministry of Defence police has an appropriate approach to recruitment, or that its officers have the necessary training to encourage appropriate interface with the public. The Police Federation is concerned that Ministry of Defence police officers have not been appropriately trained and do not have the appropriate level of experience to deal with the general public.
  The Police Federation also believes that the Ministry of Defence police is not sufficiently publicly accountable, so its powers should be limited to MOD matters alone. We shall explore these issues in detail in Committee. There are further concerns about the Ministry of Defence police often being armed—a concern which, I believe, is voiced by the Police Superintendents Association.
  Most members of the public do not realise that there are so many different kinds of police in this country. It is a great strength that we have so many police forces, particularly the Home Office constabularies, county by county and the Metropolitan Police. There is a great deterrent effect in the combined effort of all the police forces. Until Christmas, I had seven police forces operating in my constituency. Just before Christmas, I noticed an eighth which had suddenly come on the scene. For some years I have had in my constituency the Wiltshire constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police, the Royal Military police, the Military Provost Guard Service, the UK Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence guard force. Then I saw a brand-new shiny white police car in Salisbury. It was doing its rounds and inside was a gentleman in military uniform. Down the side of the police car was written Army Security Service.
  916
  I wondered what that was, as we have not had a Bill on the Army Security Service, so I tabled a parliamentary question. I understand that the Army Security Service is part of the Military Provost Guard Service and that it has put a fleet of 23 white police cars on the roads. I welcome it. It will be an added deterrent and assist the Home Office constabulary in deterring crime. People like to see cars that look like police cars, even if they are not police cars, so the force cannot do much harm. However, its appearance makes the point that Parliament must keep an eye on the proliferation of police forces and their powers.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the Royal Parks constabulary. As someone who, in a past incarnation, was a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Parks constabulary, may I say what a high regard I have for that force, because of its specialist work in dealing with a specialist segment of people in our capital city. It can deal with foreign people who cannot speak English as well as it deals with everyday criminals in the royal parks. It is a remarkable institution that deserves far more recognition and acclaim than it gets.
  The hon. Gentleman was right when he pointed out that a problem arises if a Ministry of Defence policeman sees a crime being committed. The answer that I was given by the Royal Parks police was that such a policeman would be expected to do his duty as a citizen. That is all very well, but the Ministry of Defence policeman would have no legal cover beyond that which he had as a civilian.
  I commend the Ministry of Defence police for its work with young people in the DARE—drug abuse resistance education—programme, which is an anti-drugs and alcohol programme in schools. It is a remarkable programme, which is hugely successful in my constituency.
  During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, the Ministry of Defence tried to estimate the cost of implementing the changes that would flow from the Act. It estimated that there would be about 1,500 appeals a year to the summary appeals court. On that basis, the estimated cost of implementing the changes would be £6.5 million a year. The start-up costs of £1.5 million would cover the cost of additional computer systems, personnel, accommodation and office equipment. It was estimated that 55 additional service personnel and 35 additional MOD civilians would need to be employed.
  In its fourth report, the Select Committee on Defence asked witnesses why the estimated number of appeals had been revised from 850 to 900. The Committee was told by the head of the Armed Forces Bill team at the MOD that that could be explained by a re-assessment of the nature of appeals, which were more likely to be against sentences than against the findings of summary proceedings, and significant additional investigative work would not therefore be necessary. The Committee reported that all three services had told it that good progress had been made in recruiting the necessary additional lawyers and had not encountered problems in attracting the right calibre of applicants.
  We will wish to probe in Committee the question of additional costs and manpower. We will also return to one of the scandalous unanswered questions of last year's Armed Forces Discipline Bill—the lack of proper legal aid for our service men and women when faced with courts martial. With all the professionalism and good will in the world, the Army legal service cannot get away from

  917
  the fact that its members are part of the chain of command; they are not perceived to be independent and impartial. We return to the human rights judge and jury syndrome. The Army declares that it wants as broad a range of choice of legal practitioner as possible to be available to forces personnel. That is not the reality. Last year, the Lord Chancellor specifically excluded swathes of the armed forces from assistance by the Legal Aid Board, and the Government have failed to remedy that. There are no relevant provisions in the Bill.
  In the strategic defence review, the Government acknowledged the benefits of a tri-service discipline Act to replace the three service discipline Acts now under consideration. They have failed to deliver. They have also failed to deliver consolidation of the three Acts, even though that has been in progress since July 1991. We have heard what the Government have said: they have decided to abandon consolidation; but if it has taken 10 years to reach the point of abandoning consolidation, what hope is there that the Government will instruct the Lord Chancellor's Department to give the necessary priority to the Law Commission and others to undertake the massive job of producing a single tri-service Act? We have heard a commitment this afternoon on a time scale for that. It is an extremely tight commitment, to which we will hold the Government, but we shall not need to wait because we will be there and make sure that it happens.
  In the Select Committee's special report on the Armed Forces Bill, printed on 30 April 1996, at paragraph 37, the Committee recommended that the Government ensure that the necessary resources and parliamentary time were made available. Their hopes have been dashed. We expect early progress in that area.
  I invite the House to decline to give a Second Reading to the Armed Forces Bill. The Government have failed to address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation, whose authors do not understand that military life is and should be different, and that training for, and taking part in, battle is not like going to the office. The Government fail to take into account that the culture of risk aversion developing in society is anathema to service men and women whose profession requires a degree of decisiveness, flair and courage which sits badly with some of the more restrictive practices of modern civilian employment legislation.
  The Government do not recognise that the chiefs of staff are not in the business of designing armed forces for the good times, but have to advise what will work when conditions are tough, dangerous and frightening. The Bill encourages a further creeping advance of litigation which will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts. The blame for that belongs with the Government.
  The fears that I have expressed are not just those of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition; they are widely held in all three services, which is no doubt why they were expressed in terms by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, in his speech to the Royal United Services Institute on 19 December 2000. I end by repeating his words:
  If we hamstring our fighting services with inappropriate legislation then we will create a generation of sailors, soldiers and airmen who are little more than a gendarmerie.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: In the 1980s, I was quite nervous about the Labour party's defence policy. I was rather fearful about it. I am not one of those who have changed their minds on defence in general, but, having observed the Government in action on defence matters for approaching four years, they have done little that causes me a great deal of anxiety. What does disturb me is that many of the things that Conservative Members supported enthusiastically, they now appear to oppose.
  My wife accuses me regularly of being the personification of political incorrectness, but, in the many military units that I have visited, I have not discerned that women in the armed forces are a profound liability—quite the reverse. The recruiting crisis that began a long time before 1997—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) stays, he might learn a little more, but prejudice does not meet reason too frequently.
  I have seen women in the armed forces performing admirably. They are not there for reasons of political correctness, but because they have a right to be there. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a woman in charge of transport command in Bahrain, he unfortunately forgot another example, which is that when we visited the Kuwaiti air base, which was occupied by the United States air force and the Royal Air Force, the pilot of the fourth Tornado aircraft, about to do some nasty things to Iraqi equipment, was a woman. No one to whom we spoke said that, somehow, that woman was not worth her place in the RAF.
  It was, after all, the Minister for the Armed Forces in the early 1990s who courageously and famously announced that, forthwith, women would be allowed to serve on board Her Majesty's warships, and that he was confident, as ever, that the senior service would rise to meet the challenge. Those are words that I shall remember for many reasons. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) looks at the Conservative party's record in introducing women into the armed forces, he need feel no embarrassment. The idea that women could be extricated from the armed forces without a catastrophic effect on the armed forces is beyond words.
  Mr. Key: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: I promise that I will give way, but I must add that, from one or two things in the hon. Gentleman's speech and what he has said he intends to talk about, the Select Committee should be fun. It is a great shame that no member of the Defence Committee will be on that Committee, but more about that later. It will be a fun Committee, because all the prejudices that have been displayed by Conservative Members will replace serious debate on serious issues. We have heard little about the technicalities, perhaps because the hon. Gentleman has not gone into them. We have been treated to an incredible exercise in political prejudice—against the disabled and almost every category whom he represents in his constituency. I shall not threaten to send a copy of his speech to disablement and women's rights organisations, and every other category of minority that apparently can expect no place in the armed forces under a Conservative Administration. I shall simply say, having read that it

  919
  takes 4.5 billion years to degrade a piece of depleted uranium, that that seems about the time scale that the hon. Gentleman will have to anticipate a degrading of the Government's appeal. I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman's riposte. He knows that my words are in no way malevolent.
  Mr. Key: Indeed I do. The right hon. Gentleman—I congratulate him—has known me over many years and in some tight places, literally as well as metaphorically, and he knows that I recognise the contribution that women have made. He is misrepresenting my views, and I believe that he knows it. I invite him in riposte to anticipate the reports of the Ministry of Defence and of his Committee, to which we are looking forward keenly. What is his judgment of, and what would he say to the Chief of the Defence staff about, the role of women on the front line of the infantry?
  Mr. George: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall not avoid his question. I had hoped that our report could be produced in time for Committee members to bring their experience to the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. Regrettably, that has not been possible: the time scale for introducing the Bill has made it difficult to produce our report in time to do that. However, we are struggling to bring the report to the Select Committee's attention—in fact, before the Committee is operational.
  The Defence Committee report is the product of the work of advisers, staff and the 11 Committee members. However, my own view is that perhaps it would be wise in future if the Defence Committee looked at the reforms to see whether the forebodings have been realised: whether women in the armed forces means mass fornication, cowardice and retreats in the face of the enemy; whether gays in the military will cause excessive problems; and whether the argument that some people—if not the hon. Member for Salisbury—have used, that blacks in the military will be a disruptive force, holds. Of course, it does not.
  Political representatives in government have every right to tell the Chief of the Defence Staff the parameters within which he must operate. We have not given that power to the military. If members of the military want to become politicians, they can. There is an example in the House this afternoon, and there are several less successful entrants on the Opposition Benches. I say that mischievously, not malevolently.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury was correct about one thing. I regret the forthcoming retirement of the Chief of the Defence Staff, although the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) will not be despondent when that day finally arrives. The ultimate test of the military is not necessarily how well it reflects society, but how well it performs when it is required to perform effectively. Even though I support the reforms, uppermost in my mind and, I hope, in the minds of Ministers, is the question of how much farther we shall have to go to achieve a perfectly representative military that will include ageing, obese cowards like myself. Frankly, I would forgo the right to be represented in the military—as, looking around, would most, if not all of my colleagues. We cannot expect the military to be a microcosm of society.
  920
  Although I support the reforms, one has to be cautious and say that there are limits beyond which one should not go. That is why I would argue strongly that, at some stage early in the next Parliament—or perhaps a little later to give the reforms a chance to mature—we should see how successful or otherwise the reforms have been. If reforms or changes need to be made, I hope that the Government will have the courage to take the appropriate measures.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I like the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) very much and, contrary to his better judgment, he may have some regard for me. However, his speech ought to be read by every woman in the land because it was full of stereotyping and anecdotal prejudice. It portrayed the confused and sometimes malevolent thinking in the Conservative party. I wanted to share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) the fact that I spent a day with the hon. Member for Salisbury on HMS Invincible. He would certainly be disqualified from serving because of his lack of agility. However, I remember that the commanding officer of HMS Invincible telling us of the high proportion of women ratings and officers on his ship.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is bordering on a speech.
  Mr. George: Thank you for rescuing me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my colleague was making a pertinent point.
  The Select Committee that is being formed will be interesting. Obviously, politics will rear its ugly head. Later, we shall have a vote, which, unfortunately, will destroy any hope of a consensual approach on some issues.
  Mr. Viggers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—I have never had a chance to call him that before. He and I serve on the Defence Committee, of which he is a distinguished Chairman, and have both served on the Select Committee considering a previous Armed Forces Bill. He knows that the Defence Committee has influence but no power, whereas the Committee considering such Bills has enormous power to scrutinise the Government and, effectively, to hold them to ransom. What does the right hon. Gentleman think is the Government's motive for not choosing any member of the Defence Committee to serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill?
  Mr. George: It is worse than that: it is the exclusion not only of members of the Defence Committee, but of Back Benchers. The composition of the Select Committee considering the Bill is a classic case of the Executive dominating the legislature. After 300 years of alleged parliamentary supremacy, that Committee has Executive supremacy, not parliamentary supremacy. From the Opposition, there are two wannabe Ministers; there is also the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is another wannabe, but he will wanna be for a hell of a lot longer than the Conservative Members who sit proximate to him. There is also a Whip and a parliamentary private secretary, so Opposition membership of that Committee is dominated by would-be members of the Executive. Labour membership of the Committee consists of two Ministers, who are extremely competent, two private

  921
  Parliamentary private secretaries and a Whip. Inclusion of a member of the Defence Committee would not make much difference because there appears to be a carve-up between the Executive and the alternative Executive. I shall say no more than that, as I am already in enough trouble with my colleagues. However, I find matters regrettable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for somewhere in the frozen north—I am sorry, I cannot remember Dari Taylor's Teesside constituency, but her football team is improving by the minute—will be unique. I hope that she will be looked after, although she can look after herself, because she is the only Back-Bench representative on the Committee. I profoundly regret that, but I shall say no more. However, I thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for giving me the opportunity to raise that matter rather earlier than I intended.
  Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that it is not only Back Benchers who have an interest, but also the Back-Bench defence committee in Parliament. Two vice-chairmen and the secretary of that committee were not even asked if they might be considered or asked about their views. There has been a total exclusion, so I should like to back my right hon. Friend's comments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I remind him that this is the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall come to the motion on the Committee later this evening.
  Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall come on to that later.
  The ad hoc Committee will be interesting, but not as interesting as it was in 1996, when we dealt directly with gays in the military, equal opportunities, the sale of Greenwich naval college—which was a disgrace—the court martial system, use of alcohol and drugs, and local service engagement. That engagement was bizarre, as it operated only within the travel-to-work area. "Sharpe" was being shown on television at the time and, to alter slightly what it said for the case of local service engagements: "Queen Anne commands and we obey, over the hills and as far as Wolverhampton." That, I am afraid, was the limit of local service involvement. However, the Conservatives' policy when they were in government is now our party's policy.
  In addition to the problem of the composition of the Select Committee, there are other problems, to which the hon. Member for Salisbury referred. In 1991, the ad hoc Select Committee asked whether it was time that the single service Acts were "consolidated", and accordingly made a recommendation. We then met in 1996, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport—I use that phrase deliberately—was Chairman. I wondered how long it would take before we destabilised the team that was giving evidence to us. It took about four minutes, after the hon. Member for Gosport asked why consolidation was not included in the Bill. The answer was bizarre. We were told that a guy was seconded by the Treasury counsel; he worked for a couple of years on preparing the consolidated Bill and then left. Apparently, not enough lawyers were around—a pretty bizarre excuse in a country that is overflowing with members of the legal profession—to fill the gap. Thus, there was not the
  922
  slightest chance of achieving any consolidation in the 1996 Bill. Ten years on from the initial consideration of the matter, there is still no sign of consolidation. Instead, the process might drift on until 2005–06. We are told that a new Act will then do the business. If that happens, it will be nearly 15 years since Parliament called for some rationality in the legislation. I do not regard that as a triumph for the Executive, who have become the legislature in the Select Committee that will consider the Bill. No doubt, they will be able to resolve the matter.
  In 1985, it was suggested that the Select Committee on Defence should be given power to deal with the Armed Forces Bill. At that time, the Defence Committee said, "Thank you very much, but no thanks. We do not want to do it." However, serious consideration should be given to ensuring that the Select Committee on Defence has that role, although that proposal might be too radical for the Ministry of Defence. Instead, perhaps a draft Bill could be referred to the Defence Committee for consideration. It could then be handed back for consideration by the Armed Forces Select Committee that usually considers such Bills, with augmentation by Ministers and shadow spokesmen. The Defence Committee could achieve much more serious consideration by tailoring its activities to culminate in the publication of a report on the Bill. Such an arrangement would not be quite as radical an innovation as handing the whole procedure to the Defence Committee.
  The Select Committee that will consider the Bill has a further weakness. Unlike any other Select Committee, it has no advisers. I have drafted an amendment to flag up that concern. It would introduce the following provision:
  That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.
  Having seen the composition of the Committee, I realise that the amendment would be almost redundant, as the Executive—who are now the legislature—have access to the Ministry of Defence and to its advice. One might ask why, as we Back Benchers have been rendered superfluous, we should not let them get on with it and make it an entirely in-house operation.
  Much of the Bill relates to security and policing. The Ministry of Defence has an enormous estate. It has a budget of £22 billion, which is one of the largest in Whitehall. More than 300,000 directly employed staff work in the MOD and the 44 defence executive agencies. The MOD's equipment procurement budget is £10 billion per annum, and it supports an industry of some 420,000 workers. The estate is physically enormous and amounts to 22,000 hectares. It comprises museums, art galleries, works of art, ships, tanks, computers and so on. It is incredible.
  The task of providing policing and security falls to the Ministry of Defence police. Despite some of the remarks made by the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, it is clear that the police are a professional force. They are supported by the MOD Guard Service, an in-house security force that is one of the most professional security forces in the country. Under the Bill, the service police forces are becoming more like civilian police forces, with many constabulary powers. I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury will consider that issue when he breaks out of his little prejudices. I recall his views as I served with him on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Ministry of

  923
  Defence Police Act 1987. We must also bear in mind the Military Provost Guard Service and the list X companies, which have mostly private security.
  Thankfully, and despite the indifference of the Conservative party, the Government seek to regulate private security. The quality of personnel in the industry will consequently be enhanced enormously. The Defence Committee produced numerous reports recommending that there be no further employment of private security workers until the industry is regulated. Once the industry is regulated, it can perform tasks that no sane Ministry of Defence would currently bestow upon it because of lack of professionalism and training.
  The Bill improves the quality of policing and security in the Ministry of Defence. I desperately hoped that the Defence Committee would have an opportunity to undertake a major inquiry into policing and security in the Ministry. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we shall have time to do so. I hope that whoever is Chairman of the Committee in the next Parliament will take up that proposal.
  It is absolutely right for the powers of the MOD police to be extended. They cannot be seen as a supplementary force for the Home Office police forces, who might not have displayed hostility over the years, but have certainly had an attitude that is less than caring or brotherly. They have ridiculed the MOD police's professionalism, equipment and training. I have seen the reports on constabularies by Her Majesty's inspectors. They do not reflect the prejudiced view of the Home Office police forces. I pay tribute to the recently retired chief constable of the MOD police force, Mr. Walter Boreham, and welcome his successor. It is right for the powers of the MOD police to be extended. I have some reservations, so I invite all hon. Members who have the freedom to offer their views or their opinions on the matter, although I am aiming at a fairly restricted audience. I hope that all hon. Members perceive the need to ensure that the powers of the service police are in line with the requirements of policing in general.
  I wish all hon. Members who will serve on the Select Committee considering the Bill an enjoyable and informative time. Despite the Opposition's decision to oppose the procedure, such Committees tend to produce consensus. No doubt, the Committee will visit the glasshouse in Colchester. The quality of the prisoners means that it is difficult to distinguish them from their guards—[Interruption.] I shall not rephrase that. The glasshouse has superior prisoners, who are there not because they are criminals, but because they have breached discipline. The last time that the Committee visited, one of the guys taking us around had gone AWOL. He had established a successful sporting business, but decided that he would go back and serve his sentence. Perhaps one reason for his decision was that he was invited to appear on "Gladiators", so somebody might have spotted him. I was unable to tell that he was not a member of the supervisory staff.
  We can be incredibly proud of our armed forces. It sounds almost patronising to say that we have the most professional armed forces in the world. We must maintain that very high status by providing the best equipment that we can afford. We can afford more than we are spending now. We must ensure that our forces are well trained,
  924
  well motivated and have all the qualifications that we desire. The Defence Committee's report on personnel issues explores many such matters in considerable depth.
  I hope that the Bill will not be detrimental to the high standards that we have grown to expect and I do not believe that it will be. It is a necessary piece of legislation.
  Finally, I urge Members to read the Library's briefing, which makes it clear that ours is not just another Committee. It is a sort of hybrid Committee. That reminds me of Sir Winston Churchill's taunt about his colleague Sir Clive Bossom. He said "Silly name: neither one thing nor the other." The Committee is, perhaps, neither one thing nor the other, but it must be seen against the background of the constitutional evolution of the supremacy of the legislature over the Executive.
  I implore the Whips, when the time next comes round, to read our Defence Committee report, to read the Library's briefing, and then to agree with their counterparts on the other side to hand the Committee back to the legislature, rather than allowing it to be occupied by the Executive. Back Benchers on this Committee are about as numerous as Brits in Chelsea football club.
  I hope that things will change for the better, and that when the composition of the next Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is considered, members of the Executive will be invitees and the majority of members will be Back Benchers. That is what the supremacy of legislature over Executive means. We do not want more of the supremacy of Executive over legislature that has become a feature of our institution.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on becoming a Privy Councillor, and welcome him to what is a rather strange organisation. I welcome him sincerely, given his many years of service as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
  I echo the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the armed forces. Such tributes are commonly paid, and when the right hon. Gentleman paid it there was an echo of support around the Chamber; but the reputation that we praise here, in so facile a way, carries a heavy responsibility. That reputation, and the standard of excellence that we have come to expect from our armed forces, have been achieved not simply by accident, but through centuries of evolution and the gradual development of a system—a discipline; an organisation—that has stood the country in very good stead, and continues to do so.
  Several Members mentioned Sir Charles Guthrie's recent speech at the Royal United Services Institute. I was struck by one of his comments. When we talk of what we expect from our armed forces, we tend to forget what is actually involved. Sir Charles said that, during his time as Chief of the Defence Staff, British forces had been involved in no fewer than 40 operations in 20 countries. That is a measure of the activity that we expect from them, and the complexity and variety of the tasks that we expect them to perform.
  Parts of the Bill are not particularly controversial, although they are detailed, technical and evolutionary. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that much of the Bill can be supported by members of all parties. That may be why some have looked for aspects to criticise.

  925
  Some rather fatuous remarks were made about my hon. Friend's perfectly sensible comment that there was a problem with the role of women in the armed forces. That, surely, is accepted. I do not know whether anyone has proposed that women should serve in submarines or in Royal Armoured Corps tanks, although there is some debate about whether they should serve in infantry badge units. Such matters will have to be discussed.
  Anyone with experience of the armed forces knows that women make a valuable contribution in many areas. Indeed, I have the impression that in some aspects of electronic warfare—certainly on ships—some display an aptitude that may be superior to that of men. During the Gulf war, there was a concern about women serving in our forces in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where women civilians were not allowed to drive cars. We observed the contrast with the air refuelling capability of the United States national guard—based at Jeddah, next to the Mecca pilgrim terminal. Half the pilots of the planes involved were women. The valuable contribution that women can make is no secret, and what my hon. Friend said was entirely sensible. I am sorry that some hon. Members sought to misrepresent it.
  The evolution of our defence policies can be compared with the evolution of our military strategy. Labour Members, including Ministers, often talk as though they invented the strategy of greater mobility and more flexible capability. I was glad to note Sir Charles Guthrie's reference to our steady progress in realigning our policies and developing
  a coherent joint doctrine for expeditionary operations.
  He took some pride in the progress made on that doctrine, which was established 10 years ago. As I was involved in aspects of its creation, I was grateful for the recognition that a strategy drawn up in "Britain's Army of the 1990s" had been allowed to make such progress—progress that started with "Options for Change".
  I have had the privilege of holding positions of responsibility in both Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence, which revealed to me the difficult challenges that we pose to our service men in a host of different circumstances. Those circumstances may present them with real danger; their lives may be threatened—but we require them to act, and react, in a disciplined, responsible and legal manner.
  We should bear in mind the challenges that are posed to service men on the street. It is easy enough in Committee to try to draw up blueprints; it is easy enough for Ministry of Defence lawyers to write down the required obligations and rules, and for other clever lawyers to crawl all over what they have written. We should, however, consider the challenges presented on the street to someone of 18 or 19.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has campaigned on behalf of two of his constituents. That tragic and awful case, with all its complications, illustrated very clearly the challenging and immediate problems faced by individual soldiers. The yellow card in Northern Ireland, the rules of engagement in the Gulf war and the disciplinary codes, requirements and rules, such as Queen's regulations, under which the services have had to operate in the past—demonstrate the need for a structure that members of the forces can understand, in which they can have confidence, and which can enable them to work effectively.
  926
  The right hon. Member for Walsall, South discussed our needs. Sir Charles Guthrie said exactly the same. We need proper resources for defence, we need effective equipment and we need adequate personnel with high morale. That has always been the objective of our armed forces, and achieving it has enabled them to serve our country as well as they have in the past.
  High morale depends in part on the provision of sufficient resources—not just finance, but numbers. Although this is not directly relevant to the Bill, I refer in passing to Sir Charles's worrying statement that the Army is 8,000 short, and has had to change the date by which it expects to achieve full manning levels from 2005 to 2008. I do not believe any prediction for 2008: that date is too far away, and there are too many variables between now and then. What we are really being told is that we are 8,000 short now, and will remain short until at least 2008. That is the best prediction, which is very worrying.
  What is the importance of that and what is its relevance to the Bill? We face in any case a worrying recruitment problem—and the demographic situation is against that. It will be a difficult challenge. We face a 6 per cent. fall in the catchment potential over the next 30 years and difficulties of recruitment. We will not be able to deal with additional problems if the morale of the armed forces is affected and if they feel that they are operating in circumstances where it is not possible for them to do the job that is expected of them.
  That is what Sir Charles Guthrie referred to, but being Chief of the Defence Staff, he understandably spoke with moderation. I commend his speech to every hon. Member. He chose his words with care and has understated the position. As a serving officer, he has no choice but to do that. One should recognise that for him to raise these issues means that we are facing a really grave situation. A threat to combat effectiveness arises—it is spelled out in the amendment—with the multiplicity of legislation. The more we treat our soldiers as though they are civilians working within normal civilian law, the more challenges we face.
  There is no doubt—I made the point in the foreword to the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been tabled in the House, and Sir Charles made the same point—that there was a wonderful stability in the cold war. He said that he knew the German plain as well as he knew Hyde park. At the time of the cold war, the threats that our forces faced, the challenges, the issues and the rules of engagement were clear. Now, a much more difficult environment exists.
  The Minister does not know what call may come tonight from the Foreign Office for support and urgent action in a territory or area that we may not have visited and may not have any accurate intelligence about, but where the military are expected to respond. If the Minister and his colleagues say to the Chief of the Defence Staff, "Can you do it?", he will say, "We'll do it. We do not know how yet. Give me some time." We have all been in that situation.
  There is even talk that our forces may be engaged—as they will be—against well-armed international criminal organisations or drug cartels, which is outside the former remit of fighting the Soviet Union or dealing with the cold war. The circumstances are completely different. Therefore, the need is for clear protection for our armed

  927
  forces, so that they do not go into operations not sure of what their legal position is, what actions they may face or what claims may be made against them afterwards.
  It is a difficult challenge. Sir Charles talked about the lack in our society, in the media and in politics of any real military experience. The Chairman of the Defence Committee made the point. Like him, I draw the distinction—what is the duty of politicians and Ministers and what is the duty of the Chiefs of the Defence Staff? I quote Sir Charles:
  The Chiefs of Staff have a duty to recommend to the government how to produce the best operational capability for the nation.
  He went on to say that we must ensure that nothing—I repeat nothing—damages the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.
  I absolutely accept and endorse that the armed forces do not rule this country. It is not a military dictatorship. Chiefs of the Defence Staff are responsible to a democratically elected Parliament and to Ministers, but as, increasingly, Ministers have no military background—the Prime Minister has no military background—the difficulty lies in correctly assessing the situation.
  I make no secret of the fact that Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Chiefs of Staff and the services have their particular angles and objectives, but the challenge and difficulty is to ensure that the effectiveness of our armed forces is maintained and that advice is listened to seriously. For Ministers who do not have practical military experience, the responsibility of listening all the more carefully to the professional advice that comes is clear.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument in its broader context, but it is not strictly true that one needs to have a military background in order to be an effective Armed Forces Minister. After all, in the middle of the 19th century, during the heyday—if one can put it like that—of British military conquests, few Ministers had military experience. After the Duke of Wellington, I do not think that any did. I cannot remember Disraeli or Gladstone serving in the infantry, as the right hon. Gentleman and I did.
  Mr. King: I was not seeking to make that point. I was not saying that lack of military experience disqualifies Ministers from serving in the MOD. There have been some outstanding Defence Ministers who did not have a military background, but it is a challenge and a problem, particularly understanding the points about legislation.
  Sir Charles referred to the raft of legislation: measures on health and safety at work, the working time directive, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the service discipline Acts. Each one on its own is not necessarily a problem. Now a study group is being set up to discuss the impact of noise in military situations; it is examining both brass bands and combat situations. That is reasonable; I understand that. There may be a health and safety issue, but, as we gradually pile those measures together and then introduce the European convention on human rights, we get into a situation—I believe that this is now happening—where the MOD is advising commanders that they should take out personal insurance policies against being sued, perhaps by those under their command; there
  928
  may be claims that some order led to serious consequences and they could be held responsible for negligence.
  Has anyone advised Ministers to take out any personal insurance policy in turn? People used to think that all Ministers were protected against individual claims against them—it happened when I was a Minister—but I am not sure that that is true any longer. If they have been advising commanders to take out insurance policies, I should be interested to know whether they are being advised to do so, too. Sir Charles referred in his speech to a platoon commander possibly being sued by his own men.
  It is a world in which there is a critical role for our armed forces and in which we are doing things that not many years ago we would never have expected to do. We would never have expected to find ourselves involved in some of the peacekeeping and peacemaking activities that are now taking place, which in certain respects are far more dangerous to individual soldiers than most of the activities during the cold war ever were. Individual soldiers face such risks to life. We need to be sure about the terms under which they work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury used Sir Charles Guthrie's quote about reducing our armed forces to the level of a gendarmerie. There is no doubt that the armed forces of some countries are not able to play the same role as our forces in peacekeeping and peacemaking because they feel constrained by the legislation under which they operate. Sir Charles Guthrie said:
  I do think the uniqueness of the Services is not always well understood and the modern concern for the rights of the individual sometimes have to be sacrificed in the military for the collective good of the team. Some countries have been less successful than us in preserving this quintessential difference between the military and civilians. I understand why they have been forced down this path, but feel their forces are the poorer for it.
  The Bill has failed to address the challenge that is drawn out in part of the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are proud of our armed forces. I have heard many people in Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo—not British comments, but others—say that nobody else could have operated in the way that the British forces did. We must preserve their combat effectiveness. The House has a duty to ensure that if we ask young men and women to serve our country and, as President Bush used to say, to stand in harm's way, we must ensure that the discipline, the laws, the rights and the arrangements under which they operate are fair and enable them to preserve the effectiveness of the armed forces of which we are so proud.
  6.42 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I am always pleased to have an opportunity to listen to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in defence debates. I, too, have heard worldwide praise for the unique skills and professionalism of the British armed forces in dealing with conflict prevention and peacekeeping. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am committed to upholding that invaluable reputation.
  I shall make some general comments, leaving the detailed and technical consideration to the Committee. I should like to refer to the speech made by the Chief of the Defence Staff to the Royal United Services Institute in December. I have had an opportunity to read that speech

  929
  and I welcome many of its excellent points. I regret that it was so inadequately and selectively re ported by the media. The reporting did not assist the serious debate that we need on the future of our armed forces.
  I agree with what has been said by right hon. and hon. Members about the importance of availing ourselves of the perspective of the armed forces. Sir Charles Guthrie said:
  Today few people in the media or in politics have any real experience of the military. Indeed very few people in the country at large have any first hand knowledge of the Forces, and this is increasing as fathers and grandfathers with wartime or national Service experience fade away.
  We need to be aware of that when dealing with armed forces legislation. I hope that the Committee will try to provide as many opportunities as possible, formally and informally, to hear directly the views of armed forces personnel. It is also important for the Committee to hear the views of the families and representatives of armed forces personnel. As a constituency Member, I have been contacted by relatives of those who are serving in the armed forces, and I have had representations made to me about concerns over investigatory procedures or disciplinary matters.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments about the need for the Committee to be willing to receive family members. Will she consider those in long-term relationships who are not married? They have different rights and are often left out of the equation. The partners in such relationships made strong representations to the Defence Committee about the need for a change of emphasis. Long-term partnerships should be recognised by the Ministry of Defence and given the same rights.
  Ms Squire: I am trying to remember whether any part of the Bill would cover that. I hope that the views of the Defence Committee are made available so that its extensive and thorough evidence will assist the Bill Committee.
  We must recognise the unique circumstances of armed forces personnel. To put it bluntly, it is the only occupation with legal authorisation to kill in particular circumstances and where one is required to put one's life on the line. People may say that those serving in our civilian police forces can be tragically killed when enforcing the law, but they are enforcing the law in a civilian society, not dealing with conflict and those who seek to stir up hatred and violence for their own political ends.
  Linked to that is the conduct of individual service men and women and the effect that they can have on the lives of fellow serving personnel. Sir Charles Guthrie talked about balancing the rights of the individual with the good of the team. That balance needs to be maintained when examining aspects of military discipline and the differing procedures that apply to service personnel and those in civilian life.
  My next point backs up what has been said by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, other hon. Members and the Chief of the Defence Staff. It refers to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the way our armed forces have been asked to operate since the end of the cold war. Many of those changes had already taken place when the House last considered an Armed Forces Bill, but change has carried on apace since then.
  930
  Unfortunately, ethnic conflicts have come to dominate the global scene. Our armed forces operate in a global environment that many people would say was less stable and secure than in the days of the cold war. There are very few clearly defined battle lines, and the scenario is more complex than during the cold war standoff. The battlefield is confused, fluid and multidimensional and there is an ever-increasing demand that our armed forces be involved in international support operations. When we consider the Bill in detail in Committee, we need to be aware of those changes and of the additional pressures that exist.
  We must also keep it in mind that combat-effectiveness remains crucial and that the order and discipline of our armed forces must be maintained. That is especially important in circumstances such as prevailed in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, where an argument between two people could—in a matter of hours, or even quicker—develop into violent confrontation between communities, and then expand even beyond that.
  Such circumstances place particular pressures on our armed services personnel. It is understandable that those pressures can sometimes cause those personnel to fail to comply with the strict codes of conduct that apply to them. It is therefore vital that the Committee considering the Bill should check that the military law meets the current needs of the services and the realities that personnel deal with every day.
  The fundamentals of the administration of discipline must be maintained even as possible changes to the service discipline Acts are considered. I hope that the Committee will consider the Bill in a serious and informed way, and that its members will not engage in party political point scoring. Any subjective opinions that might be expressed must not be allowed to go unchallenged, but must be tested.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has had to leave the Chamber for the moment. However, I have chaired the Labour Back-Bench defence committee for a number of years and, despite some of my hon. Friend's comments, I am looking forward to considering in detail the Select Committee's report on the armed services.
  I end by joining other hon. Members in expressing my pride at the way in which our armed forces are respected and admired around the world. All hon. Members have a responsibility to maintain those forces' professionalism, skills and reputation. We must keep that requirement at the forefront of our minds when we consider this Bill.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Keetch: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). I begin by echoing what she and other hon. Members have said about the British armed forces. In my opinion, there is no question but that they are the finest in the world, and in my constituency of Hereford I see some of the finest of the finest.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is not in his place just now, but he described me earlier as a wannabe. The only thing that I have ever wanted to be is the Member of Parliament for Hereford, and to represent in this House the people of the city and county of Hereford, where I was born. I am happy to do that, and want to remain in that role.

  931
  However, I shall keep my remarks brief, to ensure that other Back-Bench Members have an opportunity to speak—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has an important contribution to make later in the debate.
  The House has already heard, from the Minister for the Armed Forces, that by 2005–06 a single, tri-service discipline Act should be in place. Liberal Democrat Members are disappointed that such an Act will not be put before the House in this Session. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said in an earlier intervention, what are known as "purple operations" are increasingly being undertaken. The strategic defence review was right to propose in 1998 that the possibility of passing a single Act ought to be examined.
  Our forces are now jointly deployable. For instance, in Sierra Leone, the Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force operated off Royal Air Force ships. It therefore becomes increasingly silly to have separate discipline legislation for each service. We look forward to 2005–06, when I am sure that the Liberal Democrat Government of that time will introduce a single tri-service discipline Act. I look forward to being part of that process.
  I turn now to the reasoned amendment tabled by the current loyal Opposition. Every time I hear Conservative Members attack the European Court of Human Rights, I am reminded that a British initiative helped to set it up. The court is not a great European Union scheme to threaten British sovereignty, and Liberal Democrats support many of the things that it has achieved.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Keetch: I lovingly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the then British Government supported the concept of the European convention on human rights, but I should like to remind him of the circumstances in which the convention was drawn up. The aim was to try to prevent a repetition of the holocaust, and all that accompanied it in the 1939–45 period. However, the British Government of the day would not endorse the convention until they were entirely satisfied that every Act of Parliament enacted by this House was compliant with the convention as it was then envisaged. What has happened is that the influence of the convention has crept and crept and crept—so much so that it now interferes with many aspects of our national life and is deeply damaging to our services.
  Mr. Keetch: Life has crept and crept and crept since 1951, and time has moved on. I am happy to belong to a party that recognises and understands that. We do not sit Canute-like on the shore beneath the white cliffs of Dover, resisting Europe's becoming part of our lives. We are part of Europe, and I am proud of that.
  Reference has been made to other pieces of legislation that effect so-called political correctness, including those Acts that govern armed services discipline, health and
  932
  safety, the working time directive and human rights. They impinge on service life, just as they impinge on all our lives, and I am glad that they do. Of course it is silly to suggest that military bands should play more softly, or that sergeant majors should not shout so loudly. We understand that that is political correctness gone mad, but there is nothing in the Bill to damage the effectiveness of our armed forces.
  Reference has also been made to the use of women in our armed forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife stated in an article in The Daily Telegraph in December:
  People should remember that victory in the Falklands in the end depended on British troops clearing trenches on Mount Tumbledown using their bayonets.
  I have been fortunate enough to go to Mount Tumbledown and to have seen the area in question. I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend wrote, and I agree entirely. However, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) did not speak about that at all. He questioned the actions of women in those parts of the armed forces where their role is just as valid and real as that of men. I have seen women in action on warships, and I contend that in many cases they play their part considerably better than men play theirs.
  Some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Salisbury could have been made just as well about women in the police and prison services, in hospitals or in the media. Women play a vital role in our armed forces, and must continue to do so.
  Some of the things that we have heard today about women have been said in the past by Conservatives about gays in the military. We were told that gays in the military would destroy service discipline, and that the Royal Navy would crumble, the Royal Air Force would fall apart and the military would somehow collapse. However, Sir Charles Guthrie said in his oft-quoted speech to the RUSI:
  Even the acceptance of homosexuals did not turn out to be the major issue that some thought it would be. Personally, I never believed it would.
  Mr. Key: Quite.
  Mr. Keetch: Despite what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has just said, some Conservative Members have constantly undermined the role of some gay service people. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats never did that. I have faith in our armed forces. I have faith that they can adapt to new circumstances, that they will accept new legislation and that they will continue to be the finest in the world. If Her Majesty's loyal Opposition do not have that faith, I am sorry.
  I am bitterly disappointed that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—who also had to leave before I had the chance to speak—is unable to be on the ad hoc Select Committee that is being established. He would have made a valuable contribution to it. I hope that that Committee will spend time listening to service people and their families, friends and relatives, and examining the service environment in which they live, not only in the United Kingdom but overseas. We welcome the establishment of that Committee.
  We also welcome the proposals on drug testing. The use of drugs in our armed forces is becoming more and more apparent, and must be nipped in the bud. We accept

  933
  and welcome the Bill's clarification of the rules as regards the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and we also welcome the placement of warrant officers on courts martial. These are all welcome additions to the existing legislation. We also welcome the fact that the sons and stepchildren of service people will be allowed to marry in service chapels.
  We welcome any means by which the Ministry of Defence police are enabled to reduce crime. However, we share some of the concerns expressed by the Police Federation. Of course MDP officers should intervene if they see a crime being committed while travelling from one base to another. We would expect that of any citizen in our society. However, we want to ensure that the MDP is not seen as an auxiliary police force in towns in which military bases are located. Its officers are not trained to the same level as those of the county constabularies.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who also had to leave the Chamber before my speech, mentioned the Royal Parks police. Within a mile of the Palace of Westminster, one can find Ministry of Defence police, Royal Parks police, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police. Perhaps it is time for us to review the duties of those constabularies as well.
  I conclude with a remark made by Sir Charles Guthrie, who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) before he had to leave the Chamber. Sir Charles said, in his speech to the RUSI before Christmas, that
  we must ensure that nothing, I repeat nothing, damages the combat effectiveness of the British Armed Forces.
  The Liberal Democrats agree with that. We support the Bill and oppose the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition because there is nothing in the Bill that would affect the effectiveness of our armed forces.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I do not always agree with most of what I hear from the Liberal Democrats; on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman referred to his fantasy about forming a Government. When he referred to that happening in 2005–06, I thought that he must have been thinking of 1905–06, as that would have been more relevant when one considers the prospects for his party. However, I agreed with many of the other comments from the hon. Gentleman.
  I cannot understand why the Conservative party is proposing to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. It is made clear in the explanatory notes that, without the Bill, we could, in effect, cease to have a legal basis for our armed forces. Given our history going back to the time of the glorious revolution of 1688, when Parliament asserted its authority based on the Parliamentary victory in the civil war and subsequent developments, it seems strange that the Conservative party, which supposedly believes in our armed forces, is prepared to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill that would provide for their continuation.
  I could understand an argument for abstaining on Second Reading, on the ground that there were aspects about which one was unhappy, which could be dealt with by tabling amendments in Committee However, to vote against the Bill seems typical of Billy's bandwagon, and of the way in which the Conservative party operates on all kinds of matters at present.
  934
  The Bill is in many respects concerned with tidying up, updating, and bringing into law statements that were made in previous years. However, it also contains a number of important provisions, some of which need greater attention.
  I very much regret that, despite being a member of the Defence Committee currently involved in the personnel inquiry—during which I have gained a lot from talking to serving ratings, officers, engineers and others throughout the armed forces—I am unable to bring my expertise to the consideration of the Bill in Committee. That will also be the case for other members of the Select Committee. I concur strongly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—this is the first time that I have referred to him in that way—who expressed far more eloquently and powerfully than I can the frustration of Back-Bench Members of Parliament at the Executive simply determining how things are run.
  That frustration about the way in which Front-Bench Members sometimes behave is shared by Back-Bench Members of all parties. I am not making a party political point. If one has expertise, knowledge, experience or an interest in a subject, those qualities should be used. It is a negation of parliamentary democracy and the role of Back Benchers if Committees are established and Members who have relevant knowledge and expertise are not appointed to them. That view was clearly shared by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who has had a similar experience. He is not here at the moment to nod, but I assume that he would if he were.
  I welcome the proposals allowing warrant officers to act as courts martial members, which is long overdue. The proposals relating to drug testing are vital. The drug culture in society is becoming extremely serious. Only this week, the press has carried reports about police officers and cocaine. There have been reports about drugs in the media, and in other institutions of society. Given that the armed forces and their personnel reflect society as a whole—although to a lesser extent than some other institutions—it is undoubtedly the case that drugs, a growing problem, must be dealt with. The British armed forces cannot be regarded as the American armed forces were for many years, in terms of their relationship to drugs.
  The Conservative Front-Bench team's approach to the recruitment of people to the armed forces is preposterous. If people with disabilities are prevented from taking up certain occupations, we can understand the arguments. For example, people still have to comply with certain requirements to join the Metropolitan police. A constituent of mine, a young Asian woman, desperately wishes to join the Metropolitan police, but because she marginally failed the eyesight test, that force will not accept her. She is devastated. We are crying out for officers from the ethnic minorities, and she would make an excellent police officer. She wants to do that job; she does not want to do anything else. The Met tells her she can be a civilian, but she wants to be a police officer.
  The same applies to many people who wish to join our armed forces—those from ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, women, and those who have a desire to do something and yet, for one reason or another, do not meet the requirements. We should say to Sir Charles Guthrie that disabilities do not preclude people from doing things. Disabilities do not mean that people are incapable of doing things—just that in some respects, they make it

  935
  impossible. There is a question of balance, and lines will have to be drawn. There may well be people with some form of disability who could still play an excellent role in the armed services.
  I have a specific example. My father was conscripted into the RAF. He was not allowed to be a pilot because he did not meet the eyesight requirements, but he was a radio operator in Burma. He did that job as a conscript. No one said that his failure to meet the eyesight requirements meant that he could not be conscripted into the RAF. Therefore, we need to consider these issues sensitively. It is not a question of all or nothing—it is not as if people must qualify to be a Royal Marine or nothing at all.
  Another related matter has come out of the inquiries that the Select Committee on Defence carried out into personnel recruitment. I refer to the retention of people in the services. How do we ensure that people stay? We have discovered that recruitment offices sometimes give people the wrong impression about the kind of jobs that they will do. That leads to disillusionment—not only were the recruits not in the area that they expected, but they had been given the impression that they could transfer easily from one job to another and then found that they could not. That needs to be considered in the context of the future of the services. I shall not go further down that route otherwise I am sure that I will be ruled out of order.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to the Secretary of State's powers to make consequential or transitional provisions as he thinks fit. That would be outrageous if it applied to the Secretary of State alone. However, it is the same as everything else subject to the negative resolution procedure—that is made clear in paragraphs 122 and 123 of the explanatory notes. Such powers would be subject to the negative procedure and if that involved a change to primary legislation in a significant number of cases, the affirmative resolution would apply. I think that a mountain was made out of a molehill on that issue.
  The serious issue here is to what extent the armed forces should reflect society. We ask a lot of them, whether their job is in Sierra Leone, Bosnia or Kosovo. They may serve as UN monitors for UNIKOM—the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission—or with other international or United Nations forces. They may do the dangerous and difficult job that has been done for many years, and continues to be done, in Northern Ireland. Whatever they do, theirs is not an ordinary job. They cannot go home early on a Friday afternoon. It is a bit like the stupid hours that Members of Parliament work, but probably worse. They cannot read their children bedtime stories; they do not even see their families for months on end in certain cases. Yet we expect them to be moved at short notice. We expect ships to be redeployed after a tour of duty, when they are sent off again into the Mediterranean. The service people may expect to be at home in port for a few weeks or a few months when, at a few days notice, they are redeployed to Sierra Leone. It requires a special kind of person to put up with that, and a special kind of family. We need to give support to those individuals and their families. We need to give them the resources to make their life, while they are doing that job on our behalf, as comfortable as possible, taking account of the difficult circumstances and the reality.
  936
  That is why it is crucial, when disciplinary action is required and regulations have to be enforced, that service people do not have a sense of injustice. It has been said that society has changed. Young people today, as anyone of us with teenagers knows well, do not accept the automatic authority of their elders. Increasingly, people entering the armed services do not automatically accept that they must do something because someone tells them to. They want to know why.
  With people talking generally about human rights, the armed services must have a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures that are carefully drafted to take into account those changes in society; otherwise we will find that people will not join the armed forces. They will not accept a value system that is totally alien to what they would experience in society. That is not to say that the armed forces are not different—they are, but they are also part of our society, as are the people who join them.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: As I may have said to the House before, when I attended a reception after a Remembrance Sunday service in Aldershot a couple of years ago, I specifically asked some of the very young recently commissioned officers why they had joined the armed services. Their answer was that it was because they rejected some of the values of civilian society and embraced the very values that the hon. Gentleman suggests the services should abandon to make themselves more relevant to the civilian community. That is a very dangerous course of action.
  Mr. Gapes: I am going on what I was told when I visited HMS Collingwood near Southampton as a member of the Defence Committee, on a personnel visit, just before Christmas. We talked for several hours with people of all ranks in the Royal Navy. They said unanimously that the attitude of new recruits has changed. Even young women in their early 20s said that the attitude was very different from what it had been when they were 17. That was their perception. Perhaps the people in Aldershot on Remembrance Sunday were different. The young people I spoke to came from many different parts of the United Kingdom. The feelings that they expressed to me were that the old values are important, but must nevertheless take into account changes in society as a whole. That is the essence of the matter.
  That is why the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 was so important. I served on the Standing Committee that dealt with that legislation. We must recognise that we need to change not merely because of the legal judgments against the Government over the years, but because of the need to have armed forces that are relevant and in touch with society.
  Mr. Keetch: On the fact that the armed services have moved on and changed so much in the past 10 to 20 years, senior serving soldiers and those from more junior ranks have told me that one reason why they like Defence Ministers and spokesmen who have no previous military experience is that they do not have the preconceptions that some older soldiers still have. That is no criticism of former serving Members.
  Mr. Gapes: That may be true. I do not want to cast aspersions on individuals or praise others. Obviously, the quality of Ministers varies and they all have their unique

  937
  characteristics. We cannot over-generalise. The team that has been in place since 1997 has achieved the strategic defence review, coupled with its personnel aspects and obtained commitment from the top in the Ministry of Defence and from the Chief of the Defence Staff to recruit those from ethnic minorities, for example, which is very welcome.
  A few weeks ago, there was an excellent exhibition on display in the Ministry of Defence to celebrate the role over 50 years of the ethnic minorities in the British armed forces. Relatives of people from the British Indian Army who had been awarded the Victoria Cross were there, as well as people from the Caribbean whose relatives had served with our forces in the 1940s. Some very elderly men and women were there as well as their children and grandchildren. For me, the exhibition was important because the Ministry of Defence and the Government were seriously attempting to tell everyone in our society, "You have a place in the British armed forces. We recognise your contribution and we will value it."
  Unfortunately, the recruitment figures do not bear out the commitment. The Select Committee has seen the figures. The target of 5 per cent. is good, but it is unrealistic and will not be achieved. At present, we have a recruitment rate of about 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. in two of our services and about 1.7 per cent. in the third. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if my figures are wrong. Clearly, the message has not yet got through to society in general.
  Young Asian men and women in my constituency, who are British born and educated, tell me that they do not want to go into the armed forces. They do not want to go into the police force or into the public services at all. They want to become lawyers and accountants, or to do media studies and become journalists. Few young people have the commitment to do public service and that reflects a wider problem—the value people place on public services, such as the armed forces, the police and even teaching and the health services. All those professions have the same problem. That is part of the legacy of 20 years of the Thatcherite undermining of public values and the public sector ethos. We have to change that. It is not merely a question of money, although that is important. Recruitment to the armed forces is a part of the problem.
  Furthermore, as has been said, we must recognise that serving in the military today is probably more demanding and dangerous than it was when soldiers were parading up and down on the inner German border. At the height of the cold war, things were very stable. We did not have expeditionary forces in different parts of the world. There was no danger of being shot at by allegedly friendly Kosovans, or of suffering from malaria in Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Keetch: What about Malaysia?
  Mr. Gapes: There were exceptions, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Malaysia was not necessarily a comfortable place to be in the 1950s—nor was Korea. I was talking not about 1953, but the 1960s and 1970s.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gapes: In a moment.
  Today, British forces are serving all over the world. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we now have a commitment that did not exist for us before the end
  938
  of the cold war. We did not take part in United Nations peacekeeping operations for a long time, but now all the members of the Security Council have people on the Iraq-Kuwait border as part of the monitoring mission—the Chinese, the Americans, the Russians, our people and the French are all there. When we visited, troops from 11 countries were serving together. That is part of the new ethos of co-operation and joint activities with other countries.
  We must get that message across to young people. We must tell them that if they want not merely to travel the world but to meet and work with people from other countries and cultures in an environment where they are doing good, then joining the armed forces is a vital contribution that they can make.
  Mr. Hancock: I endorse much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. If all of what he has said is true, and he genuinely believes it, why are not people from ethnic communities taking up his offer of the good life in the armed forces? What is the impediment to their joining?
  Mr. Gapes: It is partly a general economic problem. People can get far more money in the more fashionable jobs to which I referred. It is also due to a cultural lag. People's perceptions are based on bad stories in the media five or seven years ago. People from ethnic communities do not have older brothers or sisters in the forces. The same applies to working class cultures. White and black working class people will not, in general, join the police service due to the same sort of perceptions. I suspect that one of the main reasons why Catholics in Northern Ireland will not join the Royal Ulster Constabulary is cultural. It is not merely fear of IRA intimidation. Army recruitment figures are going up there—20 per cent. of applicants are now Catholics, whereas the percentage of Catholics serving in the RUC is much smaller.
  All that will change and it is essential for the future of this country that it does. We need our role models. We need our British Colin Powells. We need people at the top from ethnic minorities who can act as a symbol and a role model for their communities and for society as a whole. That will come, but it will take time. The policies are in place and the commitment is there. We must spread that message throughout society. When that happens there will be a remarkable change but it may take some time.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is making a sincere contribution. He has already acknowledged that recruitment and retention is a problem in our armed forces. Does he accept, therefore, that the political correctness and the gross or excessive attention to bureaucracy and legislation on armed forces discipline may be one of the factors deterring some of our youngsters? After all, they join the armed forces for a sense of excitement. They are not interested in armed forces discipline Acts; they want to get out into the world and experience what is going on there.
  Mr. Gapes: The simple answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about what he has said for a moment, he will realise that 17, 18 or even 22-year-olds are not particularly bothered about the wording of the armed forces discipline Acts when they decide to go to Army recruitment offices. Wider factors are involved;

  939
  the legislation is neither a deterrent, nor an encouragement. It is far more important that they are received warmly, given good advice and encouraged to talk to people already in the services so that they have a sense of being listened to and welcomed. That is the first step forward. However, they must have the commitment to reach that stage, and there are not yet sufficient numbers of people with that commitment.
  I shall conclude by dealing with another issue. As a stepfather, I always welcome legislation that recognises that 6 million people live in step-families and that there are 2 million stepchildren in our society. Those are large numbers. The provisions in paragraph 31 of part VI of schedule 7, which will amend section 68 of the Marriage Act 1949, may seem modest, but they are symbolic. Frankly, it is long overdue that stepsons and stepdaughters of qualifying personnel can marry in service chapels. Is not it absurd that we have had to wait until the 21st century for that change?
  Previously, the daughters of individuals in the services were eligible to marry in service chapels, but their sons were not. It seems crazy that it has taken so long to get to this point. People might imagine that the change might have been introduced in 1950, but it is 2001 and a lot of catching up has to be done. Many things should have been done many years ago. I hope that when we deal with the consolidated legislation in 2005, 2006 or whenever, we at least recognise that we must bring everything together so that we do not have to keep on going through a catch-up exercise. The regulations should take account of the realities of society.
  Things have moved on and society is changing, and our armed forces and the legislation that underpins our democratically, parliamentary-controlled armed forces should reflect that fact. For that reason, I hope that the House will resoundingly vote to give the Bill a Second Reading and that, even at this late stage, the Conservatives will realise the absurdity of their position. I also hope that the Bill will act as a symbol, encouraging people to join and support our armed forces, which play such a vital role in international peace and security.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) always makes an original and thoughtful contribution, whether in the Chamber or in the Select Committee on Defence, of which he is a valued member. As members of that Committee, he and I are concerned about what we call the footprint—the place of our armed forces in the community—and the varying motivational factors that cause people to volunteer for the forces in the first place and to remain in them.
  Recruitment and retention are two very different matters. People join the armed forces perhaps from a sense of adventure or because they wish to see the world. They may wish to participate in sport or adventurous pursuits, but later on—perhaps when they are married with children—they are much more concerned about the treatment of their families and their ability to see them as much as possible. Such matters are very important. That is why the study of personnel issues that the Defence Committee is currently carrying out is important and will produce significant results. That is one of the reasons why
  940
  I regret that none of the members of the Defence Committee have been proposed as members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. It would have been helpful to have the experience of individuals such as the hon. Member for Ilford, South and others on that Select Committee.
  When I first joined the House, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members had served in the armed forces; they were often referred to as honourable and gallant Members. Their number is now comparatively modest, and we now value not only those who have served in the armed forces and who bring their experience to bear in the House, but those who have served on the armed forces scheme, which enables Members of Parliament to spend about 20 days with the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines, building up their experience of the armed forces. It is my experience that when individuals who have not previously served in the armed forces rub shoulders and spend time at close quarters with people in the armed forces, they are always greatly impressed, as is the Defence Committee, by the quality, determination, courage and sense of humour of those who serve in the armed forces. It is a privilege for those of us who are members of the Select Committee and others to meet those in the armed forces and to experience those qualities at close quarters.
  Anyone looking at the 41 clauses and eight schedules in the Bill might think that it deals in detail with matters of military law and similar matters. Of course, it does, but to think that that is all that it does would be completely to misunderstand this potentially dramatic Bill. The hon. Member for Ilford, South referred to the glorious revolution of 1688, but I would go back to Charles I, James I and Elizabeth I, who had to call Parliament, although they did not want to do so, because they wanted the money to fight their wars or the authority to maintain a standing army.
  The Bill is a crucial part of parliamentary procedure because clause 1 states that Her Majesty may from time to time provide for the military Acts to continue and that, effectively, the Government may maintain a standing army. Such a Bill is put before the House once every five years and authorises the House of Commons, through an Order in Council, to continue the standing army. The quinquennial Bill is central to our parliamentary privileges; without it, there would be no Army. That gives immense power to that Select Committee.
  The current procedure, which was set up in 1952, allows the service discipline Acts to continue under the auspices of the quinquennial Act, which goes to the root of our democracy. It enables the House to consider every aspect of military activity, so it is not just related to military law and discipline. For example, I chaired the Standing Committees that considered the 1986 and 1996 Bills. The 1996 Bill dealt significantly with homosexuality, which was the centre of media interest in that Bill, yet there was no reference to homosexuality in the 1986 Bill. The Standing Committee is entitled to consider every aspect of military activity and effectively to hold the Government to ransom on such issues, if it so wishes. That is its constitutional importance.
  It is important that the Government should treat the House with appropriate respect in this as in other matters. To deal with a matter briefly in parenthesis, I regret that senior Ministers often do not attend debates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to attend an important

  941
  debate on the economy. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions failed to attend a debate on transport, giving as his reason, through a junior Minister, the fact that he was dealing with transport matters. Ministers should regard the House of Commons as being central to their own responsibilities.
  Although it is not unprecedented for the Secretary of State for Defence not to be present when these important Bills come before the House every five years, it is my memory that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—my boss when he was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—was always courteous when he was Secretary of State for Defence, and attended the House whenever he could when a junior Minister was taking through legislation. It is always regrettable when the relevant Cabinet Minister is not on the Front Bench for an important piece of legislation. It is a courtesy to the House, and an important part of parliamentary privilege, that Cabinet Ministers should regard this place as sufficiently important to attend it on such occasions. However, that is not how this Government treat Parliament.
  I want to consider in detail the difference between an ordinary Select Committee and the Select Committee that considers the Armed Forces Bill. The Select Committee on the Bill has it in its power to say to the Government, "No, you cannot have legislation to maintain the standing forces unless a point of detail that concerns us is clarified."
  I am a member of the so-called quadripartite Committee, which is potentially the most important Committee that the House has created for several years—a joint Committee of the Select Committees on Defence, on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Trade and Industry. It sits to consider strategic export controls, and has done so for some time. Let me give an example of the way in which the quadripartite Committee reports and the way in which the Government deal with its reports. Paragraph 2 of a Government response to the 11th report of the Defence Committee, the seventh report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the seventh report of the International Development Committee and the 11th report of the Trade and Industry Committee considers open individual export licences. The quadripartite Committee stated:
  We conclude that it was an error of judgement to have granted several Military List open individual export licences in late 1998 and early 1999 covering Zimbabwe.
  What was the Government's response to that considered view? They said:
  The Government does not accept that the inclusion of Zimbabwe as a permitted destination on a small number of Military List open individual export licences issued in late 1998 and early 1999 represented an error of judgement.
  They did not agree with the Committee—end of story. There was nothing much else that the quadripartite Committee could do.
  The major conclusion reached by the Committee appears at paragraph 24 of the Government response and it should ring through the corridors of Whitehall. It was pretty authoritative stuff. The Committee concluded:
  The four Select Committees that make up the Quadripartite Committee have concluded that strategic exports by their very nature justify the establishment of a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny, and that such a system should be put in place forthwith.
  942
  That is a pretty comprehensive and concrete judgment. The Government responded:
  The Government has given careful consideration to the Committees' recommendations on prior Parliamentary scrutiny of all the 12,000 or so individual export licence applications for military and dual use goods received each year. The Government has concluded that they could not be made to work without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports and without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing system.
  We then had the most wonderful piece of Whitehall gobbledegook—I defy anyone to explain exactly what it means. The Government continued:
  Involvement of the Committees in the taking of decisions under the existing legislative powers is in any event problematic, in that an extra element would be introduced into the process. This might generate doubt as to whether the decision had been properly taken in accordance with the powers conferred by Parliament.
  I just do not know what that means, but it is the Government's response to the considered conclusion of the quadripartite Committee.
  Mr. Blunt: May I offer a suggestion to my hon. Friend? The final paragraph means that the Government think that parliamentarians are unable to understand what Parliament wants.
  Mr. Viggers: Yes, that would figure; it is certainly not inconsistent with my interpretation.
  Let us contrast that case with what happened to the Armed Forces Act 1996, section 26 of which gives the Minister power to grant a long lease to the Royal hospital at Greenwich. The Select Committee considering that Bill was concerned that Greenwich, with its unique architectural, historical and traditional values, should not be passed over to inappropriate use. The original clause certainly protected Greenwich against inappropriate architectural use, but the Select Committee took evidence in Greenwich and we agreed with local opinion, which was reinforced by those with national views on the subject of architectural heritage, that there should be extra protection for Greenwich. We decided that we wanted to make it clear to the Government that we would not pass the Bill unless the future of the hospital was not only consistent with its architectural heritage, but with its maritime and cultural traditions.
  I remember that the Select Committee concluded that some uses could be entirely consistent with the architectural heritage of Greenwich but would not be appropriate in relation to its cultural heritage. For example, we all have the highest regard for McDonald's, the fast-food chain. Hypothetically, it might conceivably decide that it wished to take over the site and make it into a hamburger university—and I believe that the company already runs such a university. However, the Select Committee thought that it would be entirely inconsistent for a fast-food chain to take over Greenwich, since although it might maintain the architectural heritage, it would not be appropriate to the area's maritime tradition.
  I remember discussions with Ministers. The issue was discussed on the Floor of the House and in Committee—and I recall one discussion that took place in the voting Lobby. It was not exactly a quiet discussion; it delayed the Division because good strong military language was used. I made it clear to Ministers that we were not prepared to accept the clause unless it was amended, so the Government had to change it.

  943
  The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill has enormous powers—if it chooses to use them—that the Select Committee on Defence does not have. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the hon. Member for Ilford, South and other members of the Defence Committee all know that, when we produce our reports, they may have some influence: they will be read in certain circles; certain parts of them may be picked up by the media; and they may have some effect in promoting thinking about personnel issues in the armed forces. However, we have no absolutely no power, and the Government therefore give us a bland response. They thank us for our interesting report, but we have no power to enforce any of the recommendations that we make. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is different. It has real bargaining power if it chooses to use it.
  Who has been selected for the Select Committee on the Bill? Will it include members of the Defence Committee? The proposal suggests that it will not, so people who would have brought much-needed knowledge to the issue and would have given the Committee teeth with which to impose its thoughts will not be represented.
  What should the Standing Committee on the Bill consider? Of course it will consider the Bill's 41 clauses and eight schedules, but it is clear that it will have complete power to refuse to pass the provision for standing forces. The Standing Committee has a wide-ranging mandate and can consider anything that it wishes.
  If the Select Committee on the Bill has teeth as well as influence, with what issues should we be concerned? We should be concerned about the pensions of armed forces personnel. The Select Committee on Defence recently heard representations from the Officers Pensions Society, which represents all members of the armed forces—officers, other ranks and pensioners. We recognise that there is a problem with pensions—a so-called trough. Pensioners who retired in 1977 at, for example, the level of major, are getting about £1,500 a year less than someone who retired when armed forces salaries were higher. It is within the mandate of the Select Committee to consider that trough and require the Government to do something about it.
  As the chairman of a pension fund in my spare time, I believe that a private sector pension fund would attempt to do something about the trough, but the public sector has failed to act. If the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill has teeth and power, it will be able to hold Ministers to account and try to force them to do what Governments have not done for many years. Many service personnel in our constituencies plead with us to do something, but individual Members of Parliament do not have the necessary power. However, that Committee has the power to hold the Government to account on the old-fashioned principle of supply and can ask the Government to give it what it wants or refuse to agree to the Bill.
  The Defence Committee has also been concerned about Gulf war syndrome, but it has been difficult to get facts and information out of the Government on that matter. We now have the issue of depleted uranium. There would be no difficulty getting such information if we had the teeth that are possessed by the Select Committee on the
  944
  Bill. Members of Parliament should be concerned about medical issues in general. I know that I am back on my hobby-horse of defence medical services, but once every five years, when a Bill is before the House, we have the opportunity to refuse supply to the Government until we are satisfied that they are doing what we think is right.
  Members of the Defence Committee and others are deeply concerned that more than 15,000 service personnel have been medically downgraded for more than a month. More than 9,000 members—nearly 10 per cent.—of the Army have been medically downgraded for more than a month. When members of the Committee asked witnesses about medical downgrading and the number of service personnel who an unfit, we were told that they would write to us. That was about four to six weeks ago, and we still have not received a letter. However, if we were members of the Select Committee on the Bill, we could make those witnesses tell us what is happening in the armed forces and why so many personnel in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are unfit.
  Mr. Key: As a veteran of the Defence Committee and the previous Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, my hon. Friend can rest assured that the issues will not be neglected as far as I am concerned. However, the composition of the Select Committee poses a difficulty. When my hon. Friend was its Chairman, a Minister would turn up with his parliamentary private secretary when he needed to be present. There were no Whips, merely Back Benchers. That was a different proposition. Having given the Government the benefit of the doubt—I am being charitable—on defence medical services in general and Haslar in particular, we are extremely restless that the Government have not tackled the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a golden opportunity to pursue the whole matter of defence medical services?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, he should note that we are straying wide of the Bill's contents. I remind him and the House that another debate later on will deal specifically with the Committee.
  Mr. Viggers: Indeed, but clause 1 continues the services Acts. The Bill constitutes our one opportunity in five years to challenge the Government on all military issues. I am sun that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is within the Bill's remit. I take your point, but I just want to say that defence medical services are in crisis. That has been exacerbated by the decision to close Haslar. The Select Committee on the Bill should ask how many deployable consultants there are in the crucial grades of general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, anaesthetics and general medicine. I want the record to show that there will be a disaster if the Government continue with their plans on defence medical services.
  The Select Committee on the Bill has the power to force answers from the Government and to insist on changes of policy. That should be compared with the powers of an ordinary Member of Parliament. I tabled questions for priority answer in July 2000. Those answers should be given within 48 hours, but I received the replies at the end of November. It is a profound worry that we have failed to get proper national concern about the crisis in defence medical services.

  945
  I would be ruled out of order if I dwelled on the proposed Committee, but zero out of its 10 members have been members of the Defence Committee and zero out of the 10 have experience of the armed forces. The Government have gone too far in abusing Parliament by proposing that their representation on the Committee should comprise two Ministers, two parliamentary private secretaries, a Whip and one Labour Back Bencher. The detail of the Bill has forced the Opposition to respond with two Front Benchers and a Whip.
  I have one or two comments to make about the Bill's detail. I recognise that it is appropriate for warrant officers to serve as members of courts martial, but the Bill contains a mistake. I wonder whether it is similar to the mistake that was made by the parliamentary draftsman in 1996 who authorised the taking of fingerprints. It took the hon. Member for Gosport to explain that if the Government were authorising fingerprints, they should also authorise DNA samples. That was later rectified. The quinquennial mistake in this Bill is that it is drafted to allow warrant officers in the Navy to serve on courts martial, whereas if they are promoted to sub-lieutenant, they cannot serve on a court martial until they rise to the rank of lieutenant or above. That is clearly an error and it is what the hon. Member for Gosport tips as the quinquennial mistake in this Bill.
  It is disturbing that the Government promised in 1991 that they would consolidate as soon as possible. That promise was repeated in 1996, but here we are, in 2001, and they are still promising to consolidate as soon as possible. Despite the fact that the Army, Navy and Air Force are moving closer together in all other ways, the lack of consolidation means that the Bill devotes pages to each of those forces and we have to read everything in triplicate. Now that members of the three forces are serving more closely together, it must be possible to co-ordinate their legal procedures. Otherwise, people who serve side by side in aircraft, hospitals or even in trenches will be subject to the detail of different laws.
  When the 1996 Bill was in Standing Committee, I was meticulously careful to ensure that the Commission for Racial Equality would undertake to have a report on progress in racial equality ready in time for the Committee on this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister. Will he confirm what was confirmed to me by the CRE when its representatives appeared before the Defence Committee a few weeks ago—that its report on progress in promoting greater recruitment and retention of members of the ethnic minorities would be ready for the Committee? I hope that the CRE is on schedule, and the report will be ready in time for the Committee to consider its decisions.
  I wish to raise another point of detail, which I also referred to during the Second Reading and Committee stages of the 1986 and 1996 Bills. I represent a naval constituency, so I am pleased that it will be possible for royal naval officers to be subject to summary jurisdiction, and not only to courts martial legislation. I have always thought it demeaning and degrading for an officer to be dealt with by a court martial when charged with hazarding his ship, perhaps for reasons of expediency or after encountering difficulties at a certain time. Hazarding usually results from momentary uncertainty or indecision, and it has always seemed to me to be wrong that the ponderous courts martial procedure should be invoked. I assume that it will be possible to establish a much simpler summary jurisdiction procedure.
  946
  As to the point about the Ministry of Defence police, I am concerned that the detail may not have been fully considered. I am pleased and grateful to have had the occasional chance to spend time with the police force in my constituency on Friday evenings, and my experience is that police procedures derive not from a passing policeman noticing a burglary, but from meticulous planning and briefing. It is strange that the MOD police will be able to operate in a civilian sphere even though nothing in the Bill promotes the training or the briefing of officers for a civilian role. The Select Committee will want to pursue that point.
  The Conservative Government were in power for 18 years and police numbers increased by 15,400, but in three years of Labour government we have lost 2,995 policemen. Indeed, only yesterday the chief constable of Hampshire asked me to exercise what influence I could to promote the recruitment and retention of police officers in the county, about which he is deeply concerned.
  I regret that this important Bill is not likely to receive detailed scrutiny and that the Government have gone too far in appointing their own people to the Committee.
  8.2 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: The Bill is complex and detailed, and having no military experience ensures that I feel wary about contributing tonight. However, I have great pleasure in telling the House that I was, for only 30 minutes, an Air Vice-Marshal. When I visited the Royal United Services Institute, I was told to put on a name badge. I did so. I was embarrassed to be one of only three women there; the others were the receptionist and another member of the Defence Committee. I felt that all those present had great knowledge and that I was probably considered to have little. My embarrassment ensured that I simply picked up a name badge and put it on.
  I was spoken to warmly by defence attachés from Holland and other European countries. Then I was told that I was wearing a badge that was not my own. To be dead straight with the House, I did not know what to do, but hon. Members will appreciate that I shall always remember the pleasure of being an Air Vice-Marshal for 30 minutes.
  It is well known in the House that I have great respect for the armed forces. I was briefly a member of the Defence Committee, which was a great pleasure, and I was presented with a serious learning curve. I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee that will consider the detail of the Bill, and that alone persuaded me to speak. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is about to pull me back into line, but I hope that the motion on the Select Committee will be supported later this evening.
  As so many hon. Members have said, we in Britain are privileged to have a high-quality professional Army, and the nation acknowledges that. Again and again, the armed forces, with their readiness to undertake at short notice anything from civil tasks to war fighting, prove that we are privileged to have them, and their performance in those roles is excellent.
  The British armed forces are often asked to perform miracles and we must all acknowledge that they face moral and physical challenges of which the majority of the population are unaware. In future, as at present, they will have to fulfil operational needs and requirements in

  947
  conflict areas. They are asked to become involved without knowing who the state parties are and to operate independently or in conjunction with other state forces. They face asymmetric threats and often know that those threats focus on people's perceived vulnerabilities and weaknesses.
  The armed forces of today are well aware that public opinion is very much opposed to casualties being incurred, although we ask them to go into battle, fight for us, defend us and behave in the best and most professional manner. That is a serious request. I believe that the armed forces will be required more and more in the 21st century and will increasingly have to display miraculous powers. I hope that all Members of the House will do everything they can to ensure that such miracles become a reality.
  The Bill will introduce appropriate technical and evolutionary changes and its complex detail will ensure that there is no room for gesture politics. To my mind, it does not include political correctness. I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) refer to his belief that political correctness was a prime and motive force in the Bill. The European convention on human rights is of paramount value in each and every situation. It does not influence or undermine the activities of the armed forces. Quite the reverse: it empowers people and ensures that the armed forces are effective and disciplined. They know how to behave and their judgments are much more secure because they know that the convention is one of their benchmarks.
  The House has heard me say many times that women have a right to serve. I have no right to tell women to serve, nor do I have a right to persuade them to serve on the front line, but I believe that if women are capable of serving, no one should tell them that they have no right to be involved in certain roles in the armed forces. I am delighted that work is being done to secure a greater and more determined involvement for women. Much of the Bill is detailed. It will establish processes and structures—a disciplined framework—that will achieve a more open, clear and fair operational system. It will deliver fair, well-balanced and disciplined judgments within and for the armed forces. None of us should equivocate about that or see it as problematic.
  When we deal with military discipline, we should be concerned if there are problems. There will be a problem if we do not believe that everyone's human rights are absolute and unquestionable. Much of the detail of the Bill outlines fair treatment, open judgment and open governance. The European convention on human rights should consistently inform the structures and practices of military discipline and its judicial system. I am disturbed that the hon. Member for Salisbury believes the reverse and stated in the House that the convention would be sidestepped when and if—I emphasise the word "if"—the Conservative party is ever returned to government.
  The European convention on human rights is a discipline for all of us—a known discipline. Its strength of purpose derives from the fact that it is known, it does not equivocate and it treats people equally and fairly. I find it strikingly disturbing that the House should question the convention's application to the armed forces.
  948
  I was uncomfortable when I read the Conservative amendment, which states that there is a
  creeping advance of litigation that will breed a cautious group of military leaders who may step back from courageous decisions for fear of being pursued through the courts.
  That is tosh, as the entire House knows.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. That is a direct quote from the Chief of the Defence Staff.
  Ms Taylor: I am sure that the Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that that was tosh—[HON. MEMBERS: "You said that it was tosh."] Indeed, and I believe that I am right to say that the statement made by those on the Conservative Front Bench is tosh. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has complimented the Bill, I am equally sure that he will consider the statement to be tosh.
  Mr. Key: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood. The words that she quoted from our reasoned amendment were a direct quoted from the Chief of the Defence Staff. Those were his words.
  Ms Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has also misunderstood. When one only part-quotes, one only part-states what the person said.
  The Bill defines a commitment to retain the fundamentals of the way in which the armed forces administer justice. I regard that as crucial. It is no less crucial that Ministers and their researchers acknowledge that there are concerns about some of the structures and some of the activities, and that they propose operational remedies. Those remedies should invoke the European convention on human rights, which states clearly that all public authorities should act in a way that is compatible with the framework and principles of the convention.
  The Bill deals with the way in which the armed forces operationalise investigations. I was surprised that that is virtually under the command of the commanding officer, who has inherent powers. It is important that that is being questioned and challenged. I do not have a problem with the commanding officer's involvement in the process, but I find it highly problematic that he should have exclusive rights. The Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 will replace the inherent powers, clarify the rules of search, entry and seizure and put the process on a statutory footing. That is valuable.
  If we want people to give of their best in the armed forces, they should know that those who exercise power and those who subject them to that power are clear about the limits of their power and the safeguards that apply to the exercise of that power. That is inviolable and should always have applied.
  I welcome many parts of the Bill, such as the inclusion of warrant officers in court martial membership, which is long overdue. I also welcome the section on drug and alcohol testing. My hon. Friends have spoken about the problems that we face in our communities with regard to drug and alcohol use. It is vital that the armed forces confront the issue and implement effective testing. I was pleased to see the changes to the Marriage Act 1949, which are profound and long overdue.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Salisbury about women were disappointing. When one makes critical statements, one should recognise the research that is

  949
  being done. I would have appreciated it if the hon. Gentleman had included in his remarks the words of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which are summarised in one of the research papers from the Library. On recruitment and selection, the paper refers to
  the need to end the ban on combat exclusion and attract more women,
  and on retention, the paper mentions
  the need to change the culture of the Armed Services so that more women can enjoy a career in the Armed Services.
  Those aspects are seen as key to effective recruitment and retention. If one speaks about one, it is a shame not to mention the other. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) told the House how effective many women are in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. I believe that that can be extended to the Army. I anticipate that, before long, not just 77 per cent. of all positions will be available to them if they have the right qualities, but 100 per cent. That is long overdue.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I do not necessarily oppose what the hon. Lady says, but would she care to acknowledge that, in testimony to the Defence Committee, the Equal Opportunities Commission readily accepted that, when women apply for posts in the armed services, they must meet objective standards of performance, and that standards must lot be lowered in order to enable them to take up posts? On that basis, there can be some sort of convergence across the Chamber on the issue.
  Ms Taylor: I most certainly agree with all of that.
  I passionately believe that everyone should be able to give what he or she has to give, and women believe that they should have the right to serve in the armed forces. A woman who does not have operational competence should not be given, or considered for, a particular role, but that is equally true of any male who wants to join the armed forces. My commitment, and it is total, to women being given an opportunity to serve is based on my belief that rights are inviolable. If they are not, they are not rights. Rights cannot be given to some and not to others, especially one as basic as the right to serve in the armed forces.
  I was seriously disappointed by contributions from Opposition Members. Only time will tell. In time, people will be converted. They will be convinced that women not only have a right to be on the front line but can function there as effectively and valiantly as any man.
  I echo the points made by many hon. Members today about the recruitment of ethnic minorities. That is a serious problem, which we should all be more than keen to address. Their recruitment is at a seriously low level. The House has been told today that they face a cultural lag, that they do not feel included. That is probably the appropriate explanation, but I find it difficult to accept. The British Army was a powerful force in India, so why cannot we link the greatness and grandness of the British Army with the ethnic groups who have served it so valiantly? The Gurkhas were and are part of our force structure. Why on earth are we not using those people to persuade our ethnic groups to become a part of our armed services? Image is crucial here. When I speak to schools
  950
  and ethnic groups in my constituency there is clearly a disjuncture between the role of ethnic groups in civil society and in the armed forces.
  Mr. Key: I wholly support what the hon. Lady has just said. We pursued that matter in the previous Quinquennial Bill. Some of us took evidence from the Sikh community. The British Army has had wonderful Sikh regiments—not only the Indian army, but the British Army as well. We sought advice from the Commission for Racial Equality, but we were told that such ideas are old hat, that things are not like that any more, and that ethnic minorities should be wholly integrated into the regular regiments of the British Army and the other services. Therefore, to have separate Sikh regiments, for example, would not be appropriate. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should have another look at that?
  Ms Taylor: That is an important point with which I think I agree. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not say, "No way." We have a serious problem here, and it is not one for political bat and ball games. We must see why the engagement is not there and persuade the ethnic minorities to come on board.
  I have virtually come to an end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have great pleasure in saying how pleased I am to see you in the Chair. Congratulations. However I am disappointed to have to end on a down note. This is an excellent Bill which we shall debate heartily and with determination and integrity in Committee, but I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, who has been a close friend of mine since I entered the House, deprecate the Committee's composition. He has every right to make his comments to the House this evening and I hope that, if all goes well, I shall be a member of the Committee. I am most certainly a woman who fights her corner with integrity and determination. I have no intention of not letting the Back-Bench voice be heard.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), with whom I shared an enjoyable two years on the Select Committee on Defence. It was a great sadness that she moved on; indeed, it was something of a sadness for me to move on only a year after her. However, I hope that I am broadening my knowledge by my service to the House on another Select Committee.
  I do not immediately want to follow the hon. Lady down the path that she trod because I fundamentally disagree with her on several matters, which I shall pick up on later in my remarks. First, however, I want to comment on the welcome reiteration of the Opposition's commitment to put right the deleterious effects of the European convention on human rights on our armed forces by extracting them from the ambit of the convention. That commitment was explicitly made explicit, and I welcome it. The only way to achieve it is to denounce the treaty, immediately reapply, and then get the reservation that we require for the armed forces. Countries such as France, which joined in 1974–23 years after the United Kingdom—have such a reservation. In 1951, however, it could never have been anticipated that

  951
  the convention would have such an effect on our armed forces. We would certainly have taken a reservation then if we knew then what we know now.
  Mr. Hancock: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it is right to put one's life in harm's way to defend people's human rights and their position in the world, while not having those rights oneself? He would deny that to the armed forces of this country. He relishes the opportunity to take those rights away from men and women whom we regularly expect to put their lives on their line to defend the same rights for others.
  Mr. Blunt: The House, and especially the Government, have a responsibility to ensure that those rights can be defended effectively. There is no point standing up for those rights and defending them in action if we then diminish the quality of the armed forces, which, in the end, are the vehicle by which we will defend the rights that we have fought for and defended for hundreds of years, both in the House and elsewhere. The idea that we will allow a body of law to be created, under the convention by the European Court of Human Rights, which will undermine our ability to defend rights that the House holds dear for our country is ridiculous. I am sure that a few moments' contemplation of exactly what he is asking for will cause the hon. Gentleman to reflect further.
  It is for the House and our Government, discharging their responsibilities as Ministers of the Queen and part of the chain of command for the armed forces, to ensure that our armed forces are dealt with fairly under the law. I believe that, by and large, those duties have been discharged fairly. When there have been cases in which service men have been treated unfairly by the system, Members of Parliament have been the first to champion their cause. For example, the support that I gave to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) in his calls concerning Major Stankovich is a case in point. Some Labour Members would have championed the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce), who has just joined the House. I would not have joined them, but that is another case in point. The rights of the armed forces can and should be protected here. We should not put at risk the fighting ability and the military effectiveness of our armed forces in order to defend the rights that we seek to defend in this House.
  Mr. Hancock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He does justice to the calls that many hon. Members have made on behalf of members of the armed forces. However, the truth is that no matter how good a case has been made in the House, none of those people has ever got the justice that he deserved. They did not have the protection of the law behind them. Many people who have suffered hideous accidents through no fault of their own have been unable to get compensation. Surely the hon. Gentleman can give the House some examples of where having the Human Rights Act 1998 in operation would deter the British armed forces from doing their job properly? One example, please.
  Mr. Blunt: There will never be perfect administration of justice across the board, whether at European or United Kingdom level. I happen to have confidence in the
  952
  institutions of the United Kingdom—that is, while we still have them. Our nation will be in some peril if it has the misfortune to re-elect the Government, but I hope that that will not happen. There is no reason why United Kingdom institutions cannot protect the rights of our service men any better or worse than measures at the European level. I have confidence that they will provide such protection.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) had an interesting discussion. Does my hon. Friend accept that there must be a balance between giving service men rights and discipline? If we get the balance wrong, discipline could be prejudiced in our armed forces, thereby ensuring that their effectiveness is not as great as it should be.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes the point eloquently. I shall detail—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South asked me to do so—some of the cases in which the European convention on human rights affected or is affecting the military effectiveness of our armed forces.
  The convention is posing a genuine problem. It underlay the Government's reasons for introducing the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, part I of which contained changes in custody that were driven by a particular case. I think that it was the Hood case in the European Court of Human Rights that drove all the changes in custody procedures for the armed forces. I believe that the soldier in the case had absconded four times before claiming that he was put in custody improperly. It would be nothing other than absurd to suggest that he should have won his case, but he did. We then had to change the custody requirements of our armed forces when there was no practical case to suggest that that should happen.
  Those provisions were driven by a particular convention case. The rest of the Act, however, was driven not by a case that came before the European Court of Human Rights, but by fear of what might happen there. We imposed enormous damage on our armed forces by introducing the Act, elements of which led to the establishment of the summary appeal court, which has now been in place for three months. Not only has the court cost about a battalion's worth of salary because of the extra lawyers and staff who are required to make the thing work, but it is already having a deleterious effect on the armed forces in operation.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend has so far spoken about the effects, anticipated and otherwise, of the European convention on human rights on the armed forces in peacetime. What does he think the convention's effects will be in conditions of war? In those conditions, serving members of the armed forces who think that their inalienable human rights have been wronged will have no practical capability to go running to court, because the country will supposedly be fighting for its survival.
  Mr. Blunt: I must correct my hon. Friend, as derogation from the convention can be obtained for the armed forces in wartime. The convention applies in peacetime and in military operations short of war. The latter is the sort of military activity in which we have engaged since 1945, and since 1951 no Government have sought to achieve a derogation for the armed forces.

  953
  The Under-Secretary wrote to me after Second Reading of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. I asked how many of the cases dealt with summarily by subordinate commanders and commanding officers would go to appeal. The hon. Gentleman's letter stated that of the 24,000 cases dealt with summarily,
  18,000 were dealt with by subordinate commanders. The assessment that in future these are unlikely to lead to many appeals is because of the limited powers of punishment available to company and squadron commanders.
  I have news for the Minister. In my old regiment, the first case taken to the summary appeal court was dealt with by a squadron leader—a subordinate commander—and the punishment was as severe as two days' restriction of privileges. I do not know whether the Minister has the facts at his fingertips, but we are talking about three months of operation. How many appeals have taken place, at the very beginning of the system?
  I wonder whether, once soldiers, sailors and airmen cotton on to the fact that the appeal is a "free hit", given that the punishment can only be reduced and cannot be increased, the rather complacent analysis in the Minister's letter to me of 25 February 2000 will prove to be a little awry in practice. I know from the limited amount of research that I have been able to conduct, talking to friends in the services, that a number of cases submitted for summary jurisdiction have been appealed. I have yet to learn what percentage of cases will eventually be appealed.
  We should bear in mind the effect of the appeal court on the summary justice system. It used to serve as a fast and effective way of dispensing justice at unit level; now it takes a commanding officer, an adjutant and a chief clerk about an hour to prepare each case. Only members of the services will recognise the burden that that places on the chain of command in the administration of discipline.
  We had a system that operated swiftly, which was seen to operate fairly and was respected for doing so, and which allowed for appeal to a court martial by those who did not wish to accept the commanding officer's award. That system has now been made very bureaucratic so that it can survive the summary appeal process, during which lawyers crawl over the evidence to be presented.
  Mr. Hancock rose—
  Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress.
  In three months, last year's Act has already led to a wholly different approach to the administration of justice in the services at unit level—something that we were promised would not happen. Let us consider the provisions relating to powers of entry, search and seizure. The explanatory notes explain the reason for those powers, stating:
  It is also intended to provide greater certainty and, by providing that extra certainty and independent legal supervision of applications for permission to search, to avoid the risk of a successful challenge to searches being made under the European Convention on Human Rights.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) mentioned room inspections. At present, a commanding officer has what are described as "inherent powers", which the Bill will replace with statutory powers. What
  954
  effect will that have on administration within a unit? A soldier will say, "Hang on a minute; I do not want my room to be inspected." If he stands his ground, and if we do not continue to rely on the commanding officer's inherent powers, the commanding officer will not be able to inspect service accommodation because he is not a policeman.
  The Minister will say that the Bill is not intended to have that effect—that it is not intended to make such a change in the standard of administration of military discipline within units. We understand that it is not meant to do that, but there is a serious risk that, by moving from the inherent powers of the commanding officer to statutory powers designed to withstand the European convention on human rights, it will have precisely that effect. Why are we taking risks with the administration of justice and discipline within the armed forces? It is because we are frightened of the convention. We must extricate the administration of military discipline and justice and the administration of the services from the convention.
  We must ask: when is an inspection not a search? Of course, there are difficult balances to be struck in a modern Army. Commanders seek to respect a single service man's privacy and accommodation. Their attitude to the administration of single soldier's accommodation is rather more modern than decades ago, but 18, 19, 20 or 21-year-old young men and women are not, naturally, the tidiest beasts in the world.
  Within the whole area of room inspections and the administration of military accommodation within lines, there is an amount of training in personal administration and discipline and that needs to be protected. It is for commanding officers of modern Army units, naval units and Air Force units to make those judgments. The Bill will take away from commanding officers that discretion in judging how best to administer their units.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised the issue of clause 33 and the wide powers that it gives. I do not entirely understand the need for the clause. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that in his winding-up speech. Under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 and section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, all civil offences are de facto military offences. There is effectively a catch-all section in those Acts, so there is nothing in the argument—if that is what the Government are advancing—that clause 33 is needed to ensure that service men are subject to the same civil laws as everyone else. It is already there in the Acts, even in their unconsolidated form. As I understand it, the only argument is about the administration of civil law within the military.
  It seems odd for the Government to say in the explanatory notes that the reason why clause 33 is required is because
  differences can exist for a considerable period before an opportunity to make the relevant amendments of Service law arises
  in the quinquennial Acts. The services have been able to rub along for quite a long time with wholly different laws, with an Air Force Act, an Army Act and a Naval Discipline Act.
  In this increasingly purple age, the Government are putting such a priority on consolidation that we will not see a consolidated Bill until 2005. The Minister for the Armed Forces even suggested that legislative scrutiny

  955
  would not be possible; it would not be possible to publish the Bill in time before the Quinquennial Act. I hope that I have misinterpreted his remark and that the consolidated draft Bill will be published some time in 2004 to allow a proper period of pre-legislative scrutiny of what will be quite complicated legislation, bringing the three Acts together.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right to press the Minister on the need for clause 33. On a quick reading of it, it seems that, by secondary legislation, the Minister can bring UK law into line with ECHR law. I suspect that the reason for the clause is that if we have an ECHR case, it will be easy for the Minister, by secondary legislation, to bring our law into line with ECHR law and to make it compliant, without having to introduce before Parliament a new armed forces discipline Bill.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend has again put his finger on the real concern. The clause gives the Secretary of State widespread powers for change to avoid proper scrutiny by the House. That is something that we should avoid. If the price for avoiding that is that the armed forces have to wait a maximum period of five years before they can consolidate a degree of administration of justice, while service personnel are forced to remain subject to the same laws as everyone else under sections 70 and 42 respectively of their own Acts, it is a price well worth paying. I suspect that a different agenda is being played out.
  The Bill has welcome elements. The continuance of the Acts is necessary under part I and I welcome the fact that royal naval officers are to be brought within the remit of summary jurisdiction. However, I have to question why it is necessary to bring lieutenant commanders and wing commanders within the ambit of summary justice. Officers of that rank and seniority should be regarded as worthy of the greatest possible respect. It is the rank that, typically, commands units of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. One has to ask, if summary justice is good enough for lieutenant commanders, why not apply it to brigadiers and generals?
  The armed forces have struck the right balance so far by applying summary justice to the rank of major and its equivalent. I hope that in Committee the Government will consider amendments on that point. If I am unlucky enough not to defeat the motion on Committee membership, I will not be able to serve on the Committee, and if such amendments are not aired before, I shall table them on Report. I do not believe that we should raise the rank structure in the other two services to meet some requirement of the Navy. I do not understand the requirement driving the provision to apply to the rank of commander in the Navy and I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
  I am somewhat agnostic about whether warrant officers should be able to sit on courts martial. There will be occasions when they can bring experience to a court martial and they may well be able to spread the burden of manning them more widely because courts martial can be time consuming. However, warrant officers will need to be selected with care. There are warrant officers who are good at their jobs but may not have the intellectual firepower to cope with sitting on a court martial. Of course, there are educational requirements and tests to
  956
  reach the rank of warrant officer, but as an ex-serving soldier I hoist that as an issue that needs to be addressed. The selection of people to serve on courts martial cannot be done randomly; it needs to be undertaken carefully. I do not mean to be derogatory, but there will have to be caution in the same way as one would be cautious about choosing junior officers to serve.
  There are other provisions in the Bill that appear to have merit, but they need careful scrutiny. I am sorry that I will not have an opportunity to help scrutinise the Bill in Committee, but that subject can be debated at length later—and I fully intend to do so. The handling of the Select Committee procedure has been disgraceful and will also be pursued later.
  The Bill will need careful scrutiny. Ministers guiding it through Committee will have to be flexible when it comes to amendments. They will have to be much more flexible than they were during Committee consideration of the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. The Government did not accept a single amendment in the whole of that Bill's Committee stage. When he presented the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, the Home Secretary said that, in his experience, he had known of no Bill that could not be improved in Committee. He should have been a member of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Bill, when Ministers debated with minds that were closed. That is a matter of enormous regret.
  This Bill is a missed opportunity to put right the damage done by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 and to consolidate the various legislation on discipline. The attempt to consolidate the relevant Acts began in 1991, and it is hard to believe, 10 years down the track, that this opportunity could not and should not have been taken. The Bill also wastes an opportunity to roll back the invidious effect on our armed forces of the European convention on human rights.
  I shall finish by referring to General Guthrie. My run-ins with him are a matter of record, but his RUSI lecture contained the warning that the plethora of employment legislation and litigation could lead to a culture of risk aversion. He could not be as frank as I can be, and I maintain that that legislation and litigation have indeed led to a culture of risk aversion.
  I have friends in the forces who now command regiments and ships. The health and safety culture is endemic in the services, and the Army is now a completely different institution, in terms of how it is administered, from the one that I left. My friends do not consider the change to have been an improvement, as it has made the services risk averse.
  That aversion to risk is now evident in the administration of summary justice. Subordinate commanders and commanding officers are becoming risk averse with regard to how they administer the summary justice system. It is sad that that should be happening to our armed forces. Ministers must listen to what the Chief of the Defence Staff is really saying, and to do that they must read between the lines. He is saying that the quality of our armed forces is falling because of the burden of legislation under which we are making them operate. It is about time that the House took note of that and began to put in place procedures to enable our armed forces to roll back the risk-averse culture. We must give them the freedom that they need to be the armed forces that our country has always deserved.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak. At the end of her contribution, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) deprecated the comments of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. Many hon. Members of all parties agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman said, and consider that in this case the Select Committee process has gone sadly awry. No doubt we will debate that later this evening.
  The debate on the Bill is traditionally wide ranging, and today's debate is no exception. I shall say relatively little about armed forces discipline, save that I believe that the armed forces, rather than reflecting society as a whole, should be able to protect it. For that reason, I believe passionately that everyone who can serve this country in the armed forces should be able to do so in the role that best fits their abilities. That is why so much of what is in the Bill is absolutely right.
  I do not have a great deal of experience of the armed forces, although I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme last year with the Navy—
  Mr. Hancock: With distinction.
  Mr. Heath: Twenty long days before the mast, and suddenly I am an expert on the Navy— well, I am not.
  I recognise the enormously valuable role played by women in the Navy on the fighting ships that I had the privilege to visit. I saw them doing a very effective job on a front-line fighting vehicle—a warship—in every role, from stoker to executive officer to weapons officer. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to a gentleman in the Army who said that he would find it quite impossible to maintain discipline in a mixed front-line unit. I have to say to that Army officer, "Go and talk to the Navy commander or the navy captain who is doing the job on a day-to-day basis and making an extremely good job of it."
  I have rather more experience in the field of policing. Clause 31 deals with the Ministry of Defence police, and I must express some serious concerns about the proposals. I do not do so because I lack confidence in the Ministry of Defence police, nor because I disrespect their professionalism, their training or any other aspect of the valuable role that they play. I intervened on the Minister earlier to ask him where the proposal came from, and I suspected that he would answer as he did. He said that the proposal had come from the Ministry of Defence and from the MOD police to provide a natural extension of the role of MOD constables. The proposal did not come from the territorial police forces of this country. That is odd. If the purpose is to provide better policing away from defence establishments, one would expect a corroboration of that view from the territorial forces Instead, most of what we have heard from the chief constables, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association raises serious doubts.
  There are good reasons for that, but first let us ask why the Ministry of Defence police might want to extend their role. The reason might be that it is a matter of convenience, as was suggested earlier, or that the MDP are conscious of a change in their role since their establishment. The Military Provost Guard Service is now
  958
  taking over many of the security functions on bases. There is also a difference in the accommodation that the Ministry of Defence estate now provides. There is much more mixed accommodation, by which I mean a mixture of Ministry of Defence and private housing in which civilian families live next door to service personnel. There is a blurring of the edges.
  The Bill also provides for the military police to have more of a constabulary role, as it was described earlier. I have to express a degree of prejudice, because I have never been convinced that there is enormous value in having an array of separate non-territorial police forces in this country. The hon. Member for Salisbury said that he was pleased to have eight different police forces active in his constituency. I think it is nonsense to have eight police forces operating in the Salisbury constituency, all with different roles and not communicating with one another.
  An expression of faith was made in the Royal Parks constabulary, and it was stated that it does a wonderful job because its officers are capable of talking to foreigners and protecting the royal palaces. The extremely good police officers in the Palace of Westminster also manage to talk to foreigners; they do a good job of protecting a royal palace without having to be part of a separate police force. Operational problems arise from having separate police forces which are responsible for their own little precincts.
  The basic ethos of policing in this country is the consent of the community. It is policing in the community, for the community, by the community. The more non-territorial police forces that are not accountable to the local community take on a policing role, the more we erode the intimate connection between the community and its police force. On the face of it, this may seem a sensible move, but I think that it betrays flaccid thinking. It does not address the issues of policing.
  What is the role of the constable anyway? Some years ago, a Police Foundation report identified what it saw as the inalienable roles of the sworn constable, as it described the office of constable, which could not be given to someone who was not a constable. There were three categories. One was to arrest, detain and search a citizen or property under statutory powers. I am not sure whether there is a need for MOD police to have that role outside their specific responsibilities on defence land. Why should they need to do any of those things, given that they would have to do so under a statutory power provided via the chief constable of the territorial force?
  Secondly, the Police Foundation identified the role of bearing arms and exercising force for the purpose of policing. I am not sure that I want MOD police bearing arms in a public place, ready to use them outwith the responsibilities of the local constabulary. The third right, which I believe that they should have, is that of full access to criminal records and intelligence for the purposes of operational planning. Of course, they need that only if they partake in operations. There is no clear reason, to me, why they need to partake in operations outside their specific role as MOD police policing the Ministry of Defence estate and military installations.
  What will the provision confer on a Ministry of Defence policeman in extending his role in the office of constable outside the current provisions, which he could not perform as a citizen? The answer is nothing. If a Ministry of Defence policeman is in uniform, travelling

  959
  from one place to another, and sees a robbery or a violent attack on another citizen, he has the same rights as all of us—me, the Minister, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker—to effect an arrest. Indeed, I believe that he would be failing in his duty were he not to attempt to do that.
  Extending the role would lead to the risk of confusion in the first instance. There are practical issues about communications between the local constabulary and the MOD police potentially acting in a freelance way. There is the opportunity for the MOD police accidentally to disrupt the local constabulary's covert operations simply because they are not part of the planning loop and are not involved in the arrangements, and for no real purpose. Serious questions need to be asked about the proposal. The area of responsibility of the Ministry of Defence police should not be extended merely at their whim. Such an extension must be effected in co-ordination with local constabularies.
  We should undertake a full-scale review of all the non-territorial police forces to establish their proper functions and roles. There may be a strong case for Ministry of Defence police to have the opportunity to be seconded to local police forces to provide additional support and gain experience of a wider and different sort of policing. That could be enormously beneficial. However, that they should apply their powers to citizens who are not a part of the military machine in the absence of accountability locally or a clear recognition of the role that they are playing could be dangerous, and will need closer examination.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I agree that the debate has been wide ranging, and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) pointed out, this is the measure by which the Crown has the authority of Parliament to maintain a standing Army, as provided for by the Bill of Rights of 1688. A copy of that Bill is in the other place and can be shown to visitors. It is a living document and it is the authority by which we maintain a standing Army. I salute the Government for having included a reference to that in the explanatory notes. The historical perspective is most welcome.
  Mr. Blunt: If unusual.
  Mr. Howarth: Unusual indeed.
  As the director of personal services, Army, told the Defence Committee during its inquiry last year:
  the ability of a Commanding Officer to maintain good order and military discipline is fundamental to his ability to command his troops. Maintaining the system of summary discipline is our vital ground.
  That is what the Bill is about. We should have Brigadier Ritchie's remarks before us at all times.
  The Select Committee was right to draw attention to the preamble of previous Bills, stating
  As the preamble to the old annual Acts used to put it—
  … it being requisite … that an exact discipline be observed and that persons belonging to the said forces who mutiny, or stir up sedition, or desert Her Majesty's service, or are guilty of crimes and
  960
  offences to the prejudice of good order and military or air force discipline, be brought to a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of the law will allow.
  That should be at the heart of our concerns. The necessity of maintaining order in our services and for
  a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of the law will allow
  should be considered if we are to be able to meet the requirements set out by the brigadier.
  How do we respond to the Bill before us? Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome parts of it, in particular the decision to permit warrant officers to be included in courts martial. That is a sensible move. In many respects such officers are better schooled in human experience and life than some of the officers. They are therefore likely to bring a dimension to courts martial that will be welcomed.
  Perhaps I could be allowed the liberty of paying tribute to the garrison sergeant major in Aldershot, Joe Fairbairn, who is a fantastic chap and has done a marvellous job not only for the garrison there but for the civilian community. He has been a great ambassador for the Army and for the warrant officer class and the fantastic job that they do.
  I share some of the reservations of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the Government's proposals for the Ministry of Defence police. I am sure that the public would regard it as sensible that, in moving from one site to another, if the MOD police see a criminal act taking place, they should be able to use their training and the authority conferred on them by their position to do more than the ordinary citizen could do. That seems sensible, as I say, but the Committee must carefully consider the precise proposals.
  The Minister of State says that the Government are not slavishly following the civilian systems, but the explanatory notes—and, indeed, his speech—show the extent to which the Government want to apply civilian standards and arrangements to military discipline, and there is constant reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, there are great dangers in doing so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made that point extremely well. If the Government are not slavishly following the procedures that apply to the civilian world, they are nevertheless in danger of going too far down that road. They will do the services no benefit, even if that is their intention.
  The second point that I wish to make is about the references to the Human Rights Act 1998—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, the Bill refers to that Act—and the extent to which the Government think it necessary to protect us from challenge in the European Court of Human Rights, but we shall always be subject to such challenge. Ministers themselves have made that point. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said that there is a constantly moving scene. The drive towards human rights in the European area—it is not a European Community issue—is such that that court seeks constantly to extend its definition of human rights.
  There will inevitably be more and more cases in which we must apply the decisions of a foreign court to our armed forces. As I have told the House before, it is entirely wrong that the composition and structure of Her Majesty's forces should be determined by people other than us. So I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that we should extricate our armed forces from the Human Rights Act 1998 as

  961
  soon as possible. While recognising the difficulty, the Select Committee on Defence recommended that Ministers should give that serious consideration.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that a convention that originated in the aftermath of the bestial war crimes of the second world war to try to prevent a repetition of those atrocities should now be so twisted and perverted as to be imposed on democratic countries and, indeed, on the armed forces of those countries, without which the second world war would never have been won?
  Mr. Howarth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that he was in the Chamber when I intervened on the hon. Member for Hereford to tell him that the origins of the convention are as my hon. Friend has so explicitly made clear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has come under attack, not least from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for supporting the remarks about women in the armed forces made by the Chief of the Defence Staff. It is important to understand the Opposition's criticism. Of course we believe that women have a role to play in our armed forces. My mother will be 85 in a few days. She served her country in the armed forces for six years, from 1939 to 1945. I have constituents who served, with enormous distinction, in the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. One of my constituents landed on the beaches on D-day plus one or two, within hours of the first landings. Of course women have a role to play, but most Conservative Members do not believe that women should serve in the front line of the infantry.
  Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I will not, because I want to allow the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the opportunity to speak. I cannot do that by giving way.
  We do not believe that, as has been suggested, people have a right to join the armed forces The duty of the armed forces is to protect this country; it is not to reflect society. Douglas Bader was disabled and was able to continue to contribute his skills to the Royal Air Force because he was already a skilled pilot. He was also very determined and would not take no for an answer. That was entirely right and proper.
  It is significant that, when a member of the Disability Rights Commission was asked to comment on the remarks made by the Chief of the Defence Staff, he said:
  All we are against is the absolute bar on disabled people serving in the Armed Forces. We are fully mindful of the need for combat effectiveness.
  That is what concerns Conservative Members. We do not have it in for disabled people—far from it. Indeed, the previous Government did more for disabled people than had been done for many years before. Labour Members have tried to misrepresent our views.
  Our armed forces must train for war fighting and not for peacekeeping. I read with concern the idea that recruits could hold up a red or yellow card if they thought that they were being shouted at by their instructors. When people go into battle, there is noise around them. The first
  962
  thing that hits anyone who sees "Saving Private Ryan" is the noise, and I am told that the film more accurately reflects battlefield conditions than many other war films that are on offer. If we do not train men for that atmosphere, they will not be able to perform if they encounter it.
  It has been suggested that people who have never lived away from home before are incapable of accepting certain forms of instruction. People who joined the armed forces in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s had not left home previously, but they heard no less shouting from the sergeant major. They formed the armed forces of which everyone in the House has said that they are proud. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
  I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) wish to speak, but I wish to make a final plea to the Minister that is unrelated to the issue of discipline. However, it is an important military matter. I refer to the inquiry being conducted by Lord Saville into the activities that took place in Londonderry in 1972. It is a completely ludicrous inquiry. It has run for two years and, according to the latest figures that we have from Ministers, it has so far cost £30 million. It is deeply distressing for members of the armed forces that those who did their best, as they saw it, in difficult conflict conditions in which they had to take instant decisions are having to account 30 years later for what happened on the day. However, the one man who does not have to account for his actions is Martin McGuinness, who I believe is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the terms of the debate.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I entirely accept your ruling. However, as was pointed out earlier, this wide-ranging debate offers a five-yearly opportunity to consider military matters. We are dealing with morale and the impact of the Government's proposals on morale. I wish to place on record the fact that in my constituency of Aldershot there is grave concern about the Saville inquiry. I do not believe that any winners will come out of it; it can lead only to further tears.
  On that rather unhappy note, I conclude my remarks. I hope that the Minister will take on board our reservations about the Bill—that it will advance the cause of political correctness to the detriment of the qualities and conditions of our armed services, about which so many hon. Members have today been complimentary.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sure that when Sir Charles Guthrie, the Chief of the Defence Staff, made his controversial and pointed swan-song speech a few weeks ago, he did not think that it would be used as a bridge-building exercise between him and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but it served that purpose this evening when the hon. Gentleman agreed with so much of what Sir Charles said. That speech will be interpreted in many ways, not least when attempting to discover when tosh is not tosh—it is only tosh when those on the Conservative Front Bench interfere and table a motion, the substance of which uses his words. Today's

  963
  debate will receive widespread comment within the Ministry of Defence, which will reconsider what Sir Charles Guthrie said and how it could be so viciously misinterpreted.
  The debate has been good humoured, as all defence debates are in this place. It has brought many of the usual suspects to the Chamber. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is not here because this is one of the few times that I will not speak for half an hour, and therefore he would not get fed up.
  Many Conservative Members, including a former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), contributed to the debate, but they did not give an example of when good order and discipline might be affected by the Bill's substance. They made allegations, but, when challenged, did not give a clear idea of what the problems might be.
  If the hon. Member for Reigate moves an amendment to get his name on the Select Committee, I shall support it. He deserves to serve on it, and the Committee deserves to have him. I served with him on the Defence Committee and enjoyed our shared moments. Other hon. Members should get the benefit of his company.
  We have been told that there will be endless appeals. What is wrong with someone having the right of appeal against disciplinary action if they believe that there has been an injustice? There is nothing wrong with giving people the right to go to another court and take the issue further up the chain. It is offensive for hon. Members to say that the men and women in our armed forces, who daily put their lives on the line to protect other people's human rights, should not have the same rights. For the Conservatives to say that one of the first things that they would do when they are back in government—they did not say when that would be—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: In a few months.
  Mr. Hancock: I doubt that that is true, but optimism springs eternal from the Conservative Front Bench.
  However, I do not doubt the integrity of members of the armed forces who presented to the Defence Committee the case for what we are discussing tonight. They were not given a smooth run, but, as always, were vigorously interrogated by all members. Not once did they retract or alter the substantial improvements to the armed forces discipline procedures that they recommended to the Committee. They believed that change was long overdue, and many hon. Members have reflected on the clear need for that. Senior officers in all three services advised us that the changes would not present the enormous obstacles that have been mentioned tonight. They represent a significant and useful step forward that will give our armed forces and those men and women who are covered by the legislation a fair opportunity to have the same rights that any of us would expect to have. There is nothing wrong with a Government introducing such a proposition to the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I probably will not have the chance to make a speech. Does he agree that biggest
  964
  anomaly of all is having different disciplinary rules for each of the three services? Does not failing to incorporate those procedures into one set of rules represent a huge lacuna?
  Mr. Hancock: I agree, although the Bill is a stepping stone to achieving the once-and-for-all change that will unify those procedures. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that some of his hon. Friends are very much against the change that he proposes. Some say that it is against the regimental ethos and that great damage will be done if individual regiments are unable to pursue their own codes of disciplinary conduct, which they may have had for a century or more. I do not happen to share that view; I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It will be an enlightened Administration who achieve the unification of the different disciplinary Acts that cover the men and women in our armed forces.
  We have an opportunity here. I am not pessimistic, and I believe that the select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), will amend the Bill should the need arise. Those who are selected by the House to be members of it will keep an open mind and be willing to make improvements where necessary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, chuckles. I am optimistic that the Defence Committee will one day not always let him get his own way, so I live in hope of lots of things happening.
  I have much enjoyed the debate and believe that the Government need help and support to ensure that we discipline our service men and women in a proper and fair manner. We must give them no more rights, but no fewer, than any of us would expect and desire should we be in their position. We must do the Bill justice by giving it firm support on Second Reading and a helpful passage through the Select Committee.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for giving me three minutes in which to make three important points.
  This quinquennial Bill allows the Government of the day to make provision for the standing armed forces and covers a wide range of subjects. First, I want to discuss a huge anomaly. During consideration of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, in which I was involved, the Government spent a great deal of time ensuring that our law complied with the European convention on human rights. However, there are different disciplinary regimes for each of our armed forces. Surely it would make a great deal more sense to have a combined set of disciplinary procedures.
  Secondly, we uncovered and discussed at great length in Committee the default in respect of the summary appeals procedure.The 2000 Act is inconsistent with the legislation that pertains in the civil courts, where a sentence can be increased or decreased on appeal. Allowing a sentence only to be diminished will give free licence to, and indeed encourage, every service man who feels in any way disadvantaged to appeal. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to remedy that defect, and I hope that the Committee will table amendments to do something about it.

  965
  Thirdly, clauses 33 and 37 contain great powers to pass secondary legislation. The use of secondary legislation is an increasing and unwelcome trend under this Government. That was also the case, it must be said, under the previous Government, but the trend has been accelerated by the present Government.
  If one examines clauses 33 and 37, one sees that, in effect, almost half the Bill can be amended by secondary legislation. It is a trend on which Ministers and civil servants are increasingly embarking, and it is an undesirable one. On the whole, when legislation is imposed on citizens of this country, it should be imposed properly, through primary legislation passed through both Houses of Parliament and subject to proper scrutiny by elected representatives.
  Our armed forces are the most respected in the world. Deterrence is the best form of defence. Let us hope that, with their political correctness and by giving excessive rights to armed forces personnel, the Government do not diminish that effectiveness. I want our armed forces to be the most feared in the world, because hopefully that will deter any future conflicts.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I apologise for the state of my voice which is unlikely to get better as I proceed.
  I shall start by putting some right hon. and hon. Members out of their suspense. We have not said that we will urge our colleagues to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We hope that we will be able to pass the reasoned amendment. If we do that, the Government will have to come back with a better Bill, which will be a good thing.
  In the unfortunate and entirely hypothetical eventuality that we do not succeed in persuading the majority of the House to support the amendment, we will have to take stock of the decision of the House and of the fact, which has been mentioned several times this evening, that we need a Quinquennial Bill, or the individual armed forces discipline Acts will expire. We will take a responsible decision accordingly.
  A large number of right hon. and hon. Members have taken part in the debate, which is good particularly as so few hon. Members from all parts of the House will take part in the Committee. I regret the fact that the Committee is so restricted in number and that the Government have decided to pack it with parliamentary private secretaries, in addition to Ministers and Back Benchers. We would have preferred a larger Committee.
  The right hon.—it is a pleasure to call him that—Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) began by paying tribute to the military police, with which we all agree, and made a number of important points. He made a devastating remark which I wrote down, so I hope that I have got it exact. The right hon. Gentleman said that the composition of the Committee is a classic case of the Executive dominating the legislature. I could not agree more. That is a disturbing tendency on the part of the Government, to which I have referred in many contexts. Many of my hon. Friends on the Front and Back Benches have been doing that for the past three and a half years. I trust that the point will not be lost on the electorate in a few months' time.
  966
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke not only with the distinction of a former Secretary of State for Defence, but as one of those who were instrumental in launching the doctrine of expeditionary warfare at the end of the cold war, some 10 years ago. He emphasised the deeply disturbing fact that, far from reducing the deficit in the numbers in our armed forces, the Government are moving backwards. They recently pushed back from 2005 to 2008 the time when, under a Labour Government, we would get our forces back up to strength. I trust that we will not have a Labour Government for much longer, and that those numbers will be up to strength very much sooner.
  I shall surprise the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and embarrass her by saying that she did not say a word with which I could disagree, even if I tried. She said that combat effectiveness was crucial as a criterion for judging the contents of the Bill. I thoroughly agree with that; it is exactly the position that the Opposition will take. She said that there was in the House a dangerous lack of knowledge about military matters on the part of people who had first-hand experience of them. I agree with that. We may not be able to do anything about it, but we should be aware of it. She made the point that, in those circumstances, it is important that the Committee meet as many serving men and women and their families as possible.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made an entirely tasteless and unjustified attack on the heir to the throne, in the light of which I have little inclination to engage with his speech.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) is a frequent and well-informed participant in our debates. I do not think that he will be embarrassed when I say that we have something in common in that our fathers both served in the RAF, and he speaks with genuine feeling about military matters. In particular, he spoke about support for families and the need to look more favourably at what we can do for stepchildren, comments with which I have much sympathy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has long experience of these matters and I deeply regret that he will not be a member of the Standing Committee. He set out some of his experiences of Government responses to recommendations of Select Committees on which he had sat, and what he said was pretty devastating. The Government clearly treat Select Committees, as they do the rest of the House, with complete and growing contempt. He set out several points that he would like to be taken up in Committee. One concerned the pension anomalies, another the fitness of military personnel and another the military medical services, a theme that he has made very much his own in the past few years. I hope we will be able to take up those matters, provided that they are not timetabled out. Again, that is something that the Government are likely to try to impose on the House. We shall see later this evening what will happen about that.
  I am sorry that the only participant in the debate whose comments I missed was the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and I apologise to her for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) spoke about the invidious European convention on human rights and its impact in Britain, and he spoke about the culture of risk aversion, which, he said, is not something which might potentially be created by an excess of bureaucratic

  967
  legislation and interference, as the Chief of the Defence Staff suggested, but is already here. I fear that he is all too right about that.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) spoke against the fragmentation of the military police force. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who, again, is a knowledgeable participant in these debates and whom I regret, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, will not be members of the Committee where they would have made memorable contributions, spoke in favour of warrant officers taking part in courts martial. I thoroughly agree with his argument on that which I found convincing. He was concerned about the extension of the powers of the military police and he was also rightly concerned about the apparently inexorable extension of the jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) strongly supported the Bill, as the Liberal Democrats appear to be doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in a marvel of succinctness, managed to put over in three minutes, three important points—the need for a tri-service Bill, the unfortunate asymmetric aspect of the appeal procedure in the new Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000, and the excess of secondary legislation under the Government.
  Two major themes have clearly emerged from the debate. One is the need for a tri-service Act, and the Government's utter failure to bring one forward. It is no use after nearly four years simply saying that they are sorry that they could not quite get around to it; that they could not manage it. This is simply another example of administrative incompetence. Let me remove all ambiguity on the subject by saying formally to the House that the next Conservative Government will bring forward a tri-service Bill and we will get the matter straight.
  The second big theme which has emerged is that of political correctness.
  Ms Dari Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I am afraid that time does not allow. The second theme, of course, is the Labour party's new ideology. A generation or so ago, it was in hock to Marxism, which took a simple-minded view of the world, and said that the essential distinction in the human race was between capitalists and the exploited toilers. Now, the Labour party has gone over to an equally simple-minded distinction: on one side are women, gays, the disabled and anyone from a so-called ethnic community who, apparently, are the disadvantaged and the exploited of the earth and, on the other side, is the rest of humanity. Of course, that is complete junk and nonsense and it is frightening that adults think in those terms—let alone here in the House of Commons.
  It would be utterly disastrous if, for one moment, such thinking were allowed to influence a matter as important as defence policy. It is grotesque to mix up the separate issues of women in the armed services, homosexuality in the armed services, disabled people and so on, which have nothing in common. They must be looked at as separate personnel and management challenges for our armed services. To remove any ambiguity, I shall briefly explain
  968
  where the Opposition stand, because it is not our business to run away from any of those issues. With homosexuality, it may well be that the problem is on the way to being resolved, and the Chief of the Defence Staff has already been quoted this evening as saying that. If so, and if senior officers are happy and relaxed about that, so much the better. Frankly, if people are discreet and are not causing problems for military discipline, it would be utterly obnoxious to try to pry officiously into their private sexual and emotional make-up and lives. If senior officers are relaxed about that, Parliament should take its cue from that judgment.
  On the disabled, it is axiomatic that anyone who wears a military uniform or a cap badge should have been properly trained to undertake military tasks. Even those who are recruited to the armed forces without the career objective of war fighting are subject to a rigorous military training programme. They know how to handle weapons and know what to do in a crisis. The other day, I visited the Royal Marines in Portsmouth, and even the Royal Marine bandsmen, who are recruited largely on their musical ability, have to pass a rigorous military test. Obviously, someone who is disabled cannot do that. It is different if people have joined the Army or another service and been wounded, perhaps in the course of action, and then find themselves disabled. They are very much part of the team and the culture, having themselves had military training in the past, and they know how to respond in a crisis. Therefore, that is quite different.
  It must be for those whose lives are at risk and those who have responsibility for commanding them in a crisis and, potentially, in battle, to decide the policy on recruitment. We back, that. Let me make it clear that the next Conservative Government will not try to impose an artificial Procrustean modish agenda on our armed services. We will listen to professional advice and will be guided by it. We will not second-guess military advice on the recruitment, training and promotion of personnel.
  Exactly the same thing applies to women. Let me say right away that the most appalling things have been said on that subject this evening. The Conservative party is not against women in the armed services. We are not just for women in the armed services: we are enthusiastically for women playing a full part in the armed services. We are delighted that so many young women have joined in recent years, and we pay tribute to those women who are prepared to risk their lives in the service of their country, and do so on a par and without making any distinction from those men who serve alongside them, to whom we likewise pay tribute No distinctions whatever should be made in that.
  There is also the question of the role that women can and should play in the services. As we all know, they are on the front line in the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and are doing very well there. Until now, the Army has taken the view that women should not be deployed on the front line. Using the same criterion that I used earlier, we will respect and stand by that judgment.
  Finally, a terrible new threat from political correctness is on the horizon. As if the European convention on human rights were not enough, the Government now propose to accede to the International Criminal Court and ratify our participation in it. Once again, our approach is unlike that of the French, who have again had the sense to ask for a derogation, as they did with regard to the European convention on human rights. We did not seek

  969
  such a derogation on the ECHR, perhaps because we could not predict back in the 1950s that the jurisprudence that the convention involved would be so damaging to our conduct of military affairs. The French have asked for the same derogation on the ICC and have got it, but the British new Labour Government have not even thought—perhaps they did not have the guts—to request such a derogation. They have no excuse whatever. A combination of pusillanimity, incompetence and political correctness anaesthetising the minds of Labour Members—that is the characteristic of the new Labour Administration.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): If ever we need a reminder of the dangers of noise pollution, we have only to listen to a speech made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Spalding—
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Grantham and Stamford.
  Dr. Moonie: My apologies—you have lost Spalding.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Get it right if you are being insulting.
  Dr. Moonie: I was hardly being insulting.
  The debate has offered some valuable pointers on the matters that the Select Committee may want to examine further during the next few weeks. The Ministry of Defence is looking forward to helping the Committee in its work and to providing such further information about the Bill as it may require.
  The Bill has a number of purposes other than the key purpose of maintaining the statutory basis for discipline in the armed forces. Like previous Armed Forces Bills, it may appear to be a miscellany of discrete proposals. It is possible to see the Bill in that light. However, the common thread that runs through the Bill—and, I believe, its predecessors—is a recognition of the need to bring service legislation up to date.
  The Bill does that in a number of ways. It provides a proper framework for key activities of the service police. It gives the service courts and the machinery surrounding them powers reflecting those available within the civilian criminal justice system. It proposes a mechanism for allowing future development in the criminal justice sphere to be reflected more readily than is always possible at present. I shall speak about that in more detail later, if I have time.
  In what I hope will be a particularly welcome change, the Bill enables warrant officers, who are regarded by many as the backbone of the services, to sit as members of courts martial. The new powers proposed in the Bill in relation to alcohol and drugs testing will help to provide a safer working environment for all service personnel, for civilians who work with them and for others with whom they come into contact. The Bill also clarifies the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. It gives them the ability to provide an appropriate response, either individually or collectively, to the range of situations where they may be called on to assist in the policing of our communities.
  970
  The proposals have been developed pragmatically, for practical purposes. The test is whether they will improve the administration of discipline in the service or enable the Ministry of Defence police to make a more effective contribution to policing. We believe that they will do so and we will have ample opportunity to consider such matters in detail during the Select Committee's deliberations.
  Many Opposition Members quoted from the speech made by the Chief of the Defence Staff, although they did so somewhat selectively. His remarks about a subaltern being sued by his platoon for making a mistake in the heat of battle were entirely hypothetical, and part of much wider comments on a society which he said was becoming more litigious—which is of course true.
  Without wanting to prompt accusations of Ministers blowing their own trumpets, let me point out that General Guthrie made several warm comments about the support that he received from Defence Ministers. Indeed, he commented that our Defence Ministers understand our position and have been robust in the defence of our case during the recent European debate on ending employment discrimination on grounds of age and disability. Of course, we secured the required exemption.
  I should spend a couple of minutes on the supposedly reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition and on rebutting some of their points. First, I put my hands up and admit that I should have liked to introduce a consolidation or tri-service Bill this year, but that has not proved possible. We explained at great length during deliberation on the Bill that became the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000 why that was the case, but we have said that the introduction of such legislation will be possible at the nearest available occasion—the next quinquennial review.
  Mr. John Bercow: It must be possible.
  Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not possible this year, much as we might have liked to do it. It will be done on the next occasion that presents itself, and it will of course be done by a Labour Government: of that I am certain.
  The Bill was never envisaged as a vehicle for tri-service measures. The Government have launched an initiative to create a framework for service discipline that will better meet the needs of armed forces that increasingly operate together. We acknowledged in the strategic defence review that the task would be massive and would take time. It is not simply a question of putting the three current Acts under one cover, and we owe it to our services to get it right.
  Having decided to go for a tri-service Act, we had to review the consolidation project. We concluded that the unnecessarily complicated work involved in rewriting a significant amount of legislation was not worth the candle, but it will be done—although it will not be done this time, which I think we all regret.
  According to the amendment, we have failed to
  address the challenge to military combat effectiveness from the gathering tide of legislation following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law.
  There is, in fact, no challenge to combat effectiveness, because the Government are determined that the effectiveness of our armed forces will remain paramount.

  971
  That is evident from recent discussions on article 13 in the European Union, and from the treaty of Amsterdam, where we secured an exemption from the provisions in so far as they might impact on the armed forces.
  The Opposition would like the United Kingdom to enter a reservation on the ECHR in relation to the armed forces, thereby denying the men and women of those forces the basic human rights applying to every citizen of this country. That is despicable.
  I will not argue with the Opposition about the principle. They have their views and I have mine. Many of them rehearsed their limited arguments ad nauseam last year, and no doubt we shall hear exactly the same rubbish this year. What they said last year was completely off the wall, and I am afraid that it is even further off the wall now. We will not accept the contention that our armed forces should have fewer human rights than the rest of us.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Dr. Moonie: I have no time to give way, but I intend to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said during the debate. He will not be short of bites at the cherry.
  We do not accept the proposition that the ECHR represents a threat to operational effectiveness—neither do the officers in the armed forces.
  The amendment mentions the omission of
  legal clarification of employment in the services of young people under the age of 18.
  The position relating to employment of those under 18 in the armed forces is clear. The minimum age of entry—16—was determined by the school leaving age. Our policy regarding the non-deployment of under-17s in the light of the United Kingdom's declaration on signature of the optional protocol of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child has been implemented administratively. That is appropriate, as it provides flexibility in relation to the questions of combat effectiveness involved in who may and who may not be deployed in operations.
  At the end of their amendment, the Opposition repeat their fear of a "creeping advance of litigation" that will in some way sap the morale of officers. I assure them that we have no intention of allowing that to happen, and that the officers with whom we deal every day have not the slightest fear that it will happen.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) had views on Ministry of Defence police powers. I am pleased to say that the Association of Chief Police Officers has broadly supported our proposals. We know that the same cannot be said of the Police Federation of England and Wales, but we think its reservations are based on an incomplete and possibly out-of-date assessment of the MDP's range of competencies and skills. We will, of course, explore these matters further during the Select Committee's consideration, but it may be useful to bear it in mind that, in 1999, Home Department officers called for MDP assistance on no fewer than 2,969 occasions in England and Wales, and on 63 occasions in Scotland. We feel that there should be a firm legal basis for such action.
  We have no intention of allowing MOD police to be used to provide general support for duties in the community, but we see a need for a proper statutory basis for the very proper action that they must take on occasion, either collectively or individually.
  972
  We see no need for legal aid schemes to be put on a statutory footing. It has been a long-standing policy of Governments of both parties that they should mirror schemes in the civilian system. The MOD funds the services' legal aid schemes for those armed forces personnel brought before a court martial or a summary appeal court, or for preparing the grounds for an appeal to the courts martial appeal court. In certain circumstances, the scheme extends to the dependants of service personnel and to other MOD civilian employees who may be brought before a standing civilian court or court martial while serving overseas.
  I will not spend much time discussing one half of the Opposition's views on the employment of women in the armed forces because they should not be dignified in that way—except to say that we are committed to maximising opportunities for women in the armed forces in so far as is consistent with the requirement to maintain combat effectiveness. We are waiting for a study which is to be released at some time in the next few months. We will act once we receive it. We do not propose to react to hypothetical argument.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked about the proposed powers of search within barracks—a matter raised by other Opposition Members. The provision for warrants relates to the search of sleeping accommodation in connection with the investigation of offences. In appropriate cases, searches of sleeping accommodation will require a warrant, but clause 16 clearly provides that the Bill does not limit the powers of a commanding officer to search such accommodation for reasons unconnected with the investigation of offences: for example, for health, safety or security purposes or for matters of routine discipline. There is no way that the standard inspection of quarters will be affected in any way by the Bill. The routine type of examination will be allowed. We are including a statutory basis for proper searches to be carried out. That is intended to enhance our abilities, not to restrict them.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked at whose behest MDP assistance would be provided. I think that I have answered that. It will be provided either at the request of an individual officer in an individual situation where an emergency has arisen, or where a chief constable requires general help—for example, with major flooding or other public order situations. I could talk about that at length, but we do not have time. We will cover it adequately in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked about police powers and their extent. They have been discussed with a wide range of parties. We feel that the limited extension of powers is appropriate in the light of the comments that we received.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) mentioned the effects of litigation. I am able to assure the House that my Department has no official directive requiring commanding officers to take out insurance in case they are sued. The MOD will stand behind its employees at all times—particularly service men and women—provided that they are acting in the course of their duty. The right hon. Gentleman may have been confused by the fact that public liability insurance must be purchased to cover activities that are not publicly funded, such as the provision of certain local sports clubs

  973
  or playgroups, but there is absolutely no question of soldiers being required to purchase liability insurance to cover their operational duties—none whatever.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) thinks that he has spotted a mistake in the Bill. I assure him that it is not a mistake. The Navy requested that the gap be maintained, so that the commencing rank for service in a court martial by officers remained as it always had.
  The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) mentioned the number of summary court cases and appeals. It is just my luck that the hon. Gentleman's own old regiment had one of them. In the two months since the commencement of the legislation for which I have figures, 2,638 summary offences were dealt with across the three services. Those have led to 42 appeals or 2 per cent. That is hardly excessive.
  This is a worthwhile Bill, albeit it limited in scope. A much wider one will be introduced in five years' time. I commend the Bill to the House
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 350.

  Division No. 37]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Baldry, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beggs, Roy

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hayes, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cran, James

  Lidington, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Duncan, Alan

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Faber, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maples, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fraser, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gibb, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Norman, Archie

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  974

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, William

  Prior, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Randall, John

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wells, Bowen

  Ruffley, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. James Gray and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Battle, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corston, Jean

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Borrow, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

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

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Breed, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Denham, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Burnett, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cann, Jamie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  975

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livsey, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lock, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McFall, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hancock, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harvey, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, John

  Moore, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  976

  Pearson, Ian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pollard, Kerry

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pound, Stephen

  Stringer, Graham

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Todd, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rogers Allan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tynan, Bill

  Roy, Frank

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  wareing, Robert N

  Salter Martin

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wills, Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wilson, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

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

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Snape, Peter

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 8.

  Division No. 38]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bailey, Adrian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Austin, John

  Berry, Roger

  977

  Betts, Clive

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blackman, Liz

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fitzpatrick Jim

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Breed, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnett, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs. Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hancock, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heath David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn. Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston. Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hutton, John

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Sally Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Joyce, Eric

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  978

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer. Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pike, Peter L

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  King. Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pound, Stephen

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purchase, Ken

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Livsey, Richard

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lock, David

  Rendel, David

  Love, Andrew

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McFall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew. Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

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

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mountford, Kali

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mudie, George

  Stringer, Graham

  Mullin, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Timms, Stephen

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Tipping, Paddy

  979

  Todd, Mark

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wilson, Brian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winnick, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Tynan, Bill

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wray, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Cash, William

  Thompson, William

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Christopher Chope and

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Mr. Keith Bradley and Margaret Beckett relating to Armed Forces Bill, Tax Simplification (Joint Committee), Tax Simplification and Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 130.

  Division No. 39]

  [10.30 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burnett, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barnes, Harry

  Cann, Jamie

  Barron, Kevin

  Casale, Roger

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Chaytor, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Clelland, David

  Borrow, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Breed, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Connarty, Michael

  980

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drew, David

  Joyce, Eric

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Efford, Clive

  Keetch, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Etherington, Bill

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foulkes, George

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Livsey, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lock, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hancock, Mike

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harvey, Nick

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hesford, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  981

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Miller, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Oaten, Mark

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase Ken

  Tynan, Bill

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rammell, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  White, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Wray, James

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Baldry, Tony

  Brady, Graham

  Beggs, Roy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Blunt, Crispin

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  982

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Malins, Humfrey

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Norman, Archie

  Day, Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prior, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spring, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter Gary

  Hayes, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Tyrie, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wells, Bowen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Luff, Peter

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME)
  10.44 pm
  Dr. Moonie: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

  ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME)

    Select Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

    2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday 15th March.

    983
    I shall be brief. It will come as no surprise to those Members who attended today's Second Reading debate that the Bill is to be committed to a Select Committee. The motion proposes that the Committee should report by 15 March.
    The House values the procedure whereby armed forces Bills are examined by a Select Committee. That can encourage the development of a consensual approach to the proposed legislation, which is appropriate when we consider the maintenance of the services' disciplinary procedures. A consensual approach is, of course, not at all the same as an uncritical approach. The Select Committee's report will inform the debate on subsequent stages of the Bill in the House and in another place.
    We consider it appropriate for the House to ask the Select Committee to complete its important work by a certain date. The date of 15 March proposed in the motion will allow some two months for the Committee to conduct its inquiries and to examine the Bill.
    Mr. Eric Forth: What assurances can the Minister give the House that, in the event of an early general election, which would mean dissolving the House before 15 March, this important measure would have made progress by then?
    Dr. Moonie: There has been an occasion when an early general election precluded completion of a Bill until after it had been brought back. There is very little chance of that event happening. [Interruption.] That is not the Government view; it is my view.
    Mr. John Gummer: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the opposite question? If, as the discussions go on, the Government consider that a number of alterations ought to be made and that more time is needed, will it be possible to defer the date proposed, if the Government think that that is necessary? I ask merely as a matter of practicality.
    Dr. Moonie: Clearly, we would examine any eventuality, but were consideration of the Bill to be delayed, the Committee would sit for longer to ensure that the Bill passed by the requisite time.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the model of a Select Committee and in the absence of witnesses, is it intended that the Committee will sit in private or in public? Between now, if the motion is passed, and 15 March, for approximately how many hours is it intended that the "Select Committee" will sit?
    Dr. Moonie: Those are matters for the Committee, once it has been properly constituted. It will come to its conclusions at the appropriate time.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very tolerant. It is unusual for Select Committees to sit without advisers, particularly with a cut-off date. The Bill is important, and the House of Commons is ill served by Select Committees that rush through their work without the proper support staff. Can my hon. Friend
    984
    assure me that the Committee, which has already been criticised for its membership, will perform the task that it is meant to perform?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will ensure that the Committee performs its task. If my hon. Friend stays for the start of the next item of business, she may well hear something that will please her. She knows what I am speaking about.
    The date of 15 March proposed in the motion will allow some two months for the Committee to conduct its inquiries and to examine the Bill. In my view, that is adequate for a 41-clause Bill, the main purpose of which, I believe, the House is united on.
    Needless to say, the Ministry of Defence will do what it can to assist the Committee in its work. I commend the motion to the House.
    10.48 pm
    Mr. Key: The Government have a number of problems with the motion. We should remember that the guillotine that we are considering, for that is what it is—the euphemism "programme motion" will rarely pass my lips—is the fruit of the labour of the Modernisation Committee. It came to the House without the Opposition's support, for sound reasons. We mind very much about the imposition of the guillotine procedure on this Bill of all Bills, which is unique in terms of the way in which the House works. It is the only Bill that has always had pre-legislative scrutiny and it sets a fine precedent for other legislation.
    We agree that we must have the Bill. That is the basis of our armed forces. However, the Opposition have never been happy with the guillotine motion. I have already informed the Minister for the Armed Forces that we shall have great difficulty in getting through all the work involved in the tight time available. We shall do our best to assist with proper scrutiny in the circumstances, but the time that has been proposed overall is short compared with that for previous Quinquennial Bills.
    I served on the previous Bill, which had a much more relaxed time scale in which to take stock of the situation and make recommendations to the House. The Bill received its Second Reading in December 1995 and, as far as I recall, it received Royal Assent in July 1996. That was proper consideration. The Select Committee met in January and reported at the end of April. That also was a reasonable time. On that occasion, we were able to agree with the then Opposition on roughly how long proceedings might take. However, no one could predict that, because we could not predict what the Government of the day would wish to add to the Christmas tree that a Bill such as this always is. The Opposition could not predict exactly what would turn up as a result of the depositions made, the evidence taken and the correspondence with the Committee during the period in question. It is never possible to predict precisely what will happen.
    We recognise the arithmetic of the situation, but it is still not appropriate to impose strict time limits. There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that the terms of the Bill were set out before Second Reading and before the arguments had been deployed on both sides of the House. We regret that, too, but it was a fait accompli.

    985
    Several Government Members even talked about what they would do when they were in the Committee. Considering the strong representations from the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, about the composition of the Committee—much more will be said about that later—the Government have built for themselves a stack of problems on the issue. They should be under no misapprehension about the deep sense of unhappiness in the House, not just on the Opposition Benches, about this procedure. Perhaps a number of hon. Members thought that, under the new regime, we would all go home at 10 o'clock. On current reckoning, they could be six hours out, but we shall see.
    However reasonable the Bill—much of it is reasonable—it should receive proper scrutiny. Another reason why the Government have problems is that no provision has been made in the inflexible guillotine motion that has been imposed for any new clauses or amendments to be properly considered at any stage.
    One of the huge benefits of the pre-legislative process is that it makes the defence community feel empowered and enfranchised. This is the one occasion in the course of five years when they can all make representations, not just to the Ministry of Defence but to the people who pay for the Ministry of Defence—the House of Commons on behalf of the taxpayer—and they are losing that. It would be bad enough if they were losing that enfranchisement in a normal Standing Committee; it is worse when we have what is alleged to be a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, and they have lost all that too.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rightly asked whether the Government could ask for more time. As I understand it, the Government could do that, but there is a delicious irony here. If the Government come back to the House and ask for more time, that is debatable. If they come back to shorten the length of time, it is not debatable, which is an extraordinary situation.
    The first question must be whether the Government will add anything at all—one phrase, one letter, one comma—to the Bill. If they do, we hope that they will extend the time within which the Committee must report back to the House.
    If we abide by the motion, there will be 28 sitting opportunities between next Tuesday and 8 March, which is the last reasonable date on which we could sit before reporting, with a printed report appearing on 15 March. That is more than 14 sitting days, and would involve a considerable break with precedent. When the previous Quinquennial Bill was considered, the Select Committee met on Tuesday mornings and occasionally Tuesday afternoons, but not Thursdays, which was when it went out and about to take evidence and to pay visits, as is envisaged under the motion before us.
    However, we cannot have it both ways. Are the Government saying that we must sit in Committee and that people must travel to London? Are they saying that we must not go out into a service atmosphere if the timetable is to be achieved? Or are they suggesting that we should get out, as has been mentioned? The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) said how valuable it was to go out to the defence community and listen to it, but that is incompatible with the Committee remaining here.
    Mr. Forth: What assumptions is my hon. Friend making in mentioning the 28 sitting days? What period of
    986
    time does he expect the Government to allow the Committee to deliberate? There is a considerable difference between 28 days of mornings only and 28 days in which the Committee may have to finish by 5 pm or 8 pm. What about Thursdays? What assumptions is my hon. Friend making?
    Mr. Key: First, Thursday is a normal sitting day, and the sitting may finish at 7 o'clock. Come to that, as my right hon. Friend will know, Friday is a normal sitting day. The only assumption I have made so far is that precedent suggests that we should sit on those days. However, if that precedent is not kept—which would be no surprise—it would be for the Committee to decide when it sits. On this occasion, the arithmetic is that the Committee equals the Government.
    Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help me? Precedent is based on the principle established when the Government knew that they had to come to an agreement with the Opposition to carry through their business. It was necessary to have more sitting days and the Government had an interest in achieving that. I am sure that the Minister would not do this, but there is now a system in which the Government could say that there is only one sitting day, even though they never mentioned that in debate. They could say, "That's it. That is how we are going to do it." I do not think that any other institution would accept a timetable motion that did not state what the timetable was. This is truly a guillotine: we are underneath it, waiting for it to fall.
    Mr. Key: Yes, indeed—while la tricoteuse is observing somewhere else, no doubt. We shall return to that later.
    Mr. Bercow: With reference to the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), is my hon. Friend aware of, and does he share my disgust at, the fact, that, so far as the Government are concerned, the working day in a Committee considering a Bill is not comparable to a working day in the House? The Government have the audacity to propose that the Committee should conclude its deliberations at 5 pm on Thursdays. Are we part-timers or what?
    Mr. Key: Compared with the days when a Committee had to deliberate for a 100 hours before any consideration could possibly be given to a guillotine motion, the answer is yes.
    Dr. Moonie: That is how stupid the House was.
    Mr. Key: Well, there was a good reason—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister was not here when that procedure took place. We should not accept his interpretation of this matter, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends were here when that procedure used to happen.
    There is another reason why we have a problem with the guillotine. The Ministry's explanatory notes on part V of the Bill helpfully state:
    This clause provides a general order-making power which would enable the Secretary of State to make for the armed forces provisions equivalent to those contained in any future civilian criminal justice legislation or any existing legislation that it amends.

    987
    Oppositions do not like giving such carte blanche to any Minister of the Crown.
    It will be difficult to fit all the business into such a short time when we do not yet know for how many hours a day or days a week the Committee will sit, or how many visits outside London we shall have to make. During today's debate, several suggestions have been made of important aspects of defence life that we should examine. For example, defence medical services, with which HMS Haslar is associated, have been mentioned. We have been told that we should hold an inquiry into the pensions trough that exists for thousands of Ministry of Defence pensioners. We should hold another inquiry into depleted uranium; we should even consider passports for service family pets. There are doubtless many other aspects that we should examine.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the Government's measures have required several hundred amendments? Sometimes half—or more—of a Bill has to be rewritten. Will my hon. Friend insist on behalf of the Opposition parties that if that happens to the current Bill, the time for its consideration must be extended? Otherwise, it will be impossible to accommodate such detail.
    Mr. Key: The Ministry of Defence is modest about such matters. It has a bite at the legislative cherry about once every five years, unlike some other Departments, which wage a constant battle with the House. I have never known the Ministry of Defence to produce hundreds of amendments to such a Bill, but there is always a first time. As I suggested earlier, if it introduced many amendments, we would insist that the Government returned to the House to procure an extension of time. The next couple of months are wholly unpredictable.
    Five years ago, the previous Select Committee was due to visit the resident garrison for Cyprus. For local reasons that prevailed at that time, we were unable to go. Instead, we went to visit garrisons in Germany, where we took formal evidence on courts martial procedures and other matters that were relevant to the Bill. We believe that it would be appropriate for the Committee to visit garrisons, not exclusively abroad, but, for example, a garrison centre that hosts a court martial centre. That would entail quite a lengthy visit. I cannot think of anywhere better than Aldershot for such a visit; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would welcome the Committee there. However, we may not have time to do that. We need to take a lot of evidence.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: With the benefit of his experience, will my hon. Friend explain what sort of Committee we are considering? A Select Committee is traditionally very different from a Standing Committee. The former comprises independent-minded members and no Whips. The proposed membership of the Select Committee that will consider the Bill bears more resemblance to a Standing Committee: it will comprise Ministers and Government trusties. What is it? Will it be genuinely independent, do what the Minister wants and examine the Bill critically?
    Mr. Key: It will probably be a therapeutically cloned Committee. Of course, it may be a genetically modified
    988
    Committee. However, we do not know. We shall spend a lot of time later on motion 4, which is entitled "Armed Forces Bill". It would not, therefore, be in order for me to pursue my hon. Friend's point far. However, it is worth saying that, five years ago, the previous Committee consisted of one Minister, who attended three out of 15 sittings. He was there only when he needed to be. It included one parliamentary private secretary and no Whips. It was a proper Select Committee, which functioned as such. This time, we are considering a different sort of animal. However, that will be the subject of debate later.
    We need to take a lot of evidence from the Adjutant-General, the head of the Army Legal Service, and groups of private sector lawyers who make up the Forces Legal Network. Several provisions will affect service life. We shall therefore need to take evidence from the Army Families Federation, Airwaves, which covers the Royal Air Force, and naval families. We shall also need to take evidence from the Commission for Racial Equality, Stonewall, the Chaplain-General, the Equal Opportunities Commission, Liberty, Combat Stress—I could go on, and I shall. All those groups have an important contribution to make. My fear is that they will have no opportunity to give evidence to the Committee.
    In connection with parts II and IV, the Committee will want to take evidence from the Royal Military Police, the MDP, the Defence, Police Federation and the Police Federation of England and Wales. I think we shall need to visit the MDP headquarters at Wethersfield near Braintree, and those of the Royal Military Police; and a visit to the corrective institution in Colchester known as the glasshouse would no doubt be extremely valuable.
    All this will put great strain on the timetable, but further matters must also be examined. In that regard, the Government are in difficulty and disarray, and there is as yet no sign of their putting matters right, apart from their reference to a new tri-service Act. I am thinking particularly about the whole question of increased "purple"—in other words, tri-service—activity, and tri-service activity with other nations. That is the direction in which we are moving. There is no doubt that we are engaging in more such activity, not just with NATO and the United Nations but with other European nations.
    I suspect that any defence Minister who sends forces into action overseas crosses his fingers several times, takes a deep breath and hopes that there will be no problems with local law. We currently have something called a status of forces agreement, which—as its name implies—determines the status afforded to forces visiting this country. When our troops go to Germany, for example, we have to negotiate memorandums of understanding with the German Government in regard to what will happen if British troops infringe, say, traffic legislation in that or another country in which they are not used to driving. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 is relevant here.
    The issue is extremely complex. It was flagged up as a problem area in a letter to me from the Under-Secretary of State, dated 2 April 2000, but we have been given no indication of the point at which it will arise. The letter states:
    When our forces are overseas, and the provisions of the SOFAs do not apply,
    the Government must negotiate
    terms comparable to those in the SOFA, with concurrent

    989
    jurisdiction for ourselves and the receiving state, to ensure that our personnel are subject to UK jurisdiction while on duty and, as far as possible, are exempted from certain punishments for offences committed outside the course of their duties. The Government hope to "secure exclusive UK jurisdiction". It gets complicated, however. For example,
    UK forces operating under NATO or the UN in the Balkans
    —where they have been for some time—
    are immune from the local jurisdiction under arrangements negotiated
    by the UK, NATO and the UN.
    This is a huge area of complex international law, and other parts of British military law are lost in the mists of time—a phrase used by the Minister in another letter. If we are to commit our forces overseas to increasingly difficult and dangerous activities, it is the House's responsibility to establish a firm legal basis for their actions. If we have no time to do so because of a programme motion of this kind, otherwise known as a guillotine—I said this twice earlier —we are doing a disservice to Her Majesty's forces. I do not consider that a responsible course.
    I have outlined our concerns about the programme that has been set before us. I am deeply concerned about the imposition of any sort of guillotine, particularly in the case of a Committee of this nature. I do not think that the Government have justified it so far, and I shall be interested to hear the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    11.9 pm
    Mr. Gummer: I thank the Minister for introducing the guillotine motion. Last night, a motion was produced with no introduction of any kind. I also thank the Minister for his courtesy in responding to questions. I hope that he will not think that we raise the issue in any personal spirit of contradiction—the issue is difficult. We have no timetable motion, which is why I call this a guillotine motion. A motion cannot be a timetable motion unless there is a timetable—unless we know to what the end date refers. We do not know that. We do not know what the sitting arrangements will be. We do not know how many hours will be available. We do not know what the procedure will be that will enable the type of investigation that a Select Committee should have.
    It is not now that we should discuss the Select Committee's membership—that is for a later discussion—but a quick look at it suggests that it is an unusual Select Committee. I can, for example, see no rebellious Opposition Member on the Committee. I make no comment about the Labour Members on the Committee. I can see no one who is likely to ask the difficult and awkward questions that should be asked on a Select Committee. That gives me some concern because of the nature of what we are discussing in this debate. It is not a timetable motion as we have only an end date.
    Historically, guillotine motions have been different because they have been properly negotiated by the two sides in the House. Both sides had something to give. The Government were able to say, "If you are prepared to allow this business to go through in a reasonable way, we will be prepared to accept one or two of the sensible suggestions that you have put forward." The Opposition were able to say, "On that ground, we are prepared to have an informal arrangement." That ensured that the Bill was properly debated, but concluded at a reasonable hour and on a reasonable date.
    990
    That is not what we have been asked to do tonight. Instead, we have been asked to agree an end date with no knowledge of how many sittings there will be and what arrangements will be made, and without any ability to take into account the debate earlier today. That is not part of the arrangement. The motion was tabled before anyone had heard that debate.
    The Minister courteously replied to my question about what would happen if the MOD discovered that, as a result of the discussions of the Select Committee, it needed to make significant changes to what is a significant measure. He kindly said that, in those circumstances, he would have to make some other arrangements. He cannot do that under the arrangement in the motion; he can do it only by overturning that arrangement. There is no way in which the Government can agree with the Opposition that a few more days might be appropriate. He will have to come back to the House and the House will then have to have a debate of this sort to give him an extension.
    You, Mr. Speaker, know from your experience that on those occasions Governments are in the hands of the Leader of the House and various authorities, all of whom will tell the Minister that he cannot have any more time for debate on the Floor of the House. There is not another 45 minutes available because there are all sorts of other things to be done. Therefore, even if he is—and I believe him to be—honourable in his belief that, if there were the need, he would come back to the House, as a Minister of 16 years standing I must tell him from bitter experience that he will not win.
    The Leader of the House is a powerful lady in those circumstances. She will say to the Minister, "You may be right, but you will not get the time." She might put it more directly than that, if I know the right hon. Lady, but that is what she will say.
    Mr. Leigh: It is worse than that. Can my right hon. Friend imagine any Select Committee—for example, the Select Committee on Defence, which is now considering Westland—having to finish its inquiries by 15 March? Can he imagine the Committee having a Whip and wanting to have more meetings and call more witnesses? It would have to sit late into the night. That would not happen. Exhaustion would set in. The number of witnesses and the inquiry would be curtailed because the Committee would have to finish by 15 March. Parliamentarians are busy and there are only so many hours in the working week; therefore, it would not be a proper Select Committee looking at the issues in real depth.
    Mr. Gummer: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not right; it is worse than he has suggested. If this were a normal Select Committee, it could be trusted to insist upon having enough time, even with an end date, to do its job properly. The problem is that it is not a normal Select Committee, so it will not demand enough time. It will be the patsy of the Whip and the Government. For the British armed forces to be in the hands of a Committee which has an end date upon which it can depend in order not to do its job properly is extremely serious.
    I understand what the Government are about and I know who has been pressing them. It happened to me on many occasions. Civil servants would say to me, "Secretary of State, why do we have to go on with these

    991
    Committees that sit for so long? We have to listen to all the arguments, all sorts of people come and speak for a long time and we have to go on and on with it. Would it not be more convenient to have some sort of guillotine motion early in the procedure so that we could do this in a modern and sensible way?" I used to say, "It would be more convenient and I would like to go to bed, but this is what is called democracy." It is about allowing everybody every opportunity, which you defend so well, Mr. Speaker, to put his or her point of view.
    It is not just a matter of democracy in the House—it is what makes people outside believe in the House. It is not just a matter of us defending our rights—it is about us defending our ability to meet the requirements of our constituents and ensure that they feel that the democratic system represents them and that they do not have to go outside that system to get the responses that they want.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) pointed to a series of issues, many of which have arisen unexpectedly. Nobody expected the issue of depleted uranium to arise. Two sites in my constituency are affected by that problem and I have been defending the Ministry of Defence and the Minister. I have told people not to worry, that it seemed to me that proper measures were being taken, and that we would have direct and specific answers for them. However, they will feel safe about that only if the Select Committee is able, where necessary, to discuss those issues in the context of the Bill. After all, it will be another five years before there is another opportunity and it is not unreasonable for people to expect there to be plenty of time available.
    Imagine if, some time in the future, it was discovered that something ought to have been done. What would people say? They would say that issues were not raised because the Government did not provide enough time. That is the hook that could be used. I am afraid that I know Oppositions well enough to know that they would use that hook and blame the Government even if it were their own fault. Therefore, the Government have an interest in ensuring that, wherever possible, they have an agreement—not a forced agreement—between those on a Committee to fix the time to meet the needs and not to fix the time and then restrict the needs. That is the difference between what we are being asked to do and what ought to be done.
    The Minister should accept that there are some serious constitutional issues in the Bill. Like the Homes Bill yesterday, this is not a Bill to which we are generally opposed and it does not divide us in a serious way. We want to make it work. There are issues on which we disagree, but it is fundamentally a Bill that we want the Government to have because it is the basis upon which the armed forces proceed. Yesterday, there were many elements in the Homes Bill that we wanted to have, but in that Bill and this there are serious and significant questions about the powers given to Ministers to act outside the real power of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury used the phrase "carte blanche" to describe the powers given to Ministers to act outside the supervision of the House. Many people are worried about that. I do not believe that it is proper that we should restrict the time available for debate.
    992
    Finally, this motion would be reasonable if the history of Bills of this sort featured Oppositions—Labour and Conservative—who had made it impossible for Governments to organise the armed forces. However, I know of no occasion since the war when a Government have been unable to secure their armed forces legislation because of filibustering and procrastination by the Opposition.
    The Minister is known for his courtesy, so why can he not be courteous enough to allow the House to come to a common mind in a traditional way? That is achieved not by enforcing an end date, but by agreeing a proper procedure for a Select Committee, which ought to be able to behave in an adult and courteous manner. What have Members of Parliament of all parties done to deserve this? Why are we considered to be unworthy of proper, human and courteous treatment?
    I suspect that those of us who are modernisers are not always wise or knowledgeable. They have decided that they want what in theory they think that they need, instead of recognising that this procedure undermines the democratic accountability of the House and that it will render our democracy less and less respected.
    This Bill is not unique. It is another example of hon. Members conspiring together in this House to give up the powers for which our ancestors fought. This is the moment to say, "No more." Until the Government learn that part of their heritage is to ensure that those without a voice can speak, we must make a stand and be determined to prevent guillotines such as this.
    11.23 pm
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am by nature a trusting creature, so when I hear Ministers in previous Governments declaring their affection for the protection of the rights of the House of Commons I believe every word. I therefore resolutely put from my mind those occasions when they supported measures that I considered were not necessarily in the interests of Back Benchers or of democracy as a whole.
    However, this is the second of three programme motions this week. I declare that I do not have a strong involvement in this Bill, but the principle involved is such that the debate should not be allowed to pass without a Labour Member registering the fact that the rights of Back-Bench Members are not served by programme motions whose imposition is occasionally regarded as automatic.
    Bad legislation is not new in this House, and it is not the prerogative of one party in government. I have been here long enough to know that the parliamentary draftsmen are often not masters of the English language, and that they are not always able to express in terms acceptable to the House of Commons those ideas that hon. Members expect to appear in our legislation. However, getting into the habit of assuming that legislation can be automatically programmed or put through the House of Commons on the basis that it is convenient for the Government—even a Government whom I support wholeheartedly and whom I want to see returned with a large majority—is not something that I can allow to pass.
    All legislation needs to be properly examined. The pre-legislative Select Committee system is a sensible development and one which we should all support, but it needs to be properly organised and serious. It ought not to be subjected to packed Committees or arrangements

    993
    that do not allow Select Committees to have proper advice or useful and sensible sessions at which they can take evidence about legislation.
    I object to programme motions; I make no secret of that. I have spoken about them before and shall do so again. But I object even more to the assumption that the Government have an automatic right to rush their legislation through to the statute book in the form in which it issued from the parliamentary draftsmen. That attitude will lead not only to extremely bad Bills, but to Bills that the House of Commons will learn to regret. Those of who us who have been here for some time have seen it over and over again. The previous Government set the abominable precedent of tabling 400 amendments, in some cases, at a late stage of legislation. When I sat in the Chair I found that unacceptable, and I would find it unacceptable if my own Government did the same thing.
    Tonight, we have on the Front Bench a Minister whose tact, ability and civilised intelligence marks him out as suitable for any Front Bench. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that I have not damaged my hon. Friend's career irrevocably by saying that. He understands the importance of the rights of individual Back Benchers. If we allow this procedure to continue consistently, automatically or unquestioned—as if it were something that we had to accept because that was, the way in which Governments proceed—we will do a disservice not only to the House of Commons and to those who expect us to pass legislation that is acceptable, but to ourselves.
    I am proud to be a Member of Parliament; I have been here for a long time. I am proud of the ability of individual Members to have an influence on legislation. I find the increasing tendency of Governments—including, I am sorry to say, my own—of moving forward on this basis not only unacceptable, but something that I deeply regret. I did not want this occasion to go past as though it were a ritual dance involving people rolling out arguments simply to hold up the Bill without any serious thinking. I believe that the House of Commons should think about what it is doing. The motion is wrong, unhelpful and does us all enormous harm.
    11.28 pm
    Mr. Blunt: I follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with trepidation, given her experience in the House. However, I wholly agree with what she said. I particularly want to reinforce the remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman short.
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 130.

    Division No. 40]

    [11.29 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashton, Joe

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Austin, John

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Bailey, Adrian

    994

    Barnes, Harry

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Barron, Kevin

    Edwards, Huw

    Battle, John

    Efford, Clive

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Beard, Nigel

    Ennis, Jeff

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Etherington, Bill

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fisher, Mark

    Berry, Roger

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Betts, Clive

    Flint, Caroline

    Blackman, Liz

    Flynn, Paul

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Follett, Barbara

    Blizzard, Bob

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foulkes, George

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gapes, Mike

    Breed, Colin

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Browne, Desmond

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Burden, Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burgon, Colin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cann, Jamie

    Grogan, John

    Casale, Roger

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Healey, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hill, Keith

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hoey, Kate

    Cohen, Harry

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Colman, Tony

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cotter, Brian

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cranston, Ross

    Hurst, Alan

    Crausby, David

    Hutton, John

    Cummings, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Joyce, Eric

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Drew, David

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keetch, Paul

    995

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pike, Peter L

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pond, Chris

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pope, Greg

    Kidney, David

    Pound, Stephen

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Purchase, Ken

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rammell, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    Rapson, Syd

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Linton, Martin

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Livsey, Richard

    Rendel, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lock, David

    Love, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McCabe, Steve

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Roy, Frank

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ruane, Chris

    Macdonald, Calum

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McDonnell, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McFall, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McIsaac, Shona

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sawford, Phil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McNulty, Tony

    Shaw, Jonathan

    MacShane, Denis

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martlew, Eric

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Maxton, John

    Spellar, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Meale, Alan

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Stevenson, George

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mitchell, Austin

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stringer, Graham

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Morley, Elliot

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Mountford, Kali

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mullin, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Todd, Mark

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Touhig, Don

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Trickett, Jon

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tyler, Paul

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Tynan, Bill

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pearson, Ian

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wareing, Robert N

    996

    watts, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    White, Brian

    Wood, Mike

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Woodward, Shaun

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wray, James

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wills, Michael

    Mr. Jim Dowd and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Amess, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Lidington, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Baldry, Tony

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Beggs, Roy

    Loughton, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Luff, Peter

    Blunt, Crispin

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Body, Sir Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    Madel, Sir David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Maples, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Burnett, John

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Burns, Simon

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cash, William

    Moss, Malcolm

    Chapman Sir sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Norman, Archie

    Chope, Christopher

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Clappison, James

    Ottaway, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Paice, James

    Cran, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Prior, David

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Randall, John

    Day, Stephen

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Duncan, Alan

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ruffley, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Fraser, Christopher

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gale, Roger

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

    Gibb, Nick

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Green, Damian

    Spring, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Steen Anthony

    Gummer Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Streeter, Gary

    Hammond, Philip

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hawkins, Nick

    Syms, Robert

    Hayes, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Horam, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Thompson, William

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Trend, Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Walter, Robert

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Wells, Bowen

    Lansley, Andrew

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Leigh, Edward

    Whittingdale, John

    997

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wilkinson. John

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Wilshire, David

    Yeo, Tim

    and

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Mr. James Gray.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:

    Select Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.

    2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before Thursday 15th March.

  ARMED FORCES BILL (COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to move motion 4, relating to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I must tell the House that I have selected the manuscript amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) Copies of the amendment are available in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following that helpful information, I should be grateful if you clarified what the voting procedure will be and whether or not the matter will be subject to a deferred Division. If that is so, how will the House deal with an amendment to a matter that may be subject to a deferred Division? It would be very helpful if you were to guide the House on the conduct of this business in the light of your having selected a manuscript amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: There will be a vote if the House wishes to divide on either the amendment or the motion. That Division will take place this evening, or this morning—or whatever.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Spellar: As I recall, it is always today.
  I beg to move,
  That Rachel Squire, Mr. John Spellar, Dr Lewis Moonie, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Dave Watts, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Randall and Mr. Paul Keetch be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.
  That three be the quorum of the Committee.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
  The Select Committee examining the Bill will have a vital role to fulfil on behalf of the House. It will subject to careful scrutiny proposed legislation which, because it is important to the armed forces, is it important to us all. The hon. Members listed in the motion I appear to me to be fully capable of discharging that function, and I extend that generous characterisation not only to my hon. Friends, but to Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) served with distinction on the Select Committee that considered the previous Armed Forces Bill, and I am sure that the Committee will benefit from his experience.
  998
  I also advise the House that we are pleased to accept the manuscript amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.
  11.46 pm
  Mr. Key: We realise that it is an unusual Committee and we accept the tradition that three be its quorum. It is extremely important that the Committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place to allow it to take evidence in places other than London. In principle, the motion is an attractive proposition.
  However, one or two points need to be made. It is unfortunate that it has been the tradition that this Select Committee does not have the powers to appoint other specialist advisers so that it can obtain information. We therefore very much welcome the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). It represents sensible progress and it will assist the Committee. It will provide discomfort for the Government, because the Committee will be better informed.
  I also have absolutely no difficulty with the individuals whom the House seeks to appoint to the Committee, but I have a good deal of difficulty with its composition compared with the one that considered the previous quinquennial Bill. It is worth reminding the House that, in 1996, the Committee's business was conducted with just one Minister, who turned up only for those sessions at which he was strictly required. The Committee felt no constraint about whom it asked for evidence and what it asked from a Government breathing down its neck. It had one parliamentary private secretary, no Whips on either side, one shadow Minister and four Conservative and four Labour Back Benchers. Eight of a Committee of 11 were Back Benchers. That made it an effective and model Committee.
  That is in stark contrast to the composition and balance of the Committee this time. As several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it will be dominated by the Executive and the Opposition have had to fulfil their role and shadow that structure. We suggested that it would be appropriate to have a bigger Committee, but the Government were not willing to concede that point.
  Mr. Gummer: Before my hon. Friend castigates the Government alone, has he noticed that the Opposition Members of the Committee are all trusties? Because the Government members are all trusties, the Opposition members are all trusties. The Liberal Democrats have a trusty too, so is it not time that we recognised that the purpose of a Select Committee is have a few "untrusties" on it? It is the duty of the Government to make space for "untrusties". [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I had hoped that Labour Members would not say that, because I am trying to make the Government think in the depths of their heart that a bit of friendly fire from Labour Members might result in a better Select Committee.
  Mr. Key: We must bear it in mind that, as far as the Government are concerned, all Opposition Members are untrusties, and we will of course play that role in the delightful, mischievous terms in which my right

  999
  hon. Friend puts it. Given that only three Opposition Members are being suggested for membership of the Committee, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend feels that we will all do the Government's bidding; I assure him that we will not. I think that I shall be the only member of the Committee who went through the process last time round, so I will know where the bodies are buried and where the elephant traps lie.
  When we get into Committee, we will consider whether we are to meet only on Tuesday mornings or on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. I want to make it clear now, as I will do in Committee, that Opposition Members will sit for as many hours as it takes. We will be happy to sit not only on Tuesday and Thursday mornings, but on Tuesday afternoons and evenings, until midnight or whatever hour is necessary to get the work done.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend's assurance about how hard Opposition Members will work. Does he agree, however, that it is extraordinary to suggest that we might work hard when Government Front Benchers have not told us what the Committee is to do, or where and when it is to do it? Is not that information lacking?
  Mr. Key: It has always been the case that until we get into Committee we do not know exactly what the programme will be or how long it will take. That is in the nature of a Select Committee. Any Select Committee starts by saying, "Let's investigate something." It then has business sittings at which it decides exactly what it will do. The difference on this occasion is that we have been told when the end date must be, which limits our powers of investigation on behalf of the House.
  I find it extraordinary that the Government have known for four years that the Bill was coming, exactly what would be involved and what they wanted to include in it; they have listened to representations from previous Select Committees and had the opportunity to talk to the Chairmen of the Committees; yet it took them until nearly midnight tonight to concede that the Committee can have specialists for whom Parliament is prepared to pay. That represents mismanagement, and I hope that the Government will say why they have been bounced into that action by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. I am grateful to him for persuading the Government to take that action, which will be of great benefit, but we will greatly miss him and his colleagues from the Committee in our deliberations on the Bill.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am reassured to hear that my hon. Friend supports the amendment in principle. Is he aware, however, that while some of his colleagues might agree with him on the principle of the amendment, we find the detail unacceptable? He says that the amendment will be accepted, but that is not necessarily true as regards all the Members on the Benches behind him.
  Mr. Key: That is my hon. Friend's prerogative; no doubt he will do his own thing.
  It is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South that the motion is on the Order Paper. However, I find it extraordinary that while the previous Committee
  1000
  scrutinised a longer, more complicated Bill with one Minister and no Whips, the Government side of this Committee will be packed with trusties, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) calls them.
  We will support the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, and we will therefore be able to support the motion on the Armed Forces Bill.
  Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he reflect on the reasons why the amendment has been accepted? Does he think that the Government have accepted it because of its intrinsic merits or because, above all else, following yesterday's debacle, when they were unable to get their business through because only a handful of Government Members were still here, they fear a vote in the early hours of the morning?
  Mr. Key: I read last night's Division lists and was surprised by them I suspect that my hon. Friend is correct. I deplore what happened—it is a bad way to run the House of Commons, and the Government will live to regret it, because some of us care very much, and in the long term, about parliamentary democracy in this country and the way in which they are eroding it.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I regret to say that I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in supporting either the motion or the manuscript amendment. The first reason for that is the circumstances that appear to surround the acceptance of that amendment, although I must confess that I am encouraged that accepting such an amendment to such a motion has enabled the House to vote on them during this sitting. We must give those matters considerable attention, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, for demonstrating that innovative procedure.
  Having said that, however, I deplore the fact that the amendment has been tabled through a process with which we are becoming all too familiar, whereby the Government table a substantive motion at the last minute, leaving no proper time for consideration by the House. The Chairman of the Defence Committee has been forced to table a manuscript amendment and, again, we have no proper time for debate.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government might have realised that the manuscript amendment was necessary had there been an interval between the debates on Second Reading and on the guillotine motion? Indeed, had they done so, they would have been spared embarrassment this evening. Do not these events prove what he said last night: the real problem is the way in which such issues are squashed together, giving no time for proper consideration?
  Mr. Forth: I should say that the Government are immune to embarrassment. Although they should feel embarrassed frequently, they are incapable of being embarrassed over such things, which is a matter of great regret to me. However, my right hon. Friend is correct. The Order Paper contains a classic example of how the Government presume on the House to introduce a series

  1001
  of linked measures, each in its own way dependent on the other, but give Members no time for proper consideration of the content of each, whether each should be accepted and whether amendments are required to make sense of the relationship between the measures.
  I shall deal with the motion before discussing the manuscript amendment. The Minister for the Armed Forces, who introduced the measure all too briefly, has left the Chamber. During the previous debate, the Under—Secretary of State for Defence said—with some pride, I thought—that the matter was consensual and that the Select Committee would operate in such a fashion. He added, rather lamely, that the Committee would not be uncritical. From the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury went on, at some length, to stress how far and how frequently the Committee would travel and how well all its members would get on together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) gave the lie to all that by suggesting that the Committee would be a cosy travelling circus. Those are not quite the words he used, but they give the sense of his remarks.
  The so-called Select Committee will be a cosy club of like-minded people travelling together in a consensual way. That is not good enough and completely unacceptable. What sort of criticism and scrutiny of the measure will be provided by a group of people of the kind who have been described? The proposed membership, which we must consider, gives a further lie to what has been said. The members will be cosy and consensual and will travel great distances together on our behalf.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that the membership is grotesquely white?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend tempts me to go into the matters of gender, ethnicity, regional representation and many other aspects of the Committee. I did not intend to go into that, but I may be tempted, because it is relevant to the measure before us.
  The House is being asked to give consideration to the members proposed for the Committee I am surprised that the Government have not given due consideration to the question whether there is proper ethnic balance and gender balance, and whether the different parts of the country are properly represented on the Committee. That is a matter to which the House should give consideration. I may come back to it later in my remarks, but I do not want to be diverted from my main purpose at this stage.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) will allow me to say that the way in which his intervention was presented was a little more lighthearted than it might have been. However, two of the areas that will be most affected by the Bill are in the east of England. I see no member of the proposed Committee who has any connection with those areas. Would my right hon. Friend say that some regional consideration would have been reasonable?
  Mr. Forth: I will digress briefly on that point, as it is highly relevant. Such a Committee will travel extensively throughout the United Kingdom and beyond—as we heard, the previous Committee went to Cyprus and
  1002
  Germany. I could almost feel my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury vibrating with excitement at the thought of where this Committee might travel, and I could almost sense him devising an itinerary in his mind, as he thought where the Committee might go on our behalf and on behalf of the benighted taxpayers of this country.
  Mr. Key: I give my right hon. Friend an undertaking that I will not suggest that we visit Bromley. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who is a proposed member of the Committee, represents one of the largest Royal Air Force communities in the east of England.
  Mr. Forth: That is extremely reassuring. It may go some way to answering the query raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
  Mr. Gummer: On a geographical point, those of us who live in Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex—I regret to mention that word—would not consider that the Committee provides a proper representation of the east of England.
  Mr. Forth: I do not want to get drawn into a geographic dispute between my right hon. and hon. Friends. The point almost makes itself. It is self-evidently vital that the Committee should have thorough, comprehensive regional representation from all parts of the United Kingdom, in order better to understand the importance of the military in the different parts of the kingdom and to do its work properly. I do not judge that the proposed membership gives proper regional representation. The Committee is defective in that respect.
  I will leave others to judge whether the gender balance is appropriate. I do not want to get drawn into that and, despite the helpful intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I do not want to get drawn into the matter of ethnicity.
  Mr. Wilshire: I urge my right hon. Friend to revisit the matter of the gender balance. As he is aware, the question whether women should serve in the front line of the infantry is relevant. If the Select Committee is to consider that matter, should there not be a woman on the Committee to bring that perspective to the argument?
  Mr. Forth: We are constantly told by Labour Members how proud they are of the number of lady Members in the House, yet I should have expected more representation of those lady Members than is proposed. I shall go no further than that. But one can see already the difficulty into which we are getting with the proposed membership of the Committee. Whether we talk about gender, ethnicity or regional representation, on almost every one of those criteria the suggested membership fails completely.
  That does not even begin to deal with why we must have two Ministers on the Committee plus sundry members of the payroll. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury in his consensual mood, and wanting, as he undoubtedly does, to see the Committee working harmoniously, would surely concede that to have so many members of the payroll, to say nothing of the Opposition

  1003
  payroll if there is such a thing, on the Committee would hardly suggest that there will be a grain of sand in this particular oyster in order to produce parliamentary pearls.
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Forth: Talking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend may be missing the point. He is being unfair to our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). We can rely on our hon. Friend to be the kind of forthright Opposition spokesman that he is, of this Committee and on this Committee. But that is not what a Select Committee should be. The real danger is that this will develop more and more into a kind of Standing Committee, where the Opposition put their arguments, piling into the Government, and the Government are set defending their line again and again, and it will not be a consensual Select Committee looking at the merits of the case, which is what it should be.
  Mr. Forth: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. He and I rarely disagree, but on this occasion we must. If we are talking about the consideration of legislative matters, or quasi or pseudo legislative matters, consensus is not appropriate. I believe in confrontation because I believe devoutly that where we have consensus in the House of Commons, we fail properly to scrutinise and we end up with inadequate measures. My worry here is that the nature of the proposed composition of the Committee gives no guarantee that we shall have a sharp-edged critical approach from which we are likely to obtain proper results.
  It is undoubtedly true that we will have a payroll-dominated Committee. Whether both Ministers will attend the Committee properly and give it their proper attention is another matter about which we should be concerned. As was pointed out, on a previous occasion Ministers were hardly ever present. On this occasion, that might be a blessing. We might well welcome the fact that Ministers will hardly ever attend the Committee because it might well do better work as a result. But why, we have to ask at this stage, is it being proposed that two Ministers be members of the Committee? Hundreds of Back Benchers would no doubt be eager to serve on the Committee provided that their passports were in order and they were able to enjoy the benefits of Committee membership. But here we have a Committee packed with the Government's payroll, so there is another problem that I have with it.
  Then we come to the matter of expertise and qualifications. I do not want to embarrass any of the members of the Committee who have been suggested by seeking to examine in public and in detail their qualifications or lack of them. I will leave that to right hon. and hon. Members to consider themselves. But we must ask what is the relevance of the qualifications and background of the members of the Committee. I shall not mention them individually, I simply raise the question because it is relevant. All in all, the membership of the Committee is wrong on almost every conceivable count, consideration and criterion, and for that reason I cannot accept it.
  1004
  I come now to the Committee's quorum. A number of measures on today's Order Paper suggest quorums of two or three for various Committees, and I am concerned about that development in the House because it suggests a number of things. The first is that the Government have no confidence that a Committee can expect more than two or three of its members to turn up at any one time and be able properly to conduct its business. More sinisterly, it also suggests the possibility of a Committee being convened and doing its work with as few as two or, on this occasion, three people present, being able effectively to legislate on behalf of Britain's voters and taxpayers. Can we be satisfied that a quorum of three is adequate to give proper scrutiny and consideration to any measure? I suggest that it cannot be. The quorum of any Committee in the House should be much higher than three.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Given the composition of the Committee and the fact that three Ministers will sit on it, Ministers alone could form a quorum for it. Is that not an abuse?
  Mr. Forth: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right. In fact, it is probably inadequate to describe what could happen on the Committee as sinister. If, tonight, the House of Commons endorses the proposal that the Committee has a quorum of three, my hon. Friend is right that the Committee could discharge its functions with solely three Ministers present and voting on measures. Surely, that is not acceptable.
  Mr. Spellar: What was the quorum of the Committee set up by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government when such a Bill was last considered?
  Mr. Forth: I am not remotely interested in the quorum on some past occasion.
  Mr. Spellar: Did the right hon. Gentleman oppose the quorum for the Bill in the previous Government?
  Mr. Forth: No—[Laughter.] I was on the payroll, which is why I did not oppose it. That is the point that I am trying to make The Minister, who is now on the payroll, seems to think it highly amusing that a Committee can be proposed in which the quorum consists solely of those on the payroll.
  Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that the Minister spent a great deal of time guffawing, which usually means that he is embarrassed by what my hon. Friends say—[Laughter.] The fact that he is guffawing again shows that he is clearly embarrassed.
  The Committee to which the Minister referred had one Minister on it, but the Committee to which my right hon. Friend refers will have three Ministers on it. If there are three Ministers and a quorum of three, that means that the Ministers can carry out the Committee's business on their own. That is not something that Parliament should accept under any circumstances.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Frankly, I am rather surprised that my colleagues on the shadow Front Bench are prepared to endorse that proposal. At this stage, I cannot accept it.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) depicted a

  1005
  scenario in which three members of the Government alone would constitute a quorum in the Committee and enable it to make progress. Does my right hon Friend agree that a more disturbing scenario is a quorum of two members of the payroll vote and a member of what might be described as the Government's new robot tendency? The combination of two Ministers, or of one Minister and the Government Whip, would suffice to ensure that they got their way. Would that not directly contradict the very notion of the Select Committee, which, absurdly, the Committee purports to be?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may be right. However, if the Committee is as consensual as has been suggested, no such events would occur. Let me give my hon. Friend another scenario. Suppose that two members of the payroll and only one Opposition Member were present. The Committee could still discharge its duties, based on a quorum of three, and the Government could get their way, with only two Ministers present.
  All those possibilities start to arise, unless the prospect of travel is so attractive that all the Committee members are always present. The Committee may have it in mind to travel extensively, because that would give its members an incentive always to attend. In that case, I hope that Ministers would be so busy making a mess of other business that they would not have time to attend the Committee, so it might just have a chance of doing some proper impartial work. The quorum suggestion is therefore unacceptable and, for that reason alone, I shall not support the motion.
  Then there is the rather coy reference in the motion, to which I have made glancing allusion. In the quaint parliamentary language that we use, partly to deceive the taxpayer, the motion states:
  That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.
  That is the open airline ticket that hon. Members choose to vote themselves from time to time. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a year or two ago, we voted ourselves an equally open airline ticket to travel to European Union capitals. I am minded to table a parliamentary question to ascertain how many hon. Members have availed themselves of that privilege. It is always an interesting question to ask.
  When the Committee concludes its work, whether that happens before the general election or not—another interesting consideration, given the suggested timetable— the results may be revealing if an hon. Member tables a parliamentary question to ascertain the Committee's itinerary. We might even ask about the cost so that we can work out for ourselves the value for money that the taxpayer receives from the Committee when it
  adjourns from place to place.
  Mr. Wilshire: When my right hon. Friend considers tabling such questions, will he bear it in mind that one of the key matters that exercises the Royal Navy is whether we should keep a warship in the West Indies?. Would it be a good use of taxpayers' money to send the Committee to the West Indies to ascertain what the guard ship has
  1006
  done in the past and whether it should continue to do that? A trip to the West Indies is the sort of matter that worries my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Forth: I wish that my hon. Friend had not put the idea in people's minds. I hope that no more such interventions will be made.
  Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: Only if my hon. Friend promises not to add another suggested destination to the itinerary.
  Mr. Robathan: I should not dream of doing that. However, there is a large deployment to the Falkland Islands, which are further away than the West Indies. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Falkland Islands constitute an important destination for the Committee?
  Mr. Forth: I shall leave that for other hon. Members to consider. We have made the point more than adequately that behind the phrase,
  adjourn from place to place
  lies more than most taxpayers would care to stomach.
  Let us consider the manuscript amendment. It is a quaint device, but it has helpfully opened up all sorts of new possibilities in the new procedural world in which we live. The Modernisation Committee has given us a new parliamentary world in which to operate; it can also excite, interest and amuse us. I welcome the new early nights that the House is experiencing, and look forward to more.
  However, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, for revealing another procedural quirk. Doubtless the Modernisation Committee anticipated it as it anticipated so much else that now happens in the House. Apparently, if a manuscript amendment is accepted—that has happened to the one that we are considering—it gives the House the opportunity to divide in the traditional way at the end of the debate. That is proper and I welcome it because there will be a Division if I have anything to do the matter. As the Speaker explained usefully a short time ago, the House can also divide on the substantive motion. We can look forward to that when we finish the "until any hour" deliberations that the Order Paper kindly allows us.
  I regret that I must differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, but I cannot accept the manuscript amendment that the Chairman of the Defence Committee has tabled. Although the term "specialists" may have a ring of authenticity and integrity for some people, it may be wiser to limit the number of specialists who could be recruited at taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify that while it has been said that the amendment will be accepted for debate, it has not yet been moved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is correct. The amendment has not yet been formally moved.
  Mr. Forth: That is excellent, because if it is not moved, I shall not have to oppose it. However, as it was implied that an amendment had been accepted, it is in order for us to debate it now. I am trying to do that.

  1007
  We do not know whether the number of specialists that can be recruited at taxpayers' expense will be limited. I presume that there is no such limit. We have no idea who they might be or in what capacity they may be recruited. We do not know whether they will be able to travel with the Committee on its extensive travels or whether they will be restricted to meetings that take place here when the Committee sits—probably rather rarely—in London.
  I am mystified about just what role the specialists will be able to play. We should give some thought to whether those specialists, if they are to be of use to the Committee, will have to travel with it when it is out and about and adjourning from place to place. Unless I were much more satisfied about the limits to be imposed on what is at present an open-ended provision, I for one would oppose the manuscript amendment were it to be moved.
  I find the motion utterly unacceptable. Its form and procedures are unacceptable, and the House has not been given enough time to consider it. Although I welcome the precedent set by the manuscript amendment, we have no time in which to give it proper consideration. We are having to take part in the debate unguided, because we do not know what lies behind the proposal. We do not know whether there are any limitations or qualifications, what it might cost, or anything else.
  At this stage, I intend—and I hope to persuade others to join me—to oppose the measure, and the amendment if it is moved. I want the Government to take the proposal away, and bring it back in a much more acceptable form.
  12.21 am
  Mr. Bruce George: In response to popular demand, I beg to move the manuscript amendment, in line 7, at end add
  That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.
  I do so with some anxiety, trepidation and regret, because I had hoped that the amendment would be considered seriously.
  I am not a devotee of the Chamber, having decided long ago that it was far better to involve oneself in the Select Committee system, in which I am delighted to have participated since 1979 when it was adopted. Having listened to the debate, I must say that I am pleased with the wisdom that I employed then: it is indeed far better to confine oneself to the Select Committee system than to indulge in debates that are artificial and irrelevant, and will hardly lead to any improvement in the public's estimation of the House.
  We are discussing serious issues. We are discussing the procedures of the House, the control of the House by the Executive and why we should fight against it, and a range of important matters affecting our armed forces, including discipline, the future of the forces, and their relationship with their employers and with each other. It demeans the armed forces and the procedures of the House when—
  Mr. Forth: How pompous.
  Mr. George: Labour Members do not have a monopoly on pomposity. I have listened to some amazing
  1008
  pomposity. Let us do a deal: I will stop being pompous and be brief, if the right hon. Gentleman will stop being pompous and decide to be brief. That is a fair exchange.
  I tabled the amendment with a reasonable intention. My motives were simple. I have been a member of three Select Committees considering Armed Forces Bills. I did not volunteer to serve on the Committee on this Bill because the Chairman of the Defence Committee has a busy agenda. Moreover, following 25 years of campaigning, a Government have introduced legislation to regulate the private security industry, and I want to be on the Standing Committee that considers that Bill. I therefore excluded myself—although that may have been superfluous, because the Whips excluded all members of the Defence Committee anyway, so even if I had wished to be a member there is no guarantee that I would have been.
  Why did I table the amendment? An Opposition Member asked with some indignation why the Government had not included the ability to appoint an adviser to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. An adviser has never been attached to that Select Committee, and it has shown. I thought that it was time— even though I was not going to be on the Select Committee—for it perhaps to have one additional weapon in dealing with the overbearing Executive, which would help, if not to rebalance the relationship, at least to give Back Benchers on the Select Committee the opportunity of hearing advice that was independent of the Ministry of Defence.
  Although I have rarely found an occasion on which the MOD has lied, it regularly withholds information; it has withheld information for as long as I have been on the Defence Committee. As we know, the MOD can be economical with the truth. Therefore, the idea of relying on the MOD, however competent civil servants and Ministers are, is profoundly unwise.
  Select Committees on the Armed Forces Bills have gone, if not into competition, into an impossible relationship with the Executive. By definition, the Executive will win because the Whips are able to put their men and, occasionally, women on to the Committee. They have a near monopoly of information because the subjects that they are putting before the House in legislation are not aspects of defence that we can all rabbit on about to our heart's content after a morning read of The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian providing us with more than enough information, allied to a natural ability to spin out nothing to endless length.
  The issues within the Bill are beyond that level of inventiveness. They require an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge. An enormous amount of time needs to be spent studying the matter even before the first Committee sitting. Then we come up against the MOD, which has spent the past five years gathering the information. It drafts the legislation. It steers it through. Against that formidable adversary is a group of hand-picked individuals who are not always known for their interest in defence. It is a grossly unequal task.
  I had no wish for an army of advisers, as we have on the Defence Committee.
  Mr. Brady: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument and am sympathetic to his case. Does he not accept that, given the composition of the Committee and

  1009
  the fact that the payroll vote dominates it to such an extent, there is little hope of specialist advisers being appointed who are genuinely independent and who can undertake the scrutiny that he would like?
  Mr. George: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think that he was here earlier when I argued strongly that the composition of the Committee was, frankly—let me choose my words carefully—appalling, and should never ever be repeated. Any legislature worth its salt would not allow a Committee to be composed on that basis. Rather than making silly points, we should spend some of our time doing something to reverse the inexorable decline in which the House has acquiesced over the past 50 years. If we had wanted the legislature to be a proper legislature, we would not have connived in our decline into semi-superfluity. In a tiny way, the amendment is an attempt to provide a Committee that is better composed.
  Regrettably, the adviser will be in an invidious position because the Committee will be dominated by sets of executives: the actual Executive, the supporters of the Executive and those who aspire to be the Executive. If that poor adviser is ever appointed, he or she will be joining a Committee on which there is likely to be little chance of genuinely acting on any advice that may be given.
  Mr. Robathan: I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with everything that he is saying. I am not making a partisan point. To a large extent, I agree with his amendment, but, from everything that he has said, he must agree that we cannot accept the motion because, as he said, it is appalling for the Executive to try to foist such a Committee on the House. It is a denial of democracy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
  Mr. George: Hon. Members on both sides of the House connived at this because Government members were chosen by Government Whips and the smaller number of Opposition members were chosen by the Opposition's methods. As a consequence, my calculations show that there is only one genuine Back-Bench Member on the Committee, and that is my hon. and good Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). Somebody thought that there were no female members of the Committee. In fact, there are two including the Chairman. Perhaps the hon. Member who did not notice that there were two females should do what I will be doing and start cleaning his glasses.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: In a moment. I had not intended to speak at length.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. George: All right, I will give way.
  Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman has just said something en passant that rather disturbed us. He seemed to suggest that he knew the identity of the Committee
  1010
  Chairman. Can he tell the House by what process the Chairman of the putative Committee was selected, and can he tell us their identity?
  Mr. George: If I had any ability to compose the membership of the Committee, I would indeed have a great deal of influence. My role in the drafting in of members was, I am afraid, non-existent.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George: I have given way several times. I promise that I will give way later.
  The wording that I chose was lifted almost entirely from the normal rules of Select Committees, which were drafted in 1979 under the tutelage of former Conservative Leader of the House Lord St. John of Fawsley. If there is any criticism of the wording, I suggest that hon. Members drag him to the House and ask him to explain. I have simply used the words that are to be found in every Select Committee report.
  Without going into the detail of my academic interest in Select Committees or defence committees throughout the world, I can say that the Select Committee set-up was an aberration, and that this process is a further aberration built on top of it. When I think about countries that have committees with such a lack of power, I think of—there is a degree of hyperbole in this—Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. It does not apply to Russia because the Duma is far more powerful than we are. All the mock eastern European regimes have now jumped over our heads as legislatures and have bestowed on their committees the power to legislate and to participate in the budgetary process. They have the power to scrutinise appointments to office. They have real confirmation hearings, not the bogus virtual confirmation hearings that we have. Before we glory in the majesty of this House, I suggest that we use our ability to travel to Europe once a year and see how the Europeans operate a legislature. They put us to shame.
  I meet members of the defence committees of many countries from around the world. They say that I am the Chairman of a powerful Committee in the mother of Parliaments, and ask me for advice on how the Committee operates. They ask me what power I have in the budgetary process. I have to be frank, and tell them that I have no such power. I admit to them that the House of Commons does not have much of a role in the budgetary process. That process is controlled by the Ministry of Defence, which presents the budget to the Select Committee throughout the year. We can hold amiable seminars, but we have not the slightest influence on the size or shape of the defence budget.
  The Select Committee is unable to do what its counterparts in most countries can. We cannot raise the budget, or allocate money from one account to another. Our role in the budgetary process is slight. We need advice, and a return of the power taken from us in 1979.
  My counterparts from around the world ask me what power I have to legislate. I tell them candidly that I have none whatever. Defence legislation is rare, and when it is introduced it does not come before the Defence Committee. We can hold hearings, and pass a report on to the Standing Committee that is to be established,

  1011
  but we are out of the loop. I say that members of the Defence Committee used to have one opportunity every five years to participate in the legislative process, when we were able to transfer almost en masse to the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. However, I have to add that we are no longer able to do that.
  I am then asked what power over policy I have. I say that the Defence Committee is able to undertake amazing studies that resemble royal commissions, and that we have great advisers. I am not embarrassed to tell the House that at least 20 advisers are attached to the Defence Committee, at an annual cost of £12,000. I consider that to be an amazing investment by the House in gathering heads of policy institutes, former military personnel, excellent academics—all of them people who can add to our limited knowledge of defence matters. I feel not the slightest guilt at the fact that we have such a formidable group of people to give us advice. That is one reason why I believe that the boon enjoyed by the Defence Committee could be transferred—albeit ephemerally—to the hybrid Committee that is being set up. So it is clear that when I describe the Defence Committee to outsiders I have to say that it has no powers of legislation and no real influence in the procurement process.
  Eight months ago, the Ministry of Defence made a big procurement decision. It did not ask for the Committee's advice or allow us to play a part. We wrote to the Ministry to ask why a particular company or consortium was chosen over any other, and we were informed that we would be told in good time—when the companies that had lost the bid had been informed of the decision.
  The Ministry will not even tell the Committee why it made the decision that it made. I point no finger at current Ministers, who I believe are about the best that I have come across in 20 years' experience in the Select Committee system. Despite what Opposition Members may think, I say that with no trace of deference or grovelling.
  There are two dozen Select Committees in the system. I have pointed out the weakness of the Defence Committee, which I consider to be among the best of all the Committees. We try to be innovative, and to push back the boundaries—for example, by holding confirmation hearings. We insist on all pieces of delegated legislation—however boring or trivial—coming before the Committee, because it is incumbent upon us to investigate the minutiae of policy administration and expenditure.
  Yes, we travel but—I am sorry to embarrass the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)— I almost insist that we travel in such a way as to make it impossible for carping criticism that we are junketeers. The Falkland Islands is an important place to visit, but the visitor may get a dose of radiation because there is a hole in the ozone layer. I insisted that we went to the Gulf in April; it was hot—damned hot—and hardly conducive to enjoyment. We spent our time working. We went to Russia in December because I believe that we should be seen not to be swanning around the world, but doing a difficult job on behalf of this House.
  I have sought to allay the fears of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that Committees are there exclusively for the purpose of providing Thomas
  1012
  Cook or American Express with a large income. Most Select Committees do a good job, and part of that must be attributed to those Committees that are prepared to seek advice.
  Eventually, I hope that the House will see a transfer from words to action. The Liaison Committee produced a report a few months ago and had the temerity to say that Select Committees should perhaps be outside the grip of the Whips. Now that we have seen the Committee about which we are talking being selected in this way, the wisdom of the Liaison Committee is more apparent. The day will come when Members on both sides of the House will get together and say that the overwhelming dominance of the Executive must come to an end. A legislature must legislate and share decision making with the Executive. It must do more than hold the Executive to account. There is expertise in this place which needs a bigger role in decision making. However, that talent is totally unharnessed.
  Mr. Chope: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and important speech. The Executive have indicated that they are prepared to accept his amendment. Has he any guarantee that they will exercise the power that would be given by the amendment to appoint specialist advisers? Can he advise the House as to the procedure he thinks should be undertaken to enable the best specialist advisers to be appointed? How long does he think that will take? Does he think that that will be consistent with the strict timetable that has been laid down?
  Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman makes a practical suggestion—I say that even though I am not on the Committee. Very few academics specialise in the narrow area of law relating to national security. They will be poachers turned gamekeepers: people who have retired from the MOD but who may be prepared to offer their services. One or two excellent academics might participate and I shall make my suggestions to whoever the Chairman is.
  One of the great roles that a Select Committee can play is to abandon, as far as is possible in this place— [Interruption.] I pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), my regional Whip, regularly, and will do so again. If all Members were as loyal in voting as I am, my hon. Friend would be exceedingly happy. The main purpose of a Select Committee is not to replicate the bear-garden atmosphere of this place. One bear garden is quite enough. The main purpose of a Select Committee is not simply to offer advice and show the Executive that a group of people is watching closely. It has a positive as well as a negative role. I believe that the main purpose is to find an agreement between the parties, if possible.
  The parliamentary environment is constructed to create an adversarial atmosphere. Frankly, I am not convinced that opposing for the sake of opposing, and providing loyalty for the sake of loyalty and careers, constitutes the best ways to legislate. In most Select Committees, people have to get along. The Committee of which I am Chairman consists of people of widely differing political views. We strive very hard to find common agreement— and not common agreement based on the smart writing of an intelligent Clerk who could provide a form of words of such inconsequence that everybody could agree with

  1013
  them. We try to produce reports that are hard hitting and make life quite difficult for the Executive. There have been excellent Defence Committee Chairmen over the years, such as the late Michael Colvin. Tim Kitson, for example, did not know much about defence but was a superb Chairman.
  I have continued in the tradition of not using a majority to trample on the interests of a minority. The last vote in the Defence Committee was in 1981. It could be said that that is a Soviet-style, monolithic approach to policy. It is not. It is our job to give Ministers, whatever their political hue, a difficult time. As one very senior ex-permanent secretary said to me, "The better the Committee is, the better we are."
  The Defence Committee has given Ministers a bad time over the Territorial Army and over the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, an issue which has not gone away as far as we are concerned. We produced a report on Kosovo which was difficult to write because it meant criticising NATO, an organisation which I love, and my many friends within it. I am proud that the Committee that I chaired was prepared, with our advisers, to produce a hard-hitting report that swam against the tide and said the unpalatable things that needed to be said.
  The Defence Committee has created difficulties both for the previous Government and for the present Government, on all sorts of issues including the annual defence budget. The last report that we produced in the previous Parliament said that defence expenditure had fallen to such a low level under the previous Government that, should it fall any further, it would endanger the defence of the realm. That report was produced mainly by Conservatives, who had the guts to say to the Ministry of Defence that defence expenditure had fallen to dangerous levels. Having been part of that tradition, how could I turn my Committee into a Supreme Sovier-type Committee, eulogising its leaders? What was done was not popular, but it had to be done.
  I hope that the Committee that has been formed by the present aberrant process will deliver the goods. If it is to make difficulties for the Executive, it will surely mean an act of masochism and self-abuse. The people who will be critical are those whom the Committee will be criticising, so I am not entirely convinced that the critical faculty that should be exercised on behalf of this House will be exercised.
  The last point—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends will have to stay anyway—and not because of me. However, it may be better to listen to me than listening all night to Opposition Members.
  Finally, I apologise to my colleagues if my intention, which was noble, has been or will be distorted into an attempt to keep them here longer than normal—although one of the few weapons that an Opposition have is time.
  I hope that the Committee, of which I am not a member, will do a good job, will do it competently and will fearlessly criticise the Executive—although I doubt it. Above all, I hope that when the next Select Committee on an Armed Forces Bill is constituted, the lessons of this Committee will be learned and the Executive will loosen their grip and allow more Back Benchers to play a part in the scrutiny process. I hope that the lessons will be learned and I commend the amendment with apologies for taking rather too long. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  12.51 am
  Mr. Spellar: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) will imagine, I do not entirely accept the rationale for his amendment, nor the way in which he put it. However, I believe that the terms of the amendment are right and that is why, as I said, we are pleased to accept it and to incorporate it into the motion.
  My right hon. Friend slightly overdid his grievance about the composition of the Committee, especially as he said earlier that he had said that he did not want to serve on it. Other members of the Select Committee on Defence also said that they did not want to serve on the special Committee.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I am not aware that he sought the leave of the House to speak again in the debate. Is that in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the mover of the motion, the Minister has a complete right to speak at this point.
  Mr. Spellar: My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South also referred to inconveniencing the Executive. In speaking for some half an hour at this time of night, he did not inconvenience the Executive so much as his Back-Bench colleagues.
  Having dealt with the family dispute on our Benches, I shall intrude into that on the Opposition Benches, but only briefly. Again, I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, but I appreciate his balanced approach and I look forward to working with him on the Committee to the benefit of our armed forces.
  As I said, we accept the amendment and we commend it and the motion to the House.
  12.53 am
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to have heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), which was a cri de coeur on behalf not only of Select Committees and their Chairmen, but of hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that an important issue is at stake—the balance of responsibility between the Executive and the legislature. He raised several important issues. Although I hope to follow the right hon. Gentleman in that I take those issues seriously, I shall be more succinct.
  Basically, there are two issues, the first of which is the composition of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman described it as appalling. I hope that he and other hon. Members who share his view will be prepared to vote against the composition.
  At a practical level, if so many members of the Committee on both sides of the House have Front-Bench responsibilities, how will they be able to give the amount of time that will clearly be necessary to consider what is a complicated Bill, as I think all of us would confirm, within the time frame that the House has agreed? Even if the composition of the Committee was logical and appropriate before we agreed the programme motion, it certainly is not now that we have done so. Clearly, the commitments on both sides will be such that it will be

  1015
  very difficult to complete the Committee's work within the time frame now agreed by the House. As the House has already been reminded, on the previous occasion, eight out of the 11 Committee members were Back Benchers with fewer responsibilities for other business in the House, so they could give the amount of time that was clearly necessary.
  First and foremost, my colleagues and I are extremely unhappy about the fact that the Committee has been constituted almost entirely by trusties, to use the expression of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Before he seeks to intervene, if it is any consolation to him, I already have the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who is the Liberal Democrat trustie, that if the other trusties are all removed, I shall be happy as Chief Whip to replace him with someone from our Back Benches. I hope that that will console the right hon. Gentleman.
  The second issue is, of course, the one to which the right hon. Member for Walsall, South referred so eloquently. It is critical that the Committee should have access to other information and sources of advice and expertise outwith the Ministry of Defence. That is surely the most important point about our Select Committee procedures and the composition of such Committees. They should not simply be informed by the Executive. They are not Government informed; they have other sources of information.
  It is extremely important to ensure that the amendment is not only passed, but implemented. It will not be good enough for someone to say, halfway through the process, that there is no time to get the necessary expertise or to find the required advisers. It is essential that the Select Committee procedure and principles are observed, even with this specially constituted Committee.
  That is all I need to say on the amendment, but I want to say something about how Conservative Members have treated the issue. We all enjoy the speeches of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). My mind is still boggling at the word picture that he painted of a cosy travelling circus, consensually vibrating with excitement. That is not a serious approach. I trust that if the Committee's composition is reviewed, even at this late hour, he will not serve on it so that he cannot be embarrassed by any travelling circus.
  Seriously, it is extraordinary that those on the Conservative Front Bench cannot even discipline their own Back Benchers in a debate that is basically about military discipline. There is a complete division of opinion about whether the Select Committee will be a useful adjunct and a useful way to consider the business of the House. I am concerned about the reputation of the House. I believe that Select Committees are an extremely effective tool to ensure that the Executive's legislation and executive actions receive proper scrutiny. I believe that Select Committees have done useful work in the past, but they have done their most useful work when they have been truly representative of the whole House, not just of those on the Front Benches.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Gummer: I deeply disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I believe strongly in Select Committees and
  1016
  that they should be able to travel when necessary. I do not like the way in which we talk as though it were unimportant to discover what is happening in the Army and in the armed forces generally. That is a proper activity, and to seek to limit it is not a suitable activity for the House, which should extend its power over the Executive. It can do so only by getting information itself.
  In no sense do I seek to limit what the Select Committee does; nor do I wish to complain about the expense to which it puts the taxpayer, especially as its Chairman has said how much he has limited that expense. I do not want this debate to become an argument about cheeseparing in the proper performance of parliamentary activity. This debate ought to be about the way in which the Government are stopping the proper performance of parliamentary activity. We do ourselves a disservice if we suggest that, somehow or other, people will join this Select Committee or any other Select Committee merely for the purpose of junketing. Only the Murdoch newspapers are served by such comments.
  Mr. Blunt: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point. The subject of the Bill is the operation of discipline in the armed forces in times of both peace and war. It is an extremely important matter that the members of the Committee, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), have no military experience at all. My hon. Friend has gained experience through his membership of the Select Committee on Defence. The Committee's members should be able to go to an operational theatre to see how the Bill is meant to work in practice in the most extreme conditions that can be found today.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that he asks for a proper investigation and wishes the Committee to do such travel as is necessary for it to carry out its duties. That is the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) presented.
  I have gone to the trouble of looking up the interests of the members of the Committee who have been placed on it by the Whips. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) lists industrial relations, pensions and housing as his special interests. The Minister for the Armed Forces lists as his special interests energy, industry, electronics, the motor industry, the construction industry, Australia, Israel and the United States. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) lists as her interests economic policy, industry, education, housing, Europe, Africa and the United States. That is about half the world. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) says that his special interests are regional policy, education and training.
  Mr. Keetch: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I was about to come to the hon. Gentleman.
  Apart from one Minister and the representatives of the Opposition, it is difficult to discover anyone on the Committee who has previously evinced any interest in this serious subject. I do not make merely a party political point, but a point about the House of Commons. Such a Committee has never happened before. We can examine the lists of members of previous Select Committees

  1017
  relating to such Bills and we will discover that they were almost entirely filled with people who had a long-standing interest in the subject and whose contribution could be described as specialist.
  Tonight, we are arguing about a totally different kind of Committee. I hope that the House will take seriously the speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Not realising that I would take part in the debate, I had occasion earlier to compliment him on his performance on television when he answered a tricky question about which he had received no prior knowledge. He answered it in a way that was perfectly proper and that enabled someone like myself from a different political party to know what was a reasonable answer to a particularly difficult issue with which the Ministry of Defence was trying to grapple. I refer to the uranium in some of the armaments used in Britain and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman gave every kind of due to the Ministry of Defence. He sought to make it as easy as possible for the Ministry to handle a difficult problem, but he also reserved the right and duty of the House and its Members to insist on a proper, accurate and detailed explanation. He made the balanced statement that one would have expected from a Select Committee Chairman of whatever party and in whatever circumstances.
  When that individual comes to the House and says that he finds the membership of a Committee appalling, he does not deserve to have his Whip standing staring at him for 20 minutes, trying to harass and intimidate him. Happily, unlike myself, the right hon. Gentleman is significantly larger than his Whip, and if there is any intimidation I am perfectly sure that he will be able to ensure that it is on his part. However, that was shocking behaviour. I do not want Opposition Members to say so; Government Members should be saying that it was shocking. It is not right that Parliament should be treated as if it were merely a poodle of the governing party, whichever that may be.
  Tonight, we are discussing something fundamentally unacceptable, and I ask the Minister, whom I believe to be a decent man, to notice that in this debate and the previous one, serious and sensible members of his party have stood up and complained about the way in which Parliament has been treated. When I look back over my 25 years in the House, I do not remember an occasion on which, in two successive debates, such complaints were made on either side of the House by Members of their standing and loyalty. This ought to be an occasion for the Government to wonder whether they have made a mistake.
  Earlier, of course, there was a certain amount of good-natured humour, which is not unreasonable in the House, and certainly not at such a time. However, this debate is not one of good-natured humour; it is about one of the crucial elements in our democracy. We are discussing the Armed Forces Bill, and Parliament was originally set up to deal with exactly such issues, and not those matters that the members of the Committee have said are their closest interests. Those matters are important, but they are subsequent to Parliament's fundamental purpose, which was to deal with the nation's need to have armed forces, to make sure that they were at the service of the nation and not merely the Crown, and to ensure that the nation was properly defended.
  1018
  We are not talking about an unimportant matter or one that should be prejudged on the basis of the way in which the Government have stuffed the Committee and appear already to have decided who shall chair it. Those are not suitable measures for a Government who claim that they want to represent all the people. This is not a light matter.
  I promised to say something about the Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). I do not agree with him. He has a number of views that I find unacceptable, but no one can claim that he does not follow these matters with care and assiduity. No one can claim that he should not be a member of such a Committee. It would not be in keeping with the tenor of what I have to say to comment on Conservative Members, but I must tell the Minister that he cannot point to more than one Labour Member who can claim any previous interest in the matter. That must be embarrassing for him in trying to ensure that the Committee is a proper vehicle for the House to carry through its prime purpose, which is to keep the Executive properly in bounds.
  Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend, who has done his research on various members of the Committee, referred to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). Did my right hon. Friend carry out research similar to that which I undertook and discover that the hon. Gentleman is eminently qualified—more so than Conservative Members—because listed among his interests in the paperwork that I have is building model warships?
  Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that it is necessary to be able to build model warships to be a member of the Committee, but that hobby represents an interest in the subject greater than that of any Back-Bench Labour member of that Committee, save one. Is not it scandalous that listing building model warships among their interests would have shown those members of the Committee, save one, to be much more suitable members? That is the level at which the matter is pitched.
  I would not have been the one to say how that state of affairs arose, but the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, who chairs the Defence Committee, told us that the Select Committee is abominable because its membership was decided by the Whips—perhaps by the very Whip who tried, by his presence, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from continuing his speech, or perhaps by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), the Whip who, until a moment ago, was sitting on the Treasury Bench, laughing. I have always thought that that particular subfusc giggle betrays embarrassment and knowing that the point being made is right as well as the fact that the person giggling does not have an answer. That Whip has left the Chamber, but he will play a part in the Committee—not that the matter is an interest of his.
  This is a serious matter, but, at almost 1.15 am, I see no one who is likely to report how serious it is. No newspaper or television service and no one from radio will report that, for the first time in history, the House will allow the Armed Forces Bill to be considered by a Committee with a majority of members who have been chosen because they know nothing about the subject. What is more, until the right hon. Member for Walsall, South tabled his manuscript amendment, those members were not to be helped by someone who might know something about the subject.

  1019
  The Government hoped to establish a complacent, ignorant Committee majority who would have no help in asking questions of the Ministry of Defence, which we all know to be a Ministry adept at meeting questions with answers more opaque than translucent. May I point to an example? For some months, I have been trying to discover on what basis the United Kingdom supported the American bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan. That is a matter of great importance to me because I believe it to have been an unprovoked and unacceptable invasion of other nations' airspace and quite wrong. I have received no answer from the Ministry of Defence or the Prime Minister. I am told that it is a matter of—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the motion that is being debated.
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be careful to stray back, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  In the long discussions that the Committee will have in dealing with its wide remit, I hope that it will discover, at least for me, why the Government can say that that is a matter of national security—the bombing by the Americans of the Sudan is a matter of British national security—and that they therefore need not give me an answer.
  Will the Government give an answer to the Select Committee? No, because the Committee is not capable of insisting that it gets the answer, for it is composed of people who have taken no interest in the matter up to now, and until the right hon. Member for Walsall, South insisted on it would not even have had someone to guide them.
  I am not speaking on the subject because I am an expert on the armed forces, and it would be wrong for me to do so if I were. I am speaking on the subject because I care about the House of Commons and whether we will regain for ourselves the job that we were sent here to do. I could speak about the environment, about which I do know something, or about agriculture, about which I care a great deal, but neither of those were the original reasons for the existence of the House. The House was established to ensure proper control of the Executive on defence. That is what we were created for, historically, and in that sense the right hon. Gentleman has a role of considerable importance.
  I shall deal finally with that role, because it relates to the so-called Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that no other country in the European Union would accept the subsidiary role that his Committee has had forced upon it by our current system. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has just arrived, no doubt again from Geneva, which is not in a member state of the European Union. He should take the matter seriously if he is a democrat and if he is interested in the European Union, as I believe him to be.
  I shall say something that probably will not be popular with my colleagues, but I want to say it because it is true. The European Union member states were often criticised in the past by Conservative Members—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the terms of the motion that we are discussing. Will he please confine his remarks to that?
  Mr. Gummer: Of course I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the issue concerns a Select Committee that we are setting up. It is perfectly proper for me to refer to the fact that you rightly allowed the right hon. Member for Walsall, South to mention that his Committee did not have the same powers as comparable committees in any other country in the EU, and that that was one of the reasons why he was concerned about what the House was setting up today.
  I am following the right hon. Gentleman precisely in those terms and merely saying that the reason why it did not happen in the past was because the House had those powers. We took those powers to ourselves. Now, we have neither given them to the Select Committee nor kept them for ourselves. The House as a whole neither exercises those powers, as was once true, nor has it done what our colleagues in the EU did—given those powers to a Select Committee. Oddly enough, we are in a worse position than any other member of the EU, because we have neither kept what we had nor gained what those countries have chosen to have.
  Tonight, we are making that situation worse because we are allowing the Government to insist that we discuss this at 1.20 am and we are only allowed a vote this evening because of the beneficial accident of the manuscript amendment of the right hon. Member for Walsall, South. In addition, we seem to be endorsing a proposal which will not be satisfactory when it comes to the control of the Executive because the people whom we are choosing are none of them capable, by their past experience or published interests, to carry through the kind of investigation which would be proper.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it showed a great deal of contempt for the Select Committee and the Chairman that the Minister's only response to a long speech during a debate on an important constitutional issue was to rebuke the Select Committee Chairman for speaking so late at night and keeping his colleagues up?
  Mr. Gummer: You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not want me to follow my hon. Friend too far down that line, but I was surprised at that. I can only assume that it was because the Minister did not list defence among his interests. Had we been talking about the motor industry, he might have been prepared for us to go on all night.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend should probably wind up his remarks fairly quickly because the Government Deputy Chief Whip is haranguing the Chair, probably for a closure motion on the debate.
  Mr. Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The accusation has been made that you have been harangued. Can you confirm whether that is the case?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but it is entirely up to me to decide whether I have been harangued. At the moment I do not think that that is happening.
  Mr. Gummer: It is no criticism of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest that someone might have harangued

  1021
  you. That would be so only if you took any notice of it, and no one would accuse you of that. The issue before us is too serious for me to wind up immediately.
  The Select Committee will not be able to do its job properly because of its membership. It will also not be able to do its job properly because of those who are not among its members. I suppose that I was among those being accused of a certain light-heartedness, but my point was a serious one.
  One of the important aspects of a Select Committee is that it has on it a number of people who are mavericks, who do not think in terms of the established position of the Government or the Opposition but look at things in a slightly different way. I often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but he is an important Member of the House because he thinks differently from others and puts his point. The hon. Member for Rotherham, whom I tease from time to time about his connections with the Swiss republic, is in many ways a maverick himself, and the House would be the poorer without him.
  I am a generous man and it is important to have a wide range of people in the House, but we also need such people on Select Committees. I suspect, although the right hon. Member for Walsall, South did not mention it, that one of the things that he does not like about the Select Committee is that no one from either side on it is likely to give anybody a run for their money. The thing about consensus, which is what the Select Committee should seek, is that it should not be consensus between the experts who have similar ways of looking at things—it should be able to bring into the structure people who will ask tough and difficult questions. That is another reason why we will not get the answer that I would like from the Committee.
  There is a further reason, which is just as important. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a little unfair in talking about the quorum of three in the Committee, as previous Bill Committees have had a similar quorum. Perhaps it would have been better if my right hon. Friend had begun by saying that he would not have minded a quorum of three if other circumstances were as they previously had been. The problem with the quorum is that those outside might say that it is odd, as it could be filled just with Opposition Front-Benchers, let alone Government Front-Benchers. What an odd quorum, if it could be filled by Ministers and Whips alone. Because the Government do not care about that, the issue is serious. I want to end with that—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Gummer: It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but if he had been here earlier he would have heard why many Members on both sides of the House thought the issue to be more serious than is suggested by a sedentary comment from a junior Minister in a different Department.
  I am glad that the Deputy Chief Whip is here because he will be able to carry these comments back—not that he will, but I hope that he will—which is important for the health of the Government. They have produced a proposal which turns out to be flawed and, remarkably, does not
  1022
  even satisfy the Chairman of the Defence Committee. The Government have to wait for him to table a manuscript amendment before they recognise that they have made a mistake. They have not talked to him properly and, surely, they were wrong in that. They do not have the experience or knowledge to know that it was necessary to do that in the first place. That was wrong. They have also allowed themselves a system, programme and timetable which make it impossible for the Government to listen to the House of Commons.
  I come back to the serious issue that, today, we are supposed to have a Second Reading, then a 45-minute discussion of a guillotine, and then a discussion of the nature of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. We are supposed to do all those things, but the Government have not given themselves time to listen to what the House of Commons says in the meantime. It is all right for the Executive, who are all happy, as they know that they have won the day—[Interruption.] However, it is the civil servants who have won the day. This is about the Ministry of Defence saying, as it has always said, to all other members of the Government, "Is it not better to have a nice, tidy, clean, clear system, instead of those inconvenient people called Members of Parliament to whom you have to go and listen?"
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not think that my right hon. Friend heard the sedentary intervention of the Minister, who said, with the arrogance that characterises the Government, "And we will carry the day every day for the rest of this Parliament".
  Mr. Gummer: Of course, the Minister is right, but he is wrong in one respect, as a majority of 170 ought to make someone more reticent, rather than triumphalist. Even if that were true of other Governments, the Minister should remind himself that he ought to do better than them. He should not say that they were wrong, but he was merely following them. Do not tell me that; it is the answer of the coward through the ages: one does what is wrong because someone else has done it.
  The Under-Secretary should be ashamed of himself. Even more important, he should bear it in mind that no previous Government have treated an Armed Forces Bill in such a manner. The Under-Secretary should not tell us about the power of a majority because no previous Government have behaved in such a way. He cannot sit, self-satisfied—
  Dr. Moonie: Yes he can.
  Mr. Gummer: He can, but he would be wrong to do so, and I believe that he wants to be right. He is factually wrong; he claims that others have done what only he has had the arrogance to do. That is sad because the Under-Secretary is better than that. He should not have made such a comment to the House, which is treating the matter seriously.
  The Government are wrong for a third reason: they thought that the House would allow them to get away with their behaviour. In practical terms, they can get away with anything. However, the Government and the Under-Secretary should remember that they have been warned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and by the right hon. Member for

  1023
  Walsall, South, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. If the Under-Secretary had seen some of the faces behind him earlier, when more of the experts were present, he would have realised that some other Labour Members believed that he was wrong. When the country knows what has happened, it will feel that he is wrong. The Government have damaged democracy tonight. They have been overweening in the use of their majority; they have removed from Parliament a duty that it has always had. In doing all that, they have done a grave disservice to Britain.
  Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are about to attempt to move a closure motion. When you consider whether to accept it, I hope that you will bear in mind that I have been trying to catch your eye as a former service man and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of order. Calling hon. Members to speak is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.
  Dr. Moonie rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 72.

  Division No. 41]

  [1.33 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darvill, Keith

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

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

  Bailey, Adrian

  Barnes, Harry

  Dawson, Hilton

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Burgon, Colin

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grogan, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cranston, Ross

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heppell, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  1024

  Hill, Keith

  Pond, Chris

  Hoey, Kate

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pound, Stephen

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Joyce, Eric

  Rooney, Terry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Roy, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Laxton, Bob

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Levitt, Tom

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McAvov,Thomas

  Spellar, John

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stevenson, George

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McDonnell, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McNutty, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  MacShane, Denis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Tippinq, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Todd, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Touhig, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Tynan, Bill

  Moffatt, Laura

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morley, Elliot

  Watts, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mudie, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Wood, Mike

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Worthington, Tony

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Wray, James

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Pollard, Kerry

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  NOES

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Damian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Hayes, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Keetch, Paul

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lansley, Andrew

  1025

  Leigh, Edward

  Sanders, Adrian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Lidington, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell,Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tyler Paul

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Öpik, Lembit

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. John Randall and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 9.

  Division No. 42]

  [1.47 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Austin, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bailey, Adrian

  Doran, Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Drew, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beard, Nigel

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Fisher, Mark

  Blackman, Liz

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Follett, Barbara

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Goggins, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burnett, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Joyce, Eric

  1026

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Keetch, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roy, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Sanders, Adrian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Levitt, Tom

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Linton, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McDonnell, John

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

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McNulty, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Stevenson, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Swayne, Desmond

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Tynan, Bill

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Pound, Stephen

  Wray, James

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Purchase, Ken

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Rapson, Syd

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Baldry, Tony

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Christopher Chope.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 20.

  Division No. 43]

  [1.59 am

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blackman, Liz

  Barnes, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  1027

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Burgon, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith

  Casale, Roger

  Hoey, Kate

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Chaytor, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jamieson, David

  Clelland, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cohen, Harry

  Joyce, Eric

  Colman, Tony

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Connarty, Michael

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cousins, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cranston, Ross

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Crausby, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Laxton, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Leslie, Christopher

  Davidson, Ian

  Levitt, Tom

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

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Dawson, Hilton

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobbin, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McDonnell, John

  Doran, Frank

  McFall, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Drew, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McWilliam, John

  Efford, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ennis, Jeff

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Etherington, Bill

  Martlew, Eric

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Flint, Caroline

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Follett, Barbara

  Miller, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Morley, Elliot

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mountford, Kali

  Goggins, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Grogan, John

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hanson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Healey, John

  Pond, Chris

  1028

  Pope, Greg

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruane Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tynan, Bill

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wray, James

  Spellar, John

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chope, Christopher

  Sanders, Adrian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Keetch, Paul

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Rachel Squire, Mr. John Spellar, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. David Clelland, Mr. Dave Watts, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. John Randall and Mr. Paul Keetch be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.
  That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill.

  Electoral Commission
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that, as the occupant of the Chair said last night, this motion is narrow. It deals with whether those listed in it will be appropriate electoral commissioners. The debate does not provide an opportunity to reopen the issues decided when Parliament enacted the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 a few weeks ago.
  2.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
  That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint as Electoral Commissioners:

  (1) Pamela Joan Gordon for the period of four years;

  (2) Sir Neil William David McIntosh KBE for the period of four years;

  (3) Johnathon Glyn Mathias for the period of five years;

  (4) Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of five years;

  (5) James Samuel Younger for the period of six years; and

  (6) Graham John Zellick for the period of five years;

  and that Her Majesty will appoint James Samuel Younger to be the chairman of the Electoral Commission for the period of six years.
  As we have been around this course once already, I do not propose to say much now, to allow other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. As I said yesterday, we believe that the six individuals who have been nominated have the appropriate mix of skills and experience necessary to establish the Electoral Commission as an effective independent regulator of the controls on party funding, and as a force for the modernisation of our electoral law and practices—and, boy, do we need modernisation.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: As the House would expect, we have undertaken all the necessary statutory procedures, including consulting the leaders of those parties with two or more sitting Members of Parliament. I think that the hon. Gentleman wished to intervene.
  Mr. Howarth: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his courtesy at this hour of the night. I wished to ask whether he has had a chance during the past 25 hours to reflect on last night's proceedings. He may recall that I asked him about the impartiality of the two nominees who have spent a large part of their careers in the BBC if a referendum on the euro were to take place. Has he had a chance to consider that point?
  Mr. O'Brien: Of course I consider any comment that the hon. Gentleman makes with a great deal of care. However, I do not have the fears that he seems to have about those who work for the BBC. I am sure that, from time to time, all hon. Members have reason to feel unhappy about the way in which something may have been reported; but, by and large, we can rely on the BBC to be as impartial as it should be. So I have no problem
  1030
  with the fact that some of those who have applied for the position of electoral commissioner have worked for the BBC.
  Perhaps it is not that surprising that people who are interested in politics, but not in being politicians, might find their way into journalism and reporting in an organisation that seeks to be impartial, such as the BBC. I am not sure that we need have any great fear, such as the hon. Gentleman's, but he is entitled to express his views during the debate, and I am sure that he will do so. I shall, of course, seek to respond to the issues raised in the debate in due course; but for the time being, I commend the six individuals named in the motion.
  2.13 am
  Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I am slightly surprised that the Minister thinks it appropriate to be so brief in his opening remarks. Although he says that he intends to respond to the issues raised in the debate, he mentions the fact that the House has been around this course before. However, in the latest part of the disastrous saga that has comprised the history of the election commissioners, the Government lost their business entirely last night because they could not persuade more than 17 of their colleagues and two Liberal Democrats to support them.
  Given that the business collapsed last night, we might have thought that the Minister would feel it appropriate to go into slightly more detail about the series of disasters that has characterised the matter. However, it does not matter that the Minister has not done so, because we are starting again from scratch. This is a fresh debate on a completely new motion on today's Order Paper. It is as though last night's debate never happened, so it is important to put on record the history of the Government's disastrous mistakes. After I made my points yesterday, other points were raised by hon. Members. My right hon. and hon. Friends who did not have the opportunity to speak or who were able to speak only briefly may have an opportunity to make some fresh points in tonight's debate.
  Let us begin by considering the way in which the Minister explained how the procedure first started. He told us that the Home Office placed an advertisement inviting applicants to fill the position of electoral commissioner and that it had received 223 applications by the closing date. We do not know who all those 223 were.
  Mr. Eric Forth: They were all from the BBC.
  Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend suggests that they may have all been from the BBC, but we know that at least four of them were not. We gathered from the Minister that the number of applicants was subsequently—whittled down—his unusual choice of phrase—to a shortlist of 16, who were then invited for interview by a selection panel chaired by Sir David Omand, the permanent secretary at the Home Office. The other members of the panel were Elizabeth Filkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; Sylvia Denman, an academic lawyer specialising in equal opportunity issues; and Nigel Varney, the head of the Home Office party funding unit.

  1031
  At that stage, things began to go wrong. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, for beginning the process of unravelling exactly what went wrong.
  Mr. David Maclean: My hon. Friend has skipped too quickly over the process by which the list was whittled down to a shortlist of 16 for interview. Will he press the Minister on whether the permanent secretary at the Home Office was involved in that process and on what discussions he may have had with the Home Secretary and Ministers about producing a shortlist for interview?
  Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. In the light of the questions that have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Minister might feel that it would be helpful to the House to have all that information placed in the Library and sent to all the Members who have taken part in the debates on the issue. It would be important for the House to have access to that information, particularly when we come at a later stage to the question of the Speaker's Committee. It will be the only way in which the House has scrutiny over those who will be electoral commissioners, if this Address is presented at the conclusion of our proceedings and if the six names become the electoral commissioners. We shall look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is prepared to provide the important information that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) seeks.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am ungracious, but I think that I am right in saying that, for some very peculiar reason, this matter cannot be resolved today. It is subject to one of the absurd deferred Divisions that take place on Wednesday. Although the clock suggests that that is today, in parliamentary terms it will be tomorrow. Although the debate is taking place now, a completely different group of people will troop through the Lobbies tomorrow and vote on the matter even though they have not taken part in the debate, because they have almost certainly all gone home.
  Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is right. He knows that I am as bitter an opponent of these so-called modernisation measures as he is. However, I accept that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want me to concentrate on the motion.
  I turn now to the saga of how things began to unravel for the Government, although the Minister might prefer to gloss over that. On 30 November last year, even before my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton became involved, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) tabled a question asking when the commissioners were to be appointed following the enactment of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
  One might have thought that when the shadow Home Secretary asked about Government legislation which only a few days before had become an Act, she would receive a full and proper answer. One might particularly have
  1032
  expected that answer to mention that the Home Office was about to make a formal announcement to the media. However, the only reply that my right hon. Friend received came on 13 December. It said:
  We intend to table a motion for an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, as required by section 3(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, soon.—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 181W.]
  So far, so good, It was therefore with considerable surprise that we discovered that the very morning after that answer was given to my right hon. Friend, the Home Office issued a press release announcing the names of the members of the Electoral Commission which the Government were putting forward. No reference had been made to an imminent press release in the written answer given to my right hon. Friend only the day before, yet that press release listed the names on the Order Paper that the Government are now proposing and said that those people had been recommended for appointment. Apparently, there was no question then of the matter coming before the House.
  We are now entirely agreed that this is a matter for the House, but it rapidly became clear that the Home Office had more than somewhat jumped the gun. That became clear so quickly because of the usual perception shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton in raising the matter at business questions on 14 December. She asked the Leader of the House:
  Why will the House have to wait until mid-January before the electoral commissioners are appointed, as the Home Office press release states? Surely we could debate that in the coming week and have them in place for the new year—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although it is true that we are starting afresh tonight, the hon. Gentleman is giving the House interesting background information, and we are here to discuss the suitability of these people to be commissioners—and that is all.
  Mr. Hawkins: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to set out a little of the background to show how the official Opposition were able to ensure that this debate is taking place at all.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the suitability of the persons named to be commissioners.
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall seek to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand that the official Opposition's concern about how this motion comes to be before the House is linked to the suitability of the persons named. Given the Government's problems on the matter, it is almost impossible to disentangle those two issues.
  No less a person than the Home Secretary had to write a grovelling apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. He had also to write to his Chief Whip and to Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to disentangle the two issues about which he is talking, but he must try a little harder; otherwise, he will have to bring his remarks to a close.
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall certainly do my level best, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  1033
  Under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton about the particular issue that we are debating tonight and the Home Office press release announcing the names of the commissioners, the Leader of the House said:
  As for the Home Office press release, I am afraid that I am not familiar with precisely what was said or why … However, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill has been extensively discussed … I understand that the House is interested in who the commissioners may be, but I am not aware of a suggestion that we should debate those appointments. Indeed, successive Governments have not thought that there should be accountability, other than through Ministers, for appointments that are made through the proper public appointment process.—[Official Report. 14 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 804–05.]
  The Leader of the House appeared to suggest to my hon. Friend that the matter that we are debating—the suitability or otherwise of particular names of particular commissioners—should not be debated at all. However, the Home Secretary realised that the Government had promised in the 2000 Act that the matter would have to be debated properly and that a motion that an Address including the names of commissioners be presented to Her Majesty would have to be tabled. That caused the apologies, the letters and, in due course, the debate.
  There is no doubt that matters have gone badly awry. The 2000 Act includes provision to set up the Speaker's Committee to oversee the work of the Electoral Commission, and the establishment of that Committee has to be discussed. Can the Minister tell us when it will be established? It will be part of the House's ongoing responsibility to scrutinise not only the current electoral commissioners, but any future commissioners who may be appointed under the legislation. The House needs to know what the Government have in mind on the timing of the appointments of the no fewer than five Members of the House—not including Ministers—who will be on the Speaker's Committee to carry out that ongoing scrutiny. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
  Last night, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised a number of substantial concerns about the particular people suggested by the Government. Should they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have the opportunity to outline those concerns.
  I should make it clear that the official Opposition were consulted quite properly about the names, as provided for under the 2000 Act, and we are not suggesting from the Front Bench that there is anything wrong with those particular individuals. However, it is undoubtedly right that, after a lot of work by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and after the Government had to admit that their own legislation requires the debate, every Member of the House should have the opportunity to scrutinise the individual names.
  We hope that the Electoral Commission and the commissioners will do their work thoroughly and properly, but it is essential—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends and all other Members of the House will agree—that appointments should always be subject to the overall jurisdiction of the House, no matter who becomes a commissioner in future. Unless the House ultimately controls the destiny of those matters, we will have
  1034
  subcontracted the issue relating to elections in a way that I, and no doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends, would find deeply disturbing.
  Having made those points, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have the opportunity to explore the issues that are of interest to them. I also hope that we will hear a great deal more from the Minister about how the House will be able to continue its scrutiny not only of the current commissioners, but of any future commissioners, through the Speaker's Committee.
  2.29 am
  Mr. David Maclean: The question before us, which is relatively narrow, is simply whether Sam, Pam, Neil, Glyn, Karamjit and Graham are the right people to be put on the commission to carry out the tasks with which they have been entrusted.
  In the press release issued by the Minister explaining that the members of the commission would be Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Sir Neil McIntosh, Glyn Mathias, Karamjit Singh and Professor Graham Zellick, he describes briefly the tasks that those six people will be expected to perform. Their overriding task, which is listed first in the press statement, is to scrutinise electoral issues such as party funding and referendums, and ensure the delivery of the Neill principles of integrity and openness. They will also provide independent oversight of the new funding framework for UK political parties.
  Of course, those six people—Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Sir Neil McIntosh, Glyn Mathias, Karamjit Singh and Professor Graham Zellick—will also monitor the political parties compliance with the controls on their income and expenditure. In between times, they will keep under review the law and practice in relation to elections and referendums, although none of them seems to be legally qualified, except Professor Graham Zellick, who is a vice-chancellor of a university and may have a legal qualification. Members of the commission will promote awareness of electoral systems, take over responsibility for the review of parliamentary and local government boundaries, and comment on the intelligibility of referendum questions. That is a tremendously wide-ranging groups of important activities for those six people. The question is whether they are qualified to do the job and why the Government picked them, rather than others. We are told by the Minister that Ministers had no involvement at all in the selection process.
  These matters need to be probed more closely. Of course, Ministers were not on the selection panel of the final four, but we need a straight answer from the Minister to the question whether, at any time, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Omand, had any discussions with the Home Secretary or the Minister about the selection list, the whittling down of the list to the 16 people who would come in for interview, and any opinions after those people were interviewed. I imagine that the permanent secretary would not have had discussions with the Secretary of State following the oral interviews, and that the decision had presumably been made by the board. The four interviewers would have made the final decision on the selection of six people out of 16.
  Unless systems have changed radically, I suspect that at some time the permanent secretary may have had a discussion with the Home Secretary about the criteria for

  1035
  selection, and the qualities that the Home Secretary might have in mind in drawing up a final shortlist of 16. The Minister was careful in his choice of words. He said that Ministers were not involved in the final selection process. That may be absolutely correct. Of course, I believe what he says, but were Ministers involved at any stage in the selection process?
  Apart from being consulted about the original advertisement in The Guardian—the Home Office still usually uses that newspaper to advertise such posts—and the criteria, were Ministers consulted at all by civil servants, particularly by the permanent secretary, on any of the names to be included in the list at any stage? Let us consider the qualities of the people required to do the job. Some people are required to promote public awareness of electoral systems.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. With his unique knowledge of the background to the mechanisms which may be used, does he agree that there is at least a prima facie case for presuming that Ministers would have laid down criteria such as gender, ethnicity and regionality in the selection process in order to arrive at the sort of outcome that Ministers would have wanted? Will my right hon. Friend speculate on the extent to which that might or might not conflict with qualifications and competence?
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. I suspect that, initially. Ministers would have laid down certain criteria on the desired mix, including ethnicity. They failed quite badly on the sexual mix. I can see only one woman on the list, which is a critical failing of Home Office Ministers in this Government. Such criteria would help to stack the list. But I am concerned about what particular discussions Ministers may have had with the permanent secretary.
  As I was saying, Sam, Pam, Neil, Glyn, Karamjit and Graham have as one of their prime tasks responsibility for promoting public awareness of electoral systems. That may be why, with the important responsibility of promoting public awareness and dealing with the media, two members of the commission are from the BBC. In other words, one third of them are from the BBC. But were these the best people to take from the BBC? One has heard of Glyn Mathias and has seen him on the television occasionally. I do not know of Sam Younger. But the Government could have picked someone more important or apparently more powerful. They could have recruited Greg Dyke himself to serve on the commission rather than Mr. Sam Younger.
  Mr. Forth: No.
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend pre-empts me. Of course the Government could not have picked Mr. Greg Dyke for the task because he handed over cheques for £25,000 and £10,000 to the Government and was then made a director of the BBC, and that disqualifies him from replacing Mr. Sam Younger as one of the media people on the commission. But there are others who are equally qualified and have experience of the media. Melvyn Bragg in my constituency would have been an excellent choice, but he, too, is excluded because he
  1036
  donated a mere £7,500 and then got his peerage. He would not be eligible to serve on this body until 2008, on the expiry of the 10-year bar. There are others who may be as good as Glyn Mathias. In the film world, there is David Puttnam, for example. He is qualified.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we go much further down this road, I remind hon. Members that we are not here tonight to debate the suitability or otherwise of people not mentioned in the motion. We are here specifically to deal with the people mentioned on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Maclean: I shall not go further down the road of mentioning characters from the media, but shall try to stick closely to the narrow debate on the suitability of Sam Younger, Pamela Gordon, Neil McIntosh—for the avoidance of any doubt, that is Sir Neil McIntosh, not Sir Cameron Mackintosh, of Labour funding fame, who gave the Labour party £50,000 and then got his knighthood. The people on today's Order Paper have been appointed for various periods of four, five and six years. How can the House judge whether those six people best fit the criteria in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and those set out by the Minister in his press release justifying their appointment?
  The Minister has set out the criteria simply to justify the selection of the six people whom we have before us tonight. That was clear from his press release. I was not seeking deliberately to stray, but I had to ask whether, if the Government wanted to appoint media people, or people with experience in the media, such as Sam Younger, there were not better people.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Would not those be reasonable points for the Leader of the Opposition to place before the Government when he agreed to the list which, I suspect, was some time early in November?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman can suspect that it was any time he likes. I have no idea what was discussed between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Government party. No one else in the House does. I am not sure whether the Minister was there. I am not sure that the Minister has read any letter that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition may have sent in. However, whatever was discussed in private and whatever other parties submitted are irrelevant. There is a motion before the House, and it is for the House to decide. For all I know, my right hon. Friend may have had reservations about those people, or he may think that they are the best thing since sliced bread. The leaders of political parties may have commented to the Government selection machine in private, but I am not privy to those discussions. Even if my right hon. Friend were content with Neil McIntosh, Pamela Gordon and Sam Younger, that would not be relevant. If the Government had given us the 16 names on the shortlist, or perhaps the 50 that they had before the Home Office whittled that down to 16, and asked for our choice from those 50 or 16, I suspect that my right hon. Friend—and perhaps the Liberal Democrat party as well—may have come up with a different six names for the shortlist.

  1037
  When presented with a fait accompli—a list devised by the Government and selected by an apparently foolproof or impartial procedure—on what grounds could my right hon. Friend or anyone else object to those people? I have no particular objections to them, and think that they are excellent. They are probably better than the alternatives that I was suggesting earlier. I do not want the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to lead me down a blind alley, as I want to get back to the merits of the six people before us and see whether they are the best ones for the job.
  Mr. Karamjit Singh is a member of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I am not quite sure how useful that will be for the Electoral Commission, unless the Government have such a low opinion of politicians and political parties that they consider us all a bunch of criminals, in which case Mr. Singh may have particular skills. I suspect that it could be a good in-joke in the Home Office's selection committee to include someone on the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who has experience of dealing with the vilest criminals in the country, on a commission that oversees the workings of Parliament and politicians. I appreciate that joke myself.
  The commission does not have any business experience. What a pity that Lord Paul was not eligible for selection. He is the Indian business man who sensibly waited for his peerage before giving the Labour party £46,000 for it, and £60,000 a year later. Someone with that business experience could have made a valuable contribution to the body, which is charged with trying to get its message across to the wider public. In that situation, someone with experience in communication other than the media would be excellent. I would have welcomed someone like Richard Faulkner, the managing director of Westminster Communications. [Interruption.] However, I will not welcome him any further.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely what I advised him not to do.
  Mr. Maclean: We must not go down that route, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have to consider whether Karamjit Singh, Glyn Mathias, Neil McIntosh, Pamela Gordon and Sam Younger are ideally placed to fulfil the tasks before them. I have no objection to them per se, but my concern is that because two of them have considerable experience of the BBC, they will bring to their job the institutional bias that all BBC staff have. As I said in the House on a previous occasion, if the Scottish judge Macpherson was to make an analysis of the BBC, he would conclude that it was institutionally Europhiliac. At present, the BBC is running a huge casmpaign to support the euro at every turn and do down our own currency. When challenged, it says that it is not biased, and that that is just reflecting normal run-of-the-mill middle-England thinking. Whenever it is challenged on bias, it genuinely does not believe that it has an in-built bias. It believes that its opinion and that of The Guardian is exactly the same as the mainstream opinion that is expressed in The Sun, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend concede that, even if it were acceptable for one person with an institutionalised BBC background to serve on the commission—at a stretch, that might just about be
  1038
  acceptable—the appointment of two people from that ghastly organisation raises natural suspicions about what is going on? Does my right hon. Friend wonder how any so-called impartial selection committee could end up with two ghastly BBC people and claim that they were representative of the electorate?
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a pity that someone from Granada Television or the independent sector, such as Alexander Bernstein, has not been chosen. BBC individuals have an in-built bias that they do not perceive. One does not find that bias in some other media organisations.
  No one from the print media has been selected to serve on the commission. One third of the commissioners will be from the BBC; they will bring with them an unwitting, institutional bias. Many BBC individuals are thoroughly decent, and do not intend to be biased; they simply do not understand that their attitudes, life style and beliefs are not those of the majority of the British people. They take an intellectual, Guardian-reading, liberal establishment view of life. Doubtless many Labour Members aspire to such a view. Many live in places such as Hampstead and Islington nowadays. The two proposed BBC commissioners may bring that bias with them and thus unwittingly diminish the integrity and importance of the Electoral Commission.
  That applies especially if one of the commissioners' tasks is to comment on a referendum question on the euro or any other subject. How can the country have faith that the commissioners of the august organisation that we are considering will be impartial when their most recent employers—the BBC—will throw the weight of a multi-billion-pound corporation into a fanatical Britain must join the euro at all costs campaign?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend amplifies some of the points that I made last night. I am most grateful to him because he has put them even more succinctly than me. Given the grave importance of the issue, and if—it is a big if, as I said last night—there is another Labour Government, the proposed commissioners, who have had the opportunity by now of reading last night's proceedings, should tell us precisely how they would approach a referendum on the euro. They should try to reassure the House that they would be impartial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should postpone consideration or voting on the motion until we have received such reassurances?
  Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be as willing as your predecessor in the Chair this evening to accept a manuscript amendment during our debate to require the commissioners from the BBC to declare that they would take no part in and absent themselves from deliberations in the Electoral Commission about a referendum on the euro because of the biased nature of their former employer. That former employer is doubtless paying their pensions. I assume that the two relevant commissioners have a reasonable pension fund that is connected with the BBC. In those circumstances, part of their financial interest is with their former employer and paymaster, which will be leading a fanatical join the euro at all costs campaign. The commissioners must deliver the Government's prime aim of ensuring integrity and openness.

  1039
  I want to comment on a side issue, which, I hope, is relevant. The permanent secretary to the Home Office was one of the people who was involved in the selection process and in reducing the list to 16. In his former life as head of GCHQ—the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham—he was faced with the task of rooting out spies, getting to the bottom of matters of this kind, and uncovering leaks that would have damaged the safety and security of this country. Yet that same permanent secretary, aided by his successor at GCHQ, when confronted with the evidence possessed by all the press of a leak of the Macpherson report by the Minister of State, Home Office—the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—was unable to find the culprit, even on the seventh floor of the Home Office building.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the subject of the motion.
  Mr. Maclean: I accept your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I have strayed from the strait and narrow. However, it struck me as relevant that one of those who were to select others on the basis of their openness, and their ability to probe the goings-on of political parties and find out whether we were spending money properly and sticking to the law—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the suitability of those who will select; we are discussing the suitability of those whom they select.
  Mr. Maclean: Exactly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will accept that the two issues are connected. To suggest that there may he a flaw in the ability of the selectorate may be to suggest that the person selected is not ideal for the job.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. There is, in a way, a connection, but I think that what we are now debating is simply the suitability of those who have been selected, by whatever means.
  Mr. Maclean: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept that they may have been selected by flawed means. In that case, I think we must put the onus on the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not put words in my mouth.
  Mr. Maclean: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but let me put the onus on the Minister to reassure us—if it would be in order—that Sir David Omand, who was unable to find the leaker among his own Ministers, has, in selecting these people, been able to ensure a greater depth of scrutiny, and to assure himself that all six possess the necessary qualities. I want to know that Sir David could obtain, for instance, Sam Younger's full curriculum vitae and all the details of his background, so that he and other members of the panel could tell the Home Secretary that no impropriety was involved, and no blot on the copybook.
  1040
  We have raised some important issues. As I said earlier, I have no particular worries about the individuals concerned. I think that they may be suitable for the job; I have seen no evidence suggesting that they are unsuitable. I have tried to suggest that there may have been others who wend eminently more suitable, who could have provided a better balance on a commission that will apparently consist entirely of representatives of the BBC and the media generally. Unfortunately, those better people may have been disqualified from serving on the commission for 10 years by the fact that they had not stuffed the Labour party full of money and received their peerages and knighthoods. I look forward to the renewal of the terms in four years' time, in the case of Miss Pamela Gordon and Sir Neil McIntosh—not the Cameron Mackintosh who gives money to the Labour party.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman himself is bound to acknowledge that he is becoming very, very repetitive.
  Mr. Maclean: That was my peroration, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was summing up in shorthand for the Minister's benefit, so that he could reply to the crucial points at the end of the debate.
  I was going to say, in conclusion, that I looked forward to being back here in four years' time, when some of these people will be due to retire, although their appointments may be renewed. We shall then be able to suggest to the Minister the appointment of some of the other able people in the media and business worlds whose time bar will then have expired, because they will have paid their money and got their peerages or knighthoods and will therefore be eligible for service on the commission. They would have detailed knowledge of the workings of political parties because they knew to whom to give the money to get their gongs. Those may be the people who should serve on such a commission, in addition to the six worthies we already have.
  2.55 am
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not intend to detain the House long, but I would like to put a number of points to the Minister. First and foremost, he might be able to help me out and so, to a certain extent, curtail my remarks, if he assured me that some of the points that were raised last night will be considered. Or should we raise them again tonight to ensure that they are on the record?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members raised points yesterday that I can deal with today, it will be my intention to do so.
  Mr. Howarth: That is most helpful. I am grateful to the Minister. May I just remind him of the point that I made yesterday? I should be grateful if he commented on it. It was on the question of political party membership. Clearly, none of the six individuals is currently a member of a political party. They would be debarred had they given to a political party in the past 10 years, but someone who has been a number of a political party recently—for example, last year—would not be debarred from being a commission member. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us if he knew whether they have been members of any political party. I say that not simply to try to ensure

  1041
  that we Conservatives are not lumbered with an Electoral Commission that is stuffed full of closet Labour party people. I think that the public will also want to have the maximum reassurance that the Government are able to give, that those people are genuinely as independent as possible.
  I see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) in his place; he is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which originally proposed the idea of an Electoral Commission. I know that he shares my view, despite the fact that he is a former journalist for The Guardian. He has been trying to go straight since he came here and repent of his many sins. No doubt he, too, would like to ensure that the appointees are genuinely independent.
  Let me return briefly to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) about the BBC, Europhilia and the position that Sam Younger and Glyn Mathias may take on the issue. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said because it is important that Labour Members should understand how we feel about the matter. It is not that we believe that people in the BBC are necessarily committed to the Europhile cause and will do all that they can to promote it in contradiction of their obligation to be impartial, which the corporation's charter lays on them. It is that they come with a mindset. We can detect that from the way in which some of the presenters address the issues and question politicians from different vantage points, according to whether they are federalists, integrationists or believers in the sovereignty of these islands. Those presenters genuinely do not seem to understand how things appear to us and to the ordinary listener, who is concerned about those issues.
  It is imperative that we are clear about where Glyn Mathias and Sam Younger stand on this issue. I cast no aspersions upon them. This is not a witch hunt and I am not suggesting that they are not men of integrity. We have all seen Glyn Mathias on television. I happen to have a rather higher regard for the World Service than for any other part of the BBC. I listened to Argentina's surrender during the Falklands campaign on a portable radio in Lagos, Nigeria. It was a wonderfully proud moment to hear Lillibullero coming over the airwaves and the wonderful words, "This is London", with all the authority that the BBC World Service commands. It is not—
  Mr. O'Brien: It might assist the hon. Gentleman to know that during the time to which he is referring, Glyn Mathias was the controller of public affairs at ITN and was subsequently its chief political correspondent.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand it, he has since worked for the BBC.
  I should like to correct something that I said last night. I said that two of the people had spent their entire careers at the BBC. The Minister has helpfully enabled me to correct that. What I said was not accurate, but those people have spent a great deal of time there. I hope that the Minister recognises my question as being valid, particularly as it is likely that we will develop more referendums in this country and that the role of the commission in policing them will be critical.
  1042
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made an entertaining, if unfortunately brief, contribution to our proceedings last night, and I am sorry that he is not here now. He said that many of the names in the list sounded rather Scottish. He said that Pamela Joan Gordon sounds Scottish. I do not have my notes from last night, but I believe that she was involved with the local authority in—
  Mr. Forth: Sheffield.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes, but prior to that I believe that she was in Inverness. The Minister may be able to correct me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire also said that Sir Neil William David McIntosh—who as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) reminds us is not Cameron Mackintosh, who has given money to the Labour party—also sounds pretty Scottish. I believe that he was on Strathclyde council. We know that Mr. Singh does not sound Scottish. Mr. Younger sounds as if he comes from the north of the United Kingdom. Our noble Friend Lord Younger is Scottish so one can make an assumption, although perhaps incorrectly, that Sam Younger comes from Scotland.
  The Government are fixated on targets, gender mix, ethnicity and all that ghastly quota stuff, and it appears from the list of names as if poor old England has not had much of a look-in. Was consideration given to ensuring a good regional mix for the whole of the United Kingdom? For example, is there anybody with any connection to Northern Ireland? I suspect there is not. Given that the legislation provides for up to nine commissioners and we are invited to approve only six, perhaps a seventh might have been appointed to represent the interests of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that more people live in London than in Scotland? Does he consider that a representation from London should be included in his possible list of commissioners? Moreover, would not the inclusion of a representative of the real world of business and commerce—of profit, employment and the payment of taxes—be of advantage to this body, as it would bring to it a proper perspective? Are not those two enormous lacunae in the list?
  Mr. Maclean: Alan Sugar, for instance.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed they are, and the possibility of having nine commissioners would allow such people to be accommodated. I should be perfectly content with a London representative—as long as London were not synonymous with Islington in this case. Last night I mentioned that it was an omission that the list did not contain a person with serious business experience from the real world. Alan Sugar might have been appropriate, but his donation to the Labour party rules him out.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point about adding to the list a commissioner able to deal with Northern Ireland. However, he may not be aware that

  1043
  an unresolved issue between Labour and Conservative Front-Bench Members was section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—
  Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are we not debating the six names proposed in the motion, rather than other possible names?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is true that the motion is, as has already been said, very limited. We are here to discuss the members of the commission
  Mr. Hawkins: I accept that stricture, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has noted that none of the six proposed commissioners has the ability to deal with Northern Ireland. I was simply asking my hon. Friend to consider the point that section 7 of the 2000 Act, which creates the commissioners, states that no order may be made in relation to party funding in Northern Ireland until the commission—which would include the six commissioners whose names are before us—had been consulted, after which an affirmative order could be passed. That matter remains an issue between Labour and Conservative Front Benchers, and I wondered whether my hon. Friend was aware of that.
  Mr. Howarth: I was not aware of that. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to its attention.
  Mr. David Taylor: I am not.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is not interested in debate. He is interested in going home. I quite understand that, but these are important matters. Those of us who are of a Unionist disposition—and that includes some Labour Members, although Conservatives are more passionate about the matter—consider that it would be a mistake to overlook the Northern Ireland dimension.
  The final point on which I seek the Minister's reassurance is that there was no attempt by the Labour party or the Home Office to encourage particular individuals to submit their names for the commission. I have no reason to believe that that happened, and I am aware that the Minister cannot speak for the Labour party apparatus. However, I am sure that the House would appreciate such an assurance from the Minister.
  3.9 am
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I shall be brief. I want to deal with the different lengths of the commissioners' appointments. That point was touched on last night. The Minister said that the provision was in response to a recommendation from the appointment panel that two commissioners should be appointed for four years, three for five years, and the chairman for six years. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the thinking behind that. I can understand the desirability of a rolling reappointment system. When I had the privilege of serving on the Local Government Commission and the Health and Safety Commission, there
  1044
  was much advantage in the fact that not all reappointments were made at the same time. Why was an alternative not acceptable? For example, all six could have been appointed for the same period, with a view to some being reappointed for periods thereafter and some being succeeded by fresh appointments. That was the system that operated with the Local Government Commission.
  It is risky for a new body with untried people to have five-year appointments. Appointments for four years have been made to Mrs. Gordon and Sir Neil McIntosh, who may turn out to be the most conscientious and effective members of the body. I fear that they are starting off at a disadvantage and will be regarded as inferior members of the commission. Had the appointments all been for four years, there could have been a reappointment process for which all six would be eligible and the House could have made a judgment on the effectiveness of the different commissioners.
  I have some empathy for the position of Mrs. Gordon, because she is a member of the Local Government Commission for England. She is also the only woman member of the commission. I do not understand why she has been appointed for only four years; the Government owe the House an explanation.
  I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on the need for information about whether the commissioners have been supporters of individual political parties within the last 10 years. I hope that that can be made public, in the interests of transparency. It might be unfortunate if we were to find out that all six commissioners had been active members of the Conservative party until five years ago. If that came out, it would be difficult for some people to think that those concerned were as objective as people who were members of different political parties, or of none.
  We heard in the news this morning that the first of the confirmatory hearings in the United States collapsed before it even started because one of the proposed nominees to President-Elect Bush's cabinet was found to have an illegal immigrant resident in her house. Obviously, that information was not available to the President-Elect—if it had been, he would not have made such a recommendation to his cabinet. The information came out only as a result of the process of inquiry about those people.
  As soon as the news about the identity of the members of the Electoral commission becomes more widely known, it is inevitable that there will be inquiries into their past political leanings. People very rarely change their views, and I can remember when Mr. Greg Dyke, who has already been mentioned in this debate, was the Labour party candidate for the Greater London council elections in Putney in 1977.
  Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise the House whether Mr. Greg Dyke is one of the names on the Order Paper? I thought that we were considering only the six names on the Order Paper. Is that correct, Madam Deputy Speaker?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We are, indeed, considering the names that are listed.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to you for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what I am

  1045
  discussing. I am using Mr. Dyke as an example of how leopards rarely change their spots. People who support a political party normally continue to do so.
  Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a rather stupid point of order, given that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) knows that Mr. Greg Dyke is excluded from being on the commission because of the huge amount of money he gave the Labour party, after which he got made head of the BBC?
  Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend made that point earlier in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you were not in the Chair.
  I hope that the Minister will be as open with the information, as the appointments commission—the recommending body—must have been aware of all the pertinent details about the political leanings of those six people. Although none of them offends against the rules set out in the statute, it is incumbent on the Government to go further and tell the wider public exactly what, if anything, is known about the political leanings of these individuals. In that way, as the Minister said in his opening speech in yesterday's debate, there can be absolute transparency and we can be sure that not only is this an independent commission, but it is seen to be independent.
  3.18 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has been at pains to reassure the House of the integrity of the selection process. In doing so, he referred with glowing pride to the fact that the permanent secretary at the Home Office, no less, had chaired the panel that took part in the selection process. However, I think that we should know somewhat more of the process prior to that.
  The Minister said that some 200 people had responded to advertisements. I would like to know where the advertisements were placed. I suspect that they were all placed in the BBC house magazine, which would go some way to explaining this bizarre outcome, whereby two people out of a panel of six have come from the BBC. I shall return to that issue because the BBC has dominated the debate, and rightly so.
  That gives rise to some real questions about the nature of the process whereby we have ended up with these six names. Where were the advertisements placed? Who did the initial sifting to take the 200 down to the much more limited number that this panel of alleged integrity, chaired by the permanent secretary, considered? What criteria did Ministers lay down to the permanent secretary and his colleagues on the panel as regards the shape and characteristics of the commission and the people being selected?
  Purely in the cause of transparency, we should know how far gender, ethnicity and regional requirements were placed on the selection panel. The fact that we have ended up with one lady member of the commission may be a cause for celebration by the Government, but, as my hon. Friends pointed out, I suspect that many of the babes on the Labour Back Benches may be irked at the fact that, as they never tire of telling us, half of the electorate whose interests are to be safeguarded by the commission are people of gender, whereas only one of them is to be a
  1046
  member of it. That is hardly proper representation. Should the Government feel proud or ashamed of the fact that there is one person of gender in the commission?
  The same argument could be said to apply to ethnicity, although a person of ethnicity is a member—if we can make that assumption from the gentleman's name. Thus the Government may feel satisfied. However, when it comes to regional representation, a completely new set of questions arises. The far-flung fringes of the kingdom are over-represented on the commission. Where is middle England, in which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have some interest, and where is London, in which I have a great interest? The commission is packed with peculiar Scots and weird northerners. There is no one from the solid south or the solid midlands. The body is completely unrepresentative.
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a huge Greek community in London. Is he not disappointed, therefore, that Mr. Haris Sophoclides has been excluded—a prominent Greek business man and property developer, who gave £100,000 to the Labour party?
  Mr. Forth: We could spend much time listing the people who have given huge amounts to the Labour party—although you would rightly not allow it, Madam Deputy Speaker—and who have therefore ruled themselves out of consideration. In fact, it would be interesting to know how many people were ruled out at the early stages of selection on the basis that they had given large sums to the Labour party. I may touch on that subject shortly, although I want to leave the Minister time to reply to the debate and I am conscious of the clock.
  Whether the commission is properly representative is questionable. Given its role in overseeing the electoral process, not to say referendums, one would look for more than a normal degree of representativeness; it fails that test.
  On qualifications and expertise, the Home Office press release that described the commission's responsibilities pointed out that it would
  monitor political parties' compliance with the controls on their income and expenditure
  I should have thought, therefore, that we would want some accountants on the commission who were in possession of current passports, because they would have to travel to such places as Bermuda to establish whether money had flowed through that country to the Government and the Labour party before they had cleared it in terms of requirements here.
  The press release also stated that one of the commission's other jobs was to
  promote public awareness of electoral systems.
  That is what worries me. One would have thought that the promotion of public awareness would have led one to look for people with media expertise and experience, so that that could be done evenhandedly. I should have thought that one would have looked for people from the media who could be relied on to be unbiased and impartial and to inform the public in that sort of way. Instead, we have two people from the BBC. Straight away we see a complete lack of qualifications to fulfil that important responsibility of the commission. No one is going to tell me that appointing two BBC people out of a total

  1047
  membership of six will reassure anyone that the commission will have an unbiased view of electoral systems—one of its responsibilities.
  Another important matter—again, taken from the Home Office press release—is that the commission will apparently comment on the intelligibility of a referendum question. That leads me to suggest that the commission's members should have an acute awareness of the role of referendums in our political process and the vital fact that the nature of the question asked in a referendum can undoubtedly often affect its outcome. Against that background, the fact that two of the commission's members have experience of criminal matters—one from the Criminal Cases Review Commission and another as an academic lawyer—may be reassuring in tracking down people who illegally give money to the Labour party, but it gives me no confidence that they are qualified to judge referendum questions.
  Where are those with the qualifications to make such judgments? The press release refers to the director-general of the British Red Cross Society, who is no doubt excellent, and to the chief executive of Sheffield city council—I do not know how many referendums it has run recently—and the convenor of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, but I look in vain for a hint of someone with the qualifications to judge the intelligibility of a referendum question.
  The press release tells me that one of the BBC chaps—this Mathias gentleman—was recently public affairs manager at BBC Wales. I do not know whether that qualifies him, because the referendum in Wales was a complete flop and a failure. There was a pathetic turnout and a very narrow result. The Assembly was foisted on the people of Wales as a result of a completely failed referendum. That gives me no confidence that such a background will qualify that gentleman to deal with the intelligibility of a referendum question.
  All in all, I regret to say that I look in vain at that list of no doubt excellent people for any qualifications relevant to the matter in hand, whether we are talking about balance, impartiality or representativeness. Wherever I look, I fail to find evidence that those no doubt excellent people qualify. The Government should therefore reconsider the matter. We gave them the chance to do so last night. I regret to say that there was so little interest in the House when the matter was put to the test that the Government could not even muster 19 Members; out of 46 Liberal Democrats, two were here—to give them their due—but only 17 out of 417 Labour Members voted.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. Forth: I shall sit down in a moment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend before I do so.
  Mr. Howarth: I understand that the two Liberal Democrats who went into the Lobby with the Government did so because a Government Whip told them that, unless they did so, they could not hold the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you rule on the relevance to the motion of the number of Members participating in Divisions last night?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is purely a factual matter, which is well reported in Hansard.
  Mr. Forth: It is also why we are here tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am not at all satisfied with the list of people, but the Minister now has a chance to satisfy me. I shall sit down now so that he can reply to the debate, but he will have to work pretty hard to satisfy me that the list of people is suitable for the very important responsibilities that we have given the Electoral Commission.
  3.29 am
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that I will not have to work hard, because I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) holds in high regard the views of the leader of his party, who endorsed the names of the members of the commission on 2 November. Unless he entirely ignores the views of his party leader, he will spare me the job of working quite so hard to convince him.
  We have had a useful debate, informed by some interesting contributions. Last night, we heard an outstanding and erudite speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), who enlightened us not only on how the commissioners would operate here, but contrasted our system with his knowledge of Canadian circumstances. We all—found that very helpful.
  I take comfort from the fact that the proposed nominees for appointment as electoral commissioners have broadly the support of both sides of the House, with only one or two voices of dissent. However, there has been no indication that anyone is likely to oppose the nominations in the vote. It is it important that the commissioners, both individually and collectively, command the confidence of all the main political parties. Despite the huff, puff and general blather from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) today and yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition supports the nominees and I am grateful for the indications of support that have come from him as the leader of the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats have also signalled their support for the nominees.
  Several Members raised pertinent points and I shall endeavour to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made great play of events shortly before the Christmas recess. As he is aware, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated his regret to the Speaker for the premature release of a Home Office press notice announcing the names of the electoral commissioners-designate. No discourtesy to the House was intended. Indeed, the press notice made it clear that the appointments were entirely subject to debate and approval by the House.

  1049
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Speaker's Committee that will liaise and oversee the commissioners. It was established by section 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and it will provide the appropriate mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Electoral Commission. In particular, the Speaker's Committee will be responsible for approving the commission's annual budget and five-year corporate plan.
  The appointment of five of the nine members of the Committee is a matter entirely for the Speaker. He will no doubt make an announcement about this in due course. The other members are the Speaker himself, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), in his capacity as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and a Minister responsible for local government who will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The latter appointment will be made shortly. It will be a matter for the Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee, to convene its first meeting. I understand that this is likely to be some time in February to enable the Committee to consider the Electoral Commission's draft budget for the next financial year.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the timing of the disclosure of donations to political parties. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires political parties to report donations worth more than £5,000 to the Electoral Commission on a quarterly basis. Part IV of the Act will come into force on 16 February, so the first reporting cycle will cover donations received and accepted between that date and 31 March inclusive. Parties then have 30 days to submit their donation reports to the commission.
  Mr. Paul TylerWill the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the points raised in the limited time that I have left. If I have some time left later, I will give way to him.
  Parties will have 30 days to submit their donation reports to the commission, so we can expect the publication of the first donation reports on, or shortly after, 30 April. In addition to the quarterly reporting cycle, parties will also have to report donations on a weekly basis during a general election period. That will ensure that information about donations is in the public domain before people cast their votes on polling day. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
  Mr. Hawkins: Which civil servant came up with that phrase?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks where that comment comes from. If he had read it, he would have seen that it appears in the Home Affairs Select Committee report that was the start of the process of considering the way in which parties are overseen. That was well before the Neill report appeared. Indeed, that comment was made by a former Chairman of the Committee, Sir Ivan Lawrence.
  1050
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wanted the commissioners to consider a cap on donations, but I remind him that such a proposition was rejected by the Neill committee, and by this House and another place during the passage of the Bill. That does not preclude the Electoral Commission from revisiting the issue at some stage. When it does so will be a matter for the commission.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) reminded us of the provisions of section 3(4) of the Act which debars certain persons from being appointed as members of the Electoral Commission by virtue of past party political activity. He pointed out that while an electoral commissioner could not be a current member of a political party, past membership was no bar to appointment. That subsection was debated at some length during the passage of the Bill. Suffice it to say that in enacting that provision in its current form Parliament has decided that previous membership of a political party is not sufficient on its own to rule someone out of contention. To impose a 10-year bar on party membership would run the risk of excluding from consideration a great number of otherwise qualified candidates.
  The appropriate test for the Neill committee, which we have adopted, is that the members of the commission should not
  be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics.
  That accords with paragraph 11.8 of the Neill committee report. The individuals named in the motion pass that test. The time to impose a stronger test, if the hon. Gentleman wanted one, was during the Bill's passage. However, I seem to recall that there was a great deal of debate about that, and at least some Opposition Members expressed concern at the time that we should not exclude people who have taken part in political activity from the commission, rather than saying that they should be excluded because of their party political membership.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked about people who had in the past had a party political affiliation. He suggested that once one is a member of a party, one tends to remain in that party. Well, I remind him that three Members rejected the right-wing lurch of the Conservative party and joined Labour on these Benches.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked how the number of candidates was whittled down in the selection process and whether Sir David Omand was involved in that. A standard process was used for the selection panel, with assistance from PricewaterhouseCoopers. In the first sift, the candidates were divided into three bands according to their suitability. The first banding was reviewed by all members of the panel, which then collectively decided which candidates ought to be invited for an interview. The Home Secretary was informed of the shortlist but played no part in drawing it up. Nor did he suggest which candidates should be finally selected. As far as I am aware, there was no political involvement in that process.
  The hon. Member for Aldershot also asked why there is no Northern Ireland commission. The Electoral Commission is a collective decision-making body with a UK-wide remit, so there is no question of having separate commissioners—

  1051
  It being one and a half after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
  Question put:—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 10 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  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 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 48. at the end insert the words:—
  '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That—
  the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
  this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and
  the following Standing Order be made:
  1052

  (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

  (2) The Committee shall consider—

  (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

  (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

  (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

  (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

  (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

  (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

  (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

  (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

  (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

  (c) that the order should not be approved,

  and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

  (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

  (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

  (7) The committee small have power—

  (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

  (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Toukg.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Motion made,
  That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Flooding (Selby)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  3.40 am
  Mr. John Grogan: Four rivers flow through the constituency of Selby. For the most part, they are an asset to be enjoyed for leisure and recreation—places of quiet pleasure. In parts, they are still very much working rivers, but, during October and November 2000, the threat of flooding that they posed at times seemed to reach biblical proportions. The River Derwent rose to the highest level ever recorded. The River Aire rose to levels higher than those of 1946. The River Wharfe outflanked defences at Tadcaster and, at its peak, the level of the River Ouse was higher than recorded in 1625. As defences were over-topped in Selby and Barlby, 300 properties were flooded. In Tadcaster, 30 were flooded.
  Local drainage problems caused flooding in a further 60 properties in Selby town and more than 200 other properties were affected in Bishopthorpe, Fulford, Elvington, Brotherton, Ryther, South Milford, Bolton Percy and many other villages besides. More than half the 88 villages in the constituency were directly affected by flooding or loss of electricity. Virtually all were affected by loss of road and rail links.
  The night-time images of Chinook helicopters carrying heavy loads of sandbags taking off from a car park in Selby so that soldiers could toil away until dawn to reinforce the banks at Barlby will live not just in the local, but in the national consciousness for a long while. At one stage, the river was 1 ft above the defences at Barlby, but the sandbags held. If they had been breached, 7,500 properties in Barlby and Selby would have been flooded. I do not doubt that many people would have lost their lives. Many businesses would never have re-emerged intact after the deluge.
  Many flood victims in the area endured a miserable Christmas, but we still have much to be grateful for: the local council, the Environment Agency, the police, the Army, the drainage boards, as well as all the volunteers who offered shelter and food and filled sandbags. Things could have been so much worse. Their fortitude, endurance, Yorkshire grit and determination not to be beaten by the elements were summed up by the British Waterways staff I met at Selby lock. Fred Firth and Terry Downes, the lock keepers, and their supervisor, Martin Walter, worked 36-hour shifts in a desperate effort to keep the pumps working. Like many heroes and heroines of the Selby floods, they were very self-effacing, but their actions spoke for themselves.
  Lessons have already been learned. Together with the agencies involved, I hosted a full day of hearings in Selby town hall in December and representatives of more than 20 communities attended. The need to improve communications between local communities and the central Silver command was often stressed as a priority. In villages such as Cawood, Kelfield and Kellington, massive voluntary efforts to keep the rivers at bay were co-ordinated by the local parish councils. North Yorkshire county council has agreed to examine how its emergency plans and procedures can take greater account of that grassroots element of our democracy.
  1054
  In the aftermath of the floods, many of the communities most affected became politicised and formed action groups. Ros Amor, John Amor and Sharon Egan have provided outstanding leadership to the Barlby residents action group, which is a model of its kind. The local community is also grateful to major employers such as Hazelwood's and BOCM for sticking with the area. Many businesses such as RJB Mining worked tirelessly and closely with Yorkshire Electricity to restore the area's power, which was lost for some days.
  A crisis of any kind brings with it difficult choices. It changes perceptions of what had seemed ordinary problems so that suddenly they seem overwhelming. It is essential at such times to remain calm and measured, but to act decisively. I shall discuss briefly a number of such problems—the funding of flood defences, the bills that floods leave behind them, the impact of mining in Selby, the problems of subsidence, particularly for agriculture, and insurance issues.
  This Thursday morning, the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee meets at York racecourse. The proposal before it is to increase the levy on local authorities by 63 per cent. That would mean a local authority contribution of almost £27 million in the next financial year, compared to about £17 million in the current financial year. For North Yorkshire the increase would be from £2.3 million to £3.7 million. That is £1.4 million out of a total budget for North Yorkshire of more than £400 million. Contrary to some local speculation, we are speaking of a 63 per cent. increase in the levy on the councils, not on the council tax itself.
  The prize is significant—an enhanced programme of capital works on improved flood defences would follow the completion of a survey of all the major rivers in the county, which will be finished in April this year. Catchment strategy studies are focusing not only on providing flood barriers in towns and villages downstream, such as in Selby and Barlby, but on improving the retention of water in the drainage systems in the hills.
  The new capital programme next year would be £23 million under this budget, instead of the originally planned £15 million. Selby and Barlby could look forward to a £1.5 million enhancement of their defences in the next financial year, in addition to the emergency repair works, costing £250,000, which commenced this week.
  The prize is so important that it is essential that it not be threatened by a funding dispute between local and central Government. Last Friday, the west midlands flood defence committee put on hold for one year a budget that would have meant a levy increase of about 10 per cent. Many important flood defence schemes in areas such as Shrewsbury, Cheltenham and Melton Mowbray are now in doubt. I very much hope that the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee does not adopt a similar strategy.
  The funding of flood defences must he a partnership between local and national Government. The paper to be presented to the regional flood defence committee on Thursday states that the profile of asset condition—that is, the flood defences—in the Yorkshire region is not acceptable. The assets in the region are in much worse condition than anywhere else in the country.
  In Yorkshire, only 15 per cent. of flood defences are in good or very good condition, compared with more than 80 per cent. in Lancashire and the north-west. It will take

  1055
  at least five years to bring our flood defences in the region back up to the national average. Our flood defences have been neglected over recent decades. In some years, council representatives on the flood defence committee decided not to increase the levy in line with the increase in the standard spending assessment floods element granted by central Government.
  A Leeds city councillor, Liz Nash, who was on the flood defence committee until last May, was recently reported in the Yorkshire Evening Post as saying:
  Some local councils want to top skim this money to spend on other priorities. Councils have been strapped for cash for years and the temptation to use this money, which should be passed on for flood prevention, is very great."
  She continued:
  It gives me no satisfaction to say that until I left that committee in May I always argued for the full amount to be passed on, particularly bearing in mind the flooding Leeds suffers.
  That did not happen and it was a gamble which representatives from other councils played and which did not come off.
  As a result, there is now a bill to pay. Central Government cannot be expected to pick up the whole tab. On that basis, there would be little point in a Yorkshire regional flood defence committee. Local discretion must bring with it some local responsibility. Equally, central Government should meet their commitment to pick up the bill for all the emergency costs associated with the recent flooding, as Professor Roy Ward, chairman of the regional flood defence committee, requested.
  I understand that a bid has been submitted to Government by the Environment Agency for additional emergency funding to cover the emergency response and urgent repair works in the wake of the floods. It is essential that the Government respond quickly to that request. That accounts for some of the 63 per cent. increase to be asked of local councils on Thursday in Yorkshire, but at least half the increase is for increased capital expenditure on flood defences. That will be funded at the increased rate of 65 per cent. by central Government.
  Moreover, if the local authority levy is increased this year, there is every expectation that it will be matched by an increase in the standard spending assessment for flood defences next year. That is essentially a cash flow problem for local councils. It is essential that, on Thursday, the Yorkshire flood defence committee should accept in full the proposed capital programme. Both local and central Government then have a responsibility to reach a partnership agreement on the funding.
  Barlby county primary school is one of four in the county which are part of a private finance initiative bid to build new schools. The final contracts with the developer, Accord, were due to be signed just as the rains started. The school's new site was badly flooded. Showing considerable alacrity, the county council and the developer, Accord, have now submitted a new scheme with Barlby school, set to be rebuilt on its existing site and on an adjacent piece of land. That has changed the financing package somewhat. Later today, I shall meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith),
  1056
  to seek her approval for the new package. The futures of four schools in Yorkshire, not just the one in Barlby, depend on the agreement.
  Since the floods, there have been campaigns in two villages to stop the prospect of mining under the villages because of fears of subsidence increasing the flood risk. I have held discussions regarding Naburn village with RJB Mining and I expect an announcement on its precise plans later this month.
  As regards Kelfield, it is clear that during the next three years RJB Mining will mine under the village. The local Conservative party, emboldened by a visit from Edward McMillan-Scott, leader of the Conservative party in the European Parliament, has jumped on that bandwagon and shown its support, through Mr. McMillan-Scott, for revoking planning permission for RJB Mining to mine under Kelfield. Quite how it intends to bring that about has not been made clear. But there are dangers in jumping on bandwagons. If RJB Mining does not mine under Kelfield, there will be no further coal to mine from Wistow mine. If Wistow shuts, the whole Selby complex will close within weeks, such are the huge fixed costs of operating Gascoigne Wood, where all the coal comes to the surface. More than 3,000 jobs and many jobs in the Selby area dependent on mining would be lost within weeks.
  Moreover, there is no need for the people of Kelfield to panic. The village can be perfectly adequately defended by improved flood defences. One need only consider the nearby villages of Escrick and Stillingfleet, both of which have been extensively mined under in recent years. Without the pumps and flood banks paid for by the National Coal Board, both those villages would have been flooded last November.
  RJB Mining has a legal responsibility to pay for flood defences at Kelfield. The Environment Agency needs to adopt a robust attitude with RJB Mining to ensure that it lives up to its responsibilities. The two bodies need to co-ordinate their plans, and I intend to make sure that they do so. In the old days, the National Rivers Authority and the National Coal Board both regarded themselves as public sector bodies, working for the public good. Now, RJB Mining, as a private company, quite properly has responsibilities to its shareholders and an eye for the bottom line. But if anything, that enhances the Environment Agency's role as an agency solely concerned with the public interest.
  To give one brief example, many farms and roads in the area were flooded between Deighton and Naburn, which has been extensively mined, with subsidence of about 1 m. The flooding was caused by water backing up in Wood dyke, in the area which had been lowered. Last year, a £750,000 scheme was drawn up by the Environment Agency for an earth embankment and a pump to be placed adjacent to the dyke where it enters the river alongside the B1222. That would have prevented flooding of properties such as Park farm at Deighton, which suffered more than £20,000-worth of damage, and Moreby lodge, near Naburn. For some reason, the scheme was never implemented. There is a suspicion locally that sometimes the Environment Agency can be a bit of a soft touch in dealing with RJB Mining. It needs to show by its actions in the coming months that that is far from true.

  1057
  Equally, the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991, as it pertains to flooding, may need to be tested in a Lands Tribunal. There is little doubt that the aforementioned Park farm at Deighton, run by Mr. and Mrs. Whitely, would not have flooded prior to mining. Yet whether flood damage caused as a direct result of subsidence falls under the terms of the 1991 Act remains ambiguous.
  That brings me finally to the wider problems of farmers and householders who have suffered as a result of the floods. One national newspaper described the flood waters around Selby at one point as being larger than Lake Windermere. Clearly, in such circumstances, Selby's farming community has suffered great losses. In some cases, people have been dealing with uninsurable losses.
  The local secretary of the National Farmers Union wrote to me after the floods with details of some of the problems faced by farmers. Jimmy Lund was one of the first local farmers to suffer, and one of the most seriously affected. He had to evacuate all his stock, produce and family from his 100-acre farm, which was under water for nearly a month. Another farmer, Ces Elcock, at one time had only about 10 per cent. of his 300-odd acres that was not flooded. The worst of the losses that he suffered was of some 40 acres of sugar beet.
  I know that local farmers appreciate the changes that have been made to arable area payments for flooded land. The derogation that my hon. Friend the Minister has managed to negotiate with Europe is very helpful, and local farmers and the NFU are looking forward to the results of further applications that have been made to Europe for modifications to the scheme.
  I think that some local farmers will, choose to try and plant crops in the spring, rather than opt for set-aside, for which I understand that they would not receive payments until August 2002. However, anything that can be done to assist farmers, some of whose businesses have been devastated, would be most welcome.
  Equally, householders in the Barlby residents action group are carefully monitoring problems of reinsurance. Many people are dreading a possible hike in their premiums when their policies fall due for renewal. Next week, I am to meet the Association of British Insurers with the action group.
  Above all, we must create a sense of confidence and renewed hope for the future in the area. The problems of reinsurance will be mitigated considerably if the Yorkshire floods defence committee backs the enhanced capital programme at its meeting on Thursday.
  In summary, our response to the great floods of Selby in the year 2000 must retain a sense of balance and proportion. We must balance the responsibilities of local government and central Government, and also the need to extract the rich resource of coal from under our area with the need to protect our farms and villages for future generations. Those people will live their lives when both coal and the floods of 2000 will be a distant memory in Selby.
  3.57 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his knowledgeable and very comprehensive speech, in which he described the dreadful
  1058
  tragedy faced by many of his constituents. I also want to pay a personal tribute to his commitment: I visited Selby a number of times when the floods were at their peak, and my hon. Friend was in the Silver control centre there on my every visit.
  I know, too, that my hon. Friend spent many hours talking to local emergency services, the Environment Agency, British Waterways and the Army. All those organisations did a great job in the area, and often worked around the clock to try to strengthen the defences around Selby. There is no doubt that, without that work, those defences would have given way in places, and many more houses would have been affected. I also express my sympathy for all my hon. Friend's constituents who have been affected.
  As my hon. Friend noted, the situation with the floods was an extreme. In some places, they were the worst for hundreds of years, and in others they were the worst on record. The huge effort that was made meant that the flood defences in the Selby area held back the water beyond their designed capacity. I am glad that that work was successful. As a matter of interest, one of the Army regiments that I met at the control centre in Selby was the Royal Artillery Regiment from Kirton-in-Lindsey in my constituency. I was very pleased to see those soldiers there, and to witness the sterling work that they had done.
  I was also very interested in my hon. Friend's comments about holding a full day of hearings for local people. That is a good idea. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is anxious that we do not forget about the people who have been affected in flood-hit areas, although the floods are no longer in the national media. Consequently, he has set up a Cabinet taskforce group, which he has asked me to chair. We have considered a range of issues, including all those that my hon. Friend raised in the debate.
  We have been considering examples of good practice in flood-hit areas and the way in which people have learned some of the lessons of the floods. We can thus try to improve the support that people get and ascertain what might need to be done to strengthen defences, construct new defences or improve reaction times or organisation.
  I understand my hon. Friend's support for local companies. I spoke to the managing director of Hazelwood Foods, which was badly affected. We have done what we can, especially through the Government office in the area, to provide support to local companies and local industry.
  My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the cost of flood defences. That is an important consideration. The Government have announced that we are making an additional £51 million available for new flood defences on top of what was already a rising spend on providing flood defences nationally.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the exceptional costs that the Environment Agency has incurred and the enormous damage that has been done to existing defences throughout the country, especially in Yorkshire. As he rightly stated, approximately £250,000 has already been spent in the Selby area on essential repairs to the flood defences. He was right to say that we have been discussing those costs with the Environment Agency. We are currently evaluating the bid that has been made in relation to the costs and discussing it in Government.

  1059
  My hon. Friend knows that the Government have improved and enhanced the Bellwin scheme, which deals with the exceptional costs that local authorities incur in the aftermath of floods: the clean-up costs, the cost of overtime and of equipment that may have to be brought in. Those extra costs may run into many millions of pounds. However, from a central Government perspective, we accept that we have responsibilities. We will not duck our responsibility for supporting local councils and, through them, local people.
  As my hon. Friend said, however, regional flood defence committees must play their part in raising the finances for flood defences. I strongly support the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee on the levy that it has requested to improve flood defences in the area. Regional flood defence committees have not always increased the levy in line with the standard spending assessment, which central Government provide. For the past three years, the SSA has been above inflation. My hon. Friend is right to say that levy increases are not the same as a council tax increase. Sometimes the levy increases sound high, but the levy might be a small sum that is being raised locally.
  I also confirm that any increase in levy will be accompanied by an increase in the SSA the following year. As my hon. Friend knows, local people should remember that the more money raised through the levy, the more schemes can be financed and the more capital grant will go from central Government to Selby and Yorkshire to uprate flood defences.
  I understand my hon. Friend's point about school funding. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment will consider it sympathetically. I also understand his point about mining, and I strongly agree with his comments about the unfortunate example of yet another bandwagon that the Conservative party seems to have jumped on. This time it is an underground bandwagon. However, I hope that the people of Selby will bear it in mind that, for the sake of a few populist comments, the Conservative party seems to be putting 3,000 jobs at risk in my hon. Friend's constituency. That would also affect all the associated industries.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that defences could be designed to deal effectively with subsidence. Subsidence does not necessarily mean that communities will be put at risk. He was also right to say that companies such as RJB Mining have responsibilities, in terms of the financial commitments that they must make in connection with dealing with subsidence, and the fact that defences may have to be improved.
  1060
  I understand my hon. Friend's point about the Environment Agency. I am sure that the agency takes this seriously, but, although it is responsible for ensuring that RJB Mining delivers on its legal and financial commitments, I will raise the issue with it in order to satisfy myself that it is being dealt with satisfactorily.
  My hon. Friend mentioned farming. As he said, I have already announced flexibility on set-aside, which will give some support to farmers in his area. Other regulations on subsidies are called into question; difficulties are involved in cropping, and in getting machinery on to waterlogged ground. We are talking to the European Commission about that, and seeking flexibility in the application of the regulations to give maximum support to farmers in flood-hit areas. The National Farmers Union has presented my right hon. Friend the Minister with a dossier on flood damage, which is currently being examined.
  Selby was one of the areas worst affected by the floods. It was given national prominence at the time, and was visited by a number of Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He went to observe the actions of the military, who are doing a great job. I went there, too, given my responsibility for flood defence, and I understand that members of the royal family went to express their sympathy.
  What we must do now is consider the aftermath. We must think about what needs to be done about defences. We must take seriously my hon. Friend's point about the condition of many of those defences, and the fact that money may well have to be spent to bring them to a satisfactory standard.
  The Government accept that more expenditure will be required. We will make extra resources available, but this must be a partnership effort, involving the regional flood defence committees. Part of the money will be raised locally for the benefit of local people, as has always been the case, but we will provide aid through capital grants. We will also increase the grant for river flood defence systems by 20 per cent., which will help my hon. Friend's constituents.
  I shall continue to take a close interest in all issues involved in the aftermath of the floods, including issues of insurance. If my hon. Friend is worried about insurance companies, or suspects that there are failings in the way in which his constituents are dealt with—now and in the future—when it comes to reinsurance, I shall be only too pleased to hear about it. I know that he will be meeting the Association of British Insurers. I have already had a meeting with its chief executive, but I should be delighted to take up any further issues relating to my hon. Friend's constituents, and if the Government can give any further assistance I would ask those concerned to write in—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nine minutes past Four o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Government Youth Policy
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.30 am
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin this particularly important debate by thanking Save the Children and its UK advocacy officer, Rebecca Hickman, for helping with policy detail and the drafting of this speech.
The debate is important because the young people of this country are our future, and we need to reflect on our policies in respect of the many challenges that they face. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on his recent appointment as Minister for Young People? Given his enthusiasm for a number of Home Office matters relating to my constituency, I am sure that he will prove a keen advocate of young people and the co-ordination of Government policies.
The problems and challenges that confront young people today constitute a chilling and compelling list. As we sit in this beautiful building, we must remember that the statistics that I shall read out this morning relate to real people who live in real communities, some of which are not very far from here. Each year, one in 16 young people leave school with no qualifications, and one in five have special educational needs. Some 30,000 children in year 11 truant for days or weeks at a time; in England alone, about 60,000 truant at least once a week. Although the numbers are declining, exclusions from school remain significant. It is estimated that 100,000 to 130,000 young people are given fixed-term exclusions each year. One in five 16 to 24-year-olds experience homelessness at some time and at least three quarters of the 11,500 15 to 21-year-olds who are in custody will be re-convicted within two years.
It is important to understand the links between the various problems, and the chain reaction that often occurs in young people's lives. Seventy-five per cent. of males aged 16 to 17 who are charged with a crime and appear before a youth court are not engaged in formal full-time work or training. One in two prisoners aged under 18 were looked after children. One study found that 40 per cent. of homeless young women have experienced sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence. Nearly half of all school-age offenders have been excluded from school.
Each year, 8,000 girls aged 16 or under become pregnant. As a male hon. Member, let me point out that teenage pregnancy is the responsibility not just of girls, but of young males. In discussing what should be done, the matter should be treated not just as a girl problem, but as one that affects society as a whole. Both girls and boys have a responsibility in respect of their relationships. As I have said, we are discussing real people with real problems.
156WH
How will the responses to these challenges be coordinated? How can we meet those challenges and monitor the progress of our policies? In our youth policy, we should discuss not only the important challenges that confront us in dealing with disaffected young people, but youth poverty and social exclusion. We face the challenge of ensuring that all children everywhere have the opportunities, facilities and life chances that they deserve. Of course, available resources must be targeted: nobody would suggest that we should not provide additional resources and help for our most deprived communities. However, all children have a right to benefit from Government resources, facilities and policies, so we must ensure that their needs are adequately resourced.
Later in my speech, I shall give examples from my constituency of problems that young people confront every day. People who try to provide youth services and facilities also confront those problems while attempting to meet the needs of youth. My examples concern matter of fact, bread and butter issues, but, in considering their own constituencies, hon. Members will realise that such issues have a significant impact on provision, support and help for young people.
Another important issue concerns the distribution of funding across local council and local authority boundaries. Among the many tasks that hon. Members and I shall debate, the co-ordination of funding policy is especially important. For example, my constituency is adjacent to Nottingham city centre, but it is not covered by Nottingham city council. Although my constituency is one mile from the city centre, it is excluded from funding streams that would be available were it 200 yd down the road. Young people in my constituency need additional resources and we must ensure that funding streams recognise that young people's needs may cross local authority boundaries.
One night a week, more than 100 young people attend Carlton Pentecostal youth club, which is an excellent example of voluntary faith provision. Pastor Darrell Holt does a fantastic job with those young people, but he struggles to raise money to fund trips, to obtain specialist help or to purchase new equipment such as badminton nets or basketballs. That is an issue that we must examine. The Arnold Forum has been trying for more than a year to obtain funding for a drop-in centre for young people. It cannot hire premises because it cannot raise a few pounds. The willingness, voluntary help and young people's need are there, yet we cannot put together a funding package to provide a drop-in centre.
We must consider the provision and availability of youth clubs to ensure that our young people have access to such facilities. There is a huge number of youth sports teams, and I pay tribute to the people who organise them both in my constituency and beyond. However, such teams often find it difficult to obtain adequate facilities. That point was brought home to me yesterday morning, when I visited sixth formers at the Wheldon school in Carlton, who said that facilities for young people were often poor. How can we ensure that such problems do not occur and that young people's activities are sufficiently funded so that they are not forced to abandon them for want of a few pounds?

157WH
The Government are introducing a huge range of initiatives to meet the challenges involved in doing our best to meet young people's needs—for example, sure start, Connexions, youth offending teams, drug action teams, increasing support for voluntary and statutory provision and ensuring that lottery bodies recognise the needs of youth. But who will co-ordinate those policies to ensure that they provide the most effective, coherent, complementary and co-ordinated package for the benefit of all our children and young people?
One of the Government's key new initiatives is the establishment of the children and young people's unit. The Government are often accused of being insufficiently radical, but that should be seen as a radical move. I welcome it and the creation of the children's fund to support such initiatives.
I have some specific questions about the children and young people's unit. Save the Children and other organisations welcomed the unit as an opportunity for the Government to take a more creative and energetic approach towards their work with children and young people. Specifically, it should take the lead in bringing about a cultural shift in local and national Government, involving children and young people in decision making and in playing a key role in coordinating policies.
Does the unit's remit extend to all children and young people or focus only on the socially excluded or vulnerable? If it deals only with the socially excluded, who is responsible for co-ordinating policies to ensure that there is a coherent overall package for all children? What age range does the unit cover?
The children and young people's unit will explore ways of increasing the involvement of children and young people in decision making. One option that the Minister is considering is an advisory group of young people to meet directly with him to talk about policy, which is a tremendous step forward. Beyond that, however, there should be a new culture across Government to provide clear mechanisms for consulting children and young people. The principle of consultation with and participation by young people should be followed not only by the Minister responsible for youth, but by all Ministers in all Departments across Whitehall. That culture should be made real by an overarching strategy that is about not only words, but the delivery of policies. What methods is the children and young people's unit considering for consulting children and young people, and how will it ensure that the process is co-ordinated across all Departments, including the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
The Government's children's strategy should ensure that all Departments consider the impact of new policies on children and young people and a children's commissioner for England should be created. Save the Children is one of a number of organisations that believe that a children's commissioner would be beneficial as an independent watchdog, arbiter and champion of children's rights, operating regardless of changes in political administration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is promoting a private Member's Bill to appoint a children's commissioner for England and I
158WH
hope that the Government will support it. Perhaps the Minister will explain the Government's policy on a children's commissioner for England when that important reform has been made in Wales. We need mechanisms to ensure that the children's strategy is part of joined-up government and covers all policies and practices affecting children.
Before concluding, I want to refer to citizenship and partnership. We have had fantastic reports on social exclusion and we need more of them, but it is important that the Government talk to young people about their problems. That is a challenge for all of us. When I am bombarded with suggestions from children in schools and sixth forms, I often find myself saying, "It's not as easy as that," and, when asked why, "You don't understand how complex such matters are." I find myself meandering and almost dismissing their opinions instead of saying, "You are making a good point, which we must consider." Hon. Members expect any points they make to be treated with respect and young people deserve more than being told, "It's not as easy as you think."
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that personal advisers have a key role under the Connexions initiative that we have launched? It behoves us all to encourage the appointment of young person's advisers or there will be no dialogue between young people and adults.
Mr. Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend. He drew attention to the key role of young person's advisers in the Connexions service, the success of which will depend not only on the number of personal advisers, but their quality.
We must talk to young people who are excluded from school about how we can improve our policies. We must talk to young asylum seekers about the impact of Government policies on them. We should discuss our policies with all young people and I am pleased that experiments are taking place in many areas to expand consultation. Nottinghamshire county council has a two-year plan to set up seven district youth forums with one county youth assembly. It is an impressive programme and I am sure that other local authorities will do the same.
Elaine Bagshaw of Nottingham youth council sent me an e-mail with a list of items that the council had discussed and which she thought were important. There is a desire that young people should become involved in our policies, so what powers and responsibilities does the Minister believe that those bodies should have? If youth assemblies and youth councils do not have real power, they will not be considered to be as important a part of the process as they need to be.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the United Kingdom Youth Parliament will be an important element in the dialogue that he describes, and would he welcome the Minister's willingness to participate in that? Does he welcome the money—£200,000, I think—announced by the Department for Education and Employment to make that Parliament a reality in a few weeks' time?
Mr. Coaker: The £200,000 announced yesterday for the UK Youth Parliament is welcome and another example of an exciting Government initiative. I believe that this morning's debate should be about how we can improve policy initiatives and ensure that they are all brought together.
On consultation, citizenship and participation, I feel strongly that we should consider whether young people should have the vote at 16. We give young people the right to choose their sexuality at 16. They can get married with parental permission, join the armed forces, smoke, play the national lottery and do a range of different things. We need to debate extending the suffrage to 16-year-olds. If they are mature enough to determine their sexuality, they are mature enough to determine how to vote.
People may say that 16-year-olds do not know enough about the political system and do not understand what the different parties stand for, but that is a challenge for us all, not a reason to refuse them the suffrage. We should help our young people to understand what we offer them. We have enough trouble trying to persuade older people that we are worth voting for, but trying to persuade 16-year-olds that we deserve their votes would be an exciting challenge for us all. My local paper, the Nottingham Evening Post, said that extending the suffrage might increase the turnout of voters. We should certainly debate that, along with all the other issues.
When I read policy action report No. 12 from the social exclusion unit, I was slightly concerned. It compared the UK with other European countries, and I think that only our country and Denmark had no ticks in any of the various boxes for a co-ordinated youth policy, a Minister for Young People, a parliamentary committee and so on. The Government have taken a considerable number of steps to address many of those issues. We now have a Minister for Young People, although my view is that he should be a stand-alone Minister, with his own Department, but that can be debated.
This is a fundamental debate, because young people are our country's future and their opinions deserve to be heard on the policies that are supposed to be for their benefit. If we listened to what young people had to say and took on board their comments, we could improve those policies. As many people know, I believe that we should be hard on young people who cause problems in our communities, but not all our young people are delinquents. A small minority cause problems and we need to deal with them, but it is also incumbent on us to reflect on our policies for young people to ensure that they are better co-ordinated, that we have better government and that we deliver better results for young people in all our communities.
9.53 am
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on securing it. Talking about issues relating to young people is an auspicious start to the new year, but we should discuss those issues every day, every week and every month. I share my hon. Friend's interest in the development of a Ministry for children to ensure that
160WH
their issues receive the proper scrutiny and attention that they deserve. If a fraction of the time wasted on the dome and other matters had been spent talking about children's issues, we could speak more positively about our society. I shall be extremely brief because I know that several hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
The Government came to office facing a great mess in respect of children's services and youth policy. Frankly, some of the achievements over the past three and a half years have been superb. It would take all day to go through them, but the most obvious are the new deal, the promise of Connexions, the principles of restorative justice, the magnificent work done for children in care, equalising the age of consent and improving educational standards. Those are truly superb achievements, which promise much for the future. Greatest of all is the inspirational aim of ending child poverty, and everything that we discuss about children should be approached in that context.
There remains a long way to go, not just in the coordination, but in the consistency of Government policy. We must stop the remand of young people to adult prisons. We must ensure that restorative justice is properly funded so that we can reduce the number of young people in custody. Frankly, the Government's willingness to maintain a parent's defence of reasonable chastisement seems entirely inappropriate, wrong and out of kilter with everything else that they are trying to achieve. It is also inappropriate to maintain reservations about the UN convention on children's rights, asylum and immigration issues, which has knock-on effects for unaccompanied asylum seekers.
Children are the most powerless people in society. They have no vote-a debate on the voting age would be useful-no voice and a particular vulnerability. Children are extremely vulnerable to abuse, to having their views set aside or ignored and to being entirely overlooked.
Mr. Öpik: I agree with the implications of what the hon. Gentleman said—that the voting age should be reduced to 16. What is his view of the fact that the minimum wage is differential, so that young people have a lower minimum wage than older people? I have always believed that that inequality is difficult to justify.
Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to spend too much time on that. I was not making the case for reducing the voting age to 16, although a debate on the subject would be useful. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raised is important to young people and it should be properly debated with, by and for them.
The Government's aspirations are inconsistent with what is happening on the ground. I shall return to my constituency on Thursday, when Lancashire county council will debate the closure of an important resource for young people at Fylde community centre, in the wake of a decision to withdraw from involvement with another important resource for children at Nazareth house, Lancaster. To make progress, we need coordination between the aims and aspirations of the Government and the people who deliver the service. If those people know what the Government want them to do and if they have the tools and resources for the job,

161WH
they will be able to provide the high standard of service that young people need and rigorous action should be taken if they do not.
It is essential that we have joined-up government at the top. I welcome the new Cabinet Committee on children and young people's services and I welcome the living embodiment of the co-ordination of children's services who is here today. I would like the Government to place much more emphasis on the United Nations convention on children's rights. It is a document of fundamental importance that is accepted almost universally throughout the world. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in relation to children's rights because the UN convention sets out a seminal statement to which we should constantly refer. We should ensure that it is embodied in the work that is undertaken with children.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need massive cultural change in this country. We do not just need a Government who are committed to children, as this Government palpably are. We need a strong independent voice. We need someone who will stand up for children, who will be known to them and who will take on the Government on their behalf. We must ensure that the complaints mechanisms that protect children are there and that the participation of children is promoted, developed and enhanced. I will therefore introduce another private Member's Bill for a children's rights commissioner for England, which would fit in with everything that the Government are trying to do and would reflect what is happening in Wales. If we do not hear this week that we will have a children's rights commissioner and as the Government are not going to keel over in the face of a private Member's Bill, it would be a fine principle on which to go to the country whenever the general election comes along.
I will not say much more, but I repeat that this is an extremely important subject. Our society can only benefit from the meaningful participation of children and young people in issues that relate to their lives. We must get more resources down to ground level and the communities in which they live. If we do that our society will build itself an ever firmer foundation for the future.
10.2 am
Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise in advance to the Minister: I have another commitment that I must get to so I shall keep my comments brief. I have three points to make. First, as I said in my intervention, I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to participate in the UK Youth Parliament. It is a tremendously important initiative and an opportunity for people to feel re-enfranchised. It is one of the great achievements of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Without it there would be no clear mechanism to try to reintegrate young people's thinking in British politics.
Secondly, and this is another point that has already been alluded to, I believe that we should reduce the age of voting to 16. Some people argue that 16-year-olds are not sufficiently responsible to make the decision, but when one looks at the quality of past decision making—this is an entirely party political point—we should
162WH
certainly trust 16-year-olds to be every bit as competent to decide whom they want to be governed by as those over 18. It is often forgotten that 16-year-olds can pay tax, can get married and can fight and die for this country. Surely they should be able to vote for the Government who send them to war. More to the point, a 16-year-old can get married, but can be prosecuted for buying his bride a drink. That is a ridiculous contradiction. If we regard 16 as the age of adulthood, let us make it consistent and ensure that 16-year-olds can also vote in British parliamentary elections.
My third point is the one that I made in my intervention on the minimum wage. It is iniquitous that we should have two minimum wage levels: one for the young and one for those who are older. The United Nations convention states clearly that people doing the same job should have the same income. It has never been clear to me why a 16-year-old can expect to be paid less than a 24-year-old for the same job. The Minister must consider whether the Government really want to sustain a differential minimum wage.
It is great that we are having this discussion and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on securing the debate. However, we must ensure, when we discuss youth policy, that it is not a separate debate but one that fits into the context of Government policy and thinking. The Minister has a big job to do in focusing the Government's thinking, and he has my party's support in that respect.
10.5 am
Ms Julie Morgan: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members are keen to speak. First, I agree that it is important that all Government policy takes youth matters into account and I welcome the Minister's appointment as Minister for Young People, to ensure that the policies for young people are co-ordinated. It is most important to involve young people in the planning of services and to consult them about all aspects of Government policy. It is easy to say that we must involve young people, but it is hard work. It costs money and involves much preparation to include young people in decision making.
I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for a children's commissioner for England. Peter Clarke was appointed as Children's Commissioner for Wales as a result of an amendment to the Care Standards Bill. We hope that there will be a children's commissioner measure in this Session.
We in Wales are pleased to have a children's commissioner. It is important to state how he was appointed because it shows how children can be involved in decision making. Seventeen young people were involved in the appointment and much work and preparation was done. The first day was spent working with the young people, helping them to prepare their method of questioning the prospective candidates and a weekend was spent interviewing the short-listed candidates for the post. The 17 young people were heavily involved in that process.
When the appointment was made, there were two young people with full voting rights on the appointment panel, as well as the political representatives, who voted for their choice as children's commissioner. It is probably the first time that young people have been so

163WH
involved in a public appointment. I worked in the voluntary sector before I became a Member of Parliament and we struggled hard to involve young people in appointments and decision making. However, the appointment of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was a bold step. Those who were involved came from a wide section of young people and some were from disadvantaged communities. They felt very involved in the selection process and said that it had been an historic weekend. I am very pleased that a Children's Commissioner for Wales has been appointed and I support my hon. Friend's calls for a children's commissioner for England.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's appointment as Minister for Young People. How will he relate to the devolved Assembly? Home Office issues are not devolved to Wales, so it is important to have joined-up Home Office and youth justice policies for all young people. Will the Minister address the matter when he sums up?
It is important—but not easy—to involve young people. In appointing a Children's Commissioner in Wales, we have managed to involve young people in a fairly unique way for a public appointment. How will the Minister work with the devolved Assembly on issues that are not devolved?
10.10 am
Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on securing the debate. I am pleased to say that I agree with—and endorse—almost all that he said, including reducing the age of voting to 16. We are introducing citizenship education in schools, so the accusation that when children reach 16 they do not know about the political process will not be valid. They will be able to enact what they have learnt when they reach the mandatory school leaving age. The Government are on track for pursuing that and the all-party group supports them.
Given the short time that is available, I shall raise only two further matters, which have not been mentioned so far. First, I am delighted that a Minister for Young People and an interdepartmental group have now been appointed. I submitted a paper to the Government entitled "The future of services for young people"—which civil servants have no doubt tucked away in their files—asking for precisely that. A Minister for young people and a ministerial group were a achieved three years after the paper was published. Will the two measures that I propose today take another three years to implement?
We may be moving towards joined-up thinking between Government Departments at a national level, but what happens at a local level, between local authorities, social services, health authorities, schools and the police in terms of consulting and involving young people? To underpin national co-ordination of youth policy, we need local co-ordination—local youth development plans. The youth service should be placed at the heart of establishing those plans, by carrying out an audit of local needs and services and by preparing and developing programmes for young people to fill known gaps. At local level, it is easier to involve young people directly in decision making. My first plea therefore is for local enactment of what we are creating through inter-ministerial contacts at national level.
164WH
Secondly, we have discussed political enfranchisement when young people make the transition from childhood to adulthood and Connexions, mentoring support and training as they approach adulthood. Many young people from families on low incomes lack cash. I should like the Government to encourage those young people to develop an asset—a bond or an account with cash. The Government could start by giving every baby £250. In 18 years' time, the amount would have grown, and those young people would have the same as many youngsters from high-income families take for granted: the lump sum they need when they enter the world of work to spend on a house, furniture, a car, training or on building their own business. An asset redistribution policy for young people would give every young person access to a capital sum. That is quite a visionary idea, and I am aware that we are nowhere near considering it yet, but I hope that our new Minister for Young People, in his central role within the Government, will encourage such energetic thinking.
10.13 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: It is right that we should give this subject a wider profile, so in the spirit of the debate, which was helpfully introduced by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), I shall be brief, to allow the Minister to respond.
As a former Minister with responsibilities for the matter, I recognise many of the constraints under which the Minister operates—such as the different agencies and the interaction of statutory and voluntary services. I considered the Government's Connexions proposals in Standing Committee and, as so often with their claims about joined-up government, I feel that it is a long way from a few aspirations in a press release to effective implementation. I hope that the Minister will not regard that comment as especially partisan, but will take account of the views and concerns of professionals, notably those of the Community and Youth Workers Union, with which we had close contact during the passage of the legislation. I have read the report of what was said about Connexions at its autumn conference, which suggests that it continues to have reservations about, among other considerable matters, the absence of a blueprint and clear purpose for the Connexions service and a proper qualifications framework—and, I would add, a remuneration structure. There is also concern about the fuzzy boundary between professional competence in traditional youth work and in the new service, with its personal advisers.
Those professionals are also concerned, as I am, to probe further the relations between the Connexions unit of the DFEE at Moorfoot in Sheffield—I should explain, for those unfamiliar with the structure, that that is on the employment side—the existing DFEE youth service unit in London, which is based firmly in education, and, of course, the Minister's new children and young people's unit, which reports to him in his interesting translational reassignment as a DFEE Minister for that purpose. As agencies of central Government those need to be joined up, but I should like to put to the Minister a few questions of my own that are primarily geared to Connexions. However, have implications for his new unit and for the continuing delivery of services by local authorities and others.

165WH
Is the Minister satisfied that the complex Connexions proposals are on time and on target? Will he assure us that the six pilots will be properly evaluated and their lessons learned, because the timetable is very compressed? Has the Minister worked out a proper relationship between the continuing activities of local education authorities in relation to youth and community education and those of the Connexions service? For example, does he have in mind a common service framework and standards? More generally, does he accept the importance of making informal education through experienced and dedicated youth workers available to all young people, not just to a section of them—a point to which the hon. Member for Gedling referred in his opening remarks?
Does the Minister accept that the services of a personal adviser should not be mandatory, but that all young people should continue to have access to proper independent careers guidance, regardless of their degree of social exclusion or otherwise? All young people should have the right to what I would call an MOT, which can match their educational attainments with career opportunities, independent of any service provider in the area.
I have no problem with the Minister's wish to help the one in 11 young people who are identified as socially excluded in the "Bridging the Gap" report. That is a useful working assumption, but there would be real dangers in red-lining such people for special treatment, particularly where the claims and voices of authority—including the police force—are involved, instead of trying to blend them back into the mainstream through a variety of informal activities in which all young people can share. In other words, if they are seen to be different, they may well behave, or continue to behave, in as antisocial manner.
I am a strong believer that those whom the present Prime Minister once memorably described as "the forces of Conservatism" should stick together. 1 make no apology for closing with an admirable paragraph from a Community and Youth Workers Union paper that I saw recently:
New does not mean better. Better things usually draw on the strengths of the past. No new profession has ever been created by Government edict and no genuinely new service created by destroying the old. Quality services need years to mature and refine through professional development.
I could not have put it better myself.
10.18 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This is an important debate. This Chamber owes my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) a debt of gratitude. My hon. Friend will recall a visit I paid to Gedling some time ago when I saw at first hand his involvement not only with young people, but with voluntary sector organisations in his constituency and with issues—which were aired this morning—relating to social exclusion and disadvantage among young people. He brings to this discussion his deep and broad experience and wisdom, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing the matter to our attention.
166WH
If I may, I shall begin by discussing something that is central to getting right the co-ordination of youth policy: the question, which all hon. Members who have spoken today have raised, of how to involve young people. We are determined to put young people and youth policy at the heart of our plans—not simply in order to combat social exclusion, but to build strong and sustainable communities. If we are to get matters right, I have no doubt that we must find ways to engage young people in the political process and policy development. All too often, young people have been ignored in that respect and policy has been the poorer for that.
Some errors that were made over many years in respect of young people in care would not have occurred had we as a society been willing to listen to their voices and experience. We did not listen, but it was they who paid a terrible price and our society is still living with the consequences of that failure. That is why Quality Protects—the Government's important response to the crisis in care for young people—ensures that, for the first time, young people's voices are heard in the care system. Quality Protects is already beginning to make a difference. I have a central responsibility to ensure that a way is found to involve young people in the work of the children and young people's unit and in the processes of government. If we fail to do that, we will be unlikely to get matters right.
The problem is a difficult one. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) is right to stress that it will require resources. I am here to say that we will find the resources necessary to enable the voices of children and young people to be heard throughout Government. It is a question of capacity building and of getting right the infrastructure by drawing on the relevant experience of the voluntary sector in a way that will enable young people to access government and policy making at various levels. We are drawing together proposals in respect of access at a national level and we shall shortly make them known. Young people must also have access at a regional level, so that they can contribute to the increasing importance and significance of regional activity and at a local level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) made the important point that we must establish how our central Government initiative, which might not necessarily fit at local government level, can be reflected in an appropriate way. I look forward to discussing with local government representatives how best to do that. Following last year's launch, which was attended by a number of my hon. Friends, we have embarked on a series of regional seminars to introduce to a wider audience the children's fund and the operation of the children and young people's unit. Indeed, I shall address one in London this afternoon. The dialogue with local authorities, the voluntary sector and young people has therefore already begun, so that the project can grow at a local level. That will be especially important in rolling out both the preventive element of the children's fund and the local networks, because the working together of those two aspects will guarantee the success of the project. At the heart of the matter is the capacity of children and young people to make effective input into the partnerships that we want to see develop locally in order to deliver change.

167WH
I shall deal with some of the specific points that hon. Members raised. There is an important job to be done in co-ordinating the work of Connexions, sure start and the children and young people's unit. That will be achieved through the ministerial sub-committee that I chair, which involves department al Ministers and draws on expertise from the voluntary and statutory sectors and a wider forum of children and young people. At Secretary of State level, the Cabinet Committee upon which the Minister with responsibility for sure start and I sit is designed to ensure effective co-ordination across Government. Moreover, the unit itself is structured so that, although it is housed in the Department for Education and Employment, it includes civil servants from all the relevant Departments, as well as people seconded from the voluntary sector. I want to see people seconded from the statutory and private sectors too, because that will ensure that we build the right kinds of partnerships on the ground.
Ms Ruth Kelly: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister about the treatment of child asylum seekers. Can he confirm that although the United Nations convention on the rights of the child gives the United Kingdom a reservation in respect of asylum and immigration, we nevertheless satisfy the requirements of the convention? As several Departments share responsibility for that matter, who has overall responsibility for ensuring that our commitments are met?
Mr. Boateng: I am satisfied that we are fulfilling our convention responsibilities. My hon. Friends the Minister of State in the Home Office and the Minister of State in the Department of Health work closely on those issues.
The structures that we develop to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard must not merely reflect existing patterns of involvement of young people—which too often tend to be biased towards the articulate and privileged—but include children and young people with the experience of being refugees from migrant and disadvantaged families, so that their voices can also be heard at that level. In giving my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks, I stress the importance of ensuring that the exercise is inclusive of all children and young people.
Hon. Members asked about the way in which our proposals link with youth offending. Yes, there are links, but I cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that we do not allow any one Department to feel that it has sole ownership of the exercise. Although I am a Home Office Minister, this is not a Home Office exercise. It is a Government exercise that is designed to put children and young people at the heart—
Mr. Barry Jones (in the Chair): Order. We must move to the next debate.

NHS (Somerset)
10.30 am
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the health service in my county of Somerset. The stimulus for so doing was a survey that we carried out last year, involving the delivery of a form to every household in my constituency. Furthermore, my colleagues in other constituencies have conducted similar surveys. Our intention was to gain an overall feel for levels of satisfaction in Somerset, to discover problems that people have recognised and identified in the delivery of NHS services and to provide an opportunity for people to express their appreciation. I was gratified by the level of response to the survey that was, in my experience, unprecedented. We received thousands of response forms from across Somerset, and people were happy to express their views.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has received the copy of the principal responses that I sent to her yesterday. If she has not, she will find it somewhere in her Department. I sent it so that she could be aware of our results and I hope that it will assist her.
Why did we conduct the survey after the Government had undertaken their consultation? Not only were our questions slightly different, but the Government's consultation—welcome though it was—reached a relatively small number of people. That analysis was borne out by our results: only one in five of our respondents had seen the Government's consultation paper.
It may help if I describe health services in my constituency, which is a rural area that contains two hospitals. The Verington hospital, which I was happy to visit last Friday, has a general practitioner unit, consultant beds, a small number of psycho-geriatric beds and a day hospital. I welcome its considerably expanded role in the local community; it is doing a good job as a relatively small unit. In Frome, we have the Frome Victoria hospital, in which I declare an interest, as a patron of its appeal to raise sufficient funds to equip what we hope will be a remodelled hospital. We seem to be successful in raising those funds and everything seems on track for the building of a new Frome Victoria hospital in the near future. For major acute services, however, my constituents must travel outside the constituency, either to Yeovil general, which is operated by the East Somerset NHS trust, or the Royal United hospital in Bath. I shall not read out all the survey results—that would be otiose and unhelpful. I simply want to pick out some important points and perhaps illustrate them with specific examples, in order better to make the case to the Minister.
In my constituency, we are well served by our general practitioners and I have little, if any, quarrel with the services that they provide. That view is clearly shared by my constituents, whose satisfaction levels are extremely high: 61.5 per cent. declare themselves very satisfied, while 33 per cent. describe themselves as satisfied. Overall, 94.5 per cent. of respondents are satisfied with their general practitioner. They are happy with provision in the surgeries and with home visits. Indeed,

169WH
those who request a home visit receive it on the same day in 88.5 per cent. of cases, which is creditable in a sparsely populated rural area.
Last Friday, I spoke to a senior general practitioner who is retiring before he is required to do so. He noted that many of his colleagues were also retiring early and expressed concern about the ability to recruit new GPs into the service. If we cannot recruit GPs in Somerset, which has much to commend it to general practitioners, there is a problem. He said that a few years ago, a vacancy in a GP's surgery would have attracted a couple of hundred applicants, but today we would be lucky if there were more than a handful. That suggests concern for future GP recruitment.
Concern has been expressed to me about the effect of NHS Direct. I do not want to criticise it because it is a good initiative, but there is anecdotal evidence that it is increasing rather than decreasing demands on GPs. If people can lift a telephone when they would previously have been unwilling to attend a doctor's surgery and are told that they should see a GP, they will do so. One doctor told me in an irate tone that he had had to make a 2 am visit to someone who had telephoned NHS Direct with a stiff neck, which was nothing more than that.
It is interesting that those who propose that people should pay more often for GP services were given a firm rebuttal by the results of the survey because 89.5 per cent. of those who responded said that people should not have to pay to see their GP. They value the provision that the NHS should be free at the point of delivery and believe that new charges should not be introduced.
I turn to the more acute services and the more difficult cases requiring the intervention of a consultant. A major problem that has been identified elsewhere in the country and was confirmed by my findings is the increasing difficulty in making an initial appointment with a consultant. The Minister will agree that the waiting time comprises two parts: the time waiting for admission to hospital and, before that, the time waiting to see a consultant. Evidence suggests that the former is decreasing, but that the time waiting to see a consultant is increasing. One in three of those who responded to the survey had had to wait more than four months for an initial consultation. Four months is a long time for people who are worried because their GP has identified a condition that merits referral to a consultant. I shall illustrate some of the problems with examples from those who have written to me. I shall not refer to them by name because it was agreed that the survey would be confidential.
A lady from Yarlington in my constituency had two referrals to consultants from her GP. In the first instance, she was seen by a registrar. She was required to return to the hospital on a different occasion for an X-ray and was then required to attend a third time to see the consultant. That prolonged the process to months instead of days and, because she lived a long way from the hospital, she had to make an arduous journey with a difficult condition each time. The same lady had a back problem, which required attention. She saw her GP in August and was told that the earliest she could expect to be seen by a consultant was in January this year. She is still waiting for an appointment.
170WH
A lady from Mells needed to visit the out-patient department of the Royal United hospital on a fairly routine matter. Unfortunately, she ran her own business in Frome—a one-woman operation. She found time to visit the hospital, but when she arrived, she discovered that four people had been booked into each time slot, so she would have to wait for hours. Eventually, she had to return to her business, travelling a 30-mile round trip, without seeing the consultant.
Another worrying case involved a lady from Charlton Mackrell who developed a lump on her throat. She saw her GP and the first referral was on 24 April the year before last. She did not see a consultant until 14 July and she had to wait until 4 February the following year for the thyroidectomy that she required. She had to wait 10 months between first referral and the operation. I do not want overly to dramatise these cases, but they constitute a period of anxiety for individual patients. If someone has a lump and believes that it could be malignant, having to wait for 10 months is a very long time and it is worrying.
Having said that, general satisfaction with consultations is high—91.5 per cent. There is no question of medical or surgical care being in doubt: it is simply the mechanics of the operation that causes problems. All that is thrown into sharp relief by the contrast with the consultation times experienced in the private sector. When we asked people who had recourse to private consultations the same question, we found that 96.5 per cent. were seen within four weeks. Often the same consultants in the same hospitals were involved, which provides much cause for concern about the operation of the NHS.
A family from Frome whose 28-year-old son died last March of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy provides a tragic case. It can be a hereditary condition and the rest of the family were advised to have an electrocardiogram and a heart echo test at the first opportunity. The ECG was carried out straight away in the local surgery and proved to be fine. However, there was no such early reassurance in respect of the heart echo test. The earliest they were able to book in was March this year—a year later.
In the end, the family decided that they could not wait that long: they had suffered a bereavement in the family and understood the effects of the condition. They went privately to the Royal United hospital and had the same treatment by the same surgeon using the same machine. It cost them £530 to be seen immediately. They ask, quite reasonably, how a routine 20-minute test could be achieved immediately on a private basis, when under the NHS it would take a year—an unpardonably long time.
I congratulate Ministers on achieving some improvement in admission times, but one in four patients still wait four to 10 months or longer for surgical admissions. My casework shows that people have to wait a long time for orthopaedic operations and that there is also a problem in coronary care, which is a priority for ministerial consideration. A few days ago, I received a letter from a gentleman who has been waiting since 2 February last year for admission to the Bristol Royal Infirmary for a bypass operation, for which he is a perfect candidate. He is 62 years old and in good health apart from the problem with his coronary

171WH
arteries. The operation would make a huge difference to his quality of life, but there is no prospect of one because of congestion in the local hospital's cardiac unit.
A lady from East Pennard who has a history of coronary problems was referred to the Royal United hospital on 10 July by her general practitioner, as a matter of urgency. She could not be admitted to the coronary ward because it was full, so she was sent to the accident and emergency department and was extremely complimentary about the treatment she received there. However, she spent the whole night on a trolley because no bed was available at the hospital which is the major acute facility for the area.
I am happy to report that satisfaction with the medical care provided in our acute hospitals is very high—92 per cent. of respondents were satisfied with the medical care that they received. Traditionally, in surveys of this kind, people are very appreciative of nursing care, so I was surprised that 12 per cent. of respondents to my survey said that they were not satisfied with their nursing care. That does not show a lack of ability, enthusiasm or care on the part of nurses; it illustrates the overstretch that nursing staff have to cope with. One lady wrote to me saying that she was heartbroken visiting a relative in hospital because the hospital was
"so desperately short of staff".
A former midwife wrote to me as follows:
The national health service which I have been proud to serve all my working life will not return to the high standards that patients demand until there are enough nurses and midwives who are the backbone to the whole structure.
I entirely agree with that view, which I am sure the Government share. They are taking measures to improve the retention and recruitment of nurses, but they must be careful not to overstate the case. There is much bandying about of the increase in the numbers of nurses returning to the profession, but they are usually part-time, not full-time nurses, which obscures the fact that there are significant shortages in full-time nursing staff in our hospitals.
I fear that the position will gel worse. I do not know whether my constituency is typical, but the profession's age profile suggests that there are more nurses at the upper end of the scale than at the lower end and that they will soon be retiring. Many have retired already.
Although I welcome the new career structures, they are not of great benefit to nurses who are nearing the end of their professional lives. Their only concern is whether they can cope with the job that they are being asked to do, or whether the difficult tasks that they are set stretches them beyond endurance. There is considerable evidence that nurses are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with unacceptable work levels. It is important to re-staff our hospitals to fill the gap in nurse recruitment and provide a structure that encourages the retention of nursing staff.
I must complete the picture on admissions to hospital by reporting my constituents' overwhelming rejection of the idea that patients should pay for what have been described as routine operations: 92 per cent. of respondents rejected that proposition and quite rightly so. It would put a heavy burden on many people who have paid into the national health service and expect to receive treatment when they require it without the need to fork out thousands of pounds for an operation which they probably cannot afford.
172WH
I have raised the issue of dentists many times in the House. In common with many parts of the country, Somerset has a real problem in respect of the availability of NHS dentists. My survey backed up that point because 41.5 per cent. of respondents said that they had found it difficult to register with an NHS dentist. Assuming that a large number of people will already have been registered with an NHS dentist for a long time, that suggests a high level of difficulty. We have seen some amelioration through the Government's initiative. We have a new NHS dental surgery in Frome. I found it extraordinary that there was a queue of people all the way around the market place in Frome on the day that the surgery opened for new registrations. Thousands of people were so keen to put themselves on the list of an NHS dentist.
It may sound amusing, but it is not as it illustrates the need for more NHS dentists. Although the new surgery has helped the situation in Frome, the rest of my constituency does not have that benefit and there is still a great deal of difficulty. I know that the dentists who are still working in the NHS will continue to express their concerns. My dentist wrote to me recently and added as a postscript that I was due for my NHS check-up. I have not yet taken up that offer, but he made the important point that there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction. The loyalty bonuses that have been introduced have not met the need to keep people within the service. Indeed, for those who work part time, and many women dentists have worked part time over recent years within the NHS, the level of reward is, as he puts it, derisory. A bonus of £25 a quarter will not encourage professional people to stay within the system. It is almost an insult to their professionalism to offer such a reward.
My final point about the provision of the service relates to accessibility. This is particularly important in a rural area. Of those who responded to my survey, 96 per cent. said that they had difficulties in getting to surgeries and hospitals by public transport, simply because there is no public transport. At the same time we have had a reduction in the transport provided by the health authority, so people can be very isolated and can feel that they cannot get to a doctor's surgery. Moreover, if they are elderly they are often reluctant to call out a doctor. It is still part of the ethos in my part of the world that a doctor is called out only in an emergency, not for a routine matter. If they need to get to a hospital it can be a 40 or 50-minute round trip. Not only is it difficult for the patients themselves, who may have painful conditions, but it affects their relatives when they have to visit.
The geography of the area presents a problem for accident and emergency responses. I have raised in the House the matter of the ambulance service and the difficulties in, first, reaching the patient in distress and, secondly, getting them to the accident and emergency unit in Bath or Yeovil. We are talking about what can be extended response times, to which there are no easy answers. I am still persuaded that the air ambulance has a role to play, so I am disappointed that the Government appear unwilling to support that provision, which can be invaluable in saving lives. However, other action could be taken and that needs to be borne in mind.
The health authority has had what appears to be a relatively generous funding settlement this year with, I think, an 8 per cent. increase. I am grateful for that

173WH
increased funding as it is a move in the right direction, but I am also realistic about its effects. First, the problem of bust followed by boom makes it difficult to use that funding successfully, and a nursing manager whom I met last week made that point strongly. It is much better to have a steadily increasing budget than a rapidly increased budget for one year. The health authority may have to find ways of using that increased funding effectively when it does not have the staff, equipment or ability to assimilate it.
The second issue is the amount of new money available. Pay and price inflation will take up much of the increase, but that is the case every year. The national clinical priorities, with which I do not argue, will also skim off quite a lot of the money. Therefore, the local health authority's flexibility is limited, but the year-on year 2 per cent. efficiency saving still has to be made. Having been leader of a county council and involved in local government for years, I accept that efficiency savings can often be made year on year and that it is right to build them into a budget, but there is clearly a point at which that becomes counter-productive. There is always a degree to which organisations such as the health service can improve their productivity, but that does not release cash. Increasing throughput and making things work better can improve productivity, but that does not release cash for the budget.
It is too early to say what will happen this year because the budgets have not been formulated and we must wait and see, but I am greatly concerned that what appears to be a generous settlement will, in the short term, involve reductions in services. If that occurred, it would be a tragedy. I shall monitor the situation closely and discuss it with the health authority and trusts in my area, but I give Ministers a serious warning that that may be the result of this year's settlement.
I could have touched on many other services in this short debate such as community pharmacies, which are close to my heart, ophthalmic services—which the Minister may have expected me to mention given my previous career—and chiropody. Time is too short to do so, but I want to leave hon. Members with the clear results of my survey: people in Somerset value the health service enormously and recognise the level of care and the professionalism of those who work within it. They welcome, as I do, the opportunity to express both their appreciation of all that goes right and concerns about what goes wrong or less well than we had hoped. Our common view is that we want to improve, safeguard and develop the health service in Somerset for the future. It is our health service; we value it and want it to succeed.
10.59 am
Mr. Brian Cotter: I start by echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on the value of the health service. The Minister will know that Weston-super-Mare has an excellent hospital. We value enormously the service that it provides: in earlier times, my constituents were dependent on services in Bristol.
I shall be brief, so as to allow time for the Minister's response. I want to deal with four subjects: epilepsy, speech and language therapy, paediatrics and mental health. My views on those subjects are based on contacts with constituents and my various investigations.
174WH
I recently met the Weston-super-Mare branch of the British Epilepsy Association, which expressed concerns about the local and national approach to epilepsy. It believes that the condition of epilepsy has not been dealt with properly—medically or otherwise—for some time. The association believes that the Government have shown little commitment to improving the service in response to the findings of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group report.
Issues raised by epilepsy sufferers at local meetings include the insufficient emphasis on the condition and resulting problems in the health service, as well as over-reliance on self-help therapy, which also applies to other conditions such as autism. Individual sufferers can sometimes be more knowledgeable than professionals. An impersonal response from some consultants is another problem, as is the lack of information about treatment and medicines. A specialist service of nurses is called for.
I see that the Minister acknowledges the problem, but I would like to tell her what a leading Somerset consultant in neuropsychiatry, Dr. Jonathan Bird, said:
I am afraid to say…that the management of epilepsy in Britain, in terms of services offered to people with epilepsy, falls far short of the services given in many other western countries. Our provision of specialists dealing with epilepsy is very much less, per head of the population, than other countries with which we would like to compare ourselves (such as France, Germany, the Scandinavian countries
and others. Dr. Bird went on to make other points. My concern about epilepsy is genuine. There are many such concerns in the health service, but epilepsy requires more attention. The Minister may wish to comment on the recommendations in the Clinical Standards Advisory Group's report.
My second subject is speech and language therapy. I hope that the Minister will have noticed that I tabled an early-day motion recently, for which I received much cross-party support. One of my constituents is a young boy of five with speech difficulties, and the crisis in speech therapy has affected him. The problem does not affect Somerset exclusively, but it is a big problem there. In this case, the family had to wait five months for an initial appointment and then for a statement of special educational needs. The Minister would accept that speech and language therapy is just as important as nursing care, GPs, doctors and so forth. Speech therapy has many important aspects, yet some people have had to wait up to 18 months to receive it. The lives of many constituents, such as that five-year-old boy, could be affected in the long term if they do not receive the hoped-for response.
The Avon health authority and the Weston area health trust are doing their best to tackle the problem, in extremely difficult circumstances. They would welcome details of how the Government propose to tackle the national crisis in speech therapy.
The third issue is that of paediatric services. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recently issued new guidelines on quality control and standards of paediatric care. That led, rightly, to the cessation, for a short period, of operations at the paediatric department of Weston general hospital, while the service and quality were assessed. As the local Member of Parliament, I expressed great anxiety about the matter, and so did many of my constituents, as it meant

175WH
that Bristol was the nearest place for children's services. I am glad that after a relatively short time the services at Weston were reinstated but if its paediatric service, which is of great importance, is not given the priority that it needs and is not of a sufficiently high standard, it will have a knock-on effect on hospital services generally.
The vast majority of patients going through the accident and emergency department at Weston general hospital are children. A further problem in Weston is that it is a tourist resort and the number of visits to A & E varies according to the time of year. In that respect, too, the majority of patients are children. If the paediatric back-up were not sufficient—that has never been suggested—it would affect the number of people who go to the hospital and thus the other services. It would be a pity if Weston, which has a good reputation for training and other matters, suffered in that way.
I hope that the Minister will investigate paediatric services at Weston. Although we accept that there must be centres of excellence, we want our hospitals to be viable; that is a key issue for Weston. Various options, suggested by people who are more experienced than I am, are being considered in Weston extended day care, the availability of consultants and so on. I hope the Minister will ensure, when the final guidelines are issued, that there is a first-rate paediatric service in Weston.
My final point is about mental health. For some time, mental health services in my constituency suffered from significant underfunding. The percentage was below the national average, and I can give the Minister the details if she so wishes. That was recognised. The new mental health trust, which has taken over the reins in the past few months, has increased funding of mental health services in Weston, and is advertising vacancies for consultants, nurses, occupational therapists and others.
Mental health in Weston is a live issue. I frequently attend meetings of an organisation called Friend, at which between 20 and 30 people talk about mental health problems. I am encouraged by the fact that more funding is coming down the line, but I am anxious that it will be only for acute mental health conditions and that those with less serious conditions will be told to seek help from charitable trusts or the voluntary sector. There is a danger that some people will miss out. I hope that there will be full mental health services in Weston and elsewhere. Having met so many people with mental health problems, I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important it is to tackle the issue in the national health service.
I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate.
11.11 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: It is not in my nature to be discourteous to hon. Members, but I am unable to congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on obtaining the debate, which, in his words, was stimulated by a survey. It is important to be aware that the survey contained questions that made untrue statements about Conservative health policy, which the debate legitimises. Question 10 of the survey is:
William Hague's Conservatives want to make patients pay more often in a partially privatised NHS. Do you agree you should pay a fee to see your GP?
176WH
Question 30 is:
William Hague's Conservatives want more patients to pay privately for routine NHS operations like hip replacements, hernias and cataract removals. Do you agree that the NHS should be privatised in this way?
I shall use the debate to refute those allegations about Conservative health policy and to place on record my belief that using a survey in that way and obtaining parliamentary time to legitimise questions that falsify the health policy of other parties is an abuse of the consensual nature of Westminster Hall.
Of course, there are problems with the NHS in Somerset that are mirrored throughout the country. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) drew attention to some of those problems. I, too, asked the Library for help in preparing for the debate; the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome gave too favourable an impression, if the hard evidence is to be believed. He referred specifically to cardiology and ordinary admissions; according to information from the Library, the position for patients waiting for treatment in Somerset health authority has deteriorated in the past three years.
Three years ago, six patients had waited up to 11 months for cardiology, but now eight patients have waited up to 17 months. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman found the information that there had been improvement in cardiology. According to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, the position in paediatrics has deteriorated, and double the number of patients in that discipline are waiting for admission.
The debate could usefully be used to highlight some serious problems. I want to articulate a concern that was brought to my attention about the need for a radiotherapy unit in Somerset. Perhaps we shall hear an announcement from the Minister this morning on that point. A local charity called Sure has campaigned long and hard for a radiotherapy unit that would help patients who sometimes have to embark on a 100-mile round trip to Bristol for treatment. The unit is long overdue.
There are specific omissions from the presentation of the state of the NHS in Somerset. There is a substantial problem with bed blocking. The root cause of that problem is that the Liberal Democrat-controlled council has made no extra financial provision for care in residential homes. If we are to take a view in the round of the NHS in Somerset, we should look at that. I acknowledge that there is £25.4 million extra funding this year, but local NHS executives are quick to point out that replacing wartime buildings is extremely difficult to balance with waiting list initiatives within the financial package. So while there is extra money, there are serious concerns about whether there is enough.
I do not want to take more time than I have to, because this is very properly a debate about Somerset health authority and hon. Members wish to hear from the Minister on the matter. I felt, however, that I should clarify some of the damaging material that was sent out in the survey. It is in no small part a political stunt. There will be obvious publicity from it and I should like to make it clear that it falsifies the Conservative health policy. The problems of the NHS in Somerset are part of the wider problems with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar.

177WH
The Prime Minister has fired the starting gun for the general election following "Breakfast with Frost". We are here to debate the results of a survey that is designed to harm the chances of the candidates of another party. We need to be mindful of what is going on here. In my view this is simply not on. The Government will have to answer for their failure to deliver on the high expectations that they raised of improving the NHS in this country. The Liberal Democrats will be exposed at the general election for their lack of realism about how to tackle the problems of the NHS, as they have no idea how to raise the kind of money that would be required to meet the complete desiderata of their health policy. I am sorry to speak in a harsh tone, but the survey is extremely damaging. It is being produced nationwide and it is important that Parliament should know what it contains.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I should like to return to the consensual atmosphere of Westminster Hall and to congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this important debate. Surveys that show great satisfaction levels are equally valuable as those that show up deficiencies. I was delighted that he put on record the fact that he feels that Somerset is well served by its GPs. They received a high satisfaction rate. He also highlighted some of the areas where further improvement is needed. We readily recognise that. Historically, in common with much of the NHS across England, the health service in Somerset has had its problems.
At this point I should like to mention briefly the contribution of the hon. Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Cotter). He raised a number of specific issues: epilepsy, mental health, paediatric services and speech and language therapy. I can assure him that health authorities and regional offices read Hansard carefully, so his concerns will have considerable distribution. I will take note of his comments and I shall answer his specific questions in writing.
We have already addressed some of the problems experienced by patients in Somerset and I shall describe how we intend to make progress. We have to deal with the legacy of decades of chronic under-investment in the NHS that left it with too few beds, too few doctors and too few nurses. In addition, services were delivered to patients using systems that were rooted in the past. We are committed to the modernisation of the NHS. Our NHS plan sets out a clear programme for investment and reform, because the two must go together. We must have a health service that is designed around the needs of patients. We are backing that plan with money. In last year's Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome recognised that a long-term, sustainable investment is important—not just a large, lump sum investment. I was also delighted that I did not have to refer to boom and bust—a cycle that does not serve anyone. We have committed ourselves to consistent and continuous increase through the new strategy.
178WH
Somerset health authority has received an initial allocation of around £318 million, which represents a cash increase of 8.7 per cent. and a real terms increase of 6.1 per cent. Importantly, the authority also received more than £3.5 million in special allocations targeted at areas of need, such as the expansion of critical care services, assisting the prevention of delayed discharges, the flu vaccination programme and improving ambulance response times.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the performance of the ambulance service. That service has received an additional £1.5 million to help it reach the new national standards. I am fully aware of the problems experienced by the service, particularly in Somerset and in areas where the geography makes it difficult to fulfil the targets. There have been improvements, but I am the first to acknowledge that considerable improvement still needs to be made. The NHS provides paramedics for ambulances, so it is not the case that we do not fund them at all. The evidence on how helpful air ambulances are is mixed. They often arrive at a scene first so they play a vital part, but the case to prioritise them has not been fully made.
I should like to say more about the two trusts in Somerset because they have also considerably expanded their service. In Yeovil, the East Somerset trust has created an extra 21 beds together with admissions and discharge lounges—an expansion of capacity and of delivery of service—while £360,000 has been used to set up rapid access chest pain clinics with the appointment of a second cardiologist and his team. The Taunton and Somerset NHS trust last year saw the opening of a fifth general operating theatre and a third orthopaedic theatre. Funding for a third ophthalmic theatre was announced in December. However, as the hon. Member recognised, the major constraint on the NHS is no longer shortage of money but shortage of staff.
We need more nurses in the NHS, so we have expanded the number of training places to get more people into the profession. There are 16,000 more nurses working in the NHS than in 1997. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that not all those nurses work full time. In order to expand capacity, particularly in areas of relatively high employment, it is important that people can come back to the profession after career breaks and fit that in with their domestic patterns. The fact that some of those new nurses do not work full time does not diminish the significance of that increase. It is a question not just of getting new people but of getting people to stay. Retention has been a problem but it is now being addressed. In Somerset the number of nurses working in hospital and community health services increased by 92—an increase of almost 5 per cent.—between September 1997 and September 1999. Over the same period an additional 34 hospital and community health doctors were appointed—an increase of 8.7 per cent. There has also been an increase in the number of GPs.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned dentistry. Between December 1998 and June this year, the number of dentists providing general dental services in Somerset increased by just over 5 per cent. I was delighted to hear that. Somerset must he one of the few parts of the country where people queue to register with a dentist. I remember once being told that dentistry is the one

179WH
area that no one wants to think about, not because dentists are not terribly delightful people but because of what they do to us.
In Somerset, more than £200,000 has been invested in eight dentistry schemes, which have generated more than 18,000 new registrations. There was clearly a need and we hope to meet it. I understand that discussions are taking place about a dental access centre in Somerset. It has been agreed in principle, but further local negotiations are taking place.
Experienced Filipino nurses who have worked at British and American hospitals in the United Arab Emirates have been recruited, 17 of whom will start work this month at Taunton and Somerset NHS trust. A further 20 will start at East Somerset NHS trust in early February. As a result of the recruitment drive at Taunton and Somerset NHS trust, the number of nursing vacancies has been reduced from 120 in October last year to 56 today. More progress needs to be made, but it is important to note that sustainable progress is being made.
In addition to recruitment, both trusts have made special efforts to improve their levels of nurse retention. They have introduced a range of family-friendly working practices such as new flexible working patterns, term-time contracts and job sharing. East Somerset NHS trust has doubled the size of its staff creche to 40 places, and both trusts are increasing training and career development opportunities for their nursing staff. NHS staff, not only doctors and nurses but all the supporting staff, are our biggest asset. Those trusts have succeeded in reducing staff turnover from some 13 per cent. in 1999–2000 to a projected 8.8 per cent. this year. Again, that is progress.
The NHS plan calls for more consultants, GPs, therapists and other health professionals. We have made announcements about the creation of 1,100 extra medical school places, and under the plan there will be a further increase of up to 1,000 in the number of places. Similarly, the number of nurses and midwives undergoing training has been increased by 6,000 compared with four years ago. By 2004, an additional 5,500 nurses, midwives and health visitors will be trained each year compared with today. That will benefit the whole country, including Somerset.
180WH
From the patient's perspective, the single biggest problem is still the wait to see a consultant or to have a subsequent operation. We inherited huge waiting lists, but it must be recognised that progress is being made on both those areas. Waiting lists must be seen in the context of increased activity. In Somerset, the number of patients waiting for in-patient and day-care treatment peaked in September 1998 at nearly 13,000. It has now been reduced by nearly 14 per cent. With all those improvements, Somerset health community is on course to deliver its challenging waiting list targets for this year. The number of patients who had to wait more than 12 months for treatment was 434 on 1 April last year, and the health authority intends to reduce that figure to 25 by 31 March this year. It is right to say that the maximum wait of 18 months is too long, which is why the NHS plan is committed to reducing that to six months by 2005. The maximum wait for an initial outpatient appointment will be reduced to three months. Improvements are being made gradually.
There have been some good initiatives, such as the joint commissioning by the health authority and Somerset county council of mental health services, and the formation of the Somerset Partnership Social Care and NHS trust, which brings together social services and the mental health NHS in a single provider. We very much welcome such co-operation between health and social services.
I have visited one of the Beacon projects in Bridgwater and opened an A & E department at Yeovil hospital. I have seen many improvements, but it is important to realise that sustainable improvements have been made and that that process will continue. The NHS and Somerset county council have been working closely to minimise delayed discharges, and winter planning has been robust. Most importantly, a solid foundation for the modernisation of the NHS in Somerset has been laid. I echo the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who said that his constituents value the NHS enormously and recognise its achievements. The Government's commitment to a tax-funded NHS for everyone, not one backed by private provisions, will be welcomed by his constituents and people throughout the country.

British Indian Ocean Territory
11.30 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It can hardly be often that parliamentary longevity allows even so ancient a Member of the House of Commons as I have become to revisit events in which he was deeply and personally involved more than three decades ago. Of course, much of what seemed unsatisfactory—I use a gentle word—to us then has been significantly illuminated by the lifting of the 30-year rule. If I delve into the past, I do so because the past is centrally pertinent to the present. I am referring particularly to Britain's obligations to the Ilois in the light of what occurred in the 1960s and early 1970s, and how we make up for turfing those unfortunate people out of their homeland.
If I may be personal, the story started in Leeds, the city of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). He may remember Dick Knowles, the Labour party agent, who later became the leader of the Labour group in Birmingham and much else. On a celebrated occasion, he invited me to take part in an educational conference in Leeds. I accepted willingly, not thinking that it was necessary to obtain the permission of the then Yorkshire regional organiser of the Labour party, the formidable John Anson. When John Anson discovered that I had turned up in Leeds without his permission, there was great trouble, which was taken as far as the national agent, Dame Sarah Barker, and the party's general secretary, Len Williams.
Len Williams became my friend in this matter and was subsequently made the Governor of Mauritius—not on account of my activities I hasten to add. After an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Japan and Indonesia on which I was lucky enough to go, I came back by Mauritius and stayed with him. He was a formidable figure at that time, plumes and all. His wife Margaret, Lady Williams, a sensitive and extremely nice lady, was interested in what had happened to the Ibis and took me to see some of them. That lasting impression, from more than 30 years ago, made me concerned about their cause.
I should like to go over a letter, of which the Foreign Office has a copy. It is dated 13 November 1970, from the Pacific and Indian Ocean Department to Sir Bruce Greatbatch, Government House, Port Victoria, Seychelles, and is signed by Eleanor Emery. I hasten to add that I am not in any way persecuting those who became distinguished civil servants. Eleanor Emery became an ambassador in southern Africa.
I rang Eleanor Emery in Cambridge after the article by Matthew Parris appeared in The Times to say that I was raising the matter. I also asked the Foreign Office to contact her, which it has done. She said in her letter:
As you will have gathered from Washington Tel. No. 3229 to the F.C.O from the "Times Diary" of 9 November, and from the two P.Q.s in our telegram B.I.O.T. 22 of 10 November, there has recently been a revival of public interest in the British Indian Ocean territory.
The two questions in our telegram received written answers as follows—
I had asked those written questions—
Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
182WH
The details of my right hon. Friend's exchanges with President Nixon are confidential.
Reggie Maudling is long since dead, but I was friendly with him and he expressed concern about the issue, although there is no pertinent reference to it in his memoirs. The second parliamentary question that she referred to was answered by Lord Balniel, then Minister of State for Defence who said:
None. The British Indian Ocean territory remains available for the construction of defence facilities by the British and United States Governments under the Agreement signed with the United States Government in 1966 (Command 3231).—[Official Report, 12 November 1970; Vol. 806, 239–55.]
I talked to Lord Balniel, now the 29th Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and gave his ex-directory number to the Foreign Office. It would be proper for the Foreign Office to reveal what he said, unless it was a private conversation. The conversation that he and I had was in my view private, apart from his expression of great unease in relation to the recent court case. Will the Minister comment on that?
Eleanor Emery's letter went on:
Mr Dalyell is not, however, giving up. He has tabled a further series of questions for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. On Monday 16 November he is to ask what discussions the Secretary of State has had with the Government of Madagascar on British/United States bases or staging posts in the Indian Ocean.
The Minister will understand very well that to get a question on the Order Paper one has often to use devices such as asking about the Government of Madagascar. That is why I shall ask the present Prime Minister a substantial oral question, which appears on the Order Paper as No. 6 for Wednesday 17 January, requesting pertinent discussions with the Government of the Seychelles.
The letter continued:
The following day he is to ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Mrs. Gandhi the development of British/United States bases, staging posts in the Indian Ocean. On 1 December he is to ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Diego Garcia and, two days later, he will also ask whether the Prime Minister will make an official visit to Aldabra Atoll.
I had again asked that question to get the subject on the Order Paper—if the Prime Minister had made an official visit to Aldabra atoll at that time he would have been away and cut off from British Government for at least a month. Eleanor Emery went on:
We shall continue to try to say as little as possible (particularly until the Congressional hearings are concluded, probably around mid-December at the latest) to avoid embarrassing the United States administration.
That is the nub of the matter. Miss Emery continued:
Apart from our overall strategic and defence interests we are also concerned at present not to have to elaborate on the administrative implications for the present population on Diego Garcia of establishment of any base there. We would not wish it to become general knowledge that some of the inhabitants have lived on Diego Garcia for at least two generations and could, therefore, be regarded as "belongers". We shall therefore advise Ministers in handling supplementary questions about whether Diego Garcia is inhabited to say that there is only a small number of contract labourers from the Seychelles and Mauritius engaged to work on the copra plantations on the Island.
That is being economical with the truth.
The letter continued:

183WH
Should a Member ask about what would happen to these contract labourers in the event of a base being set up on the Island, we hope that, for the present, this can be brushed aside as a hypothetical question at least until any decision to go ahead with the Diego Garcia facility becomes public.
One of my objections is that the questions were indeed brushed aside. Since then the papers have become available from the court case.
Before I say anything else, it is legitimate to ask—as Matthew Parris asked in Saturday's article in The Times that has been studied in the Foreign Office—for at least an explanation from Eleanor Emery and others as to why they did that. If a case can be made for their actions, it is up to the Minister and the Foreign Office to tell us why they did what they did. I suspect that it was about the Anglo-American relationship.
I now turn to the confidential document of 26 July 1968 that was released to the court, signed by Michael Stewart. I should explain that I knew the late Michael Stewart very well. I was his deputy on the first Labour delegation to the indirectly elected European Parliament at Strasbourg. I was asked to write his obituary for The Independent, and later I was asked to write 800 well-sculpted words for the "Dictionary of National Biography". When one is Oven a viva voce on a person by those in charge of the DNB, it means that one knows that person fairly well.
Michael Stewart's document said on page 6:
Resettlement will involve some small expenses but it is not expected that there will be any financial difficulty in this. When the arrangements are complete, and they may be complicated by a recently completed survey which found that 128 individuals (about 34 per cent. of the total population of 389) are now second generation inhabitants of Diego Garcia, we would propose, as agreed at the time of the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory, to deny, if necessary, the competence of the United Nations to concern itself with a territory which has no indigenous population.
That is just not the case. By any stretch of the English language, there was an indigenous population, and the Foreign Office knew it. I suspect that that is why, on a Strasbourg night, Michael Stewart apologised for the actions taken over the British Indian Ocean Territory.
I also suspect that that is why Harold Wilson, to whom I used to gossip a lot when he was Prime Minister and afterwards, came as near to making an apology as he ever did on anything. I am a great admirer of Wilson, but he was a great self-justifier, and on this issue there was a good deal of embarrassment. Edward Heath ought to feel some embarrassment because on 8 December 1970, oral question No. 6 was:
Mr. Dalyell asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean.
Mr. Heath said:
I have no plans to do so.
I said:
Are we building a £120 million base in the archipelago?—[Official Report, 8 December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 245.]
There was a curt reply, which was followed up by Frank Allaun and Sir Frederick Bennett for the Conservatives. The issue had been drawn to the Prime Minister's attention. Surely Parliament has some right in thinking that when these matters are dealt with at the highest level some attention will be paid to the truth.
On 16 December 1970, on a point of order—Selwyn Lloyd let me go on and on—I raised the issue and did so repeatedly until an Adjournment debate was held. The
184WH
Minister will be thankful that this debate is not taking place at 3.58 am, as the previous one did on 20 March 1974. The unfortunate late Joan Lestor had to answer it. The issue was brought to the House's attention, not least by a young MP on 25 November 1975, who was deeply interested in these matters:
Mr. Robin F. Cook asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the islands in the British Indian Ocean Territories—[Official Report, 25 November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 119.]
Pertinent questions were asked on 13 October 1975, at columns 637 and 558, and so it goes on.
The point of this debate is to establish that there is a moral obligation. In a letter from Sheridans, the solicitors in the court case, Richard Gifford states:
Matthew Parris ("You are never too old to face your lies") rightly highlights the boldness with which Parliament and the United Nations were lied to, before removal of the entire population of islanders. He is astonished that the official was so relaxed about telling her colleagues in the civil service that there was no permanent population. The reason is simple. She was in fact acting under orders originating at the very highest level.
I am afraid that that is the nub of the problem, and indeed the Foreign Office have a copy of the Sheridans letters.
The purpose of this debate is to ask what help can be given to the islanders and perhaps to the Chagos social committee. A feeling is abroad that the islanders should be returned to the place from which they came. To put it bluntly, I think that may be unrealistic. A friend of mine of all those years ago was then a young Ph.D. at Cambridge, and subsequently became professor of geography at that university. Twenty years ago he took up a chair at Berkeley in California because of the facilities that he was offered. He is David Stoddart, an excellent man. I believe that the Minister's officials have been in touch with him. His judgment—and I ought to record that it may differ from that of the lawyers acting on behalf of the llois—is that it would be unrealistic to return people to that part of the archipelago if they are to depend on copra and salt fish. I should like to know whether the Foreign Office hold the view put forward by the lawyers or the view put forward by David Stoddart.
The purpose of raising the matter in this quiet moment of the Chamber's proceedings is to ask what can and should be done. Our country has a moral obligation to do something. I look forward to hearing the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and to the Minister's reply.
11.50 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It would be remiss of anyone speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) not to pay an enormous tribute to him, both for his incredible memory and for his persistence in sticking with this issue for such a long time. Not many hon. Members are in Parliament long enough to see the 30-year rule come round full circle and be able to tell exactly what is going on. His description of the people of the now British Indian Ocean Territory islands under successive British Governments shows how even-handed my hon. Friend's criticisms are. He takes no prisoners, having despatched three Prime Ministers in the first five minutes of his

185WH
speech. There could be no nicer intellectual jailer than my hon. Friend, to whom we owe an enormous debt for what he has achieved.
We are dealing with a most appalling process of history. The treatment of the people of Diego Garcia and other islands would have done credit to Palmerston or any other 19th-century British Foreign Secretary. An entire population was dismissed in a few lines: the people are dispensable; they will be sent somewhere else; we will take over the islands because we have done a deal with the United States to allow them to develop a naval and airbase there. A frisson goes down my back when I recall the high-level bombing of Iraq, with planes taking off from Diego Garcia to rain down high explosives on that country. We should also remember the shameful way in which these people were treated in the 1960s and the cavalier attitude of Britain and the United States. As a cold war gesture and, I suspect, as a quid pro quo for Britain withdrawing from Suez, Diego Garcia was offered as a base.
At the very least, we should now be offering the peoples of these islands an enormous apology and congratulating Olivier Bancoult and others who campaigned steadfastly for so long. It is disappointing that the right to return to the islands was won through legal action in the British courts, rather than through a political decision taken by the incoming Labour Government in 1997 to put right the wrong done historically. I deeply regret that.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not only the present Government: what about all previous Governments of both political parties? Lord Crawford told me that he never saw the previous Administration's papers and I am sure that the incoming Government of 1974 never saw the crucial papers of the Heath Government of 1970–74. That is a serious matter. I understand why incoming Governments are not supposed to see their predecessor's papers—it is because political capital could be made from them. However, it is surely sensible, in certain matters, for Foreign Office officials to draw attention to what happened in the previous half decade.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Greater transparency of paperwork between successive Governments is important, although I am not sure how to achieve it. This country may be too bound by the 30-year rule. What happened to the people of those islands was hardly a secret. Minority rights groups reports have been prepared and statements have been made by the Mauritius Government and by people who have lived in squalid conditions in Mauritius for a long time. It has just been convenient to ignore what went on. Today, my hon. Friend the Minister has an opportunity to explain what process the British Government intend to follow.
Following my disappointment at the failure of the present and previous Governments to take a political decision to right this wrong, I have again been disappointed by the churlish attitude that has been taken even since the High Court decision. In The Guardian of 13 December it was reported that
The foreign secretary…initially tried to block the islanders' return but caved in after last month's court setback. His office has accepted that it will have to pay the costs of resettling the islanders,
186WH
but it will fight any claims for compensation, arguing that it will have done enough if it meets the costs of making the islands habitable again.
It is not possible to compensate financially for the humiliation of taking people away from their ancestral home to an island a long distance away and telling them, "That's your lot. You will have to make the best of things in Mauritius, instead of being allowed to return." I should hope, at the very least, for a more open approach.
I want to make a few quick basic points to leave my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson time to say a few words on the matter. First, I reiterate that there is a right of return to the archipelago as a whole. What discussions are taking place with the United States about the right of return, and access, to Diego Garcia itself, from where most of the people were originally taken? Secondly, I hope that The Guardian is wrong and that the Government are prepared to settle a compensation claim rather than just to pay the costs of returning the people concerned to the islands.
Thirdly, I hope that development aid will be provided urgently. Clearly, it will not be possible just to return, without the construction of a landing jetty, housing and, crucially, a method of obtaining fresh water supplies. An airstrip will be needed too. There will also be a need for an impact assessment covering the effect of that development on the island's ecology and a study of what gainful employment could be provided there.
Fourthly, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will be well aware, an assessment is needed of the environmental damage already done to the area in more than 40 years of military activity. That should cover water and land pollution among other things.
Fifthly, during discussions about the court case, the Foreign Office intimated that it believed that the military treaty that was signed in 1966 to allow the construction of the US base on Diego Garcia took precedence over everything else that arose in the discussions. We need to know exactly what status is accorded to that treaty. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow in his comment that there was something more than a little illegal, and certainly outwith the United Nations charter and principles, in the signing by Britain and the United States of a treaty that denied people in a third country the right to remain and live there.
Finally, the issue arises that, during negotiations on independence for Mauritius, after the principle had been agreed, the British Government announced that what is now the British Indian Ocean Territory could not be part of Mauritius. As I understand matters, the Mauritius Government are now preparing a claim that the islands should be restored to the sovereignty of Mauritius, and that complicates both the original independence legislation passed in the British Parliament and the elation ship between Britain and the United States with respect to the treaty. I hope that the Government will adopt an open approach, give a full, open and frank apology to the people who have been so wrongly treated and act with all speed to try to repair the hurt and damage done. However, if there is a period of bureaucratic procrastination and an unhelpful approach, that hurt and damage will be compounded by the fact that, having won a case in open court, on which

187WH
I congratulate the islanders, it will become a sour process of history in the years to come. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope in that respect.
12 noon
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Some events cover politicians and civil servants with glory, but the recent release of documents surrounding the events in the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be numbered among them when the history books are written.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a valuable contribution. The article by Matthew Parris was referred to by both previous speakers and much quoted. The opening line
Cool facts can bear more eloquent witness than yards of overheated commentary
certainly applies to the case that has been presented so consistently in the past 30-odd years by the hon. Gentleman. His unfailing instinct for something wrong or fishy has finally led us to the Chamber today. I shall not take up too much time in the debate as, like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I want to hear what the Minister has to say on the subject.
The removal of the Ilois was an act of barbarism; they were spread into the Seychelles and Mauritius. People who went overseas for medical treatment found that they could not get home because there was no transport. It was a barbarous act by anyone's standards. I have been to Mauritius. One could not hope to go to a more pleasant island, or meet a more peasant people. The island is doing fairly well economically; it has political stability and a good growth rate. It is a great place to live, but the Bois have never fitted in or prospered there. Only a small percentage of them have made a life outside their poor and impoverished community within Mauritius.
The Ilois have not fared well, but at least their 30-year struggle was rewarded by the latest court ruling. I am pleased that the Government do not intend to oppose that ruling. The past will have to be considered carefully, but I am anxious about the future. I want to reinforce some of the questions asked by the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Islington, North and add a few of my own for the Minister to field. I hope that he will consider the matter to be significant and of such importance that, if he cannot answer the questions in detail on his hind legs today, either for lack of information or lack of time, he will have the courtesy to answer all the questions in detail, in writing to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and to me.
The possibility of return has been raised and, as we know, the leadership of Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos refugee group has led to that state of affairs. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, what is the real possibility of any of the islanders returning to the outlying islands? It is obvious that they will not return to Diego Garcia. What evaluation has been carried out of the numbers of Ilois who wish to return and what are their views? What type of compensation are they seeking? Do they want their situation to be improved in situ, or elsewhere in the world, or are they requesting infrastructure, buildings, and support to return to the outlying islands? How realistic is it to expect fishing and coconut farming to
188WH
support a population there? Is it not pie in the sky to think that tourism, in the immediate future, could be an income earner for a returning population?
Back in November, the Minister said that he was carrying out a feasibility study and that it was too early to say when it would be ready but that it would not be less than a year. Well, perhaps after 30 years a year is not a long time, but it is a study not of the former Soviet Union but of a small archipelago. What can possibly take more than a year and who is carrying out the study? What are the terms of reference? Who is paying for it? How much is the contract worth? Is there any way in which the contract can be speeded up and more emphasis put into it?
Mr. Bancoult is reported to have applied for £500,000 of British and EU development funds for building up the refugee group. What is the status of the application? Where has it got to? What is the reaction within the European Union and indeed within Government to any application that might have been made or may be forthcoming? The hon. Member for Islington, North touched on the subject of sovereignty. Mauritius believes that it has a right to this group of islands. What discussions has the Minister had with the Government of Mauritius? What assessment has been made in the Foreign Office of any likelihood of success of a claim of sovereignty over the islands?
We have a special relationship with the US and long may it continue. I understand that Madeleine Albright visited Mauritius last month. Has the Foreign Office spoken to the US Secretary of State about her discussions with Mauritius? Has the Foreign Office ascertained the US position? Have the Government spoken to the US Government since the court ruling? The US letter of 21 June to the Foreign Office said:
A resident population … could well imperil Diego Garcia's present advantage as a base.
Is that still the position? Are the US Government still against any return to any of the outlying islands?
The lease on Diego Garcia expires in 2016, which is not so long ahead in terms of the 30 years that we are covering in this debate. What intentions do the Government have for the base in 2016 and for the renegotiations with the Americans as to whether they wish to use it? What security implications would result from the decommissioning or abandonment of that base? If that were the case, what studies have been done into the clean-up and reinstatement that would be necessary to enable regular habitation of the island?
The Ilois have been compensated. I believe that £650,000 was paid in the initial stages and then there was a trust fund of £4 million. I understand from the answers in Hansard that no assessment had been made on the distribution of that £4 million as of last month. What further assessment has now been made of the distribution of those compensation funds? To whom did they go? How were they passed out? What did they achieve? I understand that there are further legal actions, potentially in the United States and in the UK. Could the Minister update us on that?
The past is not covered in glory. Some amends have been made but there is an awful lot more work to be done. Justice Laws said that he was pleased with the openness of the Foreign Office. Like the hon. Member for Islington, North, I hope that that openness will be

189WH
continued by the Minister today. What does the future hold for the Ilois and what are the Government's plans to put right a great wrong?
12.8 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I have listened attentively to the debate. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was as usual outstanding. He has spoken about and followed these issues for over 30 years. It is rare that an hon. Member can read the papers which include his contribution to the issue when they are released 30 years later. It is typical of his usual—and, I am tempted to say, unusual—exemplary diligence as a Member of Parliament that when he raised these matters back in the 1970s he said:
I believe that to go ahead with this project would sow the seeds of trouble for some years to come—[Official Report, 20 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 1267.]
That was very prescient.
When my hon. Friend spoke about the roots of his interest going back to meetings in Leeds—I have to say, courteously, that that was slightly before my time—he quoted a phrase that was used of him: "Mr Dalyell is not … giving up." He is known for sticking at things and for sticking at them in detail, with a patience and courteous tenacity that embodies the best practice for Members of Parliament in our parliamentary democracy. I thank him for his presentation of the subject, which has provided the opportunity for another contribution to the continuing debate and pressure for action. The process cannot rest here: this debate is another step along a road that my hon. Friend has followed diligently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) also has a great and commendable record of championing and campaigning for international justice, and for speaking up for neglected and oppressed minorities.
In preparing for the debate, I had a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who recommended that over the next few days I should read a book by Philip Gourevich called "Stories from Rwanda", in which the author says that power is the ability to make others inhabit our story of reality. That ability to get people to live in one's own version of the truth rather than theirs, or on one's own terms rather than theirs, is relevant to the history of this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has spoken about the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than 30 years, and few Members of Parliament have his knowledge of, or long experience of campaigning for, that remote overseas territory in the middle of the Indian ocean. Much has been said and written over the past three decades about the history of the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory, some of which has been accurate and some of which has been fanciful. We have inherited an historical legacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to the "appalling process of history", which allows other people wrongly to be written out of the script. History has brought us to where we are, and we have to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves.
190WH
Although I do not intend to go over all the historical ground in detail, I should like to make a couple of points in that context. I assure hon. Members that neither I nor the Government seek in any way to justify the past actions of successive Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow regularly points out in his even-handed way, both Labour and Conservative-led Administrations have, since the mid-1960s, played a part in the formative years of the creation and development of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In November, in the aftermath of the High Court action that was brought by one of the Ilois, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
The Government has not defended what was done or said thirty years ago … We made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened.
I hope that that will act as the context for the continuing debate and campaign.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foreign Office contact Eleanor Emery—who is now 82 and with whom I had a nice conversation—to find out what she has to say about the matter? Matthew Parris's question must be answered. There are many others from whom it may have been more to the point to ask for explanations, such as some permanent secretaries at the Foreign Office, and our distinguished Labour colleague, the late Sir Tommy Brimelow. I am curious to know what was said and whether an attempt was made to find out about Miss Emery's version of the story.
Mr. Battle: The straightforward answer is that the Foreign Office has contacted both Eleanor Emery and Mr. Stoddart, to whom my hon. Friend also referred. The unpacking of the past, if I might put it in those terms, continues as we try to unravel what happened.
With regard to the islands' economic potential and survival, there had been a relatively short period of economic activity before the British Indian Ocean Territory was created from the islands of the Chagos archipelago and other islands that were subsequently transferred to the Seychelles. In fact, the islands depended entirely on the production of a single crop: copra. By the mid-1960s, the industry was in decline and the islands' population was falling. It was a low-wage, not a prosperous, community, based on plantation agriculture. Standards of living were supported by subsistence fishing and the keeping of poultry and other small stock in back yards. As a letter published in The Times on 20 December pointed out,
the Chagos islands were not paradise in the past.
Although that does not justify the situation, it does provide a little context.
Nor should we forget the geo-politics of the time.
Mr. Dalyell: Ah, yes.
Mr. Battle: The cold war was all too real, and the Russian navy was a significant presence in the Indian ocean. We had retained sovereignty since 1814, and our American military alilies had resources. It should be pointed out that it was agreed that some land should be made available to meet strategic interests. That was the truth of the geo-politics of the time.

191WH
Why and how the decision was taken to establish the American naval facility on Diego Garcia, which is the largest atoll in the archipelago, has been debated in this House, in the courts and in public. Our Government have done more than any other at least to illuminate those questions, rather than run from them. We have trawled the files and papers of the period and made them available for scrutiny. We have not tried to cover up matters that reflect badly on Governments or officials of the day. We have not shirked from putting in the public domain correspondence that I am to tempted to label racist in tone. As was said, that correspondence shows a certain economy with the truth. Indeed, I can do no better than to quote Lord Justice Law's judgment in the High Court action brought by an Ilois, Mr Bancoult, in November last year. Lord Justice Laws said:
I wish to commend the wholly admirable conduct of the relevant government servants and Counsel instructed for the respondents who have examined and then disclosed without cavil or argument all the material documents contained in the files of government departments, some of which (as will be obvious from the narrative I have given) are embarrassing and worse. This has exemplified a high tradition of cooperation between the executive and judiciary in the doing of justice and upholding the rule of law.
That is a view with which Mr Justice Gibbs has associated himself, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that it suggests that the current attitude differs somewhat from that of the past
Mr. Dalyell: That is true.
Mr. Battle: The Government lost the case in the divisional court. However, we should note that the case concerned the validity of the territory's immigration law, not the rights or wrongs of the way in which the Ilois were removed from Diego Garcia and the outer islands of the archipelago. Although we were given leave to appeal against the judgment, we decided not to do so. We took that decision not because we accepted that our legal case was unsustainable, but because the Government had no wish to continue to contest the claim of the Ilois to return to parts of the Chagos archipelago where such a return might be feasible.
An analogous case arose during my time at the Department of Trade and Industry On behalf of mine workers, a case was brought, and won, against the previous Government in respect of compensation claims. This Government could have appealed against the decision, but we did not do so because we took the view that the mine workers should get that compensation.
I hope that we have provided tangible proof that our Government are taking an approach that differs from that of their predecessors. It differs because of the respect that we give to the human rights of peoples everywhere—at home and abroad. If we had to face the problems that Governments of the late 1960s dealt with in respect of the Chagos archipelago, we might handle them very differently, not least because of the diligence and campaigning work of Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend referred to the correspondence with Miss Emery, and much has been made in the press and in the House of a few of the hundreds of letters that go back to the 1970s that we disclosed to the courts. He made clear his own reaction to that correspondence—it was a mixture of concern about people being deceived
192WH
and aggrieved and distaste at what he described as cynical lying by the Government of the day. I hope that we can now conduct public affairs in a way that does not attract such epithets.
We are mindful of the treaty obligations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North questioned and asked us to re-examine. I want to assure hon. Members that, as the courts have recognised, the Government have administered the affairs of the British Indian Ocean Territory in as honest, open and transparent a manner as they can, and they will continue do so.
Mr. Corbyn: That is an important point. I imagine that the Minister will confirm that there is a treaty obligation between Britain and the United States concerning Diego Garcia. There is an agreement on independence between Britain and Mauritius that specifically excluded the Chagos islands from the Mauritian independence arrangements. There is now a court decision that the Government have said they will no longer contest, which gives the islanders a right of return to the islands. Which has priority: the deal with the United States military or the case of the Chagos islanders to return to all the islands of the archipelago?
Mr. Battle: That question was raised previously. I shall come to the relationship with the United States on the treaty, and if my hon. Friend is not happy with my explanation, he can question me again and I will try to respond more fully. We confirm that the islands will be ceded to Mauritius when they are no longer required for defence purposes, subject to the requirements of international law. That is our long-term vision, but although we have differences with the Government of Mauritius over the sovereignty of the islands—which are not affecting our relationship with Commonwealth colleagues in Mauritius—there is a context in which we can work for the future. It is complex and not easy, but my hon. Friend rightly points to the legacy of the past. Because of the treaty being in the way, Diego Garcia has been exempted from the conditions, and perhaps that does not reflect the injustice of the original decisions.
The chief treaty obligations that are of relevance to the future of the islands and the interests of some of the Ilois in returning to them are those related to the use of the territory for strategic defence purposes. That is at the core of the point made by my hon. Friend. We are committed to allowing our American allies to develop and use facilities on Diego Garcia. Their value was referred to in the High Court action. Lord Justice Laws said:
There is no doubt but that the defence facility which the base provides is of the highest importance. In a letter of 21 June from the US State Department, it is described as an "all but indispensable platform" for the fulfilment of defence and security responsibilities in the Arabian Gulf, the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not seek an instant reply, because that would be silly, but before I ask the question of the Prime Minister on 17 January, could the Government reflect on the request that Sheridans have made, that there be a joint tribunal between the Americans and ourselves on the question of compensation?
Mr. Battle: I take note of my hon. Friend's request. He courteously always gives notice to allow

193WH
Government and officials to anticipate his questions and to work out a considered, reflective reply. We shall work with him to ensure that he can tailor his question to the Prime Minister so as to obtain the details that we can helpfully make available. I am more than happy to work with him on that basis.
I want to say a few words about compensation in general. We have relaxed immigration controls on the entry of members of the Ilois community who want to return to the territory. They are free to return to it without the need for an entry permit, unless they want to go to Diego Garcia. Control of entry to that island is a treaty obligation and is necessary for security and safety reasons. However, there is no reason why the Ilois cannot seek employment with any of the employers of civilian labour on the island of Diego Garcia.
Mrs. Gillan: Has the United States agreed that the islanders may return to any of the outlying islands? The letter of 21 June stated that that could imperil the base's status. Has that now changed?
Mr. Battle: I stand to be corrected, but I am clear in my mind that the answer is yes. The only debate concerns Diego Garcia. The Ilois can go to Diego Garcia for employment and there is no legal barrier to their employment on the same basis and conditions as other Mauritians.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to the environment. The outer islands to which some Ilois now want to return have been uninhabited for 30 years. Such undisturbed environments are rare, and the outer islands are acknowledged by international scientists to be one of the most important remaining examples of pristine coral atolls in the world, so we must exercise a duty of care. We have done as much as we can to learn about them and we shall continue to do so over the years and to protect them. A major scientific expedition in 1965 added to information about the natural ecology of the islands, so there has been research into the environment. We are mindful of our responsibilities, and previous Governments have been reminded of them regularly by hon. Members.
The core question concerns the feasibility study for resettlement, to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred. She made her point well and asked why the process cannot be speeded up. I cannot give her the details now of who has the contract and how much it will cost, but I shall send them to her. There is no secrecy about the feasibility study.
Environmental matters are at the forefront of our mind as we consider the future, including the availability of water. There are scientific questions to ask about resettlement. Those questions will form part of the work programme for the independent consultants who have
194WH
been asked to assess the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory. There is much that we must learn before we can say with confidence whether a settled, self-supporting community capable of generating a decent standard of livelihood for itself is possible on those tiny islands in the middle of the vast ocean.
I have not visited Diego Garcia, but I have visited other Pacific islands and some of the key questions concern the economic viability of communities that are isolated and under pressure. Tremendous environmental problems of pollution and degradation arise when trying to provide places for survival, whether in Kiribati or Tuvalu. We shall press on with the work and the feasibility study. We have been advised that a significant time will be required before we can obtain the data to judge whether there is enough water to sustain a settled population. The alternative to a natural water supply is desalination, which would undermine the economics of some potential investment and increase the cost to any society of trying to maintain itself. There are problems.
We do not know how many Ilois might want to return to the territory. They are not a monolithic community. Most are Mauritian citizens, but some are citizens of the Seychelles, as well as being British dependent territory citizens. Hon. Members will recall that in 1999 a White Paper on the overseas territories "Partnership for progress and prosperity" suggested that British citizenship should be offered to those in the overseas territories who do not have it. We regret that it has not so far been possible to find parliamentary time to introduce the necessary legislation, but I want to take the opportunity to confirm our commitment to making good that pledge as soon as practicable. That would have an impact in this case.
In the White Paper we said that the offer of citizenship would not apply to citizens of British dependent territories who had that status as a result of their connection with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I confirm that we are reconsidering that, and I hope that we shall be able to offer British citizenship to Ilois citizens of British dependent territories. I mention that because it is part of the full equation. We must analyse the situation scientifically to find out who wants to return.
We have been put on notice that the Ilois will be seeking compensation for the 30 years of displacement and distress that they have suffered. They are also taking advice on whether they can instigate claims for compensation in the American courts. In addition, they have asked for immediate help from Britain in the form of pensions and other income support for older, poorer members of the community in Mauritius. We want to look forward—
Mr. Eddie O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. It is time for the next debate.

Unit of Student Funding
12.30 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: This Adjournment debate has had an unusual genesis. In my view, it need not have taken place, but for the triumphalism and intransigence of Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment in declining to answer some simple questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). In a point of order on 19 December—the Tuesday before Christmas—she drew the House's attention to their extreme reluctance to give straightforward answers to specific questions. She commented, drily but fairly:
I have received a reply to each of my questions, but I have yet to receive an answer.—[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 208.]
She was invited to pursue the matter through other parliamentary channels.
This debate, which I requested and was fortunate enough to be granted, seeks, al least initially, to draw out specific facts that should have already been established in response to questions. I pursue them not in a spirit of partisanship but because it is important that Ministers answer questions front both Government and Opposition Members. In addition, these are important issues that affect all universities higher education institutions and the 1.5 million students, and their families, who are scattered across every constituency.
I shall begin with the narrow issue of student funding. On 20 December 2000, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, who has now joined us in the Chamber, elicited an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills). Although he does not always deal with higher education, we should appreciate the fact that Ministers work together. That answer was a late entry in the parliamentary lists, just before Parliament closed for the recess. Following eight days of thinking time, and after a holding answer had been given, she elicited that, of the claimed £1 billion increase in higher education funding over the next three years—a claim made by Ministers—a significant proportion, around 10 per cent., is to be funded by students in the form of tuition fees, rather than by the Treasury. At this stage, I shall only comment that, if the Treasury treats that as part of planned public funding, it is ipso facto conceding that student tuition fees are, in effect, a tax on students, and not a charge for services rendered.
Getting information about the unit of funding has proved difficult for my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. On 30 November, the Minister who will reply to this morning's debate said simply, though rather extensively:
Between 1989–90 and 1996–97, under the previous Government, the unit public funding for higher education students in England fell by 36 per cent. In 1997, the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Lord Dearing stated that planned further rapid reductions in unit funding were not achievable without putting quality unacceptably at risk, and that efficiency improvements should be limited to 1 per cent. a year for the following two years. Now, for the first time in over a decade, there will be a real-terms increase in funding per student in 2001–02, and that level of funding will be sustained in the following two years.—[Official Report, 30 November 2000: Vol. 357, c. 811W.]
A further question from my hon. Friend on 14 December was simply referred back to that answer.
196WH
It is of some interest to Parliament that, although the Government were prepared to be selectively precise about the record of their Conservative predecessors and to quote large chunks of the report of the inquiry chaired by Lord Dearing—for whom, I am happy to say, we all have great respect—they declined to answer the question. They failed to give the actual figures on which their own projections and assertions about the maintenance of the unit of student funding were based—hence the perhaps understandable disappointment of my hon. Friend.
I can report a further, late twist in this matter. Only yesterday, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) asked the Minister about publicly planned funding for higher education institutions in a series stretching, broadly, from 1995 to 2004. In doing so, he elicited some interesting answers. The information was not usable, as it were, for the purposes of the earlier inquiry, because it brought in capital. If nothing else, we need to be told what is actually going on.
The Minister knows that, on the whole, he and I have had pleasant personal relations, and I do not wish to sever them this morning. However, this is not the first time that Ministers have been, shall I say, less than helpful in this area. As an example, I shall recall an incident of some 12 months ago. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking asked a written question that probed the trend in the proportion of gross domestic product that is spent on higher education—a similar, although not identical, issue. The figures that he was given included science budget expenditure, so I took the matter a stage further and tabled a separate question, asking that science be excluded. Ministers may have become tired by their labours since 28 February 2000, but at least their answer of that date compared figures including science with those excluding science. It also showed that, as a proportion of GDP, the trend was still downward.
This is a matter of ministerial conduct. From time to time, Ministers put spin on their words and seek to make presentations in the most favourable light. These Ministers are not the first ever to do so, although they are perhaps the first to do so on this scale. At no point in my ministerial career did I seek to avoid answering a direct question. To be frank, the Ministers involved have been giving my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead the runaround.
I turn to wider issues. As was explained, Ministers are taking the line that the downward trend in the unit of student funding in the past decade—in other words, the trend under both this and the previous Government—is to be reversed by a real terms increase in funding per student in 2001–02 that will be sustained in the following two years. We understand the triennium for planning of public funding, so I ask for no further extension. However, it should be remembered that the pressure of unit funding under the Conservative Government, which was referred to in the previous ministerial answer, was accompanied by a rapid increase in total student numbers that preserved the overall envelope of funding. As a result, expansion of student numbers was at least feasible, and it manifestly took place. In 18 years of Conservative government, the percentage of young people involved in higher education virtually trebled.

197WH
Let us consider the Government's responsibilities and what happens next. The issue is whether the Government can simultaneously meet their claim to increase the real terms unit of student funding and finance the expansion of student numbers from roughly 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of young people by 2010, as again they plan to do and claim to be feasible.
That would require an increase in total student numbers of the order of 25 per cent. Even to maintain the unit funding at real 2000–01 levels must mean increasing publicly planned funding by the same 25 per cent. as student numbers, requiring a real increase in funding of around £1.5 billion over the decade. Conversely, if the higher education budget stays constant in real terms and that expansion takes place, the unit of funding would fall in line with increased student numbers by 20 per cent., or around £1,000 at current prices.
These calculations are derived from figures supplied to us by the Library of the House of Commons. I should mention that Universities UK, the former Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, drawing on a study carried out for it by London Economics as part of its analysis of university funding, suggests a lower cost progression of £260 million in annual extra requirement from 2004–05—not quite half a decade. However, it also points out that the extra academic and pastoral costs of those from disadvantaged groups, as one reaches further into the pool of potential students, were estimated at a further £50 million per annum. Whichever of those figures is right, substantial extra funds are required and Ministers should give us an explanation.
The question also arises as to whether there is already a funding gap. The London Economics report estimates it at £1.4 billion by 2004–05. The issue may well become buried or confused among other factors, including the funding increases that the Government have announced, the cost of implementing the Bett report—which may well be upwards of £1 billion—and the need to address anti-discrimination issues in employment as well as the separate cost of compliance with the inclusion of education as currently covered under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
There is also a problem with pay scales, particularly at the start of academic careers, especially as many lecturers have transferable skills, with a market value either in other sectors of employment or in academic employment abroad. I pass briefly over the issue of student support itself. The recent Callender and Kemp South Bank university report commissioned by the Department itself must have made uncomfortable reading for Ministers.
I do not suggest—nor does anyone else as far as I know—that these are easy issues, inviting an easy one shot solution. There is no strain gauge in higher education that could indicate imminent danger of failure, nor is it possible to specify the nature of any such failure. More likely, I fear, is a gradual process of decline, disappointment and disillusion. The Government's present policies seem to be leading inexorably to a solution through top-up funding, even if
198WH
not—in his memorable phrase, uttered at Greenwich university last year —in the lifetime of the present Secretary of State.
What is required from the Minister today is a bit more than mere euphoria about statistically circular funding increases. This is where we came in. First, we need simple answers to the fair questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead about the unit of funding. What is it now and what, on reasonable assumptions of expansion, will it be over the next three years? Secondly, and no less importantly, we need a wider perspective on how Ministers intend to balance their claims to maintain or improve the unit of funding with their wish to expand student numbers and with the wider need to sustain quality and excellence in our universities.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will not find me euphoric if I wish him and his team a happy new year. I extend that to all others present.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this short debate on university funding. He asked about the Government's plans for funding universities and higher education colleges, especially in relation to the amount of funding per student. I am happy to respond to his questions. The Government have nothing to hide: the figures are published regularly in our annual departmental report. Indeed, I am bound—not in a spirit of triumphalism, but in the interests of historical accuracy—to set the Government's record against that of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. We do very well out of the comparison.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the background facts, but they are worth repeating. Between 1989 and 1997, under the previous Government, planned public funding per full-time equivalent student fell by more than 36 per cent. from just under £7,600 to just over £4,800. That was the pathetic record that we inherited. As a result—as the hon. Gentleman reminded us—Lord Dearing's national committee of inquiry into higher education concluded in 1997 that higher education institutions could not absorb the further reductions is of more than 6 per cent. in the unit of funding per student that were contained in the previous Government's plans.
Mr. Boswell rose—
Mr. Wicks: I think that an apology is coming up.
Mr. Boswell: I assure the Minister that there will be no apology. However, in order not to give an incorrect tone to the debate, I should say that I am grateful for, and reciprocate, his wishes for a happy new year.
Does the Minister accept that any reduction in the unit of funding would be likely to have a progressive effect over the years, because efficiency gains may be easier to secure in earlier years—especially when expansion is taking place—than later, after the unit of funding has been scaled down? Does he further accept that the expansion and dynamism of the university

199WH
sector that was shown under recent Conservative Governments has not been so evident in a world that includes tuition fees for students?
Mr. Wicks: Although I do not expect an apology—I was jesting about that—I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's professed concern, which is, I am sure, sincere, about the need to maintain the unit of funding, given that the Conservative Government oversaw a record decline in unit funding.
The Government responded positively to the Dearing inquiry's recommendation that higher education institutions should not be asked to deliver more than a 1 per cent. reduction in costs in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 while student numbers continued to expand. We built that recommendation into our funding plans and put it into our plans for a further year. Since last year's spending review, which provided funding for higher education to 2003–04, we have announced that, for the first time in over a decade, the unit of funding per student will rise in real terms in 2001–02 and will be maintained over the next three years. That means that the total additional investment in hither education since April 1998 will be £1.7 billion—an increase of 37 per cent. in cash terms over the six years to 2003–04. That is an 18 per cent. increase in real terms.
Mr. Boswell rose—
Mr. Wicks: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to answer the questions that he has already asked.
Mr. Boswell: It is a very short question. The Minister repeated the assertion that the unit of student funding is to increase. How much will it be?
Mr. Wicks: One of the hon. Gentleman's new year resolutions should be patience. I am coming to that point. The overall increase in public funding for higher education in England, which will total more than £7 billion a year by 2003–04, is clearly significant.
To return to the question, we acknowledge, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the process of calculating funding per student in higher education is complex. I cannot cover all the details now, but I shall write to him setting out the figures that I cite today and how they were arrived at. There are one or two important caveats. It was for those reasons that I was reluctant to give a more detailed answer to the parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
This short debate gives me an opportunity to explain the position at greater length. [Laughter.] Perhaps the two hon. Members will share the joke with me later, but I hope that it did not come from a Christmas cracker, because I may not find it funny. This short debate gives me an opportunity to explain the position at greater length without the risk of misleading anyone.
On the caveats, the figures are projections based on the best data available to the Government. Inevitably, the figures will change over time, for two principal reasons. First, the Government's projections of student numbers will be replaced with more up-to-date figures based on the number of students in the sector and the
200WH
precise proportions of part-time and full-time study. Secondly, better estimates of the GDP deflator will be available over time, affecting the conversion of cash into real terms figures.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Higher Education Funding Council for England on 29 November setting out his plans for funding higher education in England from 2001–02 to 2003–04. There are cash increases of £412 million, £268 million and £298 million over those three years. Coupled with the projections for increasing student numbers to make progress with the Prime Minister's aim for participation, that implies annual increases in publicly planned funding of 3.2 per cent., 2.5 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. per full-time equivalent student, which, in turn, implies real terms increases in funding of 0.7 per cent., 0 per cent. and 0.4 per cent. over the next three years. That is the Government's best estimate and I am confident that, for the first time in more than a decade, the funding per student will increase over the three years covered by the announcement.
It is fair to ask who will pay for the extra funding. Overwhelmingly, it will be the Government on behalf of taxpayers. Only 10 per cent. of the increase will be in the form of tuition fees paid by students and their families, and those tuition fees are paid only by those who can afford them.
Caroline Flint: I have written to my hon. Friend about an anomaly in the system whereby tuition fees are based on household income. Parents who remain together until their children go to university are liable for the full cost, but when there is marital breakdown, the absent parent is not required to pay anything, unlike the formula for educational maintenance allowances which is designed for lower-income families.
Mr. Wicks: These are important questions and we are considering them. I am conscious that whatever the Government do—our approach to educational maintenance allowances is different from student finance for higher education—will be controversial. I am conscious of the need to strike an equitable balance between the stable, natural family providing for young people and the circumstances when there has been a family breakdown. That is another debate and relates, for example, to the Child Support Agency—but we are actively considering the issues.
Some 40 per cent. of students pay no tuition fees and that proportion will rise to 50 per cent. next autumn when the income thresholds in the means test are raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the figures included tuition fees paid by students and their families. The answer is that that is the income that the universities will receive. It would be peculiar to leave that income out, because it would distort the picture. On the matter of university finance, we need to see the whole picture.
Universities raise income from a variety of sources. On average, only 40 per cent. of the income of higher education institutions comes in the form of grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Universities will benefit from the £1 billion of funding to support improvements in the research infrastructure in 2002–03 and 2003–04. An additional £250 million in

201WH
recurrent funding is available for research through the research councils, which universities will be able to bid for.
Adding those sums to the HEFCE grant shows that universities will do well over the next three years. That extra funding will help to fulfil the Government's commitment that places should be available to all who have the capacity to benefit from higher education. Following increases in total enrolments at UK higher education institutions in each of the past two years, we are on course to achieve our aim that, in time, 50 per cent. of young people will have been able to benefit from higher education by the age of 30.
In summary, the higher education funding situation that the Government inherited was somewhere between a shambles and a crisis, and the hon. Gentleman has said nothing to refute that. We, however, have set higher education funding on a far firmer footing. The significant increases in funding made under this Government mean that the HE sector can now plan with greater confidence than for more than a decade. That has been recognised by the HEFCE and Universities UK, which said:
the increases announced today are clearly good news.
That, of course, is also good news for prospective students.
The Government are determined to ensure that, as the number of young people going to university increases, quality will not be sacrificed—unlike the pattern during the Tory era. That is why the unit per student is such a crucial indicator. The settlement is good news also for industry and the country as a whole, but it must be bad news for the Conservative party. It was extraordinary today—I hope that it continues during the next few months—to hear the Opposition drawing attention to their underfunding and neglect of the universities and allowing us to contrast that with our positive approach to funding British universities while maintaining unit funding per student. That must be the first political own goal of 2001.
It was noteworthy that, while the hon. Gentleman looked in some detail at our plans for funding, he had nothing to say about the Conservative party's plans. The more we hear from the shadow Chancellor, the more we understand why the shadow Education team is wholly silent on the point.

A5225
12.59 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: May I say at the start that I have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), whose constituencies are in the Wigan borough? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) will contribute to the debate, because the route also affects the Bolton borough.
The history of the A5225 goes back to the 1950s and a Lancashire development plan for the roads in the area. The plan included the M6, the M60, the M58, the M56 and a road called Route 225—which is how the A5225 got its name. It was designed to link the north Merseyside and Seaforth container docks via the M58 to the M6, then through the A5225 from junction 26 on the M6 to the M61, and thence to the primary route network through the M62 to Yorkshire and Humberside. At that time, it was seen as a northern relief route for the M62 and part of the primary route network.
Plans for the route made good progress, and in the 1990s reached the stage of being worked up into a proper design and presented to a public inquiry, which came out in favour of its being built. Unfortunately, it was lost in the reviews that happened periodically over the course of 18 years in which Mr. Boom and Mr. Bust came along to interrupt the necessary investments in our country.
Since then, the need for the route has not only persisted but been enhanced. I shall deal with the route in three broad aspects—first, its role as a regional link as part of the national primary route network; secondly, its importance as an economic regenerator for the region and sub-region; and thirdly, its significance in terms of the national, regional, sub-regional and local public transport infrastructure.
The Highways Agency is considering opportunities to improve the transport route network. As part of that process, the north-west steering group is examining several areas in the north-west region. Its current proposals state that
Routes proposed for consideration in future Studies
include
M6 Junctions 21a to 31…Between junctions 21a and 26.
That is the Orrell junction at the M58, where
traffic flows exceed 100,000 vpd—
vehicles per day—
of which 13,000 are heavy goods vehicles. North of junction 26, although traffic flows are slightly lower, this section of the M6 is beginning to show signs of stress during peak periods, and in the vicinity of the Charnock Richard Motorway Service Area there is some concern about the poor safety record.
Indeed, just before Christmas there was a fatal accident at that very point.
The proposals go on to suggest that there is a need to include
the potential for multi-modal solutions—
this is an important point to which I shall return—
to the use of the motorway by local traffic movements in the Warrington/Wigan/Preston Corridor.

203WH
In transport terms, there is clearly a national and regional requirement for the route. The M6 south of junction 26 is under extreme pressure, and pressure is increasing to the north. The M62 is often blocked simply because of the volume of traffic. The A5225 would, rightly, be seen as a northern relief route.
I want to talk about economic regeneration. Not so long ago, when people thought of Wigan, they naturally thought of coal. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. Once, thousands of people were involved directly and indirectly in the coal industry—now, about 150 people are indirectly involved through the design of coal-cutting equipment in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield. This is a classic case of an area that needs help to switch its economy from the overwhelmingly coal-based economy of the 1950s and earlier into the much broader-based economy that is required in the 21st century.
The coalfields task force that was established by the Government considered specific instantes in which help could be given in regenerating such areas, and recommendation 20 of its report stated that the Government should consider how roads could play a part in that process. It highlighted seven roads, one of which was the A5225 regeneration road in Wigan. The task force clearly saw the road as a vital part of coalfields regeneration—in fact, it was the only one in the entire former Lancashire coalfield area that it mentioned. Recommendation 20 stated:
The government should give priority to developing and implementing these key coalfield regeneration roads in partnership with the projects' sponsors.
In reply, the Government said:
It is for local authorities to determine their priorities in submitting bids for funding. The Government will carefully consider bids for coalfield regeneration roads according to the criteria set out in its draft guidance on local transport plans.
Indeed, that route was included for potential development in the local transport plan, which I shall discuss in a moment.
The areas of land that are available for development are enormous. However, they are locked in because of inadequate or non-existent access to the primary route network. The site of the former Pemberton colliery has been derelict for more than 20 years. It borders Pemberton itself, which is the most deprived area in the Wigan borough and one of the 200 most deprived wards in the country. There is also the Westwood power station site, which consists of 30 hectares, and the site at Kirkless, which also requires completion. Those sites are in the constituency of Makerfield, so I am unsure whether I or my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield should be discussing this issue. However, the economies of our two constituencies are so closely integrated that, if he is kicked, I limp. Of course, I am not suggesting that anyone should kick him.
Other areas could be opened up. To the north is the site of the former Turner and Newell asbestos factory, which consists of about 15 hectares. About 25 hectares at the former brickworks and opencast site at Gadbury
204WH
could also be opened up for regeneration. Gadbury is one of only two former opencast sites in the entire country that have not been redeveloped properly because the organisation concerned has gone into liquidation. The second site is also in the Wigan borough, so it is incumbent on the Government to help to ensure that they are properly redeveloped.
In turning to transport issues, it would be as well to describe in a little detail the relevant areas of this former Lancashire coalfield area. It consists of a series of former pit villages and towns that are scattered throughout south Lancashire. When one looks at the map, they resemble a starfish: roads have spread from the town centre, and terraced housing has developed along them in linear form. The narrow roads wind between country areas and contain many terraced properties, so road widening is not possible. Moreover, because of the nature of terraced housing, local residents often have nowhere to park other than the road itself, which causes major congestion problems.
Wigan and Leigh are the two most densely populated areas in the Wigan borough, but there is no direct link between them. Because the six-mile route to Wigan along the A577 is so badly congested, I often drive to Leigh by taking the 10 or 12-mile diversion along the M6, the A580 and the Leigh bypass. We are talking about areas with substantial populations. Between Wigan and Leigh are the towns of Ince, Pemberton, Hindley, Atherton and Westhoughton, which have populations of 30,000 or 40,000. They are congested, and it takes a long time to travel between them. The obvious solution is to create a bus lane, but that cannot be done because of the narrowness of the road, the congestion caused by development along it, and the need for people to park.
What is the solution to the local transport problems? It is the Wigan integrated transport system, which collects together the existing railway stations in Wigan—the Wigan North West railway station, the west coast main line station and the Wallgate station, which serves the line to Southport—on one site, along with a new bus station and park and ride schemes. That scheme would have the support of Manchester international airport because it would allow through-ticketing on to the airline. It also has the support of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, Virgin and Cross Country trains and the bus operators.
The scheme is not simply a transport solution. It links into the point made earlier about economic regeneration of the area, including a £400 million development within Wigan town centre, a commercial development of up to 2 million sq ft. It is important for change in the local economy because we need the higher-value employment that would be attracted. Despite the fact that we have an excellent education authority, producing children who are better educated than the national average, the best leave to take jobs in other areas of the country. This commercial development will attract organisations into the area and, through the availability of better jobs, keep well-educated people within the borough, which, in turn, is important for regeneration.
The Government response to the north-west regional transport plan says:
In addition there are a number of schemes on which we do not yet have sufficient information to form a view. The Government is keen to work with the authorities concerned to assist them in

205WH
completing the work necessary for each scheme to be evaluated by Government against New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) criteria. The schemes in this category are:
and it goes on to list about 10, one of which is the Wigan integrated transport scheme. It is clear that the Government see WITS as vital to the solution of transport problems, as well as to the regeneration of the economy.
The need for the road is clear. It is already designed and has gone through a public inquiry, so those aspects will not need to be repeated, and we own the majority of the land and property that will be affected by it. It has a major regional road link, the support of the north-west regional development area and it would help to provide public transport solutions to both local and regional difficulties. It is difficult to envisage a scheme that would fulfil the Government's public transport solutions better than the Wigan integrated transport scheme. It links national rail, local bus and park and ride schemes and has immense public sector leverage. The developer has said that he will be willing to put in substantial funding for the A5225. As I said earlier, it also has the support of all the train and bus operators and of Manchester airport.
It would be a major regenerator for the local and sub-regional economy in former heartlands areas with mining communities. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and I represent areas with the longest continuing Labour representation in the House since 1906. That is the depth of the commitment of people in our area to the Labour party, and they would like some payback in the form of help for regeneration.
I should like the Minister to give the go-ahead for this route today, but I know that Christmas has gone and I am not likely to get that. We would, however, like protection of the route for at least two years while the various ongoing schemes that I have spoken about are completed, and a meeting with MPs and the local authorities affected before any decision is made, so that we can put further points to the Government if necessary.
If it is not to be a Highways Agency road, we would like it to be a local authority road, supported by either supplementary credit approvals or the local transport plan. Frankly, if this route is not protected it will be the end of WITS, and we shall be at our wits' end to understand it.
1.14 pm
Ms Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) has made a powerful case for the proposed A5225 road. I want to support his comments and to add some observations of my own. I shall not repeat his remarks concerning the potential benefits of economic regeneration, because it would primarily benefit the Wigan area, although there would of course be knock-on benefits for my constituency. Although most of the proposed route is in Wigan, it runs to the east of Westhoughton in my constituency. Indeed, the need to link the M6 and M61 with the new road was one of the first issues brought to my attention when I became the prospective parliamentary candidate for Bolton, West in 1996.
I shall discuss the potential transport benefits for Westhoughton and Bolton, West. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the scheme went to public inquiry in 1994.
206WH
When the inspector reported in 1996, he concluded that it was clear from the traffic appraisal that the local network was approaching saturation and that unless a substantial improvement was implemented, traffic conditions and the environment along the A577 and A58 would become intolerable. He predicted that the new route would dramatically reduce traffic flow along the A577 and A58, and substantially reduce the number of accidents across the network. It was extremely disappointing that the then Secretary of State agreed with the inspector but ordered that no further work be done and that none of the side road orders be made. Later the deleted the scheme from the trunk roads programme.
After a high-profile campaign by Wigan and Bolton councils, the then Secretary of State conceded that the route should be protected while private finance was sought. That protection is still in place, so planning applications along the route are automatically refused. The need for the road is even greater today. Traffic, especially in Westhoughton and along Park road, is, as the inspector predicted, intolerable. Since the inquiry took place, Westhoughton has experienced huge housing developments that have been accompanied by new cars. The volume of traffic generated by new housing has led to misery among the residents.
Save Westhoughton Act Now, an active and effective local campaigning group, has managed to halt new housing development, which demonstrates the strength of local feeling. In the Daisy Hill area there are problems with heavy goods vehicles driving past a primary school, which could be avoided if the new route were in place. The volume of pedestrian traffic along Park road has also increased significantly with the opening of a doctor's surgery and a supermarket. The new route could significantly improve pedestrian safety and the environment, while reducing congestion.
My hon. Friend made some powerful points about the new scheme's importance in terms of public transport. It is almost unique that the building of a road could lead to significant improvements in public transport infrastructure. The scheme would, for the first time, allow prioritised bus routes in the Bolton and Wigan areas, which is an important consideration.
While the route under consideration may not be as ambitious as the initial scheme, it could still significantly reduce congestion and help the residents of Westhoughton and Wigan. I, too, ask for continued protection for the route. In addition, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the need to inject public funds into the scheme to match the private sector contributions that have already been obtained. Perhaps he will agree to meet me, my hon. Friend, other hon. Members who are interested in the scheme and local councils, so that we can put our case to him.
1.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Tranasport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Muffin): I had intended to go into slightly more detail, but time permits me to cover only some of the points raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate and thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West

207WH
(Ms Kelly) for setting out the case so clearly. Integrated transport is a high priority for the Government and I am pleased to hear that it is treated seriously in Wigan and Bolton.
The long history of the A5225 goes back to 1949 and I could speak at length about it My hon. Friends referred to the recommendation of the inspector in July 1996 when the scheme was given a longer-term categorisation because it was not considered to be of the highest priority within the national trunk roads programme. The previous Government then decided to withdraw the longer-term scheme from the programme in November 1996. In February 1997, AMEC proposed a modified version of the scheme using private finance. That was considered by the Government in 1997–98, when they concluded that the proposed M6 to M61 link was not of sufficient strategic national importance to merit inclusion in the core trunk road network. The Government invited Wigan and Bolton councils to consider whether they wanted to promote the AMEC proposals as part of their local authority transport plans.
The proposed scheme would be expensive. In 1994 it would have cost £117 million and it would cost a lot more today. I shall explain what has happened during the two and a half years since my noble Friend Lord Whitty wrote to the councils suggesting a local scheme. A bid for local transport plan funding was made for the final section of the Wigan town centre relief route, but the appraisal material presented was not sufficient to allow us to assess whether the scheme would pass the tests to determine eligibility for Government funding, nor was it clear what relationship, if any, it had to the proposed Wigan transport hub.
The Government are keen to work with the local authority to resolve any outstanding issues and to assist with the completion of a full scheme appraisal. To enable Ministers to consider the scheme in December for funding from the local transport planning reserve, we would expect a full appraisal to be submitted by July. I understand that the proposals for the Wigan transport hub interchange are still being discussed by the local
208WH
authority and a developer. It is a large and ambitious programme and we look forward to receiving a planning application, which I understand has been some time in preparation.
The link road from Wigan to the M6 would incorporate the western section of the earlier A5225 bypass proposal—about one third of the complete route—and provide access to the proposed hub. The local authority must decide whether and how it wishes to promote the scheme. Officials from the Highways Agency, the Government office of the north-west and Wigan council have met to discuss the matter on several occasions. It will be for the relevant local authorities to decide how and whether to promote the A5225 scheme in full to aid regeneration of the whole corridor.
There is no suggestion that any part of the Wigan to M6 link should be a trunk road scheme and there are no firm proposals in the draft regional planning guidance, regional transport strategy or local transport plan for the construction of the A5225 in its entirety.
It is unfortunate that the situation has persisted for so long. It is two and a half years since Lord Whitty invited the councils to consider a local scheme. The route protection cannot be maintained indefinitely. The Highways Agency owns 67 properties on the route with an approximate resale value of £4.5 million. It has continued to bear the cost of maintaining that estate and of an increasing number of blight notices.
Ministers have ruled out the A5225 route forming part of the national strategic core trunk road network and the scheme is not in the Highways Agency's targeted programme of improvements. The initiative to pursue the scheme, in part or as a whole, rests squarely with Wigan and Bolton metropolitan borough councils. Time is running out. Officials at the Highways Agency and the Government office of the north-west will try to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. I hope very much that the local authorities will be able to find a way forward, and I shall draw this debate and the points that have been made to the attention of my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible.

New Forest National Park
1.25 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister will be aware that I have had profound reservations from the very beginning about his plan for a New Forest national park. I have been corresponding with him for some time about the administrative arrangements and their effect on existing bodies in what will become the national park—particularly the Court of Verderers. In the last letter that the Minister sent me, just before Christmas, I detected a note of tetchiness creeping into his correspondence. I am therefore pleased today to be able to move on to what will be regarded as more consensual ground, where there is scope for greater agreement.
It will give the Minister some satisfaction, given the extent to which people entertain reservations about the fundamental case for a national park, that most of the representations that 1 have received—and I assume most of those received by the Minister and the agency—are from people keen to get into the national park, rather than to get out of it. The Minister has a powerful marketing tool for his policy on the national park. If he can generate enthusiasm about the proposed boundaries, and support for them, greater enthusiasm than has so far been felt in the forest for the concept of a national park may be generated.
I do not intend to spend time saying in what respects I agree with the Countryside Agency's proposed boundaries. I want to save the time of the House by referring only to my reservations. I begin in the northern end of my constituency in the Avon valley at Breamore. Breamore marsh has been included in the proposed boundary, but the rest of Breamore village has not. There does not seem to be any logic to this change: the whole of Breamore parish at present is in the New Forest heritage area. I cannot see a reason for splitting the community and village, which have an integral part in the history and make-up of the New Forest. I ask the Minister to ensure that the agency will pay particular attention to the submissions of the Breamore parish council.
Further south down the Avon valley, south of Ringwood, is Harbridge, where the situation is similar to that in Breamore. Harbridge has been separated from the remainder of its parish of Elligham, Harbridge and Ibsley. Again, there seems to be no logic to that. Harbridge church should certainly be in the boundary of the national park, but I ask the Minister and the agency to pay attention to the submission of the parish council, which has argued that the boundaries should be extended to include the surrounding land with all its historical and archaeological significance.
The south-eastern corner of Bransgore parish has been excluded. I believe that the draft boundary should be extended to include Walkford brook. It should run along the railway line to encompass Meeting House plantation, Walkford Moor copse, the brook and the land up to Walkford lane, up to the B3055, including Beckley common and Beckley itself. The whole parish of Bransgore would then be united in the proposed national park, together with the footpath network that gives access to the forest from the south. That would also have the advantage of bringing within the planning
210WH
authority those areas earmarked in previous local plans for gravel extraction. That would provide no guarantee that there would be no gravel extraction in future, but it is important in this environmentally sensitive area at the fringe of the park that any gravel extraction be determined by the national park authority rather than by any other planning authority.
Dr. Julian Lewis: While my hon. Friend says that the boundaries might not guarantee that an unpleasant development will not occur, does he agree that the ageney should be praised for including Dibden bay within the proposed boundary, which might make it a little harder to build a container port on the edge of the forest with devastating consequences for the inhabitants, the environment and the forest itself?
Mr. Swayne: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend in congratulating the agency on its robust and proper decision to include Dibden bay within the proposed boundary of the New Forest national park.
Mr. David Atkinson: My constituency is adjacent to the south-west of the area proposed by the agency as the draft boundary of the New Forest national park. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), and also the Minister, may like to know that I shall be using the comment form in the consultation document, which must be completed by 19 January, to propose that the park should also include the outstanding coastal area of Hengistbury head in my constituency. Back in 1956, it was designated a site of special scientific interest. It is now a nature reserve notable for its internationally recognised monument, geology and habitat, including marsh land and mud flats. It is similar to Calshot, which the agency included in the south-east draft boundary of the park. I hope that the agency and the Minister will agree that the park should include Hengistbury head in my constituency, as that would receive the enthusiastic support of my constituents.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. It is difficult to draw lines on the ground when the coastline countryside is so similar and so deserving of the status sought by my hon. Friend. My proposal is consistent with the criteria for setting the boundaries, outlined in the agency's document, "the New Forest National Park Draft Boundary". I emphasise that before I move on to expound why Ringwood and Milford on Sea should be included within the boundary.
First, I draw attention to the Milford on Sea parish council's own submission, signed by Major Chris Beaton, who was for many years the district councillor for Milford and is presently a parish councillor. I also have a letter of 30 December from Colonel Hutcheson, another longstanding parish councillor and a former planning inspector In this brief debate, I cannot do justice to those submissions, but I draw the agency's attention to them because they make powerful arguments on economic, historical and cultural grounds.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to section 2 of the agency's document, particularly table 1, which sets out the criteria of natural beauty and their interpretation in establishing the boundary. I shall not

211WH
quote from the extensive discussion there, but Milford on Sea meets all the criteria: from Hurst spit through to the edge of Barton on Sea, it is a mixed landscape of woodland and rolling farmland interlaced with footpaths. The parish is layered with areas of conservation, special protection areas and sites of special scientific interest and has been designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. It includes 13 proposed sites of importance to nature, together with numerous listed buildings. Given its flora, fauna, beauty and history, there is undoubtedly a case for including it within the boundary.
Section 2(g) of table 2 on page 7 of the report states:
Towns or villages should not normally be cut in two by a National Park boundary.
The parish of Milford is being cut in two. Milford, which will be outside the proposed boundary, is being split from the hamlet of Keyhaven, which is within it—they form one community. On those grounds alone, there is a clear case for considering the inclusion of Milford.
Section 2(d) of the table states:
Boundaries should include land and settlements which contribute to the rural economy and community life within the Park.
An explanatory note at the foot of the page says:
This may include a contribution to the Park's economy and community life, and a value for visitors; eg. provision of accommodation, access to public transport, information or other services.
Milford on Sea does precisely that. It provides its buses—access to public transport—its extensive free parking and its retail centre around the traditional village green. It also provides a caravan park at Shortfields, numerous hotels and guesthouses, extensive beaches, which draw tourists in summer, and a renowned summer fete. Those facilities all provide an economic service to tourists and to the community of the forest, and I submit that they would be vital in managing recreational activity in future.
As the Minister will be aware from my initial discussions with him at the very outset of his plans for a national park, my principal concern was with recreational activity. I have always stressed that recreation is a greater danger to the future of the New Forest than commercial forestry. I feared that we were planting a flag that said, "Come and see Britain's newest national park, the New Forest." Considerable worries have been expressed—especially by the Verderers—about the level of recreational activity that the Forestry Commission is taking on, almost as a substitute for forestry.
I am glad that the report takes those worries into account. Appendix E, on page 57, states that measures should be encouraged such as:
co-ordinating the recreation strategy of the coast and the Forest;
moving car parks, camping sites and visitor centres away from sensitive areas to the more robust areas on the Forest fringe;
using the Solent Way and the Avon Valley Path as alternatives to walking in the Open Forest;
It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that the Avon valley path runs through Ringwood and that the Solent way is intimately connected with Milford on Sea.
212WH
The report continues:
integrating the rights of way network of the enclosed landscapes with that of the central parts of the New Forest to reduce erosion by walkers and riders and to encourage local residents to visit on foot rather than by car;
developing new attractions, such as country parks, outside the Forest to help direct pressure away from core areas.
Appendix E concludes that
To optimise this potential and to protect the Forest's traditional quiet, pastoral character, the Forest core, the coast and the peripheral landscapes of the Forest need to be managed as a whole. The area proposed may offer new scope for meeting recreational needs in a sustainable way, especially those of local residents and day visitors, and alleviating pressures on the Forest core.
If the Minister were to read that carefully—perhaps reading between the lines—he would recognise that the author has a clear message. Reading between the lines it says to me, in black and white, that Milford on Sea and Ringwood should be included within the boundaries of the national park, precisely to facilitate that sort of recreational management to take the pressure off the core of the forest.
Moving on particularly to the case for Ringwood: again, starting with the argument for natural beauty, as set out in the document, Ringwood should be included precisely because of its beauty and its history as a New Forest market town, the character of which still reflects its association, and long relationship, with the western part of the forest and the Avon valley. Again, I cannot do justice to the history of Ringwood and its intimate involvement with the forest, its economic links and so on, but I draw to the attention of the Minister and the agency submissions to the agency that I have received, in particular a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Keating dated 30 October. Mr. Keating was a long-serving New Forest district councillor, with experience of the planning committee. He makes an excellent submission, which deserves intense scrutiny.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that people write to the Countryside Agency asking specific questions, to which they get very woolly responses? For example, my constituent, Mrs. Robertson, of St. Leonard's in Ringwood, asked the specific question:
If people in and around Ringwood are not happy with future exclusion from the New Forest national park, will you then amend the boundary to reflect this?
The answer was:
Your views on this are very welcome.
Mr. Swayne: I am glad that the views are welcome. I hope, when the period of consultation concludes on 19 January, that the agency will spend a great deal of time going through the submissions that have been made. Seeking submissions from the public by sending a document to every household within the proposed boundaries has been a very costly exercise. I trust that the submissions will be treated with the weight that is due to them. It is for precisely those reasons that I have drawn particular attention to those that I have received myself, which will bear much greater examination from the proper authorities at the appropriate time.
I have already referred to section 2(e) in this document, which says that communities and towns should not be split, but the effect of the boundary as

213WH
proposed will split the town of Ringwood. Hightown, Hightown Hill, Hightown Common, Crow, Picket Post, Picket Common, Poulner Hill and Hangersly Hill, which are all part of the Ringwood community, will be within the boundary and will be separated from the town centre with its church and market—the heart of the ancient community—which, of course, will be outside the boundary.
I know that section 2(e) goes on to say that, where urban and industrial developments have taken place, those parts should be excluded, but that is not a description of Ringwood. It does not describe Ringwood to me at all. The main reason given in the document for excluding Ringwood is on page 22, where it says that
Ringwood has been isolated from its landscape setting within the Forest by the A31 and no longer contributes to the Forest character.
Again, on page 30, it says that
the townscape is now dominated by the A31T and by extensive modern development.
I know Ringwood intimately and that is not a description of God's own town by any stretch of the imagination. I challenge members of the agency to come to look at Ringwood for themselves, to stand in its market square and see that the A31 does not impinge upon it at all. If the A31 is to be an argument for exclusion from the national park, half the forest—either the northern or the southern part—should be excluded from the boundary, because the A31 bisects the entire forest.
The A31 should be presented as a virtue—a reason for bringing Ringwood within the national park boundary—because it is via the A31 that visitors and tourists will be able to drive to the fringe of the New Forest, park their cars in Ringwood's extensive free parking facilities and then use the forest in precisely the way suggested on page 57 of the document, as a means of managing the tourism and pressures on the core of the forest. Those visitors will be able to make use of Ringwood's many hotels, restaurants, pubs and free car parks. These attractions are, of course, already enjoyed by visitors, many of whom use Ringwood as their stopping point for their visit to the New Forest by bus, bike, horse or on foot. That is something that we need to encourage and the Countryside Agency document stresses those points in appendix E and on page 57. There is a first-class case for including Ringwood within the boundary for precisely those reasons, in addition to its historical claims to be at the centre of the New Forest.
We have a once in a generation opportunity to get the boundaries of the New Forest right and, particularly in respect of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, it is vital that due consideration be given to the submissions that have been made. The Minister should come to the New Forest and look at those areas that are now matters of contention as to whether they should be within the boundary or not, particularly the two main ones to which I have referred, Ringwood and Milford on Sea. I am certain that that experience will convince him of the strength of the case that I have made.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): First, I thank the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for setting out their case so robustly and with their customary good humour. They are all fortunate to represent such a beautiful area.
I am sorry if the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who proposed the debate, noted any tetchiness on my part in some of the et correspondence that he has received. I do not think that I am regarded as one of the more tetchy Ministers, though he might have detected a certain weariness at making the same points repeatedly. I have followed the lively correspondence in the local press about the virtues or otherwise of a national park and, as he says, it is very good to know that there are communities fighting to get into rather than out of it.
I cannot go into detail about the particular places that he mentioned, for reasons that I am sure he will understand, but I will say a word or two about the process, which began in October 1999. The agency will complete it later this year and if at that point it concludes that national park status is appropriate, it will produce a designation order for the Secretary of State's confirmation. He will consider any representations that he receives on the order, and if necessary he will call a public inquiry to enable all views to be fully aired. There is a considerable way to go yet, and there will be ample opportunity for constituents and colleagues to make representations.
The Countryside Agency has been holding meetings with the New Forest Panel, local authorities and town and parish councils and mounting public roadshows. Many people have attended those events to discuss particular aspects of the proposed boundary. While none of the meetings or roadshows held so far has been in Ringwood itself, no deep significance should be attached to that. I am advised that the Countryside Agency will attend a public meeting in Ringwood on 15 January, so people will have plenty of opportunities to ask questions then. I also understand that people from Ringwood have been active in the meetings that have been held.
The three-month public consultation period, which started on 19 October, is due to end in 10 days' time, on 19 January. The agency will then analyse the comments that it has received and reconsider the proposed boundary. The plan is to hold formal consultations with local authorities on the proposed boundary, which will be revised as necessary following the public consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, because the draft boundary is currently out to consultation and given the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the process, I cannot comment on the merits of specific boundary issues. I can only emphasise that the Countryside Agency is eager to hear people's views and urge anyone who has not done so to provide them to the agency as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to a postcard. He has been a Minister, so he will understand that questions such as that posed by his constituent cannot be answered until the inquiry has reached its conclusions.

215WH
The hon. Member for New Forest, East referred to Dibden bay and, again, he will understand that I cannot comment on that because the issues largely concern planning, which will have to be considered separately. However, I pay tribute to his ingenuity in getting the subject into the debate, considering that he opposes the whole concept of a national park—unless he has changed his position since we last discussed the matter.
Running concurrently with the boundary considerations, the Countryside Agency will formulate advice on the administrative arrangements for the forest. The agency has set up individual local working groups to examine specific issues focusing on governance, land management, recreation and tourism, and planning. The hon. Member for New Forest, West referred to concern that the area may be flooded with visitors. We have discussed the matter previously and he will know that the national parks are very good at
216WH
managing visitors The problem is not to increase the number of visitors but to manage the existing number. I am confident that there would be an improvement in existing practice were there to be a national park.
As with the boundary, the agency will draw together its proposals for the administrative arrangements, which will be put out to wider consultation later this year. A lot of work is needed on both the boundary and the administrative arrangements. Careful attention must be paid to the views of all concerned, but I am optimistic that it will be possible to achieve an outcome that fulfils the majority of people's aspirations for the forest, for its future protection and for our enjoyment of it. I look forward to many stimulating discussions on the subject in the months ahead with the hon. Members who have spoken.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made on the review of the minimum funding requirement; and if he will make a statement. [144495]

  Mr. Rooker
  A wide ranging consultation paper was issued on 14 September 2000 asking for comment by 31 January 2001. We will then study the responses received and consider the best way forward.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made to process claims for higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance in respect of three and four-year-old children; and if he will make a statement. [144851]

  Mr. Bayley
  Due to take place from 9 April under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, the extension of the higher rate mobility component to three and four-year-olds is expected to benefit 6,000 children in the first year and more in the future. Most children likely to benefit will already be receiving the Care Component of Disability Living Allowance. This means they are already known to the Department and arrangements have been made to write in every case to the person who deals with the child's benefit to invite them to apply for the higher rate mobility component. Once details of a child's mobility needs are known to the Department, then depending on the circumstances of each case, they could be entitled to an extra £38.65 per week and access in some cases to the Motability scheme.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people have received all the backdated winter fuel payments to which they are entitled; [143157]

  (2) how many men who have an entitlement to a backdated winter fuel payment accrued when they reached 60 years have (a) received the backdated payment and (b) are awaiting some or all of the payment; [143528]

  (3) how many claims for backdated winter fuel payments were received (a) before and (b) after 3 November. [143525]

  Mr. Rooker
  Latest information shows that around one million people, of whom around 980,000 are men, have chosen to claim for past winters and around one million payments have been made, of which around 975,000 have 478W
  been to men. Almost one million claims were received before 3 November and approximately 50,000 since that date.

  We are unable to give precise figures as claims are still being received and processed. It is up to the individual to choose whether to claim payments for past winters. The information campaign, which has been running since April, aimed to ensure that existing and potential customers know about the changes to the scheme and what to do to get a payment.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the very sheltered housing scheme is intended to provide a replacement for Housing Benefit. [144187]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Housing Benefit is available to help people on low incomes, including those tenants living in sheltered or very sheltered accommodation to meet their housing costs (ie rent and accommodation-related service charges). Housing Benefit will also continue to help meet service charges for lower-level support until April 2003. From this date, the various funding streams will be drawn together and these support services will instead be met from a single budget—Supporting People—which will be managed by local authorities together with probation services. Service charges for more intensive personal support, including personal care, remain ineligible for Housing Benefit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have applied(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully for the minimum income guarantee since the start of the take-up campaign in each Benefit Agency area. [143524]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the minimum income guarantee take up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. There are thousands more claims in the pipeline, and the effects of the last stage of the campaign will impact on claims processed up to January next year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 135W, on St. Helena, if she will place in the Library a copy of the draft report resulting from the study of options for sea and air access to St. Helena. [144572]

  Clare Short
  This is a matter for the St. Helena Government.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects undertaken for her Department by(a) outside consultants,

  479W
  (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144082]

  Clare Short
  DFID draws widely on the range of consultancy expertise in order to deliver our development programme.

  Since 1 May 1997 DFID has awarded over 7,200 contracts with a value of some £1,043 million. I am placing a list of these contracts in the Library of the House.

  Information on the total expenditure classified by consultants, academic researchers or university departments is not available without disproportionate cost.

  GATS Negotiations
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's role in the current GATS negotiations. [143086]

  Clare Short
  My Department is helping to build the capacity of developing countries to participate effectively in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations. DFID is contributing to a World Bank Programme on Trade in Services, providing data and information to help developing countries formulate policy for the negotiations. In addition, officials are in the process of drawing up specific proposals to support representatives of developing countries in Geneva responsible for the trade in services issues.

  My officials also work closely with other Whitehall Departments to ensure that UK and EU policy on trade in services has a strong development dimension. A successful outcome from the current negotiations on the GATS would offer a number of benefits for developing countries. They could potentially increase their income from individual service sectors, for example, tourism. In addition, progress on issues such as the "movement of persons" (the ability for nationals to work overseas for a temporary period) would offer developing countries new opportunities for export of services. Increased competition in the provision of domestic services which support a country's basic infrastructure, e.g. banking, transport and telecommunications, will contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries.

  The current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) offer developing countries the potential to gain access to new markets overseas and to benefit from more efficient and competitive services at home. Developing countries are particularly interested in the liberalisation of sectors where they have the greatest export potential; at present tourism services and movement of persons (i.e. the ability for personnel to spend some time overseas for the purposes of providing a specific service).

  We are helping developing countries to participate in the new GATS negotiations, so that world trade in services better contributes to their economic growth and thereby the elimination of poverty.

DEFENCE

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the prime contractors' proposals for the procurement of the first batch of Type 45 destroyers, (b) the implications of these proposals for the investment plans of companies involved in procurement of the first batch and (c) how the proposals will affect the delivery of a competitive procurement strategy for follow-on Type 45s. [143918]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to him and to the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 21 December 2000,Official Report, columns 248–51W, to which I have nothing to add.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposal he has received from BAe Systems Marine for an alternative shipbuilding strategy for the Type 45 destroyer programme; if this proposal involves a partnership strategy without competition for downstream batches of the class; and if he intends to sign a DFM contract with BAe Systems before a decision has been taken to accept this proposal. [144038]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him and to the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 248–51W, to which I have nothing to add.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from service personnel who have undergone experiments at Porton Down. [144476]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I announced on 21 November 2000, Official Report, columns 101–02W, a number of measures aimed at assisting Service personnel gain information about the trials they were involved in at Porton Down. Since my announcement, the Porton Down Volunteer helpline, which was established in January 1998, has received 120 calls. Volunteers who approach the helpline will obtain full information, by letter, on their own trials, and be offered the opportunity to examine the records for themselves at the site. I also offered volunteers the opportunity of receiving a thorough medical assessment, along the lines of the well established Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) at St. Thomas' Hospital, London. As at 4 January, the MAP programme has received 20 inquiries, of which 14 volunteers have been referred to the MAP for assessment.

  We have also received 24 other inquiries, in the form of Parliamentary Inquiries and letters from members of the public, on matters relating to the trials at Porton Down. Porton Down have also received written correspondence from members of the public, doctors and the War Pensions Agency.
  481W
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the chemicals used in experiments on service personnel at Porton Down. [144477]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Comprehensive records at Porton Down show that since 1990 the following drugs (chemicals) have been administered to personnel taking part in the Service Volunteer Programme at CBD Porton:

  Anti-biotics
  ciprofloxacin
  doxycycline

  Anti-emetics
  ondansetron
  granisetron

  Carbamates
  pyridostigmine
  physostigmine

  Anti-cholinergics
  hyoscine
  pilocarpine

  Oxime
  HI-6

  Solvent
  DMSO.

  Most of the studies involved an assessment of the military acceptability of prospective or in-service medical countermeasures that would save lives if biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were used against the UK or its armed forces.

  Work is proceeding to research records prior to 1990 but this is time consuming and the records become less comprehensive with age. However records do show that the following drugs (chemicals) were used, although this list is not exhaustive:
  Nerve Agents
  Vesicants (mainly mustard)
  Riot Control Agents (CS and others)
  Incapacitants (e.g. LSD, glycollates)
  Prospective therapies (atropine, oximes, anti-convulsants, carbamates)
  Artificial SMOG
  Samples of rubber and fabric formulations
  Sternutators (organic compounds of arsenic).

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths of service personnel were directly attributable to chemical weapons experiments at Porton Down. [144478]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Since 1940 we have had well over 20,000 volunteers take part in trials. There has been one death on the site, that of Ronald Maddison in 1953.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [144086]
  482W
  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Department's annual returns of expenditure on External Assistance, which includes outside consultants, for the last five financial years are available in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made to ensure that service personnel are given an appropriate measure of priority for medical treatment; and at what expense. [144511]

  Dr. Moonie
  Existing arrangements for the treatment of Service personnel, which include provision for rapid access to hospital out-patient appointments in high priority cases, have recently been supplemented by contracts with private sector providers in order to help return personnel quickly to fully deployable status and so relieve overstretch. I am withholding details of the costs of these various contractual arrangements in accordance with Section 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Former Prisoners of War
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons British prisoners of war held during the Second World War who were not paid during their period of capture have not been subsequently compensated; what plans he has to make payments to the surviving former POWs; and if he will make a statement. [144379]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the Second World War, British Service personnel who were held as prisoners of war or protected personnel continued to receive their Service pay during their captivity; this was credited to their home pay account. On repatriation, arrangements were made for adjustments to be made to an individual's pay account to resolve any outstanding pay issues in relation to their time in enemy hands. From time to time the Ministry of Defence continues to receive representations from former British Service personnel about matters relating to their pay while in captivity.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people over the age of 75 years receive a free television licence. [144136]

  Janet Anderson
  To date, 2.76 million free television licences have been issued by TV Licensing. A further 236,000 applications from people giving their age as 75 or over are currently being verified. Up to 500,000 beneficiaries of the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary licence are estimated to be 75 or over and will receive free television licences as their current licence comes up for renewal.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners in Wansbeck will benefit from the introduction of the free television licence for persons aged 75 years and over. [144289]
  483W
  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,700 people aged 75 or over in the Wansbeck constituency.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners aged 75 years and over in the Vale of Clwyd qualify for a free television licence; and how many of those qualifying had received the licence on the latest date for which figures are available. [144458]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Everyone aged 75 or over is entitled to benefit from a free television licence, but licences cover households rather than individuals so households with more than one member over 75 need only a single free licence. TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 7,100 people aged 75 or over in the Vale of Clwyd constituency.

  BBC Guidelines
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the final version of the guidelines he uses in assessing BBC public service proposals; and if he will make a statement. [144673]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I intend to publish the guidelines, which have been revised in the light of the public consultation, tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The guidelines explain how the BBC must meet its obligations under the Charter and Agreement. They make clear that the BBC cannot make material changes to the nature of existing services without properly consulting licence payers and that they cannot establish new national services, or go outside the terms of services which I have approved, without my consent. The BBC cannot make fundamental changes to the nature of existing channels, such as the proposals to change BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge into BBC3 and BBC4, without consulting the public.

  Individual scheduling decisions are of course a matter for the Governors, but the Guidelines make clear that the BBC must ensure that its services, including BBC1 and BBC2, continue to meet the standards of content and quality set out in the Charter and Agreement. As I recently made clear over the move of the BBC Nine O'Clock News, I shall be looking to ensure that the Governors perform those duties rigorously. And no changes to those standards of content and quality can be made without the consent of Parliament.

CABINET OFFICE

  "Public Bodies 2000"
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on "Public Bodies 2000". [144847]

  Mr. Stringer
  "Public Bodies 2000" is the latest in a series of annual reports on the size, spend and membership of the UK "quango" sector. I am pleased to report that "Public Bodies 2000" was published on 4 January and that copies are available from the Vote Office. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  This Government are committed to keeping the number of "quangos" (or non-departmental public bodies) to a minimum. I am, therefore, pleased to report that there are now fewer "quangos" in the UK than at any other time over the past 20 years. The latest figure of 1,035 means that numbers have fallen by around 10 per cent. since 1997. Those "quangos" which remain, such as the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and the Parole Board, continue to carry out a range of important and essential public services.

  The Government are determined to ensure that all "quangos" are open and accountable. To this end, responsibility for hundreds of public bodies has now been transferred to the new, democratically elected bodies in Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and London. Furthermore, our new Freedom of Information Act 2000 will introduce a statutory right of access to a wide range of information held by all public bodies.

  As a Government, we are committed to increasing the representation of under-represented groups. I am, therefore, pleased to note that "Public Bodies 2000" reports an increase in the proportion of women and members of the ethnic minorities serving on the boards of public bodies compared with 1997. In total, there are around 30,000 men and women serving on the boards of the public bodies. They bring a wealth of skills and experience into the running of public bodies and we are grateful for their continued involvement and enthusiasm.

  Government IT Systems
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of 'Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action', published in May 2000. [144848]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  On 29 December 2000, Andrew Pinder, the interim e-Envoy, reported to me on the progress. An electronic copy of the report is at www.e-envoy.gov.uk/successful—it/progress—forword.htm. This shows much work has been achieved so far. All 19 recommendations due for completion by December 2000 were met. These early recommendations have laid the infrastructure that will help Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies to implement their recommendations to improve their delivery of IT-enabled projects and programmes. Copies of the report have been laid in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of industrial sites covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive are not energy intensive users. [142878]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: A list of energy intensive installations is given in paragraph 51 of Schedule 6 of the Finance Act 2000. This list describes the sectors covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. All industrial sites with installations covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive are considered by that definition to be energy intensive.

  Urban Drainage
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking including relevant research to promote sustainable urban drainage; and if he will make a statement. [143850]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 476W, in which I outlined the range of promotional activities for sustainable drainage systems in which my Department is involved.

  I would add to this that in revising the draft PPG 25 on "Development and flood risk", we are considering what more can be said to assist in the promotion of sustainable drainage systems.

  My Department co-funded with the Environment Agency and others, the Construction Research and Information Association (CIRIA) research project, which examined sustainable urban drainage systems in practice. Design manuals for Scotland and Northern Ireland and for England and Wales were published during 1999 and a best practice manual is to be published shortly. Officials are also assisting in steering a CIRIA project that has just started on sustainable water management.

  We are also examining what further action might be needed, including research, to further promote the use of sustainable drainage systems.

  DVLA (Telephone Calls)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many telephone calls were received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on 18 December from keepers of vehicles inquiring about the implementation of the new excise duty rates for vehicles of 1500cc and less. [143890]

  Mr. Hill
  The Agency received around 1,500 telephone calls on 18 December 2000 from keepers of vehicles on this issue.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the age requirements in respect of those applying for driving licences. [143926]

  Mr. Hill
  In accordance with the Government's Road Safety Strategy we are currently considering options for improving the safety of novice drivers. This includes the recommendation made by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee that a minimum period should be set between drivers obtaining their provisional licence and first attempting a practical car driving test. We wish to ensure that learner drivers achieve the necessary level of driving experience before they take their test and will consult fully on any proposals before introducing any subsequent changes to the present arrangements.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the Government Advisory Group for Motorcycles to develop a national motorcycle strategy; and if he will make a statement. [143901]

  Mr. Hill
  Our integrated transport White Paper recognised that motorcycles can contribute to an integrated transport policy, but there are important and complex matters to consider, including road safety, traffic management and environmental issues. The Advisory Group on Motorcycling was established to bring together motorcycle interests to discuss these issues. The Group has still to reach conclusions, but these should assist the Government in defining their strategy for motorcycles.

  Foam Plastics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the results of the consultation undertaken on the problems of the dispersal of foam plastics in 1998. [144401]

  Mr. Mullin
  DETR published a consultation paper "Options for Tackling the Problem of Waste Non-Packaging Farm Plastics" in October 1998. This sought opinions on the potential for legislative and voluntary approaches to recycling non-packaging agricultural film. Some 10,000 consultation documents were issued but there was a very limited response to this consultation—only 35. These showed no clear preference for a legislative approach and provided the Government with no clear basis for future action. The issue has been raised again in the context of extending waste management controls to agricultural waste and is being considered currently.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will announce successors to the Partnership Investment Programme; [144338]
  487W
  (2) what new regeneration frameworks are under discussion with the EU Commission for permitting state aid for the physical regeneration of derelict and disused sites throughout England; [144303]

  (3) what publicly funded urban regeneration programmes have not been able to go ahead after the cancellation of the Partnership Investment Programme; [144387]

  (4) what urban regeneration projects by English Partnerships have been cancelled after the ending of partnerships investment programme funding under EU rules; what arguments were put to the EU Commission in defence of the partnerships investment programme; and what assessment he has made of the prospects of the partnerships investment programme being allowed to continue under EU rules; [144302]

  (5) which other EU member states are supporting Her Majesty's Government's discussions to reverse the decision ending the Partnerships Investment Programme; [144305]

  (6) what discussions are taking place with the EU Commission about alternatives to the partnerships investment programme. [144304]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's response1 to the 16th report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee report and the subsequent debate on the Select Committee's report, which took place in the House of Commons on 19 December 2000.

  The Government are not involved in any discussions to reverse the decision ending the Partnership Investment Programme (PIP). The closure of PIP has not prevented other publicly funded urban regeneration programmes from going ahead.

  1 The Government's response to the Environment. Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee Report on the Implications of the European Commission Ruling on Gap Funding Schemes for Urban Regeneration in England. Command Paper 4923 published on 11 December 2000.

  Dwellings
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) number and (b) percentage of dwellings in (i) the private rented sector, (ii) multiple occupation in (1) England and Wales, (2) Greater London and (3) the London borough of Enfield in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [144526]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available estimates for private rented dwellings are given in the table. These are not available for the London borough of Enfield.

  England and Wales

  Greater London

  As at 1 April

  Dwellings (thousand)

  Percentage of total stock

  Dwellings (thousand)

  Percentage of total stock

  1991

  2,021

  9.7

  345

  11.9

  1992

  2,068

  9.8

  362

  12.3

  1993

  2,136

  10.1

  389

  13.2

  1994

  2,184

  10.2

  411

  13.9

  1995

  2,244

  10.4

  430

  14.4

  1996

  2,326

  10.7

  451

  15.0

  488W

  England and Wales

  Greater London

  As at 1 April

  Dwellings (thousand)

  Percentage of total stock

  Dwellings (thousand)

  Percentage of total stock

  1997

  2,386

  10.9

  465

  15.4

  1998

  2,414

  11.0

  467

  15.4

  1999

  2,510

  11.3

  470

  15.4

  2000

  2,527

  11.3

  472

  15.4

  Estimates of the number of houses in multiple occupation are available only for England, as follows:

  Dwellings1 (thousand)

  Percentage of total stock

  1991

  1,154

  5.9

  1996

  880

  4.3

  1 Includes traditional Houses in Multiple Occupation (bedsits), purpose-built HMOs and converted flats.

  Source:

  English House Condition Surveys 1991 and 1996

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on(a) house prices and (b) levels of homelessness in the south-east region of a decision to allow individual local authorities to decide the overall level of provision of new dwellings over the next 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [144519]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government's policy is to encourage local authorities to work with one another and other stakeholders in order to take a strategic view of housing needs sensitive to the location of jobs and services and to future changes it circumstances. The new framework for the development of Regional Planning Guidance facilitates this approach and helps local authorities to plan, monitor and manage on a more flexible basis than under the former "predict and provide" regime which we have abandoned.

  Planning on a purely local basis without this strategic framework would be likely to lead to higher house prices and increased homelessness in areas of high demand, and to other impacts such as skill shortages and longer journeys to work. It would also be likely to lead to inconsistent patterns of provision aggravating problems of shortage in some areas and conversely contributing to low demand and abandonment in others. However, the precise scale of these impacts is in the south-east would be difficult to estimate given the complexity of the housing market.

  Departmental Programmes
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will break down the total amount spent on each programme by his Department in each year since May 1997 in the(a) Edmonton parliamentary constituency and (b) London borough of Enfield where applicable. [144491]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions provided the following funding to the London borough of Enfield in each of the last four years.
  489W
  2000–01
  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £133,017,967
  National Non-Domestic Rates: £73,528,897
  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £16,304,553 (estimated)
  Housing Investment Programme: £9,703,000
  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £10,212,000
  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £2,099,000

  1999–2000
  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £133,540,422
  National Non-Domestic Rates: £65,395,998
  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £16,210,933 (estimated)
  Housing Investment Programme: £7,721,000
  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £6,396,000
  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £2,575,000

  1998–99
  Government Grant for Local Authority General Fund Revenue Support: £128,227,609
  National Non-Domestic Rates: £59,780,402
  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £19,024,734
  Housing Investment Programme: £4,437,000
  All Services Basic Credit Approval: £8,340,000
  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £1,944,000

  1997–98
  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy: £20,296,207
  Housing Investment Programme: £5,894,800
  All Service Basic Credit Approval: £9,779,000
  Local Transport Capital Expenditure: £2,830,000.

  There is one Single Regeneration Budget Partnership (SRB), which has a direct benefit to the London borough of Enfield. This is the Upper Lea Valley Partnership which is a Round 1 Programme with £39.9 million over seven years. Commencing on 1 April 1995, it is a Capital based investment initiative, which is redeveloping and promoting economic investment in the boroughs of Enfield and Haringey.

  During the period between 1 April 1997 and 30 September 2000, £9,831,000 SRB funds have been spent within the London borough of Enfield.

  While Edmonton has benefited from this funding, it is not possible to separate out this geographical part of the borough as most projects cover the whole area of the Upper Lea Valley Partnership.

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on reduction of the payment of council tax benefit subsidy to local authorities that make council tax increases which he judges to be excessive; if he will make an exception to his policy for Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [144513]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government believe that local authorities making steep increases in council tax should themselves meet part of the escalating council tax benefit bill resulting from their decisions. The Council Tax Benefit Subsidy Limitation (CTBSL) scheme was introduced to
  490W
  achieve this. The Government announced the proposed details of the scheme for 2001–02 on 27 November 2000 for consultation.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 86W, if he will list the sites in remote and sparsely populated areas in (a) the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and (b) Argyll and Bute constituency; if he will publish the recommendations of the independent research regarding these sites; and if he will make a statement. [144183]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The independent research did not specifically examine sites in either the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or Argyll and Bute constituency. However, similar sites in other remote and sparsely populated areas (such as in Wales and the Yorkshire Dales) were studied. The sample of sites chosen was designed to ensure that selected sites were broadly representative of quarries across the country in terms of local population density and outputs. The findings of the research, "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of the Supply of Aggregates" by London Economics, was published in July 1999 and provided the basis for setting the rate of the aggregates levy.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy for high-value cars destined to be crushed as a result of the owners' non-payment of road tax to be auctioned with the proceeds going to the relevant local highway authority. [144473]

  Mr. Hill
  High-value vehicles impounded as a result of non-payment of vehicle excise duty and not reclaimed are always auctioned. Such vehicles make up less than one per cent. of the total impounded. The funds are used for VED enforcement purposes.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent estimate he has made of the cost of environmental damage from the emission of carbon dioxide from domestic properties; how this figure is incorporated into his Department's estimated cost and savings of introducing improvements to Part 1 of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [144509]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to my hon. Friend for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 28 November 2000,Official Report, columns 549–50W.

  Fatal Road Accidents (Essex)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fatal road accidents there have been in Essex in each of the last seven years. [144149]
  491W
  Mr. Hill
  The following numbers of fatal accidents were recorded in Essex in the last seven years for which information is available.

  Number

  1993

  88

  1994

  85

  1995

  85

  1996

  84

  1997

  83

  1998

  79

  1999

  104

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his strategy is for combating violent crime is. [144672]

  Mr. Straw
  Although violent crime represents a relatively small proportion of all crime, and the British Crime Survey showed that there had been a 4 per cent. fall in total violent crime between 1997 and the end of 1999, it includes those crimes which cause people, particularly those who are most vulnerable, the greatest concern and fear.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the long-term rise in the number of violent crimes is reversed, that the causes of violent crime are addressed and that individuals and communities are protected and feel safe. The Government are therefore introducing a comprehensive strategy to tackle violent crime through action which will prevent violence in the first place, assist the police in their fight against such crime, bring offenders to justice, root out offending behaviour, and support victims and witnesses.

  The detailed proposals underpinning the strategy are set out in "Fighting Crime Together: An Action Plan" to be published tomorrow, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the European Court of Justice's judgment in case C-37/98 Rv. SSHD ex parte Savas Judgment (11 May 2000) on the rules applicable to Turkish nationals, lawfully in the UK, who wish to apply to vary their leave to establish themselves in business in the United Kingdom; and if he will apply the Immigration Rules 1973, HC509 and HC510, to such individuals. [143770]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money the Government received in charges for the services of immigration officers from each relevant port for the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; how much he expects to receive from each such port in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [142804]
  492W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The level of charges received by the Immigration Service for the provision of officers under section 9(4) of the Immigration Act 1988 is set out in the table. The provision of information by port would identify, in some cases, charges paid by specific port operators, and thereby breach contractual agreements on commercial confidentiality.

  Immigration service—Section 9(4) receipts

  £

  Year

  Receipts

  1997–98

  4,025

  1998–99

  2,712

  1999–2000

  835

  2000–011

  895

  1 Estimate

  Mrs. Roche
  We are continuing to consider the implications of the judgment, in consultation with fellow member states. I will write to my hon. Friend when that consultation is complete.

  International Business Transactions (Bribery)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which United Kingdom law complies with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1997 OECD Convention on Transnational Banking and Business Transactions; what action he plans to take to ensure compliance; and if he will make a statement. [142794]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

  The United Kingdom ratified the Convention in December 1998 on the basis of the Government's assessment that existing statute and case law in the United Kingdom already ensures compliance with our obligations under the Convention. In our White Paper "Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the Prevention of Corruption" issued in June 2000 (Cm 4759) we proposed to put or compliance beyond any doubt by making it clear in statute that the United Kingdom has jurisdiction over bribery offences involving foreign public officials which take place in the United Kingdom. The White Paper also proposed a new provision, implementing an optional provision of the Convention, to give the United Kingdom jurisdiction over bribery offences committed by United Kingdom nationals overseas.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the weekly cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington(a) is and (b) will be when the centre is operating at full capacity accounted for by the costs of Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on site. [142772]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: I am now in a position to reply in full to the question.

  At 19 December 2000, the current weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington was estimated at £1,536. That cost is broken down as follows: £1.004 for the supervision of detainees, security and related costs;

  493W
  £243 for Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff costs and £289 for running costs such as interpreters, office accommodation, telephone and other general office expenses.

  The weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker when operating at full capacity was given as £800 in my answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 217W. That remains the estimate of which some 16 per cent. (£128) is expected to be accounted for by the costs of Immigration and Nationality Directorate staff on site.

  Police (Retirement)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of retirement to police authorities was in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, and (c) the most recent 12 months for which statistics are available; and for each of these, what percentage of total police budget this cost accounted for. [143889]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Net pensions expenditure (£000)

  Proportion of police net expenditure spent of pensions costs (percentage)

  1980–81

  98,011

  5.6

  1990–91

  333,165

  7.2

  1999–2000

  948,000

  12.7

  Information taken from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics Actuals.

  Police Information Technology Organisation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the representations of Dr. Rosemary Lee of Northwood, Middlesex, concerning the Police Information Technology Organisation. [143754]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stock Options
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to require companies to declare their policy towards stock options for their staff, the take-up and potential take-up of such options, and the effect on the companies' equity. [143879]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: There are already a number of legislative and regulatory disclosure requirements in relation to stock options. The Companies Act 1985 requires companies to provide information relating to any option to subscribe for shares, including the number, description and amount of the shares in relation to which the right is exercisable and the price to be paid for the shares allotted. Listed companies are required under the Listing Rules to seek prior shareholder approval of an employees' share scheme involving the issue of new shares, and to send a circular to shareholders in connection with the approval including
  494W
  either the full text of the scheme or a description of its principal terms. The Government have no plans to require additional disclosures by companies in this area. We will, however, look carefully at these disclosure requirements when the final report of the independent Company Law Review is delivered later this year. There are, of course, fuller disclosure requirements in relation to company directors.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to require companies and limited liability partnerships to declare their policy towards, and their payments of, bonuses and special payments to their staff. [143874]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Companies Act 1985 requires companies to state the aggregate wages or salaries, including bonuses and special payments, paid or payable to employees in respect of each financial year. The Government have laid a draft statutory instrument before Parliament under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 which would introduce a corresponding requirement in relation to the sums paid to the employees of a limited liability partnership. The Government have no plans to require additional disclosures by companies or limited liability partnerships in relation to bonuses and special payments to staff. We will, however, look carefully at these disclosure requirements when the final report of the independent Company Law Review is delivered later this year. There are, of course, fuller disclosure requirements in relation to company directors.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department paid all correctly presented bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or an invoice in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [144143]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Figures for the years before the year 2000 are not available in the form requested.

  (b) 93 per cent.

  Post Office
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make the Order under the Postal Services Act 2000 nominating the company to which the business of the Post Office will be transferred; and if he will make a statement. [144849]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A key element of our Post Office reform package is the transformation of the Post Office from a public corporation to a public limited company. An Order was made on 4 January, which came into effect on 5 January, nominating Consignia plc as the company to which the property, rights and liabilities of the Post Office will be transferred in accordance with section 62 of the Postal Services Act 2000. Prior to making the Order, the Post Office were consulted, in accordance with section 62(3) of the Act.
  495W
  As required by the Act, this is a company which is wholly owned by the Crown. The Secretary of State is appointing the current members of the Post Office board as the first directors of the company. The memorandum and articles of association of the company are available for inspection in the usual way at Companies House, and copies are being laid in the Libraries of both Houses. As was foreshadowed during the debates on the Postal Services Bill, the articles of association include the special provisions protecting certain rights of the Government, particularly the appointment of the chairman of the company, and the remainder of the board (after consulting the chairman); changes in the remuneration packages of the directors; approval of the strategic plan; and controls on the disposal of significant assets.

  The name of the new company was chosen by the directors after careful research by the Post Office into the requirements of a modern postal operator working in the rapidly changing commercial communications environment of the 21st century. The directors are however intent that the traditional and well-loved titles of Royal Mail and Post Office should continue to be used wherever they are currently seen in this country; the name change will therefore have little if any impact on domestic and most business customers. The main marketing use of the new name will be with integrated and international business users. As previously indicated, Her Majesty has graciously consented that the existing Royal connections with the organisation should continue.

  The Order also appoints 26 March 2001 as the day on which the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities will be made—this is the day after the end of the Post Office's current financial year and the day on which most of the new provisions of the Postal Services Act 2000 are scheduled to commence. The transformation to a plc will then be complete.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to co-ordinate policies on export licences with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and if he will make a statement. [144161]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO). All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest as determined by those Departments in line with their policy responsibilities. These include FCO, MOD and DfID. These Departments give advice to the DTI on whether the applications should be approved or refused in accordance with the consolidated EU and national export licensing criteria announced by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 199–203W.

  Strategic export licensing is a joined-up process. Officials in the Export Control Organisation (ECO) are in contact with officials in other Government Departments, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on a daily basis, and there is an inter-departmental Steering Group that meets regularly to discuss export controls. There
  496W
  are also regular meetings between officials in the main Departments to identify specific ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing system, as well as to discuss particular licensing applications.

  In addition, Government Departments have worked together since 2 May 1997 to publish Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Three such reports have been published so far; copies are in the Library of the House.

  Finally, details of the roles and responsibilities of the Government Departments involved in the export licensing process have been set out in a Memorandum from the FCO and DTI to the 'Quadripartite Committee' (Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development, Trade and Industry), published on 15 June 1999 (HC540).

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences were granted in each of the past 10 years. [144173]

  Dr. Howells
  Between 1993 and 1997 statistics on export licensing decisions were periodically placed in the Library of the House.

  Since 2 May 1997, details of export licensing decisions have been set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. Three such reports have been published so far and each report lists by country of destination the export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and gives details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted. The report for the year 2000 will be published this year.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the recommended time is for the issuing of export licences; what percentage of applications have taken longer to process than this time in each of the last 24 months; and if he will make a statement. [144166]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's commitments to exporters are set out in a Service and Performance Code published by the Export Control Organisation (ECO). Where, as in almost all cases, the advice of other Government Departments is sought on applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs), the aim is to provide a substantive response within 20 working days.

  While the Government have performance targets for processing SIELs, this target does not apply to applications concerning Iran, Iraq or applications for licences to export goods which are subject to control solely because of UN sanctions. This is because there are special licensing procedures for those destinations, which reflect the Governments concerns. But none the less, we still make every effort to process such applications as quickly as possible. Nor do they apply for Open Individual Export licences because of the very wide variation in the goods and destination coverage of such licences.

  The Government's performance figures were not collected on a monthly basis before 1 January 2000. However, the performance for the whole of 1999 can be found in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. The figures from 1 January 2000 are set out in the table.
  497W

  Percentage of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs)

  Month (2000)

  Completed within the 20 day target

  Not completed within 20 days

  January

  63.1

  36.9

  February

  64.8

  35.2

  March

  68.6

  31.4

  April

  63.8

  36.2

  May

  61.7

  38.3

  June

  56.2

  43.8

  July

  53.4

  46.6

  August

  50.6

  49.4

  September

  53.5

  46.5

  October

  55.7

  44.3

  November

  54.5

  45.5

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's policy is on issuing export licences for repeat orders; and if he will make a statement. [144179]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Export Control Organisation (ECO) of the Department of Trade and Industry. The ECO issues a range of licences depending on the circumstances.

  Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) generally allow shipments of specified goods to a specified consignee up to the quantity specified by the licence. Such licences are generally valid for two years where the export will be permanent; where the export is temporary the licence is generally valid for one year only.

  Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) are specific to an individual exporter and covert multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations and, in some cases, specified consignees. OIELs covering the export of goods on the Military List are generally valid for two years, while OIELs covering the export of other goods are generally valid for three years.

  Open General Export Licences (OGELs) allow the export of specified controlled goods to specified destinations by any company, removing the need for exporters to apply for an individual licence, provided the shipment and destinations are eligible and the conditions on the licence are met. All OGELs remain in force until they are revoked.

  PEDL Number/operator

  Co-applicants

  Blocks

  95 Midmar Energy Onshore Ltd.

  PermaGas Ltd.

  SE60

  Altwood Petroleum Ltd.

  96 Midmar Energy Onshore Ltd.

  TQ42, TQ43, TQ44

  97 Midmar Energy Onshore Ltd.

  NC80, NC90, NC91

  98 Black Rock Resources (UK) Ltd.

  Magellan Petroleum (NT) Pty Ltd.

  Northern Petroleum plc

  Italmin Exploration S.R.L

  99 Black Rock Resources (UK) Ltd.

  Magellan Petroleum (NT) Pty Ltd.

  SU50, SU60

  Northern Petroleum plc

  Italmin Exploration S.R.L

  100 Coastal Oil and Gas Ltd.

  SS78, SS88, SS98

  101 Mustang Oil and Gas Ltd.

  Celtic Petroleum Ltd.

  SJ49

  Pinto Petroleum Ltd.

  These licence offers conclude the consideration of applications in the 9th Round.
  498W
  All individual export licence applications, including those for repeat orders, are considered on a case by case basis. This is because there may have been a change in circumstances, since the original application was scrutinised, that affects the Government's decision on whether to issue a licence. However, when submitting applications, exporters are asked for details of previous applications to export the same or similar goods/technology to the same destination(s) so that these may be taken into consideration during the licensing process.

  If an exporter makes many SIEL applications for the same or similar goods/technology to the same destination(s), they may in some cases be advised by the ECO to apply for an OIEL which, if granted, would give the exporter the flexibility to meet repeat orders.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in descending order the 10 countries to which the largest number of export licences applied in 1999. [144180]

  Dr. Howells
  Details of all export licensing decisions taken in 1999 were set out in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. This report lists by country of destination the numbers of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) issued and refused in each entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled, which is known as their rating. It should be noted that an OIEL covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations or specified consignees.

  In addition, Open General Export Licences allow the export of specified controlled goods to certain destinations by any company, removing the need for a company to apply for an individual licence. Copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during 1999 were listed in the Annual Report and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make the remaining licence awards in the 9th Landward Round of oil and gas licensing. [144850]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The outstanding issues mentioned in my answer to the House on 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 725W, have now been satisfactorily resolved. Further licence offers have been made to the following companies:

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Citizens Overseas
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens were reported(a) missing, (b) murdered, (c) kidnapped or taken hostage and (d) imprisoned abroad in each year since 1996; and if he will list the countries concerned. [142490]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is in the tables.

  Number of Britons reported missing abroad

  Year

  Number

  1996

  744

  1997

  676

  1998

  672

  1999

  198

  2000

  202

  Countries concerned:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Andorra

  Angola

  Antigua

  Argentina

  Australia

  Austria

  Azerbijan

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bali

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bolivia

  Bosnia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cayman

  Chile

  China

  CIS

  Colombia

  Congo

  Costa

  Rica

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech

  Republic

  Denmark

  Dominician Republic

  500W

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Eritrea

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Greenland

  Grenada

  Gutemala

  Guinea

  Honduras

  Hong Kong

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Korea

  Kosovo

  Kuwait

  Laos

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Libya

  Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Mongolia

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Panama

  501W

  Papua New Guinea

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Saint Lucia

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Serbia

  Seychelles

  Sierra

  Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Solomon Islands

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Kitts

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Taiwan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  USA

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  Number of Britons reported killed abroad

  Year

  Number

  1996

  56

  1997

  48

  1998

  43

  1999

  48

  2000

  44

  502W
  Countries concerned:

  Brazil

  Canada

  Colombia

  Indonesia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  New Zealand

  Panama

  Russia

  Somalia

  Tajikistan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Yemen

  Angola

  Australia

  Belgium

  Belize

  Cambodia

  China

  CIS

  India

  Italy

  Kenya

  Nepal

  Philippines

  Poland

  South Africa

  Spain

  USA

  Vietnam

  Botswana

  Congo

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Egypt

  France

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Jamaica

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Netherlands

  Papua New Guinea

  Sweden

  Antigua

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Comoros

  Czech Republic

  Guatemala

  Israel

  503W

  Kuwait

  Mexico

  Pakistan

  Portugal

  Rwanda

  Saudi

  Arabia

  Togo.

  Number of Britons reported kidnapped abroad

  Year

  Number

  1996

  14

  1997

  10

  1998

  27

  1999

  35

  2000

  22

  Countries concerned:

  Angola

  Cambodia

  CIS

  Indonesia

  Somalia

  Yemen

  Spain

  Ecuador

  Guinea

  Turkey

  Gibraltar

  Nigeria

  Bosnia

  Czech Republic

  Uganda

  Cyprus

  Pakistan

  Georgia

  China

  Colombia

  Egypt

  Liberia

  Peru

  USA

  Sierra Leone

  Bangladesh

  DRC

  Australia

  Fiji.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the procedure for intervention by Her Majesty's Government in cases where a British national is(a) reported missing and (b) suspected to have died overseas. [142491]

  Mr. Hain
  We do all that we properly can to trace British nationals who have been reported missing or are suspected to have died overseas. It would not be possible for British consular staff to physically conduct searches so we approach relatives, local authorities, the police and any other agency which might help in the search.
  504W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many cases since 1996 the Government have intervened in cases where British citizens were reported(a) missing and (b) killed in countries overseas; which countries were concerned; and what were the results of the interventions. [142501]

  Mr. Hain
  We seek to be as helpful as possible within legal and resource constraints in every case where a British citizen is reported missing or killed overseas. 2,492 British citizens have been reported missing and 239 killed overseas since 1996. Information on the countries concerned is contained in my answer to my hon. Friend's earlier question. The information requested on our interventions and results of our interventions in these cases could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Surjit Kaur Athwal
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he has taken in response to the disappearance of Surjit Kaur Athwal, a British citizen, in India in December 1998. [142500]

  Mr. Hain
  We have expressed our concerns about Mrs. Athwal to the Indian authorities on numerous occasions and at a high level. Mrs. Athwal's family met the Acting Head of Consular Division in August and will meet Baroness Scotland, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, early in the New Year. Through out efforts the Indian police granted permission for the Metropolitan police to become involved in the investigation, and we arranged for officers to travel to India this year to assist their Indian counterparts in any way possible. The family have a legal representative in India but a court case did not produce the result they were, seeking, for lack of evidence. We shall continue to press the authorities to keep up their efforts to try to find Mrs. Athwal.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commnonwealth Affairs if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142722]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1997–98 we spent £1 million on a publicity campaign to reduce the number of ticketless fans travelling to France for the World Cup Finals and to explain what consular services were available. Independent monitoring of the campaign showed that it had been effective in increasing awareness among fans of the dangers of travelling without tickets. Before our campaign, 13 per cent. of our target audience said they were likely or very likely to travel to France for the World Cup in the hope of getting into a game with a ticket bought on the black market. After the campaign, those saying they would still travel dropped to 6 per cent. The Foreign and Commnonwealth Office did not undertake any advertising campaigns in 1996–97, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, and to date has not done so in 2000–01.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 31 August, 6 October and 9 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. M. A. Abdul Rahman. [143080]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State replied on 15 December, and apologised for the delay. My right hon. Friend is always free to discuss any of his casework that is urgent with me.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 18 July, 24 August and 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Fozia Mirza. [143079]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State replied on 21 December 2000, and apologised for the delay. It may be of assistance to my right hon. Friend if he wished to discuss any case with me I would be happy to do so.

  Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking in support of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with particular reference to through-bonded child labour. [143546]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are committed to the principles enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The Government signed the two new Optional Protocols to the CRC on the protection of children in armed conflict and the sale of children, prostitution and child pornography in September 2000. We are now working on ratification of the protocols. The Government are also fully engaged in preparations for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children due to take place in September 2001.

  With regard to bonded labour, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan, (Mr. Sarwar) on 21 July 2000, Official Report, columns 370–71W.

  Crisis Management
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which provisions of the Nice Treaty indicate that NATO is the option of first resort for all types of crisis management. [143428]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency Report on the European Security and Defence Policy, adopted by the Nice European Council, confirms (paragraph 2 of the report itself) that the EU's aim is to be able to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. It also confirms that NATO remains the basis of the collective defence of its members and will continue to play an important role in crisis management.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which NATO countries have not agreed on the circumstances in which the EU may act in an emerging crisis [143427]
  506W
  Mr. Vaz
  EU governments have repeatedly stated that the goal of the European defence initiative is to be able to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. At its Washington Summit, NATO confirmed that it stood ready to adopt arrangements for NATO support to EU operations"in operations in which the Alliance as a whole is not militarily engaged as an Alliance".

  At their meeting on 14–15 December, NATO Foreign Ministers endorsed this position. Work in the EU and NATO will proceed on this basis.

  Defence Capabilities Initiative
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Headline Goal has been harmonised with NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative; and if he will make a statement. [143426]

  Mr. Vaz
  Work within the EU on development of the Headline Goal has been done by national defence planners, supported by NATO experts. The Nice European Council approved a proposal for a capabilities review mechanism, which is intended to support the need for reinforcement of the EU's capabilities goals and those arising, for the countries concerned, from NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI). The NATO Ministerial on 14–15 December confirmed that the objectives of the DCI and of the EU's Headline Goal are mutually reinforcing.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2000,Official Report, column 122W, on entry visas, if he will list the hon. and right hon. Members whose representations were successful in the 19 cases, indicating how often each hon. and right hon. Member was involved; and how many unsuccessful representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members since October 1999. [143172]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I regret that the figure given in my answer of 12 December is incorrect. I have in fact overturned 18 entry clearance decisions made at our Post in India. It would be inappropriate on grounds of confidentiality to discuss the names of hon. Members who have been in contact with me on individual visa cases.

  Figures on unsuccessful representations received from right hon. Members since October 1999 are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sanctions (Iraq)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what strategic considerations warrant inclusion of(a) adhesive paper, (b) baking soda, (c) bath brushes, (d) children's balls for sport, (e) candles, (f) chalk, (g) detergents, (h) door knobs and (i) dust cloths on the sanctions list of items which cannot be supplied to Iraq. [143503]
  507W
  Mr. Hain
  None of the items identified by my hon. Friend are on a list of items which cannot be supplied to Iraq.

  Over US$37 billion has been made available to purchase humanitarian goods for Iraq under the Oil for Food Programme since its inception in 1996. This year alone revenue is expected to reach more than US$16 billion.

  Under the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 almost $3 billion worth of humanitarian goods have been "fast-tracked" to Iraq this year. These goods, which include foodstuffs, medical, agricultural, educational, water and sanitation supplies and oil spare parts, no longer require Sanctions Committee approval but only need to be notified to the UN Secretariat. Under Security Council Resolution 1330 the lists of "fast track" goods is being extended to include goods in the electricity and housing sectors also.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UN assessment of the number of deaths in Iraq attributable to the current sanctions policy. [143501]

  Mr. Hain
  We are not aware of a UN assessment linking deaths in Iraq with the UN sanctions policy. With up to $16 billion of humanitarian aid available to the Iraqi people this year alone under the UN Oil for Food programme, we do not accept that sanctions are responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

  The UK has always advocated and supported initiatives aimed at better targeting the humanitarian effort to help the most vulnerable. These include the introduction of fast-track procedures for humanitarian goods in the foodstuff, medical, educational, agricultural, oil spare parts and water and sanitation sectors. Almost $3 billion worth of goods were processed in 2000.

  Meanwhile according to the UN Secretary-General's latest report the Iraqi regime has spent just 28 per cent. of Oil for Food funds available to it under the last six months phase. More importantly, the regime has ordered no medicines or other health sector items in that time. Significantly also, it has refused access to a UN team of experts intending to assess the humanitarian situation.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what directions overriding a note of dissent by an Accounting Officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997; and if he will place the details of the directions in the Library. [143453]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been no such directions.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which his Department believes sponsor terrorism. [143641]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government condemn state sponsorship of terrorism and monitor closely any evidence of such activities. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes the responsible Governments aware of our concerns.
  508W
  It is not, however, HM Government's practice formally to designate particular countries as state sponsors of terrorism.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which areas of responsibility previously within the competence of the EU institutions have been devolved to member states under the subsidiarity clause in the Maastricht Treaty. [143760]

  Mr. Vaz
  Subsidiarity is not about the repatriation of powers to member states Rather, it is about ensuring that where the Treaty already allows for action at both EU and member state level, the most appropriate level is chosen each time action is required.

  Joint Entry Clearance Unit
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the backlog of letters in the joint entry clearance unit. [144245]

  Mr. Vaz
  I am pleased to announce that as of 21 December the amount of outstanding correspondence for the Joint Entry Clearance Unit is zero.

  European Council Meetings
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions, and the individuals concerned since May 1997 on which British delegations to European Council meetings have been led by persons other than Members of either House. [144349]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since May 1997, the Prime Minister has led the UK delegation to all meetings of the European Council.

  Burma
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma concerning U Pa Pa Lay and U Lu Zaw and their continued detention; and if he will make a statement. [144524]

  Mr. Battle
  U Pa Pa Lay and U Lu Zaw are among an estimated 1,500 political prisoners in Burma. Our Ambassador in Rangoon has made representations to the Burmese authorities on this subject. We take every opportunity, including in United Nations resolutions, to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all such prisoners. We also support the work of the ICRC in visiting prisoners in Burma.

  China
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of China concerning the continued detention of Ngawang Choephal, a Tibetan; and if he will make a statement. [144523]

  Mr. Battle
  We remain deeply concerned about the case of Ngawang Choephal, and raise his case regularly with the Chinese authorities. I raised the case with the then Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister, Wang Yingfan, in
  509W
  Beijing in November 1999 and urged that Choephal's mother. Sonam Deckyi, be allowed to visit him. A visit took place in August 2000. We remain concerned at reports that Choephal may be in poor health. During the most recent round of the UK/China human rights dialogue in October 2000, we made a specific request that his sentence be reviewed in the light of these reports. At that meeting, the Chinese stated Choephal was in good health. We will continue to press this case.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement about progress made on the Government's commitment to nuclear disarmament, as agreed in the Non-Proliferation Treaty final document; [144103]

  (2) what progress his Department has made on the reduction of non-strategic weapons, as agreed in the Non-Proliferation Treaty final document; [144102]

  (3) what progress has been made on honouring the commitment made under the Non-Proliferation Treaty for all the nuclear weapon states to engage in the process of disarmament as soon as appropriate; [144105]

  (4) what steps he has taken towards honouring the commitment to a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies, as agreed in the Non-Proliferation Treaty final document. [144104]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made their commitment to all aspects of the Final Document agreed at the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. We believe the United Kingdom is already some way ahead of most other states in fulfilling the undertakings it sets out.

  We have reduced our own nuclear forces to the minimum necessary to provide for our security for the foreseeable future. These reductions have included the withdrawal from service of the last of our free-fall nuclear bombs, leaving Trident as our sole nuclear weapons system.

  We have made clear, both nationally and in NATO, that our reliance on nuclear weapons in our security policies has been radically reduced since the end of the Cold War. We have pledged to include British nuclear weapons in multilateral negotiations when satisfied with progress towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. And we have made clear our willingness to see a body established in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament to deal with nuclear disarmament.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in United Nations sanctions in relation to the Taliban. [144437]

  Mr. Hain
  UN Security Council resolution 1333 (2000), adopted on 19 December, imposed further measures against the Afghan fact on known as the Taliban, who also call themselves the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, in response to their continued support for international terrorism and their failure to hand over 510W
  Usama Bin Laden for trial in accordance with the demands of the Security Council in its resolution 1267 (1999).

  The new measures will come into force on 19 January 2001. They are established for a 12 month period. At the end of this period, the Security Council will decide whether to extend them, having decided whether the Taliban have complied with the demands of the Council that they should:
  hand over Usama bin Laden for trial;
  cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organisations; ensure that their territory is not used for terrorist installations and camps or for the preparation of acts of international terrorism; and co-operate with international efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice;
  act swiftly to close all camps where terrorists are trained within the territory under their control.

  The new measures are as follows:
  an arms embargo and a ban on the provision of military assistance to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan;
  closure of Taliban (non-diplomatic) offices overseas;
  closure of Ariana Afghan Airlines offices overseas;
  a ban on the supply of the heroin precursor acetic anhydride to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan;
  a ban on all international flights to or from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan (with exceptions for humanitarian flights);
  a non-mandatory call to all States to restrict the movement through their territory of senior Taliban officials;
  a non-mandatory call to States who have diplomatic relations with the Taliban to reduce the number and level of Taliban diplomatic staff at missions in their territory.

  The resolution also imposes a freeze of the funds of Usama Bin Laden (UBL) and those individuals and entities associated with him, as designated by the UN Sanctions Committee, and a ban on making any funds available to such persons.

  The resolution has been carefully designed to ensure that the new measures exert pressure on the Taliban, but do not have an adverse humanitarian impact on ordinary Afghans, who have suffered for too long already. We call on the Taliban to do everything in their power to ensure that international organisations and aid agencies can carry on their vital work in safety and without hindrance.

  The freeze of Taliban funds and financial resources and the ban on international flights by aircraft owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban, imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1267 (1999), remain in force.

  The EU arms embargo on the whole territory of Afghanistan imposed by EU Common Position 96/726/CFSP of 17 December 1996 also remains in force.

  New Orders will be made under the United Nations Act (1946) to implement the new measures in the UK, the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories. Where appropriate, certain of these measures may be implemented by administrative means.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, in order of their inclusion in the draft Treaty of Nice, each proposed Article relating to change in the procedure for taking
  511W
  decisions under qualified majority voting or other requirement, indicating for each (a) the article and treaty to which it applies and (b) the nature of the proposed change. [142415]

  Mr. Vaz
  At Nice, the Government agreed to extend qualified majority voting in a total of 31 articles of the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Treaty on European Union. All these moves will benefit the UK. As promised, we retained the UK's veto over taxation, social security and the other key issues we identified at the start of the IGC.

  Of the articles that moved to majority voting, 11 relate to conditions of appointment or procedural rules. The rest are primarily about the efficiency of economic management and the single market. Where needed, articles have been amended to carve out specific issues or to retain unanimity for key aspects of legislation.

  The UK has an opt-in to all aspects of the free movement articles (Articles 62–66 TEC). Two other articles do not apply to us unless we join the single currency (Articles 111(4) and 123(4)).

  The full list follows. Those areas marked with an asterisk will also become subject to codecision with the European Parliament.

  Articles of the Treaty on European Union

  1.Article 23(2): Appointment of CFSP Special Representatives.

  2. Article 24: Conclusion of international CFSP/JHA agreements where QMV applies internally.

  Articles of the EC Treaty

  3. Article 13: Anti-discrimination (incentive measures only, excluding any harmonisation of member states' legislation)*

  4. Article 18: Measures to facilitate rights of Citizens to move freely/reside within EU (passports, identity cards, residence permits, other similar documents, social security and social protection carved-out)

  5. Article 62(2)(a) and (3)*: Procedures for checks at external borders (subject to prior agreement on the scope of application of measures on crossing external borders); and conditions for travel by third country nationals (both delayed until 2004 and subject to confirmation by the Council)

  6. Article 63(1)*, (2)(a)*, 3(b)*: Implementation of common rules on asylum and minimum arrangements for temporary protection for third country nationals (both once basic framework rules have been put in place); measures to combat illegal immigration (from 2004, subject to confirmation by the Council)

  7. Article 65(a)*(b)*(c)*: Civil judicial co-operation (except family law)

  8. Article 66: Measures to encourage administrative co-operation in the free movement Title (from 2004, subject to confirmation by the Council)

  9. Article 100: Measures in the event of severe difficulties in the supply of certain products/Community financial assistance to member states in severe difficulties (plus a declaration stating that any decisions must be compatible with the no bail-out rule in Article 103 TEC and ceilings in this and future Financial Perspectives)

  10. Article 111(4): Representation of the European Community at international level in the EMU sphere. Does not apply to the UK unless we join the single currency.

  11. Article 123(4): Measures for the smooth introduction of the single currency. Does not apply to the UK unless we join the single currency

  12. Article 133: Extension of the Common Commercial Policy to trade in some services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property (subject to unanimity in certain situations)

  512W

  13. Article 137(1)(k)*:The modernisation of social protection systems (excluding any harmonisation of member states' legislation and without prejudice to wider social protection, which remains subject to unanimity)

  14. Article 157(3)*: Industrial policy (subject to a carve-out for measures on taxation and the rights and interests of employed persons)

  15. Article 159(3)*: Specific actions for social/economic cohesion outside the structural funds

  16. Article 161: Structural and Cohesion fund rules (Delayed until 2007, or until agreement on the next Financial Perspective, whichever is the later)

  17. Article 175*: Some environmental measures (aspects of the qualitative management of water resources)

  18. Article 181(a): Financial and technical co-operation with third countries (except for candidate countries and association agreements)

  19. Article 190(5): The MEPs' statue, with unanimity retained for fiscal measures

  20. Article 191(2)*: Statute for European Political parties (subject to a declaration stating that Community funds cannot be used to fund, either directly or indirectly, national political parties)

  21. Article 207(2): Appointment of the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-t General of the Council

  22. Article 210: Salaries, allowances and pensions of Members and the Registrar of the Court of First Instance

  23. Article 214/5: Appointment of the President of the Commission and list of members of the Commission (including replacement following their dismissal, resignation or death)

  24. Article 223: Approval of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice

  25. Article 224: Approval of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance

  26. Article 225a: Approval of the Rules of Procedure of judicial panels attached to the Court of First Instance

  27. Article 247(3): Appointment of the Members of the Court of Auditors

  28. Article 248(4): Approval of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors

  29. Article 259(1): Appointment of Members of the Economic and Social Committee

  30. Article 263: Appointment of Members of the Committee of the Regions

  31. Article 279(a and c): Financial Regulations/rules concerning the responsibility of financial controllers, authorising officers and account officers and concerning appropriate arrangements for inspection (delayed until 2007).

  Nice Council
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on vote reweighting in the European Union following the European Council at Nice. [142875]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 December 2000, c. 226W]: The Nice IGC agreed that on 1 January 2005 member states' votes in the Council would be re-weighted according to the following table.

  Current weighting

  From 2005

  Germany

  10

  29

  UK

  10

  29

  France

  10

  29

  Italy

  10

  29

  Spain

  8

  27

  Poland

  —

  27

  513W

  Current weighting

  From 2005

  Romania

  —

  14

  Netherlands

  5

  13

  Greece

  5

  12

  Czech Republic

  —

  12

  Belgium

  5

  12

  Hungary

  —

  12

  Portugal

  5

  12

  Sweden

  4

  10

  Bulgaria

  —

  10

  Austria

  4

  10

  Slovakia

  —

  7

  Denmark

  3

  7

  Finland

  3

  7

  Lithuania

  —

  7

  Ireland

  3

  7

  Latvia

  —

  4

  Slovenia

  —

  4

  Estonia

  —

  4

  Cyprus

  —

  4

  Luxembourg

  2

  4

  Malta

  —

  3

  Total

  87

  345

  Platon Obukhov
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Federal Government about the conviction of Platon Obukhov for espionage. [144037]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK Government have made no representations to the Russian Government about this case.

  We are aware that Mr. Obukhov's appeal was due to be heard by the Russian Supreme Court on 19 December 2000 but understand that it has now been postponed at his lawyers' request.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many EU directives became legally binding in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [144005]

  Mr. Vaz
  A comprehensive list of all European legislation in force as at 1 June 2000 is contained in the Official Journal Directory of Community legislation in

  Table 2: Breakdown of all NDS allocations to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham1

  NDS Initiative

  School

  Project

  Total cost (£)

  1

  —

  LEA-wide bid consisting of 16 secondary and 23 primary schools benefiting from provision of ICT infrastructure2

  185,000

  2

  Woodfield Infant

  Recovering of roof to dismountable classroom

  1,906

  2

  The Wilfred Owen

  Replacement of classroom

  37,950

  2

  Meole Brace

  Recovering of roof to dismountable classrooms

  1,908

  2

  Belvidere

  Renewal of roof covering to dismountable classroom

  3,816

  2

  Harlescott

  Recovering of roof to dismountable classroom

  7,632

  2

  Severndale

  Replacement of classrooms

  89,980

  3

  —

  LEA-wide package for four schools to provide adequate fire precautions

  517,200

  3

  —

  LEA-wide package for 165 schools for asbestos identification

  317,002

  3

  Meole Brace

  Replacement of leaking roof

  66,000

  4

  The Wilfred Owen and The Grange

  Part of a four-school package for roofing repairs

  216,889

  4

  Springfield Infants

  Part of a three-school package for roofing repairs and fire breaks

  184,694

  4

  Springfield Infants

  Part of a two-school package for refenestration to Mk 1 SCOLAS

  143,106

  4

  Bomere Heath Church of England

  Part of a seven-school package for improvements to IT/GP areas

  180,983

  514W
  force (35th Ed.). This is updated every six months and is available in the Library of the House. More in depth and up to date information on EU legislation is available on the internet at www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Buildings
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total amount awarded to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham to improve school buildings was in each year since 1997. [143383]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to answers given to previous questions as detailed on 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 291–93W, and 5 June 2000, Official Report, columns 142–43W.

  Table 1 shows the revised overall New Deal for Schools (NDS) allocation (reflecting subsequent allocations) to Shropshire Local Education Authority and that to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham (where this information is available).

  Table 2 provides a revised breakdown of NDS allocations to specific schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency where this information is available. Information about the schools included in package bids is available from Shropshire Local Education Authority.

  Table 3 shows the total schools capital allocations made to Shropshire Local Education Authority since 1996–97.

  Table 1: New Deal for Schools allocations to Shropshire Local Education and to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham

  £

  NDS initiative

  Shropshire LEA's allocation

  Allocations to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham

  1 (1997–98)

  185,000

  1—

  2 (1998–99)

  1,184,252

  143,192

  3 (1999–2000)

  1,196,337

  2900,202

  4 (2000–01)

  33,134,172

  41,247,551

  1 Included within £185,000

  2 Including two LEA packages

  3 This figure has increased by £22,000 since the answer number [123911] given on 5 June 2000, Official Report, columns 142–43W, due to extra funds being made available to improve ICT facilities at Baschurch Church of England School. This school is not in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency.

  4 Including three LEA packages

  515W

  Table 2: Breakdown of all NDS allocations to schools in Shrewsbury and Atcham1

  NDS Initiative

  School

  Project

  Total cost(£)

  4

  Radbrook Primary

  Replacement of hard play area

  32,943

  4

  Condover Church of England Primary

  Replacement of Horsa building

  265,299

  4

  Holy Cross Church of England

  Replacement of temporary classroom

  38,700

  4

  Severndale

  Refenestration

  119,148

  4

  Severndale

  Replacement of heating systems

  65,789

  1 Packages detailed include schools outside this specific constituency.

  2 Please note that under NDS 1 LEAs were not required to specify schools and projects.

  Table 3: Total capital allocations to Shropshire Local Education Authority 1996–97 to 2000–01

  £ million

  Year

  1996–97

  7.019

  1997–98

  5.054

  1998–99

  7.082

  1999–2000

  5.413

  2000–01

  9.819

  Capital Projects (Secondary Schools)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the allocation of funds for additional capital projects, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement for secondary schools in Essex(a) is new money and (b) flows from previous announcements. [143670]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional capital funding of £167 million for schools across England on 8 November 2000, of which £4.2 million was for schools in Essex. This was all new money.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the funds announced in the Autumn Statement for additional capital projects in secondary schools(a) was new money and (b) flowed from previous announcements. [143671]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional capital funding of £167 million for schools across England on 8 November 2000, all of which was new money.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria have to be met for registration as an independent school; and how many have been so registered in each year since 1990. [143769]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Any school in England at which full-time education is provided for five or more pupils of compulsory school age, and which is not a school maintained by a local education authority or a non-maintained special school, must register as an independent school. Initially registration is provisional. Final registration is conditional on inspection evidence that the standards at the school meet the requirements of the Education Act 1996 in relation to accommodation, premises, instruction, proprietor and staff, and child welfare in the case of a boarding school. The following 516W
  table shows how many new schools registered, and the total number of registered independent schools in England, in each year since 1990.

  Year

  New schools

  Total number of independent schools in operation

  1990

  42

  2,280

  1991

  51

  2,280

  1992

  75

  2,256

  1993

  63

  2,261

  1994

  69

  2,266

  1995

  77

  2,244

  1996

  68

  2,249

  1997

  63

  2,256

  1998

  59

  2,227

  1999

  68

  2,214

  2000

  57

  2,187

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has undertaken into the reasons for which teachers are leaving the profession. [143939]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: More teachers are entering than leaving the profession. There were 7,500 more teachers in England and Wales in January 2000 than in January 1998. The Teacher Training Agency nevertheless contributed to the costs of a study by the University of North London on teacher supply and retention in London. This included surveying those leaving teaching posts in six London boroughs in 1998–99, including those moving into other teaching jobs.

  The most commonly cited reasons for leaving were school management, hours worked, pupil behaviour, lack of opportunities for promotion and school resources. We are addressing these and other issues raised, including through new professional development opportunities for headteachers and improved support for teachers, for example by the planned recruitment of 20,000 full-time (or equivalent) extra teaching assistants by 2002. A total of £174 million was allocated to local authorities on 3 January to help reduce truancy and indiscipline, and funding per pupil will have increased by over £450 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02.

  Education Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from LEAs on the level of education funding in the local government settlement. [143940]
  517W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on the level of education funding in the local government settlement from authorities, schools and parents. We are continuing to increase the general funding available across the country following the Spending Review. In the four years from 1997, funding per pupil will have increased by over £450 per pupil in real terms. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is his policy to reduce the gap between the funding per pupil in primary and secondary sectors in Worcestershire and the respective national average for both sectors; and if he will make a statement. [144507]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 January 20011: We recognise that the current formula for distributing funding between local education authorities is far from perfect and that is why we are currently conducting a review of local authority grant distribution. The Green Paper on the future of local authority funding makes it clear that the Government are seeking arrangements which will be fair between different parts of the country; are more transparent; and will provide greater predictability and stability. Our objective is to remove the worst of the disparities that exist across the country, by levelling up, not down. We are continuing to increase the general funding available across the country following the Spending Review. In the four years from 1997, funding per pupil will have increased by over £450 per pupil in real terms. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98.

  Curriculum
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which curriculum subjects truth, kindness, good manners and courage are taught. [144012]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: These are virtues which are a responsibility for parents to inculcate in their children. School subjects like RE, Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health education can reinforce this by teaching children the difference between right and wrong, as well as the importance of being good citizens.

  United Nations
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to include an understanding of the history and purpose of the United Nations in the study of citizenship in schools. [144030]

  Jacqui Smith
  Knowledge and understanding of the United Nations is already included in the programmes of study for Citizenship education for secondary schools. From August 2002, Citizenship will be part of the National Curriculum and pupils will be taught about the purpose and workings of international organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, the European Union and the Commonwealth in contemporary society. They will be able to explore the role of the UN in conflict resolution, for example through model United Nations projects.
  518W
  This will build on the opportunity that already exists to learn about the UN as part of 'modern world' studies in the History curriculum.

WALES

  Bilateral Concordat
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the bilateral concordat between his Department and the National Assembly for Wales will be published. [144739]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The bilateral concordat between the Wales Office and the National Assembly for Wales has been published today and can be accessed on both the Wales Office and Assembly websites. The Wales Office website address is www.ossw.wales.gov.uk.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [144079]

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

  New Deal
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have gained(a) sustained employment and (b) short term employment as a direct result of the New Deal since January 1998. [144057]

  Mr. Hanson
  Figures published by the Employment Service on 20 December 2000 show that 16,400 participants in the New Deal for Young People and the New Deal for long-term unemployed had entered sustained employment up to the end of September 2000, while a further 4,400 had undertaken a period of employment lasting up to 13 weeks.

  Results from the New Deal for Lone Parents are not presented in the same way. However, 4,100 participants from this programme entered new jobs, while 200 part-time workers increased their working week to more than 16 hours.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what categories of submissions from civil servants to Ministers, other than those relating to(a) intelligence and (b) personnel matters, are not circulated to special advisers; [143802]

  (2) what categories of submissions from civil servants are submitted to special advisers before being seen by Ministers. [143803]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Special advisers in the Wales Office have access to material produced by civil servants in accordance with paragraph 14e of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers".

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997; and if he will place the details of such directions in the Library. [143543]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Northern Ireland Office has received no such directions.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated his Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the Modernising Government White Paper. [143696]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 21 December 2000,Official Report, columns 245–46W.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for each electoral district, the number of individuals that have been warned in the past 12 months that their personal details as compiled by security forces have been found in the possession of persons suspected of being engaged in the preparation and commission of acts of terrorism. [142322]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Intelligence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in identifying the source of military intelligence documents found in November 1999 in Stoneyford, County Antrim; and how many people have been charged and convicted as a result of this raid. [142324]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary is actively continuing investigations into the source of the military documents found in Stoneyford but this has not as yet been established. Three persons were charged with"possession of information likely to be of use to terrorists".

  Each has pleaded "guilty" and awaits sentence at Belfast Crown Court.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions police have been involved in preventing travellers from using the St. Christopher's Park site; what information is available to the police concerning alternative accommodation; and what is the policy of the police concerning movement of travellers who wish to enter and use the site closest to the Quays shopping centre in Newry. [142331]
  520W
  Mr. Ingram
  Police do not become involved in preventing travellers using the St. Christopher's Park site although they do retain a key to the height restriction barrier installed at the site. Information concerning alternative accommodation is not made available to the police nor is there any police policy covering the movement of travellers wishing to enter and use the site closest to the Quays Shopping Centre in Newry.

  Ministerial Travel
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many flights including helicopter flights were taken by Ministers within his Department for UK and overseas visits in each year since 1995; on how many occasions(a) charter flights were used and (b) first and club class tickets obtained; and who accompanied the Ministers on each trip. [143859]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers are under a duty to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. This Government have given a commitment to publish an annual list of visits by Cabinet Ministers costing more than £500 as well as an annual figure on spend by all Ministers on overseas visits. The list for 1999–2000 was published on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W.

  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Waterways (Brentwood and Ongar)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what programme of maintenance of waterways exists in the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar. [143664]

  Mr. Morley
  The flood defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and, where they exist, internal drainage hoards—have permissive powers to undertake flood defence works on watercourses. However, the primary responsibility for maintenance rests with the relevant riparian owners.

  Under High Level Targets that the Government established in 1999 the operating authorities are preparing programmes for inspecting and, where appropriate, maintaining flood defences, main rivers and critical ordinary watercourses. We also require the authorities to produce publicly available policy statements, from 1 April 2001, which set out their approach to flood defence.

  The Environment Agency has a programme of regular inspection and maintenance of designated main rivers in the constituency of Brentwood and Ongar. This varies according to the nature of the watercourse but generally includes trimming of banks, overhanging vegetation and aquatic weeds, debris clearance and tree work as necessary. More details are available from the local office of the Agency.

  The Agency is working with local authorities in determining an appropriate regime of inspection and maintenance of ordinary watercourses in the area.

  Artificial Lake (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of creating an artificial lake north of Shrewsbury to reduce the impact of flooding on the town; and if he will make a statement. [144035]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence. Operational responsibility, including decisions on which projects to promote, rests with local operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency. I understand that the Agency will be undertaking a strategic review of possible options, and their costs for flood alleviation for the River Severn as part of the response to recent flooding events. The creation of additional flood storage will be considered as part of that review.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many male senior civil servants in his Department have been offered financial incentives to take early retirement in order to enable the promotion of officials who are female. [144306]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: None. We have run one early retirement exercise recently. This was open to men and women, and both men and women have been offered early retirement as a result.

  Hake
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the impact of current minimum(a) mesh size and (b) landing size on EU hake stocks. [144269]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: There has been no recent assessment of the impact of the current minimum mesh size and minimum landing size on EU hake stocks. However, as part of the present hake recovery programme CEFAS scientists will participate in an international workshop to review the current stock assessment for Northern hake. In addition, CEFAS will be involved in the preparation of a report on the effects of potential management options for the stock, including changes in the level of exploitation and technical measures aimed at protecting juveniles. This report is expected to be evaluated by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) in April 2001.

  Bass
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the(a) age profile and (b) health of the stock of bass in (i) Area VII and (ii) all fishing zones applicable to the UK fishing industry. [144270]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: There has been no recent assessment of the age profile and health of the stocks of bass in Area VII or in other fishing zones applicable to the UK fishing industry. However, in the current year, CEFAS scientists will be contributing to the work of a new ICES Study Group on Seabass, under the chairmanship of Dr. Mike Pawson. In accordance with the terms of reference for this group, data from all
  522W
  countries which catch bass in Area VII and in the Bay of Biscay and the North Sea, will be compiled in order to construct the age profile of bass stocks in these areas and, if possible, to carry out an assessment of their status in relation to safe biological limits. The first task will be to compile and inventory of the available data, which will be reviewed by the ICES Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management in May 2001.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total UK sea bass landings were for each of the last five years. [144268]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Fisheries Departments' statistics record landings of bass by the UK commercial fleet as follows:

  Year

  Tonnes

  1995

  671

  1996

  579

  1997

  572

  1998

  501

  1999

  678

  In addition, data from the CEFAS fishermen's voluntary logbook scheme, including some catches taken by angling charter vessels and private angling boats, but excluding catches taken by recreational anglers fishing from the shore, indicate the following further tonnages were landed.

  Year

  Tonnes

  1995

  721

  1996

  918

  1997

  738

  1998

  576

  1999

  1,179

  Comparable figures for 2000 are not yet available.

  Leigh Barrier
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of water was released as a result of the opening of the Leigh barrier on the Medway on(a) 12 and (b) 13 October and over what period of time; what estimates were made by the responsible staff at the time of the opening of the barrier as to the effect on the village of Yalding and its surrounding area; what assessment he has made of the level of flooding in the Yalding area had the barrier not been opened; and what evidence he uses to support his assessment. [144450]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Leigh Barrier provides relief from flooding in the Upper Medway valley, by allowing floodwaters to be stored in 6km of river valley. This reduces the risk to life and property downstream which would otherwise be exposed to an uncontrolled natural event. The benefit is to all communities downstream of the barrier, including Yalding and its surrounding area, although the degree of flood mitigation reduces downstream due to inflow from unrestricted lengths of the Medway and its tributaries. The Barrier is operated by dedicated and qualified staff of the Environment Agency.
  523W
  The release of water from the Barrier is a normal function in a flood event as the operation of the Barrier is not to stop outflow but to throttle the flood to an extent which is appropriate to its size, available storage and the capacity of the downstream channel. In extreme events the discharge may exceed the capacity of the downstream channel, and hence flooding occurs, but the extent of this flooding will be reduced by virtue of the stored volume of floodwater.

  The flood event of mid-October produced the highest flood peak since the scheme was constructed with peak inflows between 250 and 300 cubic metres per second. The Leigh Barrier was operated from 10.30 on 12 October until 16.00 on 14 October. During this time nearly 5 million cubic metres of floodwater were stored. In the 16 hours from the onset of the flood on 12 October the throttled flow leaving the Barrier varied between 55 and 160 cubic metres per second, a total of 5.76 million cubic metres. On 13 October the throttled flow varied between 155 and 80 cubic metres per second, a total of 8 million cubic metres in 24 hours.

  The Environment Agency staff recognised that while the Leigh Barrier could give some relief to downstream communities from the floodwaters in the Upper Medway, floodwaters from the rivers Beult and Teise and the Middle Medway catchment would severely affect Yalding. The peak flood from the River Teise reached Yalding first, followed by the flood peak from the Beult causing extensive flooding through the early hours of 13 October. The floodwaters from the Upper Medway, which had been moderated by the Leigh Barrier, would not have reached Yalding until late evening on 13 October.

  The Environment Agency is to produce a full report on the Autumn flooding, in co-operation with local authorities and the emergency services. This will include the way that flood defence control structures, such as the Leigh Barrier, were operated and will identify any lessons to be learned.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment the Environment Agency has made of the compatibility of the surface water drainage in Shrewsbury with proposed flood defence schemes; and if he will make a statement. [144098]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Local surface water drainage is considered as part of the detailed development of any flood defence scheme and, as such, will be assessed by the Environment Agency as flood defence proposals are developed for Shrewsbury.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to establish the level of funding paid by the Regional Flood Defence Committee for a new flood defence scheme in Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [144100]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The level of funding provided to any flood defence scheme is a matter for the Regional Flood Defence Committee. However, as part of the initiative to accelerate the river flood defence capital programme, the Ministry has announced that from April 2001 that all fluvial rates of grant will be increased by 20 per cent. Grant eligible river
  524W
  defence works in the Severn Trent Regional Flood Defence Committee area will therefore attract an enhanced rate of grant of 35 per cent. Any further grant rate increase would be dependent on the scale of the Committee's grant eligible capital programme.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the impact of industrial fishing on(a) fish stocks which feed from sand eels and pelagic stock targeted by those engaged in industrial fishing and (b) the UK fishing industry. [144272]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Sand eel stocks fluctuate considerably due to natural causes. ICES advised in October 2000 that the North Sea sand eel stock is currently within safe biological limits, and that it can sustain the present sand eel fishery. MAFF is currently funding a three-year scientific investigation by CEFAS that will include an assessment of whether the sand eel fishery affects fish stocks that feed on sand eels. Results will not be available until 2002.

  Juvenile herring are caught in the sprat fishery in the North Sea. This is taken into account in the North Sea herring assessment, and in the management options for herring recommended by ICES. In the western Channel, mackerel are taken as a by-catch in the horse mackerel fishery. (Horse mackerel is sold for the table on the Continent). The ICES assessment for the Western mackerel stock takes into account the mackerel catches declared by countries participating in the horse mackerel fishery.

  The industrial by-catch in the principal demersal whitefish fisheries in the North Sea is evaluated internationally by ICES. In 1999, total landings from the Danish and Norwegian small meshed fisheries were recorded as 1.1 million tonnes, of which 11,532 tonnes were demersal whitefish, comprising 4,000 tonnes of haddock, 5,000 tonnes of whiting, 2,000 tonnes of saithe, and 532 tonnes of cod. This was taken into account when calculating haddock and whiting stock sizes and TACs for 2001.

  In bilateral discussions with Denmark at the December 2000 Fisheries Council we agreed to have joint discussions in early 2001 on the North Sea sand eel fishery. These will cover possible reactions in the size of the TAC and adjustments to the by-catch arrangements which would reduce the allowance for by-catches of fish for human consumption.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the species of fish and their related areas of catchment that have been the subject of quota banking and borrowing for the year 2001; [144435]

  (2) what quantity of the United Kingdom fish quota, by species, has been banked by the producer organisations; and what quantity of the United Kingdom fish quota, by species, has been managed by his Department on behalf of the non-sector and under 10m sector for 2001; [144434]
  525W
  (3) what quantities of each fish species have been banked and approved by the European Commission for each EU member state for 2001. [144436]

  Mr. Morley
  The fish stocks for which up to 10 per cent. of a member state's quota allocation may be banked or borrowed vary from year to year.

  Amount carried forward on behalf of:1

  Stock

  Total amount carried forward to 20011

  Producer organisations

  Non sector

  Under 10 metre fleet

  VIIa sole

  24

  20.7

  0.5

  2.8

  VIId sole

  79

  43.8

  4.2

  31

  VIIfg sole

  32.5

  29.5

  0.3

  2.7

  VIIa plaice

  88.5

  81.1

  3

  4.4

  VII megrim

  257

  251

  1

  5

  VII anglerfish

  414

  383

  9

  22

  North Sea sole

  94.5

  94.5

  —

  —

  Western horse mackerel

  2,285

  2,259

  26

  —

  North Sea blue whiting

  107

  64

  43

  —

  Western blue whiting

  2,350

  2,350

  —

  —

  1 Tonnes

  These amounts will be added to the quota allocations to be made to producer organisations, the non sector and the under 10 metre fleet which have still to be calculated but which are due to be notified to the groups concerned before the end of March.

  Details of the amount of quota to be carried over to 2001 by other member states have yet to be released by the Commission and are unlikely to be approved before the spring. We are not aware that any member state has borrowed quota from 2001.

  Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many area officers are employed by his Department to deal with farming matters; and if he will make a statement. [143948]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The job title of area officer does not exist in my Department. However, within my Department there are well over 100 offices (excluding HQ offices) where the staff deal directly or indirectly with farming matters. A breakdown of staff numbers is as follows:

  Number

  Core MAFF

  4,541

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  196

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  113

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  1,223

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  831

  Central Science Laboratory

  627

  Total

  7,531

HEALTH

  Hospital Beds (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current state of hospital bed provision in Leicestershire. [142907]
  526W
  Under Council Regulation (EC) No. 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999, quota for 20 stocks may be carried over from 2000 to 2001 and quota for 63 stocks may be brought forward from 2001 to 2000. The United Kingdom has not borrowed any quota from 2001 but has applied to carry over quota from 2000 for a number of stocks on behalf of producer organisations, the non sector and under 10 metre fleet as follows:

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government gave the Health and Social Care community in the county an additional £2.7 million this year specifically to help ease winter pressures. Compared to last winter, Leicestershire now has 21 more general and acute beds, 21 more intermediate care beds and three extra critical care beds.

  Fibromyalgia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve early diagnosis of fibromyalgia in children. [142909]

  Yvette Cooper
  Fibromyalgia can cause considerable pain and disability. It can be difficult to diagnose in children. It is recognised by paediatricians and managed, often in conjunction with orthopaedic colleagues and therapists, as part of local hospital services.

  NHS Resources
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS has sufficient resources available to invest in new treatments. [142910]

  Mr. Denham
  The 8.5 per cent. average increase in health authority revenue allocations in 2001–02 takes account of the resources required to invest in new treatments.

  Hernias
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hernia operations have been performed in the NHS in the last 12 months. [142911]

  Mr. Denham
  There were 82,139 inguinal hernia operations carried out in National Health Service hospitals in 1998–99.

  Community Health Councils
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about accountability within the NHS. [142912]
  527W
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the abolition of community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [142914]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about effective patient advocacy in the NHS and the future of community health councils. [142925]

  Ms Stuart
  Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan proposed that Community Health Councils be abolished and that new structures be set in place to strengthen patient and citizen empowerment across all sectors of the Health Service. A number of representations have been received about the future of CHCs and the new structures that were detailed in the NHS Plan. The Health and Social Care Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides the legislative support for the new structures.

  National Plan
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional whole-time equivalent nurses will be employed in the NHS under his national plan. [142913]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Plan commits us to providing 20,000 more nurses between 1999–2000 and 2003–04. This is a headcount figure. Depending on the number of nurses working part-time and the hours they actually work, this could produce up to 15,000 whole-time nurses.

  National Plan (Birmingham)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the projected impact of the NHS plan in Birmingham. [142915]

  Yvette Cooper
  Birmingham Health Authority, working with NHS trusts, primary care groups, primary care trusts and the local authority, is working to implement and resource the radical programme of change over the next 10 years as set out in the NHS Plan.

  As a result we expect to see improvements in tackling heart disease, in the delivery of cancer services, and further improvements in mental health services in line with the NHS frameworks. In addition, there will be further modernisation of hospital facilities in Birmingham and decisions will be made shortly about a major new hospital development in south Birmingham.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current nurse recruitment in the NHS. [142916]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is improving recruitment and retention by improving pay, by encouraging the National Health Service to become a better employer, increasing training commissions, attracting former staff back to the NHS, encouraging flexible retirement, and supporting more effective, collaborative international recruitment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the changing age profile of the nursing pool in the UK for recruitment in the NHS. [142927]
  528W
  Mr. Denham
  The age profile of the nursing pool is one of a number of factors taken into account as part of the workforce planning process.

  UK Transplant Service
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the UK transplant service. [142917]

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the UK transplant service. [142930]

  Mr. Denham
  United Kingdom Transplant (UKT) is a Special Health Authority whose core business is to maintain information about those waiting for transplants, to match organs which become available with patients waiting for them and to follow up the outcome of such transplants.

  Following its Quinquennial Review, published last year, UKT is now on course to deliver its important new responsibilities which include setting and monitoring transplant standards as well as promoting the procurement of organs for transplantation.

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his response is to the Commission for Health Improvement report on Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [142918]

  Yvette Cooper
  For the first time ever, an independent body is inspecting the National Health Service hospitals. The Commission for Health Improvement's report is rigorous, challenging and fair, giving credit to the organisation's strengths and highlighting areas for improvement. The Trust has drawn up and published an action plan in response to CHIMP's input and we now look to the Trust to implement the plan.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of a ban on tobacco advertising on health. [142919]

  Yvette Cooper
  Studies of the impact of advertising bans in other countries suggest that a ban on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom will reduce smoking by approximately 2.5 per cent. in the longer term, saving 3,000 lives a year in the process.

  Sheffield Hospital for Women
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the completion of the Sheffield Hospital for Women; and if he will make a statement. [142920]

  Yvette Cooper
  The £27 million Sheffield Women's Hospital—to be known as the Jessop Wing—is near final completion and is due to open on schedule on the weekend of 3 February 2001.
  529W
  The new facility will provide a much needed modern women's hospital that the people of Sheffield can rightly be proud of, replacing the outdated Victorian facilities that currently exist.

  Emergency Contraception
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of emergency contraception. [142921]

  Yvette Cooper
  There have been a number of recent initiatives that should ensure improved access to emergency contraception products. We laid an Order before the House on Monday 11 December to make progestagen the only emergency contraception available as a pharmacy medicine. Also, in addition to the usual NHS routes of access for women of all ages, other health professionals such as nurses and pharmacists are now able to supply emergency contraception using a patient group direction, following a clarification to medicines legislation in August.

  Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority he gives to resourcing rehabilitation services within the national health service. [142922]

  Mr. Hutton
  Providing effective rehabilitation after illness or injury is a high priority for the National Health Service. This year, the Department, together with Department for Education and Employment and Department of Social Security, is developing Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots to test ways of helping people with prolonged illness or disability to remain in work, or return to work when they are able.

  Healthy Eating
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with promoting healthy eating among children in poor families. [142923]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Plan identified access to healthy food, particularly among children, as a Government priority. Already pilots are under way to provide free fruit in infant schools, and new nutritional standards for school lunches come into force in April.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding bed blocking. [142924]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received many representations from parliamentary colleagues and others. We are alleviating the problem of bed blocking by investing more resources, by ensuring closer working between local health and social services and through improvements and expansion in care services.

  Smoking
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in preventing young people from taking up smoking. [142926]
  530W
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in preventing young people taking up smoking. [142931]

  Yvette Cooper
  "Smoking Kills", published in December 1998, committed us to reducing smoking among children aged 11–15 from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. by 2005 and 9 per cent. by 2010.

  As part of its comprehensive programme of action in preventing teenage from taking up smoking we are taking a number of measures.

  We have consistently raised the duty on cigarettes by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation. High prices are particularly effective in dissuading young people from smoking.

  The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill published on 14 December will ensure that tobacco is no longer promoted through advertising, sponsorship or other promotional schemes. The brands most heavily advertised are those most heavily smoked by children.

  On 13 September we launched an enforcement protocol with local authorities to strengthen the enforcement of the existing legislation on under-age sales of cigarettes.

  Our tobacco education campaign, launched in December 1999, is aimed at persuading smokers to give up and non-smokers, particularly children, not to start. As part of the broader campaign we are planning a dedicated sub-campaign aimed at young people, to be launched next year.

  The most recent survey results indicate that smoking among children aged 11–15 is now already at 9 per cent. This is very encouraging, but we are not complacent and are working to ensure that this downward trend continues.

  Barnsley Health Authority
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that the Barnsley health authority has sufficient resources available to meet the demands placed upon it. [142928]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the allocations for 2001–02 announced on 14 November 2000, Barnsley Health Authority received £185.6 million, an increase of 8.7 per cent., compared with a national average of 8.5 per cent. These allocations include £2 million for the new health inequalities adjustment. In addition, for 2002–03 and 2003–04 all health authorities will get a minimum increase of 6 per cent. each year. This will allow health authorities to plan ahead for the medium term instead of just the short term.

  National Blood Authority
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the National Blood Authority. [142929]

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the National Blood Authority. [142933]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Blood Authority (NBA) is a vital part of the National Health Service and, as such is expected to provide high quality, cost efficient services. Over the past two years the NBA has introduced new
  531W
  initiatives to ensure that the quality and safety of blood for patients is maintained and improved and that NHS demand for blood components is fully met.

  Southend General Hospital
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting lists for surgery at the Southend general hospital. [142932]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of patients waiting for surgery at Southend General Hospital have been affected by a combination of factors, the most significant being the increase in general practitioner referrals reflecting the development of new and enhanced service and emergency admissions which have affected elective surgical admissions. Southend Hospital National Health Service Trust is working with its other health partners and social services on ways to address this in both the hospital and the community.

  Pay and Conditions (NHS Staff)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the pay and conditions of NHS staff. [142934]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHS Plan sets out our proposals for improving the pay and conditions of all staff working in the National Health Service. Copies are available in the Library.

  Waiting List Statistics
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the way that NHS waiting list statistics are compiled. [142935]

  Mr. Denham
  We continue to collect waiting list statistics in the same way as the previous Administration.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations took place in the NHS over the last 12 months; and what was the average cost. [142908]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1998–99 there were 37,189 primary total hip replacements. The average cost was £3,755.

  There were also 4,013 revision of hip replacement operations, costing an average of £5,046.

  Variant CJD
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated expenditure is in the current year on research work aimed at funding a drug or vaccine to control variant CJD; and what plans he has to increase his expenditure next year. [141375]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has allocated some £100,000 of funding in each of the financial years 200001 and 2001–02 to research projects specifically to address the development of drugs for the treatment or control of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. The Medical Research Council, together with the Department, remains ready to consider proposals for funding suitable research in this field.
  532W
  Last year we dedicated some £31.5 million into research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Of this, some £4 million was dedicated to diagnostics, treatment and prevention.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government are funding into the possibility of vCJD infection by means other than the consumption of beef. [144372]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government rely on the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) for advice on matters concerning BSE and variant Creutzfeld Jakob Disease (vCJD). SEAC has concluded that BSE and vCJD are caused by prion strains that are currently indistinguishable, and considers vCJD to be an acquired prion disease caused by exposure to BSE or a BSE-like agent.

  The Government are prepared to consider the funding of any proposals for research into possible explanations for BSE and vCJD, which should be submitted for consideration through the normal channels. Experiments are currently under way to look further into the theoretical possibility of transmission of vCJD via surgical instruments, or via blood. A hypothesis that BSE might be caused by an abnormal immune response is also being investigated. In addition, the Department of Health-funded National CJD Surveillance Unit follows up medical, immunological, occupational and residential histories of vCJD patients, as well as their dietary habits, on an ongoing basis to identify any common factors. The results are published in the unit's annual report.

  Strokes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the research projects into strokes which have been supported by Government bodies; and what was the individual level of expenditure for each project; [143247]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his plans for financing research into strokes for the next three financial years. [143135]

  Mr. Denham
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  The research projects into stroke which have been supported by the Department are listed.
  Project: British Regional Heart Study: a prospective study into the causes of CHD hypertension and stroke in a cohort of men now aged about 60–79—Professor Peter Whincup, St. George's Medical School.
  Cost: £324,674
  Project: A related study in a cohort of women of similar age—Professor Shah Ebrahim, University of Bristol.
  Cost: £417,855

  533W
  Project title: A controlled comparison of alternative strategies in stroke rehabilitation—Professor Lalit Kalra. Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medicine.
  Cost: £499,778
  Project title: A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and barriers to implementation of thrombolytic and neuroprotective therapy for acute ischaerhic stroke in the NHS—Professor Peter Sandercock, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £77,482
  Project title: What is the best imaging strategy for acute stroke?—Dr. Joanna Wardlaw, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £131,415
  Project title: Early prediction of rehabilitation needs following acute stroke—Professor Philip Bath, University of Nottingham.
  Cost: £87,766
  Project title: Social-environmental, psychological and physical approaches to stroke rehabilitation—Professor David Barer, University of Newcastle.
  Cost: £371,264
  Project title: Can the effectiveness of interdisciplinary team care for stroke be improved?—Professor David Barer, University of Newcastle.
  Cost: £121,406
  Project title: FOOD—A multicentre international randomised trial to evaluate percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients admitted to hospital with a recent stroke—Dr. Martin Dennis, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £357,411
  Project title: Screening for stroke—Professor Shah Ebrahim, University of Bristol.
  Cost: £109,386
  Project title: Evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture in defined aspects of stroke recovery—Dr. George Lewith.
  Cost: £172,898
  Project title: A study of the information-giving process between physiotherapists and patients in relation to recovery following stroke—Dr. Rose Wiles.
  Cost: £40,621
  Project title: A randomised trial to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a domiciliary rehabilitation scheme versus usual care in the rehabilitation of stroke patients—Dr. Paul Roderick.
  Cost: £127,522
  Project title: An exploration of the narrative life histories of people following stroke—Dr. Caroline Ellis-Hill.
  Cost: £48,750
  Project title: The Development and Evaluation of the provision of individualised information to meet the needs of people undergoing rehabilitation following a stroke—Professor D. L. McEllan.
  Cost: £29,036
  Project title: To evaluate the assessment of motor and process skills (AMPs) as an improved measure of rehabilitation outcome in stroke patients—Ms Susanna Robinson
  Cost: £20,504
  Project: Developing methods in primary care for prevention of vascular disease and diabetes in high risk ethnic groups—Dr. J. K. Cruikshank, University of Manchester.
  Cost: £127,151
  Project: Formulation of guidelines for dental rehabilitation of stroke patients—Professor James McCord, University Dental Hospital of Manchester.
  Cost: £13,525
  Project: The Oxford community myocardial infarction incidence study—Dr. Andrew Neil, University of Oxford.
  Cost: £125, 934
  Project: Development of an early hospital discharge policy following acute stroke—an evaluation—Dr. Heather Rodgers, University of Newcastle.
  Cost: £118,531
  534W
  Project: An RCT of the cost-effectiveness of exercise in the over 65s—Professor Jonathan Nicholl, University of Sheffield.
  Cost: £334,188
  Project: The Tees stroke register—Professor Richard Thompson, University of Newcastle.
  Cost: £463,093
  Project: Co-ordinated stroke audit and research (COSTAR)—Professor David Barer, Newcastle General Hospital.
  Cost: £174,210
  Project: Rehabilitation of arm function—Professor Nadina Lincoln, University of Nottingham.
  Cost: £215,007
  Project: The incidence, natural history, resource use and outcome of stroke—Dr. Charles Wolfe, United Medical and Dental School.
  Cost: £607,088
  Project: Snoring, obstructive sleep apnoea stroke—Professor G. J. Gibson. Freeman Hospital.
  Cost: £86,147
  Project: Does psychological treatment improve the outcome after stroke?—Professor Allan House, University of Leeds.
  Cost: £349,163
  Project: Development of a measure of social outcome following stroke—Mrs. Victoria Wood, Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust.
  Cost: £63,501
  Project: The incidence of, aetiology and management of stroke—Dr. I. Baker, University of Bristol.
  Cost: £281,268
  Project: Multi-centre trial of out patient occupational therapy of stroke—Dr. John Gladman, University of Nottingham.
  Cost: £206,748
  Project: The influence of developmental indices and blood pressure in young adults on risk of stroke and ischaemic heart disease in later life—Professor George Davey Smith, University of Bristol.
  Cost: £54,862
  Project: The treatment of urinary incontinence in stroke patients—Professor Christopher Castleder, University of Leicester.
  Cost: £96,271.

  The MRC grants since 1996 relevant to stroke are listed as follows. There are a number of underpinning grants and these fall into two categories: molecular/cellular mechanisms that play a central role in the pathology, natural defence mechanisms and recovery process in a number of brain injury conditions; and projects involving the development of imaging techniques to look at relevant neuropathological conditions.
  Project: The molecular basis of brain damage during and after cerebral ischaemia—Dr. T. E. Bates, Institute of Neurology.
  Cost: £148,235
  Project: Meta-Analsis of Prospective studies to establish risk factors for stroke—Dr. N. Qizilbash, University of Oxford.
  Cost: £147,894
  Project: The International Stroke Trial—Professor P. Sandercock, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £281,072
  Project: The treatment of transient ischaemic attacks and stroke—Professor C. P. Warlow, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £2.140,565
  Project: Chemokines and metalloproteinases in leukocytes adhesion and migration in the central nervous system during inflammation—Professor M. L. Cuzner. Institute of Neurology.
  Cost: £118,592

  535W
  Project: The molecular basis of brain damage during and after cerebral ischaemia—Dr. K. L. Allen. Institute of Neurology.
  Cost: £148,383
  Project: Characterisation of endothelin receptor sub-types in human cerebral vessels—Dr. A. P. Davenport, University of Cambridge.
  Cost: £47,982
  Project: Computer assisted image analysis of hypertensive retinal vascular architecture—Dr. S. A. Thorn, St. Mary's Hospital.
  Cost: £98,951
  Project: Protective effect of heart shock protein over-expression in cerebral ischaemia—Professor David Latchman, University College London.
  Cost: £73,758
  Project: Control of expression of the angiotensinogen gene and its linkage to hypertension and Cerebrovascular disease—Professor P. J. Grant, University of Leeds.
  Cost: £132,631
  Project: Brain TNF alpha receptors—Professor N. J. Rothwell, University of Manchester.
  Cost: £144,990
  Project: Mechanisms of damage to and protection of non-neuronal cells in the CNS during cerebral ischaemia—Professor J. McCulloch, University of Glasgow.
  Cost: £116,111
  Project: Neuropeptide-Y and induced tolerance of excitotoxic insults—Dr. L. E. Sundstrom, University of Southampton.
  Cost: £39,194
  Project: Ion channels, transporters and receptors in brain endothelium: basic science to underpin drug discovery—Dr. J. N. Abbott, Kings College London.
  Cost: £154,035
  Project: A study of the effects of stroke on the development of reading in children—Professor E. Funnell. Royal Holloway and Bedford New College.
  Cost: £132,538
  Project: Clinical and pathological studies of acute ischaemic stroke—Professor C. P. Warlow, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £578,072
  Project: The causes, consequences and treatment of acute brain injury—Professor C. P. Warlow, University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £1,601,033
  Project: The treatment and prevention of stroke—Professor P. Sandercock. University of Edinburgh.
  Cost: £645,824
  Project: Pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of corticosteroids in head injury—Dr. I. G. Roberts Institute of Child Health (London).
  Cost: £277,744
  Project: The effect of nitric oxide donors on experimental stroke—Professor P. M. W. Bath, GKT, King's College Campus.
  Cost: £175,716
  Project: Mechanisms of delayed ischaemic neurological deficit following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage—Dr. D. K. Menon, University of Cambridge.
  Cost: £25,404
  Project: Regulation of brain IL-1 release—Professor N. J. Rothwell, University of Manchester.
  Cost: £44,496
  Project: The asymptomatic carotid surgery trial—Miss A. Halliday, St. Mary's Hospital.
  Cost: £526,685
  Project: The Cambridge Cerebrovascular Centre—genetic predisposition, vascular biology, Functional Imaging—Professor J. D. Pickard, University of Cambridge.
  Cost: £4,101,451
  Project: Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage—Professor A. D. Mendelow, University of Newcastle.
  Cost: £892,712
  536W
  Project: Acute and Chronic Brain Injury—Mechanisms and Outcome: Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre—Professor J. D. Pickard, University of Cambridge.
  Cost: £1,583,194
  Project: Functional and Metabolic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain During the Acute and Recovery Stages of Stroke—Professor P. M. Mathews, University of Oxford.
  Cost: £1,373,622
  Project: Investigation of calpain function in slice cultures using noval fluorescent probes—Professor M. Bradley, University of Southampton.
  Cost: £156,100
  Project: Brain Protection after Cerebral Ischaemia—Professor J. McCulloch, University of Glasgow.
  Cost: £221,212
  Project: Intravenous Magnesium Efficacy in Stroke Study (IMAGES)—Dr. K. R. Lees, University of Glasgow.
  Cost: £1,394,970
  Project: Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial—Miss A. Halliday, St. Mary's Hospital.
  Cost: £631,816
  Project: Brain Damage Co-operative: from Mechanisms to Man—Professor McCulloch, University of Glasgow.
  Cost: £209,586
  Project: Neuronal pathways underlying CNS responses to injury and disease—Professor N. J. Rothwell, University of Manchester.
  Cost: £429,332
  Project: The pathophysiology of clinical recovery and deterioration after ischaemic stroke: Studies with functional/physiologic—Professor J. Baron, University of Cambridge.
  Cost: £1,000,004
  Project: The CRASH trial (Corticosteroid randomisation after significant head injury)—Dr. I. G. Roberts, Institute of Child Health (London).
  Cost: £2,210,337.

  Many of the projects described are ongoing. Support for new projects will depend on priorities within the Department's policy research programme and the NHS research and development programme.

  Much of MRC's work is in response mode, so it is not possible to predict spend over the next three years. However, MRC do not anticipate any major change in the level of commitment.

  Breast Cancer Guidelines
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the drafting of the new breast cancer guidelines by the British Association of Survival Oncology. [143137]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established to provide national evidence based guidelines. NICE have been commissioned to review and update the Improving Outcomes Guidance in Breast Cancer published in 1996. The review of the breast cancer guidance is due to be published in 2001–02.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an experienced Supervisor of Midwives post will continue to be available to the local supervising authority as their designated responsible officer. [143520]
  537W
  Mr. Denham
  The Local Supervising Authority function has been successfully discharged by experienced practising midwives since 1996. There are no plans to change this.

  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting has the power to prescribe qualifications for supervisors of midwives as will the new Nurses and Midwives Council.

  Sickle Cell Disease/Thalassaemia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the support available to sufferers of(a) sickle cell disease and (b) thalassaemia. [143609]

  Mr. Denham
  There are a range of hospital and community services in place to support patients with sickle cell and thalassaemia disorders. We are improving services through the development of a new national screening programme for haemoglobinopathies, by raising public and professional awareness and through research designed to provide evidence about the effectiveness of current treatments.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many haemophiliac patients have died of HIV/AIDS following the use of contaminated blood products; and how many of these have been co-infected with hepatitis. [143854]

  Mr. Denham
  1,240 United Kingdom haemophiliacs were infected with HIV as a result of National Health Service treatment. Of these 813 have died. 99 per cent. of these patients were co-infected with hepatitis.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons it is his policy that haemophiliac patients should not be entitled to have recombinant factor VIII. [143852]

  Mr. Denham
  We have instructed health authorities to provide recombinant products to new patients and children under 16 with haemophilia.

  Ministers will be meeting with the Haemophilia Society and the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation in January to discuss the case for provision of recombinant clotting factors for all haemophilia patients in England.

  Hearing Screening
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce a timetable for universal neonatal hearing screening throughout England. [144051]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS Plan in sets out our commitment to introducing effective and appropriate screening programmes for women and children by 2004. We announced the 20 pilot sites for universal neonatal hearing screening, which will inform the roll out of the new screening programme.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official
  538W
  Report, column 43W, concerning hospital discharges, if he will provide the same information for each quarter of 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [143789]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  French Beef
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the regulation of imports of French beef into the United Kingdom. [142354]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: I am advised on such matters by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is responsible for food safety issues in Government.

  So far as imports of beef from France are concerned, the FSA advice is that legally sold, imported beef, poses no greater risk than United Kingdom beef. To be sold legally, imported beef must comply with the Over-Thirty-Months (OTM) rule. In addition, specified risk material (specified risk material (SRM)—that with the highest risk of infection) must be removed from cattle. New EU wide controls on SRM were introduced from 1 October 2000.

  In assessing the safety of imported meat, protecting the public is the FSA's number one priority. As such it applies the following principles:
  Advice is based on the best available evidence. As further information comes to light, the position is kept under review and revised advice will be issued whenever necessary. This is an active process—the FSA is constantly seeking out the latest scientific and other information.
  Action should be proportionate to the risk. Risk can never be totally eliminated—food is no different in this respect from other aspects of daily life. Where there is a risk that does not warrant banning, the FSA seeks to provide information and take action to enable consumer choice. Current advice on the safety of imported beef can be found on the FSA website at www.bsereview.org.uk.
  There should be full and vigorous enforcement of food law and regulations.

  At the same time, the FSA recognises that individuals may wish to exercise personal preference to reduce as far as possible any risk that may be perceived from imported beef. It has therefore advised consumers that they should:
  Buy their meat from reputable sources
  Ask their supplier about the country of origin and source of the meat.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigatory powers the Food Standards Agency has in regard to imported food and, in particular, French beef. [144313]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Responsibility for enforcement action under the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Food Standards Act 1999 in respect of imported foods, and foods coming into the United Kingdom from other European member states is primarily the responsibility of local authorities and port health authorities.

  The Food Standards Agency has a range of powers under the 1990 and 1999 Acts to oversee and influence this enforcement with a view to ensuring its effectiveness in terms of consumer protection. In exceptional

  539W
  circumstances the agency may be empowered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to discharge enforcement responsibilities normally undertaken by local authorities and port health authorities.

  Acting on the advice of the Food Standards Agency, Health Ministers may also prohibit the importation or distribution to the food chain of imported foods likely to involve imminent risks to consumers. However, where the EU has legislated to govern trade in a particular foodstuff or food product, as it has done with meat and meat products, the UK Government's powers to restrict the movement of such goods within the single market are severely restricted.

  Tuberculosis Vaccine
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the tuberculosis vaccine will be available in the south-west. [144433]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: BCG vaccine against tuberculosis is currently available in the south-west for those individuals at higher risk of TB. Routine immunisation of all school children at age 10–14 was suspended in September 1999 due to severe manufacturing problems encountered by the sole United Kingdom licensed source, Celltech Medeva.

  The Department is doing all it can to secure a robust supply of UK licensed and batch released BCG vaccine, and will announce as soon as possible when the routine schools programme can resume. All those who missed their BCG vaccination due to the suspension of the programme will be recalled as part of a catch up programme.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to ensure that pregnant teenagers receive free impartial advice about(a) abortion and (b) motherhood. [144185]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: On 2 January I announced 15 Sure Start Plus pilots. These are new programmes in health action zones with high teenage pregnancy rates and where there are Sure Start programmes that will start delivering services over the next few months. In these pilot areas, personal advisers will ensure that pregnant teenagers have access to comprehensive and impartial advice and counselling in the early stages of pregnancy so they are able to make informed decisions, including whether to continue with the pregnancy, adoption or abortion. The personal advisers will also co-ordinate a support package for new parents, both mothers and fathers, tailored to their individual needs, to help them back into education and employment as well as with healthcare and parenting.

  In all other areas, local teenage pregnancy co-ordinators will shortly be developing comprehensive service checklists, as part of local co-ordinated teenage pregnancy strategies between health and local authorities. These will be aimed at young people and professionals whose client groups include young people, and will include details of local services that provide early advice and counselling to pregnant teenagers, and services that provide a range of support, including parenting skills, to teenage parents.

TREASURY

  Lower Earnings Limit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women were in work with earnings below the relevant lower earnings limit in each year since 1979. [142079]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Frank Field, dated 9 January 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about men and women earning below the National Insurance lower earnings limits (LEL) since 1979 (142079). I am replying in his absence
  The information is available from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) major source of labour market data on individuals. The number of employees earning below the National Insurance LEL are given in the attached table.
  The LFS provides a better source of weekly pay than another major source of earnings data, the New Earnings Survey (NES), and is therefore the most appropriate source of data to answer this question. However LES earnings information is only available from the winter (December to February) 1992/3 quarter onwards. The table gives data for summer (June to August) quarters from 1993 to 2000. The data are for Great Britain and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Employees with gross weekly earnings in their main job below the National Insurance lower earnings limit1

  Employees with gross weekly earnings below the National Insurance lower earnings limit:

  Summer

  Weekly limit (£)

  Thousand

  Men

  1993

  56

  396

  1994

  57

  423

  1995

  58

  468

  1996

  61

  581

  1997

  62

  563

  1998

  64

  504

  1999

  66

  582

  2000

  67

  502

  Women

  1993

  56

  1,940

  1994

  57

  1,850

  1995

  58

  1,807

  1996

  61

  2,081

  1997

  62

  1,894

  1998

  64

  1,802

  1999

  66

  1,763

  2000

  67

  1,662

  1 Great Britain, summer quarters 1993 to 2000, not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, National Statistics

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to collate information on the number of occupational pension plans wound up by employers where a surplus was recorded. [144140]
  541W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: We have no plans to collate information on the number of occupational pension plans wound up by employers where a surplus was recorded.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 18 December; and if he will make a statement. [144178]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was no meeting of ECOFIN in December.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the establishment of a Central Services Organisation for credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [144518]
  542W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The consultation on the draft business plan finished on 16 November. I have since met all the main representative bodies, who are discussing the outcome of the consultation and finalising the proposals.

  ISAs
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the study of the ISA market carried out for the Treasury by McKinsey's to which reference (paragraph 5.15) is made in the Treasury's publication "Helping people to save, the modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefits System, Number 7". [144567]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have arranged for a copy of the paper, "The HM Treasury/McKinsey ISA Survey 2000", produced by McKinsey and Co., and published at the November 2000 PEP and ISA Managers Association Conference, to be placed in the Library.